ML20141P128
| ML20141P128 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 03/13/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#186-493 OL, NUDOCS 8603190039 | |
| Download: ML20141P128 (300) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:=_ - . __ .. _. - .. . ORGI O UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-424 OL 50-425 OL GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. (Vogtle Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2) . O
- LOCXIION: WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA PAGES: Eb 6 -708 DATE: THURSDAY, fiARCH 13, 1986 o\
0\ O ace-FEDERAL REFCRTERS, INC. CHici.:Ikroners 13 44 North CritolStreet oco31908]
^D $9,000424 /ashington, b.C. 20001 yDR PDR (202) 347-3700
, NATIONWIDE COVERACE j
5% (*1 I $ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 7-- ~ '
.t r ,
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEF0$tE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 ~) In the Matter of: : 5 l. : Docket No. 50-424 OL
' GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. : 50-425 OL 6 :
(Vogtle Generating Plant, 3 : 7 Units 1 and 2) ' : _f- _ _ C ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 8 > > - Burke County Office Park 9 . Auditorium
, West 6th Street 10 Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 11 Thursday, March 13, 1986 12 The' hearing in the above-entitled matter convened at '
13 9:30 a.m. 14 l
,s.
. BEFORE:
15 . JUDGE MORTON B. MARGULIES, Chairman 16 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel ; I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 17 Washington, D. C. 20555 t [ , 18 j JUDGE GC 'TAVE A. LINENBERGER, JR., Member Ato"4- El foty and Licensing Board Panel 19 U . N.< Lear Regulatory Commission
- Wo . 1. . f i/1, D. C. 20555 i ,
20 JUDGE OSCAR H. PARIS, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 21 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 , 22 $ i 23 l 4 24 Ac2 Federd Reporters, Inc. I 25 -- continued -- l I l /* .j
. 1
,, .g -
, ..., . ;; i._ .,',.. ... .>. ',.l .:., .hy ~; _ . . y . . . . . ,; . , ,;; , ,
,., ' p .; w -. .
_ . ..gg 1 APPEARANCES: 2 On behalf of Applicant: 3 BRUCE W. CHURCHILL, ESQ. DAVID R.A. LEWIS, ESQ.
. Shaw, pittman, Potts & Troubridge -
4 1800 M Street,, N.W. ' Washington, D.C. 20056 5 CHARLES W. WHITNEY, ESQ. 6 HUGH M. DAVENPORT, ESQ. Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore 1400 Canditer Building 7 Atlanta, Georgia 30043 8 . On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 9 Commission Staff: 10 BERNARD M. BORDENICK, ESQ. LEE DEWEY, CSQ. jj Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
<- ss (m)' .
13 On behalf of Intervenors: j4 Daniel Feig WILLIAM F. IAWLESS -
* # 8 "" ^ 8*'" " " *# **#
15 1253 Lenox Circle . Atlanta, Georgia 30306 17 - 18 . 19 . 20 , 21 22 ,
~
23 24 l Reporters. Inc. 25
..- ~ - - 508 26115.0,; George J. Baenteli George Bockhold, Jr. Stephen J. Cereghino William V. Cesarski Harold J. Quasny Direct examination by Mr. Churchill p. 510 Cross-examination by Mr. Feig p. 518 Cross-examination by Mr. Bordenick p. 531 Examination by Judge Linenberger p. 531 Redirect examination by Mr. Davenport p. 542 Examination'by Judge Linenberger p. 545 Armando Masciantonio Direct examination by Mr. Bordenick p. 549 Examination by Judge Linenberger p. 551 Joel Kitchens Mark L. Mayer Patrick R. Nau i Harold J. Quacny i ;
') ,
Direct examination by Mr. Lewis p. 555 Examination by Judge Linenberger p. 562 Examination by Judge Paris p. 572 Cross-examination by Mr. Bordenick p. 574 Examination by Judge Linenberger p. 577 Stavros S. Papadopulos Thomas W. Crosby Clifford R. Farrell Lewis R. West Cross-examination resumed by Mr. Lawless p. 583 Cross-examination by Mr. Dewey p. 641 Examination by Judge Paris p. 645 Cross-examination by Mr. Lawless p. 652 Redirect examination by Mr. Davenport p. 656 Recross examination by Mr. Lawles p. 666 Examination by Judge Paris p. 673 9 I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
i n '
'w-_7 26115.0 BRT 509 1 P ROC EEDING S 2 JUDGE MARGULIES: Please come to order. We are 3 ready to proceed with the evidentiary hearing. Is there 4 comeone appearing for the intervenor?
5 MR. FEIG: My name is Danny Feig and I'll be 6 asking questions and presenting GANE's, Georgians Against 7 Nuclear Energy's questions. 8 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you represent Georgians 9 Against Nuclear Energy, Mr. Feig? r3 10 MR. FEIG: 1130 Alta Avenue, that's Atlanta, U 11 Georgia, 30307. 12 JUDGE MARGULIES: If my recollection is correct, ,, 13 you appeared or participated in the initial prehearing 14 conference in this case; is that correct? 15 MR. FEIG: Right. Right. 16 JUDGE PARIS: Will you remind me how to spell your 17 name, please? 18 MR. FEIG: F-e-i-q. No one ever ever gets it 19 right. 20 JUDGE MARGULIES: It was agreed that we were going 21 to start with Contention 10.5 this morning. Would the panel 22 take their place. O (_) 23 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, we are ready to 24 proceed and I would like to- ch11 to the stand Mr. Baenteli, 25 Mr. Bockhold, Mr. Cereghino, Mr. Cesarski and Mr. Quasny. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nattonwidt Coverage 800-336 6646 I
,\ J L - 26115.0 BRT 510 1 JUDGE MARGULIES: I'm going to swear the 2 witnesses. Will you stand and raise your right hands. 3 Whereupon, 4 GEORGE J. BAENTELI, 5 GEORGE BOCKHOLD, JR., 6 STEPHEN J. CEREGHINO, 7 WILLIAM V. CESARSKI, 8 and 9 HAROLD J. QUASNY gS 10 were called as witnesses and, having first been duly sworn,
'\. ..]
11 were examined and testified as follows: 12 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Churchill, I think it would 13 be helpful if you would have each of the panel members 14 identify themselves. 15 MR. CHURCHILL: All right. I will start nearest 16 the podium and work this way out toward the audience. My 17 first questions will be d.i rec ted to Mr. Harold J. Quasny, who 18 is nearest the stage. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. CHURCHILL: 21 Q Mr. Quasny, will you state your full aame and 22 place of employment?
/m
( l/ 23 A (Quas ny ) My name is Harold J. Quasny, employed by 24 Bechtel Power Corporction in Norwalk, California. 25 Q I would like to show you a document entitled ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nat;o.twide Coverage 800-336-6646
l 1
; I
)
26115.0 BRT 511 1 Applicant's testimony of George J. Baenteli; George Dockhold, 2 Jr.; Stephen J. Cereghino; William B. Cesarski and Harold J. 3 Quasny, on Contention 10.5, ASCO solenoid valves, dated c 4 February 24, 1986. 5 Do you have a copy of that document before you? 6 A (Quasny) Yes, I do. 7 Q Do you have any changes or corrections or 8 additions to make in that document? 9 A No, I do not. (w (/ 10 Q Does that document constitute your testimony in 11 this proceeding? 12 A It does in each area where my name -- my initial 13 appear in front of the document paragraphs. 14 Q Thank you. Mr. Cesarski, would you please state 15 your full name and place of employment? 16 A (Cesarski) My name is William V. Cesarski, I'm 17 employed by Westinghouse Electric Corporation in Pittsburgh, 18 Pennsylvania. 19 Q And what is your position there, Mr. Cesarski? 20 A I'm a senior engineer in the equipment 21 qualification department in the plant engineering division. 22 Q Can you briefly tell the Board what your I
/~N 1 lj 23 involvement has been with the Vogtle project?
24 A For the past five years I have been a lead 25 engineer in my department, conductino equipment qualification l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l l ,m 26115.0 BRT 512 1 test programs, just about all the equipment in the programs 2 that is used by Plant Vogtle. 3 The document that we just identified for 4 Mr. Quasny, dated February 24, 1986, do you have a copy of 5 that before you? 6 A Yes, I do. 7 Q Do you have any changes or additions or 8 corrections to make? 9 A No, I don't. 7S 10 Q Do you adopt that document as your testimony in \_) 11 this proceeding? 12 A Yes, I do. 13 Q Mr. Cereghino, would you also state your full name 14 and place of employment? 15 A (Cereghino) Stephen J. Cereghino, Bechtel Power 16 Corporation, Western Power Division, Norwalk, California. 17 0 Your position there? 18 A Engineering supervisor for the nuclear group 19 discipline on the Vogtle project. 20 Q Does that describe your involvement on the Vogtle 21 project? 22 A Yes, sir, it does. O lj u 23 Q The document we briefly described, testimony of 24 you five gentlemen dated February 24, 1986, do you have a 25 copy of that before you? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
g3 _/ 26115.0 BRT 513 1 A Yes, sir, I do. 2 Q Do you have any changes or corrections or 3 additions to make? 4 A Yes, I do. In table 10.5-1 -- third sheet of the 5 table is a listing of valves for the process valves in the 6 plant; also valve numbers, positions, safety functions and 7 numbers for the various process valves involving ASCO 8 solenoid valves. On the third sheet of that table, for tac 9 numbers 510, 520, 530 and 540, the associated ASCO model 10 number should read -- \s 11 Q Excuse me, Mr. Cereghino. Has the Board found 12 this pace? 13 A The number should read NP8321ASE. The "E" was 14 omitted in the preparation of that table. 15 That's the same comment for all four of those 16 valves. 17 0 Thank you. Do you have any others? 18 A I have no further corrections to the testimony. 19 Q Is this document as you have corrected it your 20 testimony in this proceeding today? 21 A Yes, sir, it is. 22 Q Mr. Dockhold, I have the same questionc for you. ('N
's_,! 23 If you'd state your full name and place of employment?
24 A (Dockhold) George Bockhold, I'm employed at 25 Georgia Power Plant Vogtle. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800.336-6M6
O \ ,! s 26115.0 BRT 514 1 Q And your position there? 2 A General manager, Vogtle nu lear operations 3 department. 4 Q And you also have a copy of this document before 5 you? 6 A Yes, sir, I do. 7 Q Is this document, as changed by Mr. Cereghino, 8 your testimony in this proceeding? 9 A Yes, sir, it is. 10 Q Mr. Baenteli, your full name and place of (-} U 11 employment, please? 12 A (Baenteli) My name in George J. Baenteli, I'm 13 employed at the Bechtel Power Corporation, western power 14 division. 15 Q And what is your position there? 16 A I'm a Staff specialist on the controls and 17 instrumentation Staff of Dechtel. 18 Q What has been your involvement, sir, in the Vogtle 19 project? 20 A My involvement has been to participate in this 21 hearing. Escentially I get involved with valve-related 1 22 problems on various projects. I ('h
't ,/ 23 Q Lo you have a copy of the February 24, 1986 ,
l 24 document before you that we have previously identified? I 25 A I do. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
l l l A L_) \ j 26115.0 DRT 515 1 Q Is that document ac corrected your testimony in 2 this proceeding? 3 A With the exception of some corrections that I'd 4 like to give to you on table 10.5-2. Does everybody have 5 it? 6 JUDGE PARIS: No. 7 JUDGE MARGULIES: Does it appear with the page 8 number 15 at the botton? 9 THE WITNESS: (Daentell) No, sir, it doesn't. 10 Three or four pagen behind the table 1 that Mr. Cereghino p)
't 11 talked about, " allowable leakage rate of pilot valves."
12 JUDGE MARGULIES: The Board has it. 13 THE WITNESS: (Daenteli) In the second grouping, 14 tag numbers HV-13005A and D, under pliot valve part numbers, 15 the last character which is "V" in each of four cases should 16 be replaced by a "E." That would give the total part number 17 of NPK0320A106E. 18 Second page. Proceus valve tag number ilV-3507, 19 pilot valve part number should be NPK0320A106V. 20 JUDGE PARIS: 106 what? 21 THE WITNESS: (Daenteli) V as in Victor. 22 UY MR. CllDRCilILL: O (,/ 23 The only change in the K, which is the third 0 24 character? 25 A (Daenteli) That is correct. The same change ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nanonwide Loverage 8(Xk336-fM6
/ h %) 26115.0 BRT 516 1 should be made for valve tag numbers !!V-3513, liv-3510 --- I ' m 2 sorry 3501, HV-15212A, and HV-15216A. 3 Q Do you have any other changes? 4 A No, sir, I don't. 5 Q Is this document as changed and amended and 6 corrected your testimony in this proceeding? 7 A It is. 8 Q Just to make sure that we've tied up all the loose 9 ends, Mr. Quaany, you have heard these corrections. Are you 10 in agreement with them? ns 11 A (Quasny) Yes, I am. 12 Q Mr. Cesarski, are you? 13 A (Cesarski) Yes, I am. 14 Q Mr. Cereghino? 15 A (Cereghino) Yes, sir, I am. 16 Q And Mr. Dockhold? 17 A (Bockhold) Yes, sir. 10 Q And you have already said that you were. 19 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, this is the testimony 20 that has been prefiled in this proceeding by these expert 21 witnesses and we would request that it be incorporated into 22 the record as if read. O V 23 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Churchill, by letter of 24 February 27, 1986 Mr. Joiner submitted an additional page. 25 Is that incorporated in the official copy and in the copies ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage FM31MM6
6 A i
'w/
26115.0 BRT 517 1 of the parties? 2 MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, it is. 3 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is there any objection to the 4 statement being bound into the record'? There being no 5 objection, it is bound into the record and will be considered 6 as if read. 7 (The document followst) 8 9 (l
'~'
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 O) (_ 23 24 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage No 336-fM6
P57 rt7 l lbgo 1 f' % February 24, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of : GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. : Docket Nos. 50-424
- 50-425 (Vogtle Electric Generating :
Plant, Units 1 and 2) : APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY OF GEORGE J. BAENTELI, GEORGE BOCKHOLD, JR., STEPHEN J. CEREGHINO, WILLIAM V. CESARSKI, AND HAROLD J. QUASNY ON CONTENTION 10.5 (ASCO SOLENOID VALVES) h (a 1 i '\-) 1
- 2. .
9 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. The Use of ASCO Solenoid Valves at VEGP........... 5 A. The Types of ASCO Solenoid Valves Used at VEGP......................................... 5
- 1. The Model NP 8316 ASCO Solenoid Valve................................... 5
- 2. The Model NP 8320 ASCO Solenoid Valve................................... 6
- 3. The Model NP 8321 ASCO Solenoid Valve................................... 6
- 4. The Model 206-381-6RF ASCO Solenoid Va1ve................................... 7 B. The Function of ASCO Solenoid Valves at
('~s') x VEGP......................................... 7 C. Manufacturer's Specifications for ASCO Solenoid Valves and Comparison to Conditions at VEGP...................................... 10
- 1. Operating Voltage Ranges................. 10
- 2. Air Supply............................... 11
- 3. Seat Leakage............................. L2 D. Required Post Accident Operating Time........ L3 II. Environmental Qualification Testing Performed on the ASCO Solenoid Valves Used at VEGP................. 19 A. The Joint Westinghouse and ASCO Environmental Qualification Testing Program................ 13
- 8. Environmental Qualification Testing Performed on Behalf of ASCO by Isomedix, Inc........... 31 C. The Franklin Research Center Testing Program...................................... 36 i
te. >
~
Page D. The Results of the Franklin Testing Program Do Not Call Into Question the Environmental Qualification of the ASCO Solenoid Valves for Use at VEGP.............................. 43
- 1. The Model NP 8316 Valves................ 44
- 2. The Model NP 8320 Valves................ 49
- 3. The Model NP 8321 Valves................ 49
! E. The ASCO Solenoid Valves Used in Safety-Related Applications at VEGP are Environ-mentally Qualified for Use In The Environ-mental Conditions to Which They Might Be Exposed at VEGP.............................. 50
~,,
t 1. The Environmental Conditions at
-' VEGP.................................. . 50 (a) Inside Containment............... . 50 (b) Outside Containment (Except the MSIV Areas)........................ SL (c) MSIV Areas......................... 51
- 2. The Model NP 8316 Valve Is Environ-mes. tally Qualified for Use at VEGP...... 54
- 3. The Model NP 8321 Valve is Environ-mentally Qualified for Use at VEGP...... 56
- 4. The NP 8320 Valve is Environmentally j Qualified for Use at VEGP............... 57
- 5. The Model 206-381-6RF Valve Is Environmentally Qualified for Use at VEGP.................................... 58 l
III. The ASCO Solenoid Valves Will Perform As Intended at VEGP............................. 5)
E L,. s.
.r3 NI Page A. The Failure of a Single ASCO Solenoid Valve Cannot Jeopardize Safe Operation of VEGP..... 60
- 8. The Environmental Qualification Testing Per-formed on the ASCO Solenoid Valves Used at VEGP Establishes That Those Valves Will Not Be Subject to Common Mode Failures as a Result of Adverse Environmental Conditions. . . 64 C. Preoperational Testing and the VEGP Maintenance and Sur.veillance Program Provide Additional Assurance That the ASCO Solenoid Valves Will Perform as. Intended.......................... 65 IV. Conclusion....................................... 68 O
O LLL
-. _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ - - ~ _ . . . . . - _ _ - . _ _ . . _ . ._ .._. __ _
l I
- s. i ;
I t'~' , February 24, 1986 !
\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J I BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i j In the Matter of : GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,11 a l . : Docket Nos. 50-424
- 50-425
; (Vogtle Electric Generating :
Plant, Units 1 and 2) : l
! APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY OF GEORGE J. BAENTELI, j GEORGE BOCXHOLD, JR., STEPHEN J. CEREGHINO,
- WILLIAM V. CESARSXI, AND HAROLD J. QUASNY ON l CONTENTION 10.5 (ASCO SOLENOID VALVES) i i
- (GJB) I, George J. Baentali, am employed by Bechtel Power ;
(} Corporation ("Bechtel") in the position of Staff Specialist in the Instrument and Controls Group. My business address is ! l Bechtel Power Corporation, 12440 East Imperial Highway, f L I I Norwalk, California 90650. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a I 1
! summary of my professional qualifications, which I incorporate ,
t i ! herein by reference. ) l (GB) I, George Bockhold, Jr., am employed by Georgia Power J l Company (" Georgia Power") in the position of General Manager, - 1 I Plant Vogtle Nuclear Operations. My business address is P. O. t Box 1600, Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. Attached hereto as j 4 l
; Exhibit 8 is a summary of my professional qualifications, which l
I incorporate herein by reference. + I l
- C:) ;
l i 4 f
l I O Valves) issued on January 7', 1986. As stated by the Board, those issues consist of the following: (1) There is no information offered that permits l l a determination of whether any type of l failure of any of the valve models i
- considered will result in achieving an ;
unsafe configuration for the valves and/or dampers that are being controlled. (2) No basis is provided for the various statements about how long any of the valve ! models will be required to operate in VEGP l following an accident, not is there an ; i explanation of how it will be determined that any of the valve models will indeed be ! capable of.the specified length of operating l l . time following an accident. (3) It cannot be determined whether the unsealed l solenoid housing on one (NP 8316] valve specimen represents a quality control r deficiency that can endanger VEGP operation. (4) Since no manufacturer's specifications for I the vatious valve models are given (e.g. l acceptable operating voltage ranges, air supply requireme'nts and acceptable leak rates) the anomalous behaviors noted are 1 l l
.. e
(\
~' '
difficult to evaluate as to seriousness. Likewise, the likelihood of valve leakage depending upon the duration of test conditions cannot be evaluated. (5) The question of whether production models of the valves discussed may show different performance characteristics than did the specimens tested cannot be evaluated, since Applicants have not addressed the subject matter of 10 CFR 50.49(e)(8) in their motion. (All) In this testimony we will discuss the environmental qualification of the four models of solenoid valves manufactured by Automatic Switch Co. ("ASCO") used \_) in safety-related applications at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (*VEGP"). We will describe the four models of ASCO solenoid valves and will discuss their function at VEGP. We will review the environmental qualification testing that has been performed on those valves, will discuss other tests performed on those model valves by the Franklin Research Center, and will address the environmental qualification of those solenoid valves for use at VEGP in light of the Franklin Research Center test results. Finally, we will explain the basis on which the Applicants have concluded that the ASCO solenoid valves used in safety-related applications at VEGP 3re environmentally qualified and will operate as intended. V 4
(3 I. The Use of ASCO Solenoid Valves at VEGP. A. The Types of ASCO Solenoid Valves Used at VEGP. (All) Four types of ASCO solenoid valves are utilized , in safety-related applications at VEGP. ASCO designates those four valve types as models NP 8316, NP 8320, NP 8321, and 206-381-6RF. These four models are all part of ASCO's NP series of valves designed for use in nuclear facilities. Each valve type consists of several valves that have the same basic design but differ with respect to body material (brass or stainless steel), pipe and orifice sizes, configuration when de-energized (open, closed, or universal), type of solenoid housing (watertight or i () explosion proof and watertight), and type of elastomer material (ethylene propylene or viton). The different features of these valves are described in ASCO's Catalog No. NP-1, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
- 1. The Model NP 8316 ASCO Solenoid Valve.
(All) The ASCO model NP 8316 solenoid valve is a three-way, internal pilot controlled valve with a pressure port, an exhaust port, and a cylinder port. In a typical application, the pressure port is connected to a supply of pressurized air, the cylinder port is connected to the air operator of a process valve, and the exhaust port is used as a discharge vent to the atmosphere. All of the model
O NP 8316 valves used in safety-related applications at VEGP have a closed configuration when de-energized, which means that the pressure port is closed and the cylinder port is
. connected to the exhaust port. This configuration vents the air operator of the process valve to the atmosphere. ,
When the valve is energized, its internal parts realign to connect the pressure port to the cylinder port and to close the exhaust port. That allows the pressurized air to reach the air operator of the process valve, thereby actuating the process valve. 5 2. The Model NP 8320 ASCO Solenoid Valve. I I (All) Unlike the model NP 8316, the ASCO model NP 8320 solenoid valve is a three-way," direct acting solenoid valve. Rather than using an internal pilot, the solenoid core position directs airflow. In the de-energized mode, the solenoid valve core spring forces the core assembly (with valve seat) down, isolating the pressure port and
- connecting the exhaust port to the cylinder port. In this t
position, the solenoid valve allows the air operator on the process valve to vent. Energizing the solenoid causes i ! the core assembly to realign, allowing the pressurized air i to pass to the air operator on the process valve and , isolating the exhaust port.
- 3. The Model MP 8321 ASCO Solenoid Valve.
(All) The ASCO model Np 8321 solenoid valve, like the t model NP 8316 valve, is a three-way, internal pilot
_ _ _ _ . _ _ . - . . _ _ _ _ . .,_..-. _ _ _ . _ - _ . . _ ~ t I,
. .. f I
I j O controlled valve. This model valve operates in a manner similar to that of the model NP 8316. The primary differences between the two valves are that the model NP 8321 valve 'is piston operated and its exhaust port is larger than the pressure port, which allows relatively rapid venting. On the model NP 8316 valve, all of the ports are the same size and generally larger than those on 7 the NP 8321 valve. Iarger orifices allow higher flow I rates through the model NP 8316 valve.
- 4. The Model 206-381-6RF ASCO Solenoid Valve.
j (All) The ASCO model 206-381-6RF solenoid valve f differs from the model NP 8316 valve in that it has no f i internal pilot and is a three-way direct acting solenoid . 1 )' valve. In the model 206-381-6RF valve, the position of ( 5 j the moveable solenoid core acts on a lever arm. Which directs air flow. Energizing the solenoid causes the core ( to lift up. This connects the pressure port to the [ cylinder port and isolatos the exhaust port. When the i valve is de-energized, the solenoid core falls, blocking t the pressure port and connecting the exhaust port to the r i cylinder port, 1 i B. The Function of ASCO Solenoid Valves at VEGP. . (GJB, SJC) The ASCO solenoid valves used in i l safety-related functions at VEGP control the operation of i
- air-operated process valves and dampers in safety-related l 3
l l l l fluid and HVAC systems. Those solenoid valves direct the operation of air-operated process valves or dampers by controlling air flow to the air operator on these valves or dampers. By either venting or providing air to the ait j j operator on the process valve or damper, the ASCO solenoid ' f valve enables that valve or damper to close or open. All I of the ASCO solenoid valves used to perform safety-related t functions at VEGP are designed to be closed when l de-energized, in which position the solenoid valve would l vent the air operator on the process valve or damper and i block the passage of instrument air. l (CJB, SJC) Figure 10.5-1 depicts the manner in which i the ASCO solenoid valve controls the operation of an air-operated process valve or damper. Air is supplied to the air operator of the process valve or damper from the l plant instrument air system through the ASCO solenoid I t l valve. When the ASCO valve is energised, its internal l parts realign to allow instrument air to pass through the solenoid valve to the air operator of the process valve or > t damper. The application of instrument air to the operator L increases pressure on a diaphragm in the operator to an ; l extent sufficient to overcome the force of a stored energy l device in the operator, typically a spring, which causes ! the process valve or damper to assume its normal , position. When the ASCO solenoid valve is de-energized, l l ($) < l l 1 ; l : l .
i its internal parts are aligned to block the instrument, air and to connect the air operator of the process valve or damper to the atmosphere through the exhaust port. That allows the air pressure that had been applied to the diaphragm in the operator to vent, and the stored energy l T device in the operator causes the process valve or damper i to assume its safety-related position. - (GJB, SJC) The process valves and dampers performing I safety-related functions at VEGp that are controlled by , L
; ASCO solenoid valves are arranged so that the process valve or damper will assume its safety-related position, either open or closed, when the air operator is vented. {
l The safety function of each ASCO solenoid valve is to vent O the operator of the air-operated valve or damper with
! which it is associated to allow that valve or damper to move to its safety-related position. As described above, I
all of the ASCO solenoid valves employed in safety-related capacities at VEGp are of the normally closed design. l When de-energized, which is its safety-related position, the solenoid valve blocks the supply of instrument air and vents the air operator of the process valve or damper. i (SJC) Table 10.5-1, attached hereto, 1Lsts each oC j i the safety-related air-operated valves or dampers at VEGP l controlled by an ASCO solenoid valve and identifies the ; model ASCO solenoid valve associated with that valve or ; j ! t i
1 l \/ That table also describes the function performed damper. by the air-operated valve or damper and its safety-related position. C. Manufacturer's Specifications for ASCO Solenoid Valves and Comparison to Conditions at VEGp
, (GJ5) One of the issues identified by the Board concerned ASCO's specifications with respect to acceptable operating voltage ranges, air supply requirements, and acceptable leak rates for the various models of ASCO solenoid valves used at VEGp. ASCO's specifications for the various valve models are set out ger.erally in Exhibit F attached hereto, which is the catalog published by ASCO for its NP series solenoid valves, including each of the four valve models used at VEGP.
(~} (-
- 1. Operatino Voltage Ranges.
(GJB, SJC) For its solenoid valves operating on direct current, ASCO specifies a nominal applied voltage of 125 volts (125 VDC), with an acceptable operating voltage range of 90 to 140 volts. For valves operating on alternating current, ASCO specifies a nominal voltage of 120 volts of 60 cycle alternating current (120 VAC), with an acceptable operating range of 102 to 132 volts. At VEGp, the power supp1 Led to ASCO solenoid valves is designed to be either 125 VDC or 120 VAC, and the extreme voltage values expected on the VEGP electrical g).
l l
- distribution system are within the acceptable operating l voltage ranges specified by ASCO.
! 2. Air Sucoly. (GJB, WVC) ASCO's specifications require that the air supply to the solenoid valves be instrument quality air, which means that it must be dry, filtered, and oil-free. The operating pressure differential for the air supply must range between (a) the maximum differential pressure ' between the inlet and outlet sides of the valve against which the solenoid can safely operate and (b) the minimum operating pressure differential required for dependable operation. The range of acceptable operating pressure . differentials specified by ASCO differs for each model () valve. Those ranges are set out in Exhibit F. t (GJB, SJC) The VEGP air system provides a continuous r supply of filtered, dry, oil-free compressed air for pneumatic instrument operation and control of pneumatic ! actuators. The system also supplies compressed, normally filtered, dry and oil-free service air to outlets throughout the plant for the operation of pneumatic tools , 1 and other service air requirements. The instrument and t service air system is not required for the safe shutdown of the plant. The instrument air provided by this system is of the quality recommended in the Instrument Society of l l I America's Quality Standard for Instrument Air, ISA-S7.3. O i l l l
t It is dehumidified to a dewpoint of -60* F or below and filtered to remove all particles 3 microns in size and i larger. Oil content will be as close to zero as possible ! and is not to exceed one ppm. The VEGP air supply system i is designed for a nominal operating pressure of 120 psig. l The actual operating pressure at the ASCO solenoid valve l pressure port is regulated by an air set installed in the instrument air tubing upstream of the ASCO solenoid valve r , , i to prevent damage to the process valve air operator. l Except for the ASCO solenoid valves used to control HVAC l dampers, the operating pressure for the ASCO solenoid I valves ranges f rom 20 psig to 100 psig. For the vast majority the operating pressure would be less than 85 psig. The operating pressure for the ASCO solenoid valves i controlling HVAC dampers will be 120 psig. These l operating pressures are within the acceptable operating I pressure differential range specified by ASCO for each of l the models of ASCO solenoid valves used at VEGP. 1 l 3. Seat Leakace. (GJB) After manufacture and assembly, ASCO subjects each NP series valve to a factory acceptance test that evaluates the valve's suitability for shipment. As part l of this factory acceptance test, ASCO verifies the valve's t l operability and seat integrity. To pass this test, valves with resilient seats must have no detectable seat l l CE)
These manufacturing tolerances set by ASCO, leakage.
however, are not related to leakage rates that would affect valve performance. (GJB, GB) ASCO's installation and maintenance instructions for the four types of ASCO solenoid valves used in safety-related applications at VEGP state that excessive leakage warrants inspection of the valve. At VEGP excessive leakage in the ASCO solenoid valves would be monitored through operation of and periodic testing of the associated process valve or damper. If during normal operation or inservice testing the process valve or damper f ails to cycle or cycles sluggishly, then the solenoid valve would be checked. O(/ (GJB) In Report No. AQR-67602/REV. O, entitled
" Analysis of Franklin Research Center Qualification Testing of ASCO Catalog Np-l Valves for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission" and issued on September 26, 1983, ASCO states with respect to seat leakage in its solenoid valves:
ASCO has never considered seat leakage of any Catalog Np-l valve to be critical to the performance of a typical valve safety function unless the leakage reaches the point that it significantly affects the status of the valve cylinder port pressure. Since its initial qualification test program, ASCO has maintained the definition of acceptability of Catalog Np-l valves to be that the valve is considered to be O f
g:r (~')
~d performing satisfactorily as long as the cylinder ,
port pressure does not deviate by more than 10% of the applied pressure at the valve inlet port. I ASCO then' calculated for several models of solenoid valves the minimum seat leakageneededforthecylinderport pressure to reach ASCO's defined threshold of unacceptability when the supply pressure was at the catriog listed maximum. Theresultsofd.iosecalculations for those valves representative of or similar to the models of ASCO solenoid valves used at VEGP were:
,3 Calculated Minimum Leakage at Valve Model No. 10% Cylinder Port Pressure Chance 206-380-3RF 452 SCFH
'NP 8320A184E- 151 NP 831665E '
4,400 NP.8321A5E 805 NF/ 831666E 4,025 C, '] (GJB) The amount of sent leakage that would affect an ASCO solenoid valve's ability to perform its safety related function at VEGP, which is to vent the air-operator of the associated process valve or damper,
~
would, dif f er gomewhat from the values calculated by ASCO and would depend upon several factors, including the design o'E'the system in which that valve is used. Bechtei hastherehoreundertakenananalysisofmaximumtolerable leakage rates for the model NP 53'16, NP 8320, and NP 8321 1 ASCO solenoid valves used at VEGP. For seat leakage to preclude an ASCO solenoid valve from performing its i i j g. N
-L4-i b r
f~b safety-related function at VEGP, the leakage would have to
- be from the instrument air system supply line across the seat in the solenoid valve into the air operator of the process valve or damper. Also, the quantity of instrument air leaked across the solenoid valve seat would have to be sufficient to exceed the capacity of the vent port to carry it away and to cause the air operator to actuate, thereby preventing the air-operated valve or damper f rom attaining its safety-related position. Otherwise, the process valve or damper would change to its safety-related position when the solenoid valve was de-energized.
(GJB) The amount of tolerable seat leakage for a particular ASCO solenoid valve at VEGP will depend upon O (/ several factors, including the size of the vent port in the solenoid valve, the resistance to air flow in the instrument piping between the vent port and the actuator pressure chamber in the air operator, and th7 residual pressure in the actuator pressure chamber. In performing its analysis, Bechtel defined allowable leakage to be the maximum amount of leakage of instrument air past the ! solenoid valve seat and into the actuator pressure chamber that can be effectively carried away by the vent passage , l when the residual pressure in the actuator pressure l chamber has decreased to a value that allows the air-operated valve or damper'to shift to its
'U
-ts-
)
,n safety-related position. Table.10.5-2 identifies the allowable leakage rate for those model NP 8320 and NP 8321 ASCO solenoid valves used to perform safety-related functions in the containment and MSIV areas, except for the recently added model NP 8321 valves on the feedwater control valves. These valves were chosen for exsmination because they envelope all of the safety-related model NP 8320 and NP 8321 ASCO solenoid valves located in potentially harsh environments and represent all of the different configurations of ASCO solenoid valves and process valves or dampers used at VEGP. While the allowable seat leakage for an ASCO solenoid valve at VEGP is dependent upon the particular valve model and its configuration with the air operator of the associated process valve or damper, the allowable leakage rates identified in Table 10.5-2 are representative of the allowable leakage rates for the other model NP 8320 and Np 8321 solenoid valves used at VEGP. (GJB) The seat leakages provided in Table 10.5-2 represent a conservative assessment of acceptable seat leakages for the NF 8320 and NP 8321 valves evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In order to determine acceptable leakages, the actual configurations of the solenoid valve, process valve, and the actuator were examined to determine the pressure at which the actuator would begin operating ps l
the process valve. Once this pressure was determined, it was reduced by a factor of two to include a 100*4 safety factor. From this reduced allowable pressure, a corresponding leakage rate was calculated, and these results were tabulated in Table 10.5-2.
(GJB) The allowable seat leakage for any of the NP 8316 valves used at VEGP would greatly exceed that of any of the NP 8320 or NP 8321 valves shown on Table 10.5-2. One of the most important factors in determining the allowable leakage rate for an ASCO solenoid valve is the exhaust port flow coefficient. A review of the flow coef ficients for the NP 8316 f amily of valves (which are provided in ASCO catalog NP-1, attached hereto as Exhibit F) shows that the exhaust port flow coefficient for those valves is at least 3.5. The exhaust ports of the NP 8321 valves have a flow coefficient of 1.2, or approximately one third of the minimum flow coefficient for the NP 8316 valves. The capacity of the exhaust por* , to vent seat leakage, and thus the allowable seat leakage, is directly dependent on the flow coefficient. The allowable seat leakage for the NP 8316 solenoid valves used at VEGP would, by inspection,'be roughly three (or more) times greater than that of the NP 8321 valve, which was determined to be approximately 1000 SCFH. Therefore, the allowable seat teakage for the NP 8316 valves would be
~s , at least 3000 SCFH.
b
/~N 'V D. Required Post Accident Operatino Time.
(SJC, HJQ) One of the issues raised by the Board concerned the basis for statements made by the Applicants concerning the length of time that the ASCO solenoid valves would have to operwte at VEGP following a design basis event. For all safety-related equipment, the intent of the VEGP equipment qualification program is to demonstrate operability for a period of one year following a design basis event. The one year period of post accident operability specified by Bechtel for all safety-related equipment, however, greatly exceeds the interval for which safety-related ASCO solenoid valves at VEGP would actually have to remain operable following p k- the initiation of a design basis accident. The safety function performed by all of the ASCO solenoid valves used at VEGP is to de-energize, thereby venting the air operator of the associated process valve or damper. Once de-energized, the ASCO solenoid valves are not required to shift position again in response to any accident conditions. Those ASCO solenoid valves that are de-energized.due to automatic safety signals will complete their safety-related function within seconds. The other ATSCO solenoid valves would be de-energized by remote manual plant operator action, which would occur within thirty minutes after sufficient alarm or other indication of the occurrence of the initiating i
e - 3 O' event or in response to plant emergency operating , procedures. Thus the de-energization of the ASCO solenoid valves would be complete within a few seconds to hours after the initiation of the design basis event.
- II. Environmental Qualification Testing Performed on the ASCO Solenoid Valves Used at VEGP.
(WVC, HJQ) Environmental qualification testing has been performed upon the four models of ASCO solenoid valves employed in safety-related applications at EGP in two separate generic qualification testing programs. The most recent environmental qualification program was carried out jointly by ASCO and Westinghouse in the early 1980's. A few years earlier, Isomedix, Inc. had conducted (} environmental qualification testing on the solenoid valves on behalf of A.5CO. Both of these testing programs established certain generic extreme environmental conditions for which the ASCO solenoid valves were . environmentally qualified. Those conditions, which were not plant specific, have been compared by Bechtel to the conditions that the valves might encounter at VEGP to ; assure that the valves are environmentally qualified for use in safety-related applications at VEGP. A. The Joint Westinghouse and ASCO Environmental Qualification Testing Program. (WVC, HJQ) In 1980 and 1981, Westinghouse and ASCO , jointly conducted an environmental qualification testing (} i
,, ,-,,r -
rr .,, e e c -- - . - , m - , y , ,, ,---,, --,-,---r --, --
O program for various ASCO solenoid valves. Test Report No. AQR-67368/Rev. 1, issued on August 19, 1983, documents the results of that testing Program. The objective of the qualification testing program was to demonstrate that the ASCO solenoid valves met or exceeded their safety related performanco requirements while subjected to simulated normal and accident environments. The conditions to which the valves were tested in the joint Westinghouse /ASCO qualification testing program were generic conditions designed to establish a qualified life of 8 years and a post-design basis event operating time of one year. (WVC, HJQ) Included among the solenoid valves tested were model NP 8316, NP 8320, NP 8321, and 206-381-6RF ASCO solenoid valves representative of the valves used in safety-related functions at VEGP. The number of valves within each generic design family that was tested in the Westinghouse /ASCO testing program is listed below: Model No. Tested NP 8316 3 NP 8320 2 NP 8321 1 206, 202 and 210 Series 3 NP 8323 1 NP 8344 2 NP 8314 1 NP 8317 1 Total Test Samples 14 O
--e- - -
- ++ -
,,e- - - ~ - g-- -egwe --, - ~ ,g,, ,, --r----,+- --
vese r a ,-et- -
J
<s V (WVC, HJQ) Table 10.5-3 attached hereto reflects the model number of each of the test valves and the distribution of technically significant design parameter variatichs among the fourteen test valves. One item of particular significance was the elastomer material used in the valves, with eight of the test valves having viton elastomers and six having ethylene propylene elastomers.
The two model NP 8316 valves with ethylene propylene elastomers, the two model NP 8320 valves with et.hylene propylene and viton elastomers, the model NP 8321 valve with viton elastomers, and the one 206 series valve with ethylene propylene elastomers are representative of the ASCO solenoid valves used at VEGP. No NP 8316 or 206 series valves with viton elastomers are used in safety-related applications at VEGP. The other test valves, while not representative of valves used at VEGP, had some features in common with the four models of valves used at VEGP, such as type of solenoid housing, for example. (WVC, HJQ) The joint Westinghouse /ASCO qualification program was conducted in accordance with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard 323-1974, "IEEE Standard for Qualifying Class IE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations;" IEEE Standard 344-1975, "IEEE Recommended Practices for Seismic A V w . -. - _- .
g
~
Qualification of Class IE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations;" and IEEE Standard 382-1972, "IEEE Trial-Use Guide for Type Test of Class 1 Electric Valve Operators for Nuclear Power Generating Staticas." Additionally, the qualification program was performed in accordance with the methodology set,forth in WCAP-8587,
" Methodology for Qualifying Westinghouse WRD-Supplied NSSS Safety-Related Electrical Equipment," which has been accepted by the NRC Staff.
(WVC, HJQ) The tests comprising the qualification program consisted of initial performance tests; thermal, mechanical, pressurization, and normal environment radiation aging; vibration aging, operating basis earthquake simulation, and resonance search test; safe shutdown earthquake simulation; design basis event t..rironmental radiation exposure; and high energy line break ("HELB") environmental testing. (WVC, HJQ) In the HELB environmental testing phase, the test valves were tested under conditions determined by a composite of the adverse environmental conditions that would result from a loss-of-coolant accident ("LOCA") and a main steam line break ("MSLB"). Figure 10.5-2 profiles those conditions, which are not plant-specific but are intended to envelope the conditions that might exist at a variety of facilities, including VEGP. q l 1
e t .
. f')
L U (WVC, HJQ) prior to initiation of the pressure and temperature transients, the valves were tested under load for proper functioning. To simulate pre-design-basis-event conditions, the valves were continuously energized at nominal voltage for four hours at a temperature of 140*F. The valves were then subjected to two pressure and temperature transients. The atmosphere during the 1 pressure and temperature transients was superheated steam. The actual temperature and pressure conditions to which the valves were exposed enveloped the conditions shown on Figure 10.5-2. A chemical spray comprised of 2500 ppm boron buffered with sodium hydroxide to a pH of 10.5 was initiated twelve minutes into the first O transient, continued for approximately five hours, discontinued, reinitiated three minutes into the second transient and continued for approximately 24 hours. During the HELB environmental testing the valves were energized and de-energized periodically. (WVC, HJQ) The model 206-381-6RF valve tested successfully completed performance tests before, during, and after the qualification testing performed in the joint Westinghouse /ASCO program. The model NP 8320 valve with ethylene propylene elastomers also successfully completed all phases of the qualification testing.
( (SJC, HJQ) The solenoid core of the model NP 8320 valve with viton elastomers would not shift when first cycled following the design basis event environmental radiation testing until the operating voltage was increased from the test voltage of 102 VAC to 125 VAC. After the first operation, the core shifted properly upon application of 102 VAC. Similar results were obtained with several of the other test valves having viton elastomers. ASCO determined that the initial failure of these valves to shift was caused by adherence of the viton dynamic seal to the brass seating surface as a result of degradation due to radiation exposure. As a result, ASCO considers model NP 8320 valves with viton elastomers to be O qualified to the test levels used in the joint Westinghouse /ASCO program only for those applications where the valves are not required to shift position following exposure to gamma doses in excess of 20 megarads. While VEGP does use NP 8320 valves with viton elastomers in safety-related applications, none of these applications would require the valve to shift position after exposure to radiation in excess of 20 megarads. (WVC, HJQ) One of the two model NP 8316 valves with ethylene propylene elastomers tested completed a suf ficient portion of the HELB environmental testing to I simulate operation for more than one year after a design 1 O) L-
i d basis accident, which is the length of time that Westinghouse's generic specifications require the valves to be able to operate after such an accident, but then encountered performance problems prior to the completion of the full 30 day HELB test period. In the HELB environmental testing, a period of 3.65 days at 265'F following the second transient simulated one year of actual post-accident service. The model NP 8316 valve would not actuate at the minimum DC voltage (90 VDC) when energized thirteen days into the test. When the voltage was increased to 125 VDC, the valve actuated and continued to require at least 110 VDC to actuate for the remainder s of the thirty day test period. (b (WVC, HJQ) The ASCO specification for this valve is a nominal voltage of 125 VDC with an operating range of 90 VDC to 140 VDC. The 90 VDC is the worst case for the solenoid valve because it results in the least magnetic field being developed by the solenoid coil. That magnetic
. field shifts the solenoid core, which in turn operates the valve. The 90 VDC minimum is a Westinghouse generic requirement and is based on the scenario that the battery voltage available to the valve during and after an accident can be as low as 90 VDC.
(WVC, HJQ) Later inspection of the valve revealed that the increase in the voltage needed to activate the E
O valve had'resulted from moisture and chemical spray entering the valve solenoid enclosure and over time reducing the coil insulation resistance. This moisture entered the solenoid housing through the conduit nipple opening through which the electrical leads providing electric power to the solenoid pass. In the test that opening was not required to be leak tight and thus was not hermetically sealed. The seal for the conduit opening is not part of the valve, and ASCO does not supply such seals with the solenoid valves. (WVC, HJQ) One of the issues raised by the Board concerned whether the unsealed solenoid housing represented a quality control deficiency that might endanger safe operation of VEGP. As noted above, ASCO does not supply conduit nipple seals with its solenoid valves, and the moisture entered the solenoid housing as a result of the test setup. Since the moisture problem originated from a test setup deficiency rather than from the model NP 8316 valve itself, that problem does not evidence a potential quality control deficiency with ASCO solenoid valves. (SJC, WVC, HJQ) More importantly, if the moisture problem encountered with the NP 8316 valve tested in the Westinghouse /ASCO testing program were to occur with any ASCO solenoid valve used at VEGP, it could not affect O l l
. ]
f3
,N ]
that valve's ability to perform its safety-related function, which is to vent the air operator of the associated air-operated process valve or damper. The intrusion of moisture into the solenoid housing of the NP 8316 valve resulted in a reduction of the ability of
- the coil to shift the solenoid core, which caused the valve to f ail to operate when energized until the voltage applied to the solenoid was increased to 125 VDC. The design of the solenoid housing is such that the intrusion of moisture into the housing does not affect the ability of the solenoid core to shift into its de-energized position. The solenoid core, the valve seats, and the f-s other moving parts of the valve are housed in the body of 0 the valve, which is physically separated from the solenoid housing. Because of the physical separation of these portions of the valve, intrusion of moisture into the solenoid housing cannot prevent the solenoid valve from attaining its safety-related po'sition, which is the de-energized position for all tae ASCO solenoid valves used in safety-related applications at VEGP. Because the ASCO solenoid valves utilized at VEGP perform their I
safety-related function when the coil is de-energized, a valve's inability to shift position when energized to the minimum DC voltage specified, as occurred with the model NP 8316 valve in the joint Westinghouse /ASCO testing
~N.
v.
( program, does not compromise in any way the valve's ability to perform its safety-related function. (WVC, NJQ) The other model NP 8316 valve with
. ethylene propylene elastomers tested performed successfully before, during, and after the HELS +
environmental testing. Upon disassembly subsequent to the
-full 30 day HELB testing period and the final operational check, the diaphragm of the valve was found to be stuck to ,
the valve body, which caused a tear in the diaphragm. This sticking of the diaphragm does not represent a test failure because it occurred after successful completion of
-the HELB testing and final operational tests. Moreover, the thirty day test.ng period to which the valves were subjected in the HELB testing simulates approximately eight years of service after a design basis event, which provides a considerable margin over the one year period that Westinghouse generically specifies that the valves be operational following a design basis event.
(WVC, NJQ) In the HELB environmental testing, the model NP 8321 valve that was tested, which had resilient seats made of viton elastomers, would not shift to its de-energized position on the twelfth day of the HELS test period. This failure occurred well after that portion of the test period that simulated the period of time that the model NP 8321 valve would be required to operate at VEGP O 1 x_/ following a design basis event. The twelve-day period that the model NP 8321 valve continued to operate af ter exposure to simulated accident conditions represents in excess of a year of post-accident operation at VEGP. (WVC, NJQ) Due to the failure of the model NP 8321 valve to complete successfully the full 30 day HELB environmental testing, ASCO does not consider it to be qualified to the generic environmental extremes profiled on Figure 10.5-2. Instead, it relies upon an earlier qualification testing program conducted by Isomedix, Inc. on behalf of ASCO to establish the generic environmental qualification oi the model NP 8321 valve. Because the portion of the HELB environmental testing completed by the O NP 8321 valve tested in the Westinghouse /ASCO program represents in excess of one year of post accident operation at VEGP, those test results do provide a basis for concluding that the NP 8321 valve is qualified for use at VEGP. (SJC, HJQ) For model NP 8321 solenoid valves with viton elastomers, ASCO further restricts their qualification to applications where the valves will not be required to shift position following exposure to gamma doses in excess or 20 .negarads. While some NP 8321 valves with viton elastomers are used in safety-related cpplications at VEGP, none of those applications require I' (~)v 1 l l
O the valve to shift position after being exposed to gamma radiation in excess of 20 megarads. l (WVC, HJQ) The results of the joint Westinghouse /ASCO testing program qualified the ASCO model NP 8316, NP 8320 l and 206-381-6RF solenoid valves to the Westinghouse specified generic HELB environmental extremes of (a) a l l peak temperature of 420*F, (b) pressure of 57 psig, and (c) a chemical spray of 2500 ppm boron buffered with sodium hydroxide to a pH of 10.5. The pressure and p temperature extremes are profiled in Figure 10.5-2. (WVC) The test conditions to which the test valves l were exposed in the joint Westinghouse /ASCO testing program included margins in accordance with requirements O of IEEE 323-1974 and 10 CFR $50.49(e)(8). The activation energy employed in establishing the length of the thermal aging portion of the environmentsl qualification program l was the lowest activation energy for any of the materials l i in the valves. The test conditions selected for the l l remaining aging portions of the program'are appropriate for a service life of 40 years even though the qualified life of the valves tested is eight years. The LOCA/MSLB l transients were applied twice in the design basis event f portion of the testing program to provide margin as suggested by IEEE 323-1974. The actual peak temperatures i reached during the LOCA/MSLB transients were 440*F and l
,cy
(_) 448*F. The Westinghouse specified generic qualification requirement was only 420*F. The actual test pressure during the LOCA/MSLB transients reached a peak of 68 psig, while the Westinghouse specified generic qualification requirement was 57 psig. The valves were exposed to a total radiation dose of 2.05 x 10' rads, whereas the Westinghouse specified generic qualification requirement is 1.82 x 10' rads total integrated dose. Westinghouse specified that the valves be able to operate for one year under post-LOCA conditions. Under the conditions used in the Westinghouse /ASCO testing, 3.65 days simulated that one year of post-accident operation, whereas the test valves were kept under those conditions for 30 days, which simulated approximately eight years of post-accident operation. B. Environmental Qualification Testing Performed on Behalf of ASCO by Isomedix, Inc. (WVC, HJQ) As reported in Isomedix Test Report No. AQS21678/TR Revision .s, dated July 1979, Isomedix, Inc. performed qualificaticn testing for ASCO on several models of ASCO solenoid valves, including the model NP S316, NP 8320, and NP 8321 valves. ASCO also tested a model 206-381-6F valve, which differs from the 206-381-6RF valves used at VEGP only in that it h:0 .T.o r a llic r a t he r
-e- - , -- ,,e-, ,-mer - +------,n-, , . - , ---...r- - - , - , - ~. -----,,,w--.-.-,,
4 c. a l (n)- than resilient seats. The following table lists the number of valves from each generic design family that was tested in the Isomedix test program: Model No.. Tested NP 8316 1 NP 8320 1
.NP 8321 1 206, 202 and 210 Series 2 NP 8323- 1 NP 8344 1 Total Test Samples 7 (WVC, HJQ) Table 10.5-4 reflects the distribution of design parameter variations for the seven valve samples in the Isomedix test program. All of the test valves with resilient seats had ethylene propylene elastomers.
O (WVC, HJQ) The Isomedix testing program was conducted in accordance with the test outline contained in ASCO Qualification Specification AQS_21678 Revision B, which was based upon IEEE 323-1974, IEEE 182-1972, IEEE 344-1975, and IEEE 382/ ANSI N278.2.1 (Draft 3, Rev. 1 June 1977) " Draft American National Standard for the Qualification of Safety Related Valve Actuators." The Qualification program was designed to demonstrate that the valves had a qualified life of at least four years and would operate for at least one year following a design basis event. '('% V _3:_
e (WVC, HJQ) In this testing program, Isomedix, Inc. thermally aged the test valves at a temperature of 268'F for twelve days to simulate a design life of four years. During that thermal aging, the valves were continuously energized except for five minutes once every six hours when they were cycled by being de-energized. The valves were then radiation aged and wear aged. Next, the valves underwent seismic simulation, vibration endurance testing, and. exposure to an additional 150 megarads of gamma radiation to simulate the radiation that would be experienced under accident conditions. Finally, Isomedix exposed the valves to simulated LOCA conditions. Those fs conditions, which are profiled in Figure 10.5-3, included (_) a peak temperature of 346*F and peak pressure of 110 psig that were imposed for approximately three hours. (WVC, HJQ) The model NP 8316, NP 8320, and 206-381-6F valves performed satisf actorily. The model NP 8321 valve initially utilized by Isomedix in the test program developed excessive seat le M<.sg e (50 SCFH) both i'. the energized and de-energized states after seven days of the thermal aging portion of the test procedure. At the end of that portion of the test, the test valve was examined and the cause of the excessive leakage was determined to I be dirt in the valve originating from an iron pipe attached to the cylinder port and an additional length , (') v l 9 w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
r (V Because the cause of the used to simulate an accumulator.
performance problems with the model NP 8321 valve being tested was contaminants introduced from an external source as a result of a deficiency in the test procedure, ASCO substituted another model NP 8321 valve in the test. (WVC, HJQ) This new model NP 8321 valve was thermally aged at 295'F for 100 hours and was cycled every 2 hours. Isomedix chose this higher temperature and lower thermal aging period to accelerate the test program. After approximately 60 hours of this thermal aging, the valve started leaking in the energized state. The leakage was 40 SCFH at 200 psig, 17 SCFH at 125 psig, and 3 SCFH at 10 psig. The valve shifted properly and had no leakage in the de-energized state. (WVC, HJQ) Isomedix determined that the seat leakage resultaa from the softening and resultant degradation of valve elastomer material caused by the higher temperature of 295'T used in the thermal aging. Normal 140*F ambient temperature would not cause noticeabic softening of this material. As tha valve performed its safety function, the thermal aging continued and the other tests were conducted on this valve in the same manner as on the other test valves. As a result of the seat leakage encountered during thermal aging, ASCO reduced the specified maximum operating pressure differential at which the model Np 8321 O
]
)
1 l i
*y. e 4 -. ei--34A- a _ - .J- 4 + s4 -J. _ - +e.
G) valve can operate from 200 psig to 150 psig. This change resulted in a 25% load reduction on the resilient seat. (WVC,'HJQ) At the end of the LOCA simulation, the coil of the model NP 8321 valve had an insulation resistance of less than one megohm, so a coil dielectric test was not performed. During the LOCA phase, the solenoid enclosure was wired through a flexible electrical conduit rated for 120*F. During the 30-day LOCA simulation, the plastic covering on this conduit broke down, allowing the spray solution to enter the solenoid and degrade the coil insulation, resulting in current leakage to ground. Upon disassembly, the valve solenoid enclosure was found to be full of spray solution. After O the coil was dried out for 7 days at room temperature, the insulation resistance was found to be 14 megohms and the coil dielectric test was entirely satisfactory. Since the coil had satisfactory insulation resistance and passed the ! dielectric test prior to the LOCA test, Isomedix concluded j that the coil would have been satisfactory except for the adverse effect of the spray solution, which condition resulted from the use of an unqualified conduit and not from any problem with the model NP 8321 valve itself. As described above, moisture entering the solenoid housing of any of the ASCO solenoid valves used at VEGP cannot i prevent that valve from performing its safety-related function. ! 35- l l l
..- . .+
- '~' (WVC, NJQ)- Figure 10.5-3 reflects the environmental extremes to which the ASCO. valves tested by Isomedix were
" qualified. Those extremes include (a) a peak temperature aof 346*F, to which temperature the valves were exposed for approximately three hours in the Isomedix tests; (b) peak pressure of 110 psig; and (c) a chemical spray consisting of 3000 ppm boron buffered with sodium hydroxide to a pH value of 10.
C. The Franklin Research Center Testing Program (WVC, NJQ) In 1981 Franklin Research Center (" Franklin") initiated a testing program on ASCO solenoid () valves under a contract from the NRC. The valves tested by Franklin included two model NP 8316 valves, one model NP 3320, and one model NP 8321, all with ethylene propylene elastomers. Franklin also tesced a model 206-381-6F valve, which is the same as the model 206-381-6RF valves used at VEGP except that it has metallic rather than resilient seats. Following functional tests, Franklin artificially aged one of the model NP 8316 valves and the model NP 8320, NP 8321, and 206-381-6F valves to simulate a four-year life at 140*F. Those valves were irradiated to a total integrated dose of 50 megarads and then exposed to a temperature of 268'F for
/*
I () approximately fifteen days. The valves were cycled 2000 times over the thermal aging period while at that elevated i l temperature. l (WVC, NJQ) The artificial thermal aging process employed by Franklin imposed conditions on the elastomeric parts of the valves that were far in excess of normal I conditions or the standards for accelerated aging established by IEEE 323-1974. In its report of its test results, Franklin itself acknowledged that its artificial aging process was overly severe, stating: l Cyclical aging during thermal aging presents a l different type of overconservatism. IEEE Std 382-1980 requires that 10% of the operational cycles be conducted during thermal aging at the thermal aging temperature. .However, when dealing with organic seats and seals, it should be determined if the cycling of l (s) the valves at the accelerated aging temperature may I introduce stresses on the material that might not l exist in normal operation. The EPDM discs and seats I common to these valves raise this possibility. Since a previous test (the Isomediz test] did indicate l softening of the EpDM during thermal aging at 295*F l (146*C), the aging at 268'F (131*C) may have produced I softening and the cycling at this temperature may have produced stresses not present in normal operation. l NUREG/CR-3424 at 2-64. In a separate Appendix to the l report describing the thermal aging analysis, one of the report's authors concludes that "it was inappropriate to cycle a solenoid valve containing elastomeric seals at ambient temperatures in excess of normal rated ambient l
.U,, temperatures (140*/60*C and 180*F/82*C for the valves discussed in this report)." NUREG/CR-3424 at C-1.
-(WVC, HJQ) Following this artificial aging, the model NP 8321 valve was removed from the test program because of what Franklin.Research Center characterized as " excessive" seat leakage. Franklin's ability to measure seat leakage .
accurately was limited by the nature of its test apparatus. When testing a valve for seat leakage, Franklin attached a tube to the exhaust port of the valve and immersed the other end of the tube in water with a water-filled 1000 ml graduated cylinder inverted over it to trap any bubbles emanating from it. Franklin reported the leakage. rate that it encountered with the model O NP 8321 valve to be "more than" 60 liters per minute at. 150 psig following the accelerated thermal aging. (GJB) As noted earlier in this testimony, ASCO has calculated the minimum seat leakage that would cause the cylinder port pressure to reach ASCO's defined threshold of unacceptability to be 805 SCFM (380 liters per minute) for the model NP 8321 valve tested by Franklin. Moreover, for the specific valve configurations including NP 8321 valves located in a harsh environment at VEGP, Bechtel has determined the maximum allowable seat leakage to be 555 SCFM (maximum allowable leakage for one of two NP 8321 valves used in series with the second 0
O V NP 8321 valve assumed to fail to shift from the energized to the de-energized position). (WVC, NJQ) The Board has questioned whether the amount of leakage shown by the model NP 8321 valve tested by Franklin was dependent upon the length of time that the valve was left in the test program. While the seat leakage exhibited by that valve could have increased had it been subjected to the remaining aspects of the testing program, any additional test results would have had little meaning in light of the overly severe artificial aging to which the model NP 8321 valve was subjected by Franklin. The exctssive severity of that artificial aging process was a primary cause of the breakdown of the valve's elastomeric material that product'd the gross seat leakage found by Franklin. (WVC, HJQ) The other model NP 8316 valve had been naturally aged by ASCO at 140*F for three years, without any radiation exposure. That valve had been cycled 2000 times at room temperature. (WVC, HJQ) All the valves then underwent pressurization testing, vibration aging, resonance search, seismic testing, design basis event radiation exposure, and a simulated composite LOCA and MSLB exposure. The composite LOCA/MSLB exposure included steam, chemical spray, and hi'gh humidity conditions. Two transients were
4 L
%s simulated, each with a targeted peak temperature of 420*F and pressure of 68 psig. Thermocouple data from the test chamber, however, indicated that certain areas in the chamber experienced temperatures higher than the intended test conditions.
(WVC, HJQ) The ASCO model 206-381-6F valve performed ; satisfactorily through all of the tests. The model NP 8320 valv'e tested by Franklin Research Center functionsd'throughout the tests. In the functional testing following the completion of the LOCA/MSLB simulation, however, the model NP 8320 valve did experience what Franklin Research Center described as
- " severe" seat leakage. No' seat leakage had been observed with the model NP 8320 valve prior to that point. ,
At 150 psig, the seat leakage exceeded 100 cubic feet per hour. That seat leakage did not prevent the valve from being cycled. As with the model NP 8321 valve, the excessively severe artificial aging process used by Franklin calls into question the meaningfulness of the seat leakage found by Franklin with the model NP 8320 valve. (GJB) Moreover, the seat leakage encountered by Franklin with the NP 8320 valve exceeded the allowable seat leakage conservatively calculated by Bechtel tot the NP 8320 valves used at VEGP only where the NP 8320 valve is used in series with another NP 8320 valve and that es second valve is assumed to fail to shift from the
\~) energized to the de-energized position.
..- , a.-_ - - - _ - - - - .,.- . . - - . . -_- - .- _. _ - - - .
/~T C/-
(WVC, HJQ) The model NP 8316 valve that had been artificially aged could not be cycled properly between the first and second transients of the composite LOCA/MSLB i 4 simulation because the air supply could not be maintained at sufficient pressure and volume due to excessive seat 4 leakage and rate of cycling. The air supply to the valve was oil-free bottled air with the air pressure kept at 175 psig, which was the maximum value specified by ASCO for the model NP 8316 valve. Prior to the start of the second transient, Franklin was able to supply sufficient air pressure and volume to cycle the valve, and it continued to function until four days elapsed time in the LOCA/MSLB i simulation. At that time, the test valve cycled to the
; open position (i.e., process cylinder pressurized) when energized but did not transfer back when de-energized.
Franklin had to shut off the air supply to the valve to avoid large losses of bottled air and to prevent this bottled air from pressurizing the test vessel. The valve was briefly pressurized with air during subsequent scheduled cycling tests to attempt operation, but the attempts were unsuccessful. Franklin reported that "at I the conclusion of the LOCA/MSLB exposure, leakage rates were greater than 100 (SCFHi" for the valve. The causes of the failure of this valve are discussed in detail in a later portion of this testimot y. O , i
'h g
/~N '
]
(WVC, HJQ)'IThe naturally aged model NP 8316 valve I stopped cycling,,between the first and second LOCA/MSLB transients, at 6.5 hours into the test, but began to function ag in at 15.3 hours'into the test and continued to operate until 25.6 hours. After that point no further cycling could be accomplished. Franklin identified the failure mechanism for that valve to have been gross failure of the pressure and exhaust diaphragms due to embrittlement and cracking. (WVC, HJQ) In November 1983, Franklin issued a report concerning[its test'results, entitled " Test Program and FailureAnalysiUofClasslESolenoidhalves."' , NUREG/CR-3424. After reviewing those results, the NRC ("N
\_) Staf f in December 1983' revoked those portions of a Safety Evaluation Reportithat it had previously issued to Westinghouse that"related to the environmental qualification of the ASCO model NP 8316 valve. In April 1984, the NRC Staff issued IE Information Notice No.
84-23, which reported its initial assessment of the Franklin test results. (WVC, HJQ) In IE Information Notice No. 84-23, the NRC Staff discounted'the failures of the artificially aged valves in the Franklin tests, concluding that those test i results were inconclusive due to the severe preconditioning to which those valves were exposed. With 1 . 1
. ('T l
\.-] l 1
l
- i. 1 i
!?
l [- _
/O V
respect to the naturally aged model NP 8316 valve, the NRC Staff decided that its failure in the Franklin tests called into question the results obtained with respect to that valve during the joint Westinghouse /ASCO testing program. That model ASCO solenoid valve, the NRC Staff concluded, was acceptable for use only in applications where the environmental conditions to which it might be exposed were enveloped by the conditions to which that model valve had been tested earlier by Isomedix, Inc. on l behalf of ASCO. The NRC Staff reiterated its conclusions concerning the model NP 8316 valve in IE Information Notice No. 85-08 issued on January 30, 1985. After i stating that the NRC Staff considered all ASCO NP series solenoid valves with ethylene propylene elastomers other than the model NP 8316 to be qualified to the levels
~
reported in the joint Westinghouse /ASCO testing program, that notice stated: "ASCO valve model NP 8316 with Ethylene Propylene elastomers is considered qualified to the levels reported in Isomedix Test Report No. AOS(AQS] 21678/TR, Rev. A, dated March 1978, revised July 1979." D. The Results of the Franklin Testing program Do Not Call Into Question the Environmental Qualification of the ASCO Solenoid Valves for Use at VEGP. l (WVC, HJQ) Westinghouse and ASCO have each evaluated the results obtained by Franklin. Both Westinghouse and 1 1
. p V ASCO concluded that because of anomalies in the test procedure used by Franklin and the more severe environmental conditions to which it tested the valves, the test results obtained by Franklin do not call into question the validity of the test results found in the joint Westinghouse /ASCO qualification testing program.
- 1. The Model NP 8316 Valves (WVC, HJQ) With respect to the test valves that 4
Franklin artificially aged, including the artificially aged model NP 8316 valve, the differences in their performance in the Franklin tests and in the prior Westinghouse /ASCO testing program can be attributed to differences in test procedure, specifically the thermal i j aging and radiation aging procedures used. Franklin i irradiated the test valves initially with a significant gamma dose of 50 megarads and then during the accelerated thermal aging cycled the valves 2000 times at a temperature of 268'F. Fifty (50) megarads is more severe I than the four year normal radiation dose, which is about 2 megarads for Westinghouse generic environments and for VEGP is 0.2 megarads. Further, cycling at high aging ' temperatures is not a normal condition and presents a verv severe condition for the elastomeric parts of the valves. I For those reasons, the more severe degradation of the artificially aged valves in the Franklin test is understandable and to be expected. O
-44_
' e, .
i (WVC, NJQ) Franklin's analysis of the artificially aged NP 8316 valve subsequent.to the testing indicates that in addition to the adverse effects of the overly severe artificial aging process, the failure of the artificially aged model NP 8316 valve was due in part to contaminants found during inspection of the valve. l Franklin identified three possible failure mechanisms for the artificially aged NP 8316 valve. First, coil resistance measurements indicated that the coil was open. Second, Franklin surmised that the cause of the valve's
' failure to operate after 4 days elapsed t.ime into the j second transient of the LOCA/MSLB simulation was solidification of an organic lubricant or grease on the
( solenoid core assembly, which may have caused the core i assembly to bind when inserted into the solenoid base subassembly, and a break in the core spring, which l prevented that spring from freeing the core assembly upon ! de-energization of the valve. Traces of chlorine, which 1 is extremely corrosive to stainless steel, were found at
- the break point on the spring, and the chlorine apparently 1 contributed to the' breaking of the spring. The third j failure mechanism identified by Franklin was extensive
- degradation of the pressure and exhaust diaphragm j assemblies.
(WVC, HJQ) ASCO attributes the open solenoid coil reflected by Franklin's coil resistance measurements to I
\/
b _r_..-,,-~ ~ , . - . . . , _ . . , _ - _ . - - , - , , . - - , - ..,,,.. ---, .m--..,--,-.--,...._,--,..,.-----.m.,__ _. .
')
%J the entry of water into the solenoid housing. As described above, the entry of water into the solenoid housing of an ASCO solenoid valve at VEGP would not affect its ability to perform its safety-related function. (WVC, HJQ) The solidified organic lubricant found by Franklin on the solenoid core assembly and the chlorine present on the cracked core spring strongly suggest that Franklin's test procedure permitted the introduction of contaminants into the valve. ASCO applies the lubricants used in model NP 8316 valves in relatively small quantities that could not account for the amount of solidified lubricant that was found by Franklin. The presence of solidified core lubricant has never been O . detected in any ASCO NP series solenoid valve either in the field or in a qualification test program. ASCO carefully controls the materials and manufacturing procedures used in the fabrication of the NP series solenoid valves to eliminate the possibility of halogen contamination and has not detected failure of a core spring similar to that observed by Franklin in any NP series valve either in the field or in a qualification testing program. Finally, ASCO has never observed the softening and flowing of the elastomeric material of the diaphragm found by Franklin with respect to the artificially aged NP 8316 valve (shown in Figure 17 of O
g 4 8 lv* NUREG/CR-3424) on any model Np 8316 valve either in the field or in any qualification test. We conclude, therefore, that the observed failure modes and the inability of the valve to operate beyond four days are attributable to the overly severe artificial aging process utilized by Franklin and the apparent introduction of contaminants into the valve during the testing. (WVC, HJQ) The failure of the naturally aged model NP 8316 valve in the Franklin program can also be attributed to differences in the testing procedures used in the joint Westinghouse /ASCO testing program and the Franklin tests. The targeted peak temperatures during the LOCA/ MSLB simulations in both testing programs was O~' 420*F. The actual temperature peaks reached in the Westinghouse /ASCO tests for the two transients were 440*F and 450*F. For the two transients in the Franklin LOCA/MSLB simulation, the temperature peaked at 450*F and 466*F. More importantly, thermocouple data from the test chamber in the Franklin test indicate that the surface temperature of the naturally aged model Np 8316 valve, which would lag behind the test chamber temperature, reached 410*F, substantially higher than the 350*F to 360*F temperatures reached by any other valve in the test chamber that had a thermocouple either inside its coil enclosure or taped to its body, including the other model
i e.* . NP 8316 valve. The substantial difference in the temperatures reached by the two NP 8316 valves indicates that the mass flow rate and velocity of steam at each valve was different and that the valves in the test were not exposed to uniform conditions. When the valve reaches a temperature or 410*F, the elastomers in the valve are well above their damage threshold and would degrade rapidly. (WVC) Based upon the NRC Staff's. evaluation of the Franklin test results, however, Westinghouse has modified the generic composite LOCA/MSLB temperature and pressure profile to which it considers the model NP 3316 valve to be qualified by reducing the peak temperature during each O transient to 400*F. A thermal lag analysis performed by Westinghouse for the model NP 8316 valve, which analysis determines the temperature reached by the valve itself, hq,s.shown that upon exposure to the conditions shown in the modified Westinghouse LOCA/MSLB profile, the maximum temperature that would be reached by that valve under LOCA/MSLB conditions would be 345'F. That temperature is below the maximum temperature of 346*F that was reached by the model NP 8316 valve in the qualification testing program performed by Isomedix, Inc. As the NRC Staff concluded in IE Information Notice Nos. 84-23 and 85-08, the results of the earlier Isomedix testing program have O _ -.________________________________1-___________-. -----_________________________________________j
A (_/' not been' called into question by the valve failures experienced in the Franklin tests under significantly more severe environmental conditions.
- 2. The Model NP 8320 Valves.
(WVC, HJQ) The model NP 8320 valve tested by Franklin was artificially aged. While the valve could be operated
'throughout the test sequence, in the functional testing after the conclusion of the LOCA/MSLB simulation it had ,
seat leakage " greater than 100 (SCFH}" at 150 psig. The model NP 8320 valve had not exhibited any seat leakage prior to that point, including during the LOCA/MSLB simulation. As discussed above and as concluded by the NRC Staff in IE Information Notice Nos. 84-23 and 85-08, I O the resul'ts obtained by Franklin do not call into question the qualification of the model NP 8320 valve to the conditions to which it was tested in the Westinghouse / ASCO testing program because of the excessively severe artificial aging process used by Franklin, which process imposed stresses on the artifically aged valves, particularly on their elastomeric parts, to which those valves would not be subject in normal operation.
- 3. The Model NP 8321 Valves.
(WVC, HJQ) The seat leakage encountered by the . Franklin with the artifically aged model NP 8321 valve that it tested does not call into question tne environmental qualification of that model valve for use at VEGP. As discussed above, the excessive severity of the artificial aging process employed by Franklin, which Franklin itself
' .7"T L.)
acknowledged was inappropriate, was a primary cause of the NP 8321 valve's performance in the Franklin tests. Because Franklin's test conditionc were not representative of conditions the NP 8321 valve might experience in a nuclear facility such as VEGP, Franklin's test results have no applicability to and cast no doubt upon the environmental qualification of the model NP 8321 valve for use at VEGP. E. The ASCO Solenoid valves Used in Safety-Related Applications at VEGP Are Environmentally Qualified for Use In the Environmental Conditions to Which They Might Be Exposed at VEGP.
- 1. The Environmental Conditions at VEGP.
(a) Inside Containment. O (SJC) The maximum environmental extremes to which the ASCO solenoid valves located inside containment might be subject under accident conditions at VEGP are (a) a peak temperature of 400*F, (b) pressure of 50 psig, (c) radiation of 200 megarads total integrated dose, and (d) a chemical spray of 2000 ppm boron buf fered with sodium hydroxide to a short term pH (less than 100 minutes) of 10.5 and a long term pH (more than 100 minutes from the beginning of the LOCA) of 8.5. (SJC) The adverse temperature conditions to which ASCO solenoid valves located inside containment at VEGP must be qualified are profiled in Figure 10.5-6. That profile (3 L.) represents a composite of the conditions resulting from a LOCA and MSLB. Because it is a composite of several different design basis events, that profile reflects conditions that are significantly worse than the conditions that would result from any single design basis event. Inherent in this profile are the following margins (difference between specified qualification value and , calculated value): for peak-temperature, in excess ,of 40*F; for peak pressure, in excess of 15%; and for radiation, in excess of 20%. (b) gutside Containment (Except the MSIV Areas). (SJC) Most 3f the rooms outside containment are subject to mild environmental conditions even following postulated design basis accidents. Those rooms that do experience harsh environments experience conditions significantly less severe than those existing inside
, containment. For example, the harshest environment that would be experienced under accident conditions by ASCO solenoid valves outside containment, except in the main steam isolation valve ("MSIV") area, is a peak temperature of 250*F, a peak pressure of 3.5 psig, and radiation of 100 megarads total integrated dose.
(c) MSIV Areas. (SJC) The most severe temperature and pressure conditions to which safety-related ASCO 'olenoid s valves located outside 51-
a ,*. .t containment might be exposed would occur.in the MSIV areas. The conditions to which Bechtel has required safety-related equipment located in the MSIV areas outside containment to be qualified are a peak temperature of 320*F, a peak pressure of 15 psig, and radiation of 50 megarads total integrated dose. Figure 10.5-7 profiles the extreme temperatures to which Bechtel required safety-related equipment in the .vSIV areas outside containment to be qualified. Bechtel has recently determined, however, that under certain accident conditions the peak temperature in the MSIV areas outside containment could exceed 320*F. (SJC) In late December 1985, analyses performed for the MSIV areas at VEGP indicated that the temperature conditions shown on Figure 10.5-7 could be exceeded under certain conditions in the MSIV areas in the event of a steam line break outside of containment that resulted in a steam generator tube bundle being uncovered, causing superheated steam to be released. Prior analyses did not consider that superheated steam could be discharged from the steam generator following.a steam line rupture. On December 7, 1984, the NRC issued IE Information Notice 84-90, " Main Steam Line Break Effect on Environmental Qualification of Equipment" to notify pressurized water reactor plants of this issue. Resolution of the superheat
O (V issue has been identified by the NRC Staff as a confirmatory item in the Safety Evaluation Report issued for VEGP in mid 1985. (SJC) VEGP has participated in the Westinghouse Owners Group ("WOG") sub group addressing the issue of superheated steam mass and energy releases outside containment. This was a generic program to assess mass and energy teleases from steam line, breaks outside containment. The 23 represented plants were divided into 6 categories based on system size, number of reactor coolant loops, rated NSSS power, and steam line break protection system design. The assumptions used in the mass and energy release analysis were chosen to envelope all plants in a given category. VEGP Units 1 and 2 were grouped together with 9 other units. (SJC) The WOG sub group provided the Applicants with mass and energy release data on October 25, 1985. Using that data, Bechtel then over a two month period calculated time dependent temperature profiles for all possible accident conditions in the MSIV areas. In some cases, these temperature profiles exceeded the temperature profile of 320*F that had been determined for qualification of equipment in the MSIV areas. (SJC, WVC) Two models of ASCO solenoid valves, the Hp 8320 and NP 8321 valves, are located in the MSIV areas O
A and would have to function following a main steam line break. A thermal lag analysis performed by Westinghouse demonstrates that for the worst case determined based upon the temperature profiles calculated by Bechtel using the generic mass and energy release data developed by the WOG sub gropp, the temperature reached by the NP 8320 and NP 8321 valves in the MSIV areas will not exceed 332*F. This is well within tha Iscmedix test envelope oc 346*F. (SJC) The WOG sub group generic mass and energy releases are believed to be conservative for VEGP. Therefore, a VEGP specific analysis is being performed and is scheduled to be completed later this year. A submittal to the NRC is presently scheduled for July 1986. n'
'- 2. The Model NP 8316 Valve Is Environmentally Qualified for Use at VEGP.
(SJC, WVC, HJQ) The model NP 8316 ASCO solenoid valve is used in safety-related applications at VEGP both inside and outside containment. One NP 8316 valve is located in the MSIV area outside containment. It, however, performs no safety-related function for any steam line or feed line break in the MSIV area. The model Np 8316 valve has been 1 shown to be environmentally qualified for use at VEGP either inside or outside containment by both the Westinghouse /ASCO and Isomedix qualification testing programs as supplemented by a thermal lag analysis
\./
n
/O %.)
performed by Westinghouse. Because of the NRC Staff's evaluation of the Franklin test results, Westinghouse has modified the generic composite LOCA/MSLB temperature and pressure profile to which it considers the model NP 8316 valve to be qualified as a result of the joint f Westinghouse /ASCO testing program by reducing the peak l temperature during each transient to 100*F. The thermal t j laganalysisperformedbyWestinghouseforthemodek l NP 8316 ASCO solenoid valve demonstrated that for the modified Westinghouse LOCA/MSLB profile with a peak temperature of 400*F, the maximum temperature that would be reached by that valve under LOCA/MSLB conditions would be 345'F. That temperature is below the maximum temperature of 346*F that was reached by the model NP 8316 valve under the Isomedix testing program, which has been accepted by the NRC Staff. (SJC, WVC, HJQ) The temperature conditions to which ASCO solenoid valves located inside containment at VEGP must be environmentally qualified are these conditions l profiled in Figure 10.5-6. As shown by that figure, the peak temperature of 400*F (which includes a margin in excess of 40*F) would have a duration of three minutes. The temperature conditions reflected in Figure 10.5-6 are l enveloped by the conditions profiled in Westinghouse's ( l modified generic LOCA/MSLB profile described above. - () ! -ss-l
Therefore, the peak temperature that would be reached by a model NP 8316 solenoid valve inside containment at VEGP in the event of a design basis event would not exceed the temperature reached by that valve in the Isomedix test.
- 3. The Model NP 8321 Valve Is Environmentally Qualified for Use at VEGP.
I i (SJC, WVC, HJQ) The model NP 8321 ASCO solenoid val've l is used in safety-related applications at VEGP only in l areas outside containment, including the MSIV areas. The l l environmental qualification of the model NP 8321 valve for l use et VEGP has been demonstrated by the qualification f , , testing programs conducted by Isomedix and Westinghouse / l l l () ASCO, as supplemented by a thermal lag analysis completed l by Westinghouse. l (WVC, HJQ) For all safety-related applications of the NP 8321 valve, the most extreme pressure and radiation ( conditions to which that valte might be exposed are easily enveloped by the conditions to which that model valve was tested in the Isomedix testing program. The most extreme temperatures to which the NP 8321 valves might be exposed I at VEGP would occur in the MSIV areas as a result of ; superheat conditions following a main steam line break. ! For those model NP 8321 valves located in the MSIV areas i at VEGP, Westinghouse has performed a thermal Lag analysis i
/m
)
using the temperature profiles generated by Bechtel from the WOG's generic mass and energy release data. That analysis demonstrates that under the worst case conditions, the temperature of the model NP 8321 valves located in the MSIV areas would not exceed 332*F, which is significantly below the 346*F temperatures to which those valves were qualified in the Isomedix tests. That thermal lag analysis for the model NP 8321 valve was performed using the same methodology used in the thermal lag analysis done for the model NP 8316 valve inside containment described previously. (WVC, HJQ) Further evidence of the environmental S qualification of the NP 8321 valve for use at VEGP was
) provided by the joint Westinghouse /ASCO testing program.
Although the test valve representative of the model NP 8321 valve failed during the HELB environmental testing in the joint ASCO/ Westinghouse qualification program, that f ailure did not occur until twelve days into the test sequence, a period which simulated in excess of a year of post-accident operation at VEGP.
- 4. The NP 8320 Valve Is Environmentally Qualified for Use at VEGP.
(SJC, WVC, HJQ) The model NP 8320 ASCO solenoid valve is used to perform safety-related functions both inside and outside containment, including the MSIV areas. The O v f
\ !
model NP 8320 solenoid valve has been shown to be qualified for use in the environmental conditions to which it might be exposed at VEGP by the joint Westinghouse /ASCO testing program and the Isomedix testing program. The conditions to which that model valve was tested in the Westinghouse /ASCO program exceeded the most severe conditions to which that valve might be subjected at VEGP inside containment or outside containment in areas other than the MSIV areas. For those model NP 8320 valves located in the MSIV areas outside containment, the thermal lag analysis performed by Westinghouse for model NP 8321 solenoid valves located in the MSIV areas establishes that the temperature of the ASCO solenoid valves in that area
'- will not exceed 332'F, which is significantly less than the temperature of 346'T to which those valves were exposed for three hours in the Isomedix tests. The model NP 8320 valve is similar in weight and has less surface area than the model NP'8321 valve. Therefore, its thermal response would be such that it would not reach a peak temperature greater than the peak temperature of 332*F that the thermal lag analysis demonstrated might be reached by the model NP 8321 valve in the MSIV areas upon exposure to main steam line break conditions.
- 5. The Model 206-381-6RF Valve Is Environmentally Qualified for Use at VEGP, (qj (SJC, WVC, HJQ) The environmental qualification of the model 206-381-6RF ASCO solenoid valve has been m- - - . _ - - - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ -- - - _ _
. :. n .
Y \ demonstrated by the joint Westinghouse /ASCO qualification testing program and the Isomedix testing program. No model 206-381-6RF solenoid valves are used inside containment or in the MSIV areas at VEGP. All of these valves are located inside the auxiliary building and are subject to a peak temperature of less than 250*F. i Therefore, ASCO solenoid valve model 206-381-6RF is qualified for use in its safety-related applications at VEGP. III. The ASCO Solenoid Valves Will perform as Intended at VEGP. (GJB, SJC) As discussed ekove, the ASCO solenoid valves used in safety-relate 2 applications at VEGP are all O of the normally closed design. This means that when the ASCO solenoid valve is de-energized, the pressure chamber in the air operator of the associated process valve or damper is vented to the atmosphere and the passage of instrument air to the air-operated valve or damper is blocked. Thus, the systems in which ASCO solenoid valves are used at VEGP are designed so that for the most likely failure, loss of power, the ASCO solenoid valve will assume a position that will vent the associated air-operated valve or damper, causing it to assume its safety-related position. The same result would occur upon a loss of instrument air. , O
p' ( / (GJB, SJC) The possibility of a random failure of an ASCO solenoid valve at VEGP that might result in the associated air-operated valve or damper not assuming its safe position cannot be eliminated completely. For example, as discussed previously, a gross leak of instrument air across the solenoid valve seat that , exceeded the exhaust capacity of the valve's exhaust port could prevent the associated air-operated valve or damper from attaining its safety-related position. As discussed below, however, VEGP systems are designed so that no single failure of an ASCO solenoid valve would jeopardize safe plant operation, and the environmental qualification g3 testing performed on the ASCO solenoid valves provides
' 'i assurance that common mode failures of those valves will not occur.
A. The Failure of a Single ASCO Solenoid Valve Cannot Jeopardize Safe Operation of VEGP. (SJC) A fundamental philosophy incorporated into the design of VEGp safety-related fluid and HVAC systems ia. the ability to perform safety-related functions even with the postulated occurrence of the most limiting single failure and associated consequential failures. Consistent with this design philosophy, the applications of ASCO solenoid valves in the safety-related fluid and HVAC systems at VEGP are such that the failure of a single ASCO O\_;
- - - - - - -------_._--_--______w
A V solenoid valve will not prevent the affected system from performing its safety-related function. (SJC) At VEGP, ASCO solenoid valves are used to effect the repositioning of air-operated valves and dampers. With the exception of the HVAC dampers in the diesel generator building and auxiliary feedwater pumphouse, the. safety-related air-operated valves and dampers controlled by ASCO solenoid valves are designed to shut when the air-operator is vented, causing isolation or termination of a non-essential flow path. Figures 10.5-4 and 10.5-5 provide schematic representations of the seven basic configurations of process valves or dampers and associated ASCO solenoid valves utilized at VEGP. Figure 10.5-4 depicts containment isolation configurations,.and 1 Figure 10.5-5 depicts other isolation schemes. (SJC) As shown in Figure 10.5-4, the failure of any single ASCO solenoid valve, or any single air-operated valve, does not cause loss of containment isolation because of the independent, redundant means of isolating each line by air-operated valve, check valve, or i motor-operated valve. Similarly, schematics A and B in Figure 10.5-5 show configurations that ensure isolation occurs even with the postulated failure of any single ASCO solenoid valve or air-operated valve. In schematic C of Figure 10.5-5, only one air-operated valve is available to
isolate the flow path; however, the air-operator of that valve is vented by.at least two ASCO solenoid valves in series, each receiving an independent, redundant safety signal, thereby accommodating the failure of any single ASCO solenoid valve without loss of isolation function. The final configuration shown on Figure 10.5-5 depicts one air-operated process valve with a single ASCO solenoid valve. This configuration is used in seven locations:
- Nuclear Service Cooling Water ("NSCW") Basin A Blowdown Isolation Valve NSCW Basin B Blowdown Isolation Valve
- Domineralized Water Supply to Reactor Make Up Water Storage Tank Isolation Valve.
- Domineralized Water Supply to Condensate Storage
()
- Tank (" CST") 1 Isolation Valve.
Domineralized Water Supply to CST 2 Isolation valve.
- CST 1 to Degassifier Feedpump Suction Isolation Valve. *
- CST 2 to Degassifier Feedpump Suction Isolation Valve.
Single failure analyaes performed by Bechtel for each of these systems show that loss of the isolation function of any one of these valves does not adversely impact the safety of the plant. (SJC) The HVAC systems in the diesel generator building and auxiliary feedwater pumphouse utill:e ASCO solenoid valves to reposition the associated dampers to O
.o , -
I \ (G') provide necessary ventilation and air conditioning for t proper operation of the diesel generators and the turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump. The diesel generator . ! building houses two completely independent and redundant diesel generators and support systems, including HVAC systems, for each unit of VEGP. The HVAC dampers and associated ASCO solenoid valves servicing the train A diesel for each unit are duplicated by identical and independent dampers and ASCO solenoid valves for the train B diesel. The single failure of any ASCO solenoid valve or HVAC damper will not prevent at least one train of the , emergency onsite power supply from functioning properly. The auxiliary feedwater pumphouse houses two motor driven i pumps and one turbine driven pump, each in an indepetdent l pumproom. Only the dampers servicing the turbine driven j pump rely on ASCO solenoid valves for repositioning. Because each motor driven pump is designed to supply 100% of the auxiliary feedwater flow necessary for accident i , l mitigation and safe shutdown, the failure of the ASCO l solenoid valve and consequential loss of the turbine driven pump does not adversely impact the safety of the i plant. i ! (SJC) The use of ASCO solenoid valves at VEGP to I l effect the repositioning of air-operated valves and dampers to desired safety-related positions therefore l l -43 i
.r. e .- /~ ~
complies with the General Design Criteria set out in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A. The configurations of air-operated valves or dampers and ASCO solenoid valves at VEGP either preclude loss of function due to a single failure or have been analyzed to show that the single failure does not adversely impact the safety of the plant. Thus, the ability of the safety-related systems at VEGP that include ASCO solenoid valves to perform their safety function will not be affected by any type of random failure of an ASCO solenoid valve. B. The Environmental Qualification Testing performed on the ASCO Solenoid Valver Used l at VEGP Establishes That Those Valves Will Not Be Subject to Common Mode Failures as a () Result of Adverse Environmental Conditions (SJC, HJQ) In accordance with General Design Criterion 4, and as committed to by the Applicants in Sections 3.1 and 3.11 of the Final Safety Analysis Report for VEGP, safety-related structures, systems, and components used in safety-related applications at VEGP, including ASCO solenoid valves, are designed to accommodate the effects of and.to be compatible with I the environmental conditions associated with normal operation, maintenance, testing, and postulated accidents, including loss-of-coolant accidents. Because the four models of ASCO 1 l solenoid valves used at VEGP have been qualified for the worst l l environmental conditions in which they must perform their [ t t f\ l ) }
%J
r~N, L) safety-related function, common mode failure of ASCO solenoid valves at VEGP resulting from exposure to the harsh conditions associated with the occurrence of a design basis event need not be postulated in addition to l an arbitrary, random single failure. l C. Preoperational Testing and the VEGP Maintenance and Surveillance Program Provide Additional l Assurance That the ASCO Solenoid Valves Will l Perform as I~ tended. (GB) The ASCO solenoid valves used in safety-related l applications at VEGP will be functionally tested af ter l l installation during the preoperational testing program. l That testing will verify that the ASCO solenoid valves I control the flow of instrument air to the associated (' i l process valves and that the performance parameters of the l - process valves are within acceptable limits. l (GB) Prior to fuel loading at Unit 1, Applicants will implement a Maintenance and Surveillance Program following l the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2. j Applicants' commitment to Regulatory Guide 1.33 is set !' forth in section 1.9.33 of the FSAR. Applicants' l Maintenance and Surveillance Program is described in section 4.2 of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 1, l " Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Equipment Located in a Harsh Environment" (September 1985), and in FSAR response to NRC Staff question Q271.1 (Sept. 6, 1983), n l l l l
A L) (GB) Planned Maintenance and Surveillance is a progran that schedules equipment maintenance, calibration, and surveillance activities. Its purpose is to maintain equipment in a condition safe for operation, minimize unplanned outages due to breakdown, and provide a mechanism by which greater than anticipated degradation of safety-related equipment can be detected and remedied. < The program is being developed using personnel experienced in the area of maintenance and surveillance of electrical, mechanical, and instrumentation and controls equipment. (GB) Under the program, a planned maintenance and surveillance checklist is prepared for each piece of safety-related equipment and identifies the maintenance and surveillance tasks to be performed. If the task requires removing components for internal inspection, an equipment-specific procedure is referenced describing how the removal and inspection is to be performed. If the task only requires visual inspection of the outer areas of the equipment, it is described on the checklist. The content of the program is derived from the following sources: Manufacturer / Vendor recommendations Lubrication requirements Calibration requirements Field verification of equiprent descriptions 3 - Industry experience Qualification testing results ! l
-ff.
fl W'
. :. o. ,
(GB) The Planned Maintenance and Surveillance Program I requires that all safety-related ASCO solenoid valves be i l replaced prior to the expiration of their qualified life. The entire solenoid valve will be replaced at this time, t once removed from service, the solenoid valve will be inspected for degradation. l l (GB) In addition to that required by the Planned r Maintenance and Surveillance checklists, surveillance and l operability testing will be performed on safety-related process valves under the VEGP Inservice Testing Program. The Inservice Testing is conducted in accordance with ASME Section XI. Under the Inservice Testing Program, all 1 l safety-related active valves required by ASME Section XI i ' t' are tested on a regular basis. The process valve testing l i includes determination of leak rates for isolation valves, stroke times, fail safe verification, and position l ! indication verification.. The ASCO solenoid valves must l function correctly to regulate the air flow to the air l operator of the process valve for the process valve to l l pass these tests. The information from the Inservice l Testing Program will be trended so that degradation can be predicted and planned maintenance intervals can be adjusted. (GB) When required, corrective maintenance will be l performed to assure satisfactory equipment operability. l O
i Ob+ Such corrective maintenance will become part of an equipment. history file. Proper documentation of corrective maintenance actions will highlight recurring situations in.similar equipment and will provide data to ica.ntify component past performance trends. Furthermore, equipment or component failures detected in other nuclear power plants will be available to VEGP through Industry Event Reports, NRC IE Bulletins, Information Notices, Letters, Directives, and Manufacturers' Information Notices. VEGP will review these reports to determine their applicability and will modify its maintenance and surveillance. program accordingly. (GB) Because it provides a mechanism by which valve performance can be monitored 'and greater than anticipated degradation of safety-related equipment can be detected and remedied, the Planned Maintenance and Surveillance Program provides additional assurance that the ASCO solenoid valves used in safety-related applications at VEGP will perform as intended. IV. Conclusion. (All) For the reasons stated above, we are confident that the model NP 8316, NP 8320, NP 8321, and 206-381-6RT l valves used in safety-related functions at VEGP are l l environmentally qualified for use at VEGP. 9 i i i l
' I u-___._____ _ -___ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ _ . _ _ _ -
. ;. o EXHIBIT "A" b
x/ GEORGE BAENTELI 5/85 EDUCATION BSME Illinois Institute of Technology 1900 plus various graduate courses in Nuclear Engineering, Hydraulics and
- Management 1900 through 1978
SUMMARY
8 Years Staff Specialist in Instrumentation and Controls engaged in all facets of valve specification, application, installation, evaluation of operational performance, inter project coordination of problem solving and
- personnel training. .
2 Years Gupervising Startup of a 030 MWe PWR involved with supervision, coordination, planning, scheduling and system evaluation. 15 Years Held positions of increasing technical and I managerial responsibility in conpanies supply-ing valves and other components to the power industry. EXPERIENCE Mr. Baenteli is currently a Staff Specialist in the Instrument and Controls Group. He is active in conduct-x ing trainin6 courses for the benefit of project person-nel, identification and resolution of problen valve applications, interdiscipline coordination of problem resolution associated with critical and severe service valves, valve selection for system optinization, formula-tion of design standards and specifications and trouble chooting of field problems. prior to this assignment Mr. Baenteli was Bechtol's Assistant Project Startup En61neer on the Lenoniz ! project consisting of 2 030 MWe Westin6 house 3-loop pWR's located in Spain. In this position he was responsi-ble for management of the Startup effort, commissioning of the plant systems and evaluation of system performance. Technical evaluations were performed on critical plant components such as circulating water pumps and cire water valves, cooling systems, MSIV's, atmospheric and condenser dump valves, pump recirculation valves, and other final control elements. Before joining Bechtel Mr. Baenteli held a series of technical and managerial positions of increasing responsi- , bility including: 4 years as Staff Specialist in the electro-mechanical group of General Atomic. His duties
- included system optimization, valve selection and upgradinC of systems operated in support of the HTCR.
(~' Two Years advisor to the general manager of a valve ( company supplyinC components to the power industry. Two Years engineer nana6er and chief engineer of a valve and l
~i GEORGE BAENTELI (Continued) filter company supplying components to the power industry.
Five Years in application, design, fabrication and test of severe service valves and control systems as a Sr. Development engineer. Seven Years in development and testing of liquid metals valves and components to be,used in a liquid metal cooled breeder reactor. Mr. Baenteli's vast background and practical experience
> in' water, gas and liquid metal cooled reactors gives l' him a vast insite into hardware selection and system optimization.
PROFESSIO!!AL AFFILIATIO!!S t ,
< Registered professional EnCineer, State of California i
s 3 1 4 a I l 1
)
~
0 - I r
,s o EXHIBIT "B" -s b VEGP-FSAR-13 TABLE 13.1.2-1 (SHEET 1 OF 70)
RESUMES OF ONSITE SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL George Bockhold, Jr., general manager - nuclear operations Date of Birth: August 31, 1944 Educational Background U.S. Naval Academy, 1966 B.S., power plant engineering Work Experience Nuclear, Georgia Power Company Position: General manager, nuclear operations Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Dates: April 1983 to present Location: Plant Vogtle ,, Plant Status: Construction and startup ('] k-Job
Description:
Manager of the startup and operation of two 1160-MWe Westinghouse nuclear units. Responsibilities include staffing an organization of over 900 technical and support personnel including contractors, directing the initial plant test program, and safely and efficiently managing the operation and maintenance of these units. These responsibilities include utility assets of 7.2 billion dollars. Position: Manager, nuclear training Dates: 1981-1983 Location: Atlanta Job
Description:
Managed the initial startup and operation of two Georgia Power Company training centers. Cirected the growth of nuclear training to put n serrace 10 million dollars of training equipment including a staff change from seven to seventy employees. Training responsibilities included simulator, health physics, maintenance, technician, and general employee training. The training plans were designed to exceed INPO accreditation and NRC requirements (~)S N._ and provide Georgia Power Company with the most professional operations and Amend. 16 4/85
.s. , .-
q
~
VEGP-ESAR-13 TABLE 13.1.2-1 (SHEET 2 OF 70) maintenance personnel for their nuclear plants. Position: Vice president, General Physics Corporation Dates: 1976 - 1981 Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee Job
Description:
Vice President of the Chattanooga
- division responsible for managing and coordinating company efforts in the areas of simulator training, simulator procurement, operator perfvrmance research, computer products, and onsite support of utilitie startup, maintenance, and operation of power plants. Both the nuclear and fossil Chattanooga groups reported to him. He supervised the Chattanooga division's growth from six to one hundred employees. The Chattanooga division was involved with capital projects worth
(~') k' more than 60 million dollars. He also was the project manager of the following company projects: le Limerick Simulator Managed the procurement of a multimillion dollar training center which included a boiling water reactor simulator for Philadelphia Electric's Limerick Station. Responsibiitties included specification preparation and negotiation with the simulator vendor to obtain fidelity of simulation, flexibility in the computer system, and a training simulator which exceeded ::EC requirements and pr=vided ex ellen-
.manipulaticn training during all medes of plant operation.
E, P R I Simulator Performance Measurement System Directed a research project which utilizes the simulator computer system to collect data and objectively evaluate (~)) (_ cperator performance. Directed the efforts of the system project group and several project participants who have i expertise associated with selection Amend. 16 4/85 l~ \
.: o ..
(~h
\/ VEGP-FSAR-13 TABLE 13.1.2-1 (SHEET 3 OF 70) testing, human factors engineering, and mathematical reliability modeling. This project included both nuclear and fossil simulators.
As director of operations services and manager, training center services, he managed activities associated with on-site support of power plant startup, operations, and maintenance. He directed General Physics' use of Browns Ferry and Sequoyah Power Plant Simulators at the Tennessee Valley Authority Powar Production Training Center. Responsibilities included the supervision of the simulator training staff and NRC licensing and requalification programs. He was the supervisor of experienced instructors. Directed the preparation of and developed BWR and PWR simulator courses () and course materials. During this period, he performed detailed investigation of Browns Ferry and l' Sequoyah Plant design, construction, and operation to develop control room procedural materials. Con Edison, New York - Indian Point Station, New York Position: Nuclear training director Dates: 1975-1976 Job
Description:
Responsible for all Indian Point training; responsibilities ranged from general employee training to licensed operator training and job performance evaluation. Supervisor of licensed instructors and director of the .uclear simulator: simulator responsit;'_;;;es included direction of maintenance personnel to maintain and upgrade system hardware and software, and supervision of simulator training, MRC licensing and certification programs. Further responsibilities included the review and pretesting of Unit No. 3 startup . procedures. Position: Nuclear simulator director
/~)h \- Dates: 1973-1975 Job
Description:
Manager of the simulator project; responsible for the coordination of Amend. 16 4/85
. :. o.
VEGP-FSAR-13 TABLE 13.1.2-1 (SHEET 4 OF 70) activities between the contractor, the NRC, and Con Edison's departments. Interface included programs to produce fidelity of simulation and NRC demonstration and certification. Preparation for responsibilities required both formal and informal training associated with computer technology. Director of training for licensed operators and operator candidates utilizing the simulator facility; responsibilities included supervision of instructors, programmers, and maintenance personnel. Instructed and directed Unit No. 3 startup crew simulator training to achieve operator licensing on both Units No. 2 and 3. Position: Production engineer Dates: 1971-1974 Job
Description:
Various maintenance and operations f^#')
'- responsibilities for Indian Point Units. Specifically, special ,
responsibilities included: i
- 1. Licensed shift engineer responsibilities during Unit No. 2 startup to above 20 percent pcwer including unit testing.
- 2. Supervision of mechanics and operators during the refueling of Unit No. 2.
- 3. Maintenance supervision in high radiation areas during steam generator tube plugging cf Unit No. 1.
C'.her Experience and Training
. Position: Commissioned Naval Officer Dates: 1970-1971 Location: Various with United States Navy Job
Description:
U.S. Naval Nuclear Power School, Bainbridge, Maryland. Division Director (^] \_/ of Chemistry, Materials, and Radiological Fundamentals. Instructor of undergraduate college level courses in nuclear engineering systems. Responsibilities included supervision of Amend. 16 4/85
.t o 7
VEGP-FSAR-13 TABLE 13.1. 2-1 (SHEET 5 OF 70) instructors and preparation of course material. Dates: 1968-1970 Job
Description:
USS Simon Bolivar (SSBN 641), a Polaris nuclear powered submarine. Responsibilities included the following division officer billets - ship's damage control assistant, electrical and reactor control officer. All duties included direction of six to fifteen technicians on operation and maintenance of various equipment, (from air conditioning systems to reactor protection circuitry). Further responsibilities included implementation of a computer-orientated preventive maintenance system for shipboard equipment. Watchstanding duties included officer-of-the-deck (OOD) and engineering officer-of-the-watch {>3
~ (ECOW). The'ECOW is the senior watch officer who is responsible for the safe operation of the nuclear power plant, 1 including reactor safety, electrical power generation, and propulsion. The OOD reports directly to the commanding officer for the safe navigation and operation of the ship. ;
1 Dates: 1966-1968 Job
Description:
Navy-specialized training including l officer nuclear propulsion and submarine l
- schools. Qualified EOCW at naval ,
reactor's land-based nuclear power plant I in Windsor, Connecticut. l
, s. e .
1 O EXHIBIT "C" STEPHEN J. CEREGHINO EDUCATION: B.S., United States Naval Academy Naval Nuclear Power School
. Naval Nuclear Power Training Unic MBA, Business Administration, Whittier College
SUMMARY
- 7 Years: Bechtel engineering responsibilities in licensing and systems integration on the Vogtle project.
6 Years: Various training, operational and maintenance responsi-bilities associated with the. naval nuclear propulsion progr23. - i EXPERIENCE: Mr. Cereghino is Project Vogtle's Nuclear Group Supervisor. . In this capacity, he provides technical guidance and assistance in the licensing and design of Plant Vogtle. As licensing engineer, he coordinates the inter-discipline activities of project personnel and coordinates with the client, NSSS and NRC personnel to ensure consistent application of licensing O. coenitments. Mr. Cereghino supervises the administration of the NSSS contract, including such activities as: NSSS vendor data review, evaluation of NSSS proposals, and coordination of A/E-NSSS interface activities. In the systems integration i area, Mr. Cereghino is responsible for the analytical evalua- i tion of potential plant hazards, such as: radiation, pressure, temperature, flooding, internal missiles and seismic inter-actions. Prior to joining Bechtel, Mr. Cereghino was an officer in the United States Navy. His shipboard engineering assignments were as Reactor Controls Officer and Main Propulsion Assistant. He routinely supervised the operation of the reactor plant during all modes of operation, and directed the chemistry control and radiation protection programs for ships company. Mr. Cereghino's last assignment with the Navy was as a Division Director at the Naval Nuclear Power School; as such, he coordinated the instruction of Reactor Principles to enlisted plant operators. Before leaving the Navy, Mr. Cereghino successfully qualified to assume the responsibilities of Chief Engineer of a naval nuclear pro-pulsion plant. PROFESSIONAL AEFII.IATIONS: Professional Registration: Mechanical Engineering, () State of California
. : ,s
- EXHIBIT "D" Summary of Professional Qualifications and Experience William V. Cesarski Senior Engineer Plant Engineering Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation My name is William V. Cesarski. My business address is Westinghouse Electric Corporation, R & D Center-Building 701, 1310 Beulah Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15235. I am employed by Westinghouse Electric Corporation (" Westinghouse")
as a Senior Engineer in the Equipment Technology Department
.of the Plant Engineering Division.
i I graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1964 with a Bachelor in Engineering Science degree. I was awarded an Atomic Energy Commission Graduate Fellowship while at West Point and used the AEC fellowship to obtain a Master
'of Science Degree in Nuclear Engineering from Massachusetts l Institute of Technology in 1966. In 1972 I also received
^ a Master of Science Degree in Industrial Management from New York University. After spending eight years in the U. S. Army, I joined Westinghouse in 1972 as an engineer in the Plant Apparatus Division. While working at WPAD, I , obtained experience in nuclear valve and refueling equipment design, testing and procurement for the Naval Nuclear Program. In.1981 I joined the Westinghouse Nuclear Equipment Division and have had lead engineer responsibility for the IEEE qualifi-cation testing of numerous NSSS valve and motor components. I have conducted numerous qualification test programs and authored numerous Westinghouse qualification test reports on components such as valve motor operators, valve limit switches, solenoid valves, valve position indication devices, pump motors and pump assemblies. I am presently a Senior Engineer and act as a lead engineer in the Equipment Qualification Technology Department of the Plant Engineering Division responsible for electro-mechanical equipment qualification. O
. - , , . - _ , . - _ . . , , _ , . , . _ _ . - _ _ , . - _ _ _ . . . , ,_ ..,,,._.- m m . - ,,., m ., _ , , , .._.___,m_.m___..~
1 f' EXHIBIT "E" O. !
==Eo'= 3. ou== v
, Education: 35. Electrical Engineering, Chicago Technical
- College -
Business Management Certificate, University of California, Berkeley Summary: -39 Years: Electrical engineering supervision in power plants and industrial and
. governmeat facilities
. Experience: Mr. Quasny is presently the Supervisor of the
. Equipment Environmental Qualification Group providing technical support for all of the ;
domestic and overseas nuclear power plants. ) Prior to this, he was a coordinator for the Chief ' Electrical Engineer for three nuclear and two fossil power plants and modifications to two existing power plants. Responsibilities included the technical and administrative coordination of the project and review of the discipline operations. Mr. Quasny was the Assistant Project Engineer and Electrical Engineering Supervisor on the 80-MW Hawaiian Wind Fara Project. Prior to this, he was on the electrical technical staff as senior technical representative of the Chief Electrical Engineer for various power plant projects. His responsibilities included solution of key technical areas on projects requiring multi-project overviews, including four nuclear and one fossil fuel projects. Previously Mr. Quasny was an Administrative Assistant to the Chief Electrical Engineer responsible for personnel and salary administration and also manager of the reliability engineering group. He had the project engineering responsibilities for the conceptual studies, master planning, final engineering design, and client assistance during the construction of a gas turbine assembly and test facilities of over 260,000 square feet. As Engineering Group Supervitor, Mr. Quasny was responsible for the enginee-inq and design of more than 10 types of f acili?ies, including the Mead Converter Station to con'rert high voltage AC to 750-v de for power transmitsion. He has been
. responsible for the engiceering design of high r' reliability power systems for rirports and i i
prepared a handbook on the engineering design of airport high reliability power systems. l 3299W
- - _ _ _ _ .. _. ,_ ..--,,.__,. _ _,_ --m ~...-m,.r_ m_,,,c-,7,_%vy,_,,-,.,%wy. . r y -_.,o. , - . , ,,_.,.w,,-,,
MAROLD J. QUASNY (continued) Prior to joining Bechtel, Mr. Quasny was associated with Aerojet-General, where he was Project Engineer on a high thrust nuclear rocket test facilities complex and high powered radar
,i facilities, including a diesel power plant in the i Pacific and various facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base. In addition, Mr. Quasny was a Lead Engineer responsible for various industrial and . government projects, including additions and modification at the Idaho Falls Complex.
Mr. Quasny was an Electrical Engineer for C. F. Braun active in the design of the multi-million dollar flying "A" refinery complex. At Harza Engineering, Mr. Quasny was an Assistant Project Engineer on an underground hydroelectric power plant for El Salvador. He also had engineering design responsibilities on hydroelectric power plants, transmission systems, and substations. Professional Affiliations: () Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Member, Electrical Maintenance Engineers Association Member Society of Military Engineers Member. Institute for the Advancement of Engineering i i l 4
- C) l l
l 3299W l
i CATALOG NO. NP-1 tAHIBIT r ( Asco,
,o FOR PILOT CONTROL OF 3AND4W DIAPHRAGM & CYLINDER OPERATEDVALVESUSEDIN S0 EN0IDR VES NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.
( d iij p i ara., f . e -- ,
- Fr eg;
"'c)M
$. E -t = ? _., d d!
- ' g; ., '
;,a w
? . - 4;,,~ PMj ij N
g
>$m +--_,,,m- - ~ -
g [
=
[ , O 9 c<ra, --. i ii o
& 5y
~
L':.5PL 2 Ia Ii'l Su . "M L. 2..29 m ! l l
~l I.
r , f. ,.p.e-rcc -m F._.
.. 2. e. . -
g's, r; l p yg ;g p,3ggg, ,,pp;}; ' [1 r Ar -. r... .c,..:/ -wy ..~.eAw- .:,;. , G> :4 El e
- r. ... .r O n . .
',b $jJ'U' l
I. '
, Et .ra s, es'.- 4 4 _. .
N Auiomatic Setth C o. s. . ... .. .. .... ..,. . . .., ,,,u
o U Auiomaitt Switch Co. always pioneering in the design and development of solenoid operated valves - resulting in a line of solenoid valves thatis recognized as the finest and most Ocmplete - anywhere in the world. * - - 1-
]r This catalog lists special designs of three and four-way solenoid valves which are used primarily as pilot valves .
d 1, f ndling oil free instrument air in nuclear power These valves are designed to meet the most stringent .. environmental conditions encountered in nuctear power h*-~ 2..2w - generating applications and have been cualified to meet the specifications of the following IEEE Standards: mented by independent outside testing facilities. IEEE-323 "lEEE Standard for Qualifying Class 1E Qualification consists of subjecting each valve to the fel-Ecuipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations." lowing tests as required by the above noted IEEE lEEE-382 "lEEE Trial-Use Guide for Type Test of Specifications: Class 1 Electrical Valve Operators for Nuclear Power A. Thermal Aging Generating Stations." 8. Radiation Aging IEEE-344 "tEEE Recommended Practices for Seis. C. Wear Aging mic Qualification of Class 1E Ecuipment for Nuclear D. Vibration Endurance Power Generating Stations.- E. Seismic Simulation F. Design Basis Event ASCO assures these requirements by maintaining an Loss-of-Coolant-Accident (LOCA) extensive In-House testing program which is supple- Environmental Simulation O All Valves Are Supplied With The Following Special Features: g
- 1. Class H coilinsulation. 4. Specially designed solenoid enclosures
- 2. Elastomers (gaskets, o' rings. discs) to to withstand Loss-of-Coolant-Accident meet radiation and high temperature (LOCA) environment.
degradation effects.
. 5. Modification to meet seismic loadings
- 3. El.imination of radiation and temperature affected materials. 6. Last-Chance Coarse Filter.
INDEX PAGE Engineering inf ormation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 & 4 3 Way Bulletins 206-380,206-381,206-832, 208-448, 208-26 6, 210-03 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5&6 3 Way Bulletin NP 8 31 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 & 8 3 Way Bulletin NP 8 3 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 & 10 3 Way Bulletin NP 8321 ............................................... 11 3 Way Bulletin NP 8323 ..... ......................................... 12 4 Way Bulletin NP 8 3 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 & 1 4 ( Asco's Broad Range of Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back Cover ( Asco Manufacturing and Sales organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8ack Cover g
l l
.o > ---
R. . _ o EngineeringInformation
$jg4 SOLENOID VALVES $
5f
&# Wh' dh :p ASCO three and four-way solenoid a diacnragm valve or single acting environmental concitions of lEEE S tc valves. designed and manufactured cylincer. They also may be usec to 382 LCCA(Lessof Cociant Accicent!
by the Automatic Switch Company of select or civert flow. Solenoid enc!csures are ceec-crawn Florham Park. New Jersey, are widely stel quic a witn a M rnreaceo con-used for pilot control of ciaphragm Four-WaY Solenoid Valves dust hub. and cylinder operated valves (and (Figs. 2A and 28) other acclications) used in nuclear Four-way solenoid valves are gener- netic cath: therefore, do not remove power plants. ally used to operate couble acting as tnis will affect valve oceration. Selection of the proper valve for a cylinders. These valves have four cice specific acclication is of paramount connections - one pressure, two cyl- .T hese enclosures meet the follcw-
'nder. and one exhaust. in solenoid enclosure importance. This engineenng infor-mation section desenbes three and four-way valve constructions, types of Ag.1 A Ag.18 Watertight Nema Tyce 4 and 4X. (sue-oceration. and coil information. n- r-., mersible) Nema Type 6. also meets Nema Type 3. 3S anc 12.
l- Principle of Operation A solenoid valve is a combination of ["f f"f'"
-- s Exclosion-proof Nema Type 7C anc O Water!!;nt Nema 4 anc 4X. sis:
meets Nema Tyce 3. 3S. 9E. 9F. 9G two basic functional units. (1) a sole-noid (electromagnet) with its plunger
* - * ^V and 12.
(or core);(2) a valve bocy containing an onfice in whicn a cisc or plug is
%,M
, IV. Solenoid Construction cosinoned to stop or allow flow. The on 4=xn =aerso internal carts in contact with the fluic valve is opened or closed by move. are mace of non-magnetic 300 anc ment of the magnetic plunger (or core) magnetic 400 Senes stainless steet
(_)' U whien is crawn into the scienoid when - In A-C constructions only. tne snacing the coil is energized. Ag. 2 A coilis normally coccer excect silver s ASCO solencic valves are of a cack- * " " " * *
- r menals are avaiiame wnen tess construction witn an enclosed ' '
solenoid mounted cirectly on the valve O a v s' bocy with the sciencid core attached FM , ) i j The core tube in ASCO valves is cf to the valve stem. The core is enclosed and free to move in a permanently V 4' dry' L. ~"*/ b v ==,.e. 305 stainless steel and formec by ceec sealed tuce inside the solenoid coil. ****Y" /' crawing, ehminanng silver crazec Or This construction crovices a compact. . ' _" welcea joints otherwise necessary. reak tignt assemety. witncut tne need of a stuffing box or socing stem seal. p '"**,?
>e
- V. Maximum Operating Pressure Differential Direct Acting Valve " ~ " (M.O.P.D.)
(Figs.1 A and 1 B) _ The maximum ocerating pressure cif-In a cirect acting. fully automatic valve. Ag. 28 ferential is the maximum cifferential the solenoic core is mecnanically con- , wessa cetween me Wet anc me
! oudet sices d a vaw against .vne nected to the valve disc and cirec*1y ocens or closes tne enfice, decenc.
' fxL m wence can safew xerate q,e ing ucon wnetner tne scienoid is ener- !aue. ms is *em m as u C p s 1 O-r._ 3T- t -r i nis messm may be mucn less man gizec or de-energized. Cceration is not cecencent uoen kne pressure or j[',- g g/! .
me safe woning messure VI. Minimum Operating rate of tiow. anc valve wiii ocerate from zero PSI to its maximum rated F T6 Pressure Differential 1 ~ The minimum coerating cressure ::f. e
- II. Types of Solenoid Valves ierential is !ne lowest :cerating cressure differential recuirec 'cr :e-Three-Way Solenoid Valves m'"""" cencacie oceration cer !nree anc (Figs.1 A and 18) four-way cilot valves. !ne ~inin um
( ) Three-way solenoid valves nave three ocerating cressure must ce m ain. V cice connections and two crihees f one Ill. Solenoid Enclosure tained tnrougneur tne coeranng cyc:e enfice is always coen and one is al- All valves hsted in the catalog are suo. to insure comclete transter frcm One ways closed) These valves are com- clied witn either watertignt or ccm. Oosition to the cther monly used to alternately acoly bination excicsson oroof watertignt Note: Direct acting vaives o nct re-cressure to and exnaust pressure from sciencia enclosures to withstand the cuire a minimum cressure. 3
Vll. Safe Working Pressure in accordance with Underwriters The current rating for the "inrusn ' and Oh Line or system working cressure to haboratones. NEMA. AIEE. and otner industry standards. The coil insulation "hciding ' may be determined by civid-U which the valve may be safely sub-
' h i n ns ing the voltage into tne voit-am o ranng.
jected. The proof pressures for any AMPS valve is five times the safe working 3hown below' (INRUSH) , velf amo 'inrusn ' voltage pressure. Coil Operating Vill. Ambient Temperature Voltage Ranges 4yp3 , veit.amo noicing Limitations All coils are designed for industrial (HOLDING) vcitage operating voltages and can be usted Minimum Ambient Temperature on the following voltage ranges: The nominal limitation of 32*f* is Valves sucolied for D-C service nave advisable for any valve. The actual no " inrush ' current as in the case of minimum ambient temperature " ' " A-C service. The amo ranng can be permissible can be greatly affected. ,,,,,, o","'",",,, f,".$ , o%".",,, determined by dividing the voltage by both application and valve ne n.a. n. saae into the D-C watt rating. construction. 24 22 24 6 5143 AMPS = watts (D-C; Maximum AmbientTemperature 12 to 212.6 The nominal maximum ambient tem-m H0120 24 20-25 peratures listed are based primanly 240 220-240 125 90 140 Note:(1) When a valve nas been ener-
.on test conditions used by Under; 480 440 4:0 250 180-230 gized for a long penod the solencid writers' Laboratones in determining enclosure becomes hot and cannoe ::e safe limits for CCil insulation. They are touched by hand except fer an instant determined under continuously ener. All ASCOvalvesare tested to operate This is a perfectly safe operating tem-gized conditions and with maximum at 1 $i, under the nominal voltage and perature. Any excessive heating will fluid temperatures existing in the a' maximum operating pressure dif- be indicated by the smcking and ourn-valve. In many acolications, tne spect- ferenhal aM *are cac$e d WaW ing odor of the coilinsulatICn om nal vol ge For w er voit e (2) Valves for A-C service c n be con-at ns etably her ent te ceratures. In addition, modifications ranges than snown above. a different verted er use on otner - voltages coil or insulation system must be used. simoly by enanging the coil; similarly.
to standard constructions are also D-C valves can be converted for cther available, wnich can extend the maxs- 0-C voltages. When converting from n mum ambient temoerature limitation Power Consumption A-C to D-C orvice versa. consult ASCO (v; to 180 F or more. Consult Factory with your specific needs, Power consumption of scienoid vaines may be determined from the rating in for instructions. c so IX. Solenoid Coils ASCO bulletins. For valves on A-C ,,oy,asjgrlo gg. ASCO valves listed in this catalog are see. p wan ranng, m e ,,,,, ecuipped with continuous duty, C! ass . ho i g ' are g ven -'."* 5E"' N H coils. These can be energized con. % A tinuously without danger of over heat. The volt amo (VA)" inrush"is the high ,%,,, NyM ,~ ggagy ing or failure. Coils are provided with momentary surge of current whicn ~Z P w_.m two coilleadswhich can be connected occurs at the moment an A-C sciencid # .' ^ " * " to any controlling device. For three, is energized. *, , ,". ,", , ", . * " ', * , ,, chase power systems. the two feads The voit-amp (VA) " holding" is the '*""""t** can be connected to ar'y two of the continuous rating after the initial . y.om ee.3ru e, . ue,,r,c ,w,,, three chases. All coils are constructed " inrush." .,uacus noor . ca mur % enact The followmg table illustrates the temperature parameters of ASCo Coils: INDUSTRIAL TEMPERATURE UMITAT1oNSQ AND THERMAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ASco soLENolos AND Colls Class "11" Umst cuss or cost insuurion
- f. . ..i,p. > < f .w.m net sn see.. .
Clas:"f" Umrt , 155'C. , p (: . e., -! Class-t" g +; #; j ex e c , e..... Umst b. 2" 8"" *"""t-
- g30.c' Class "4" a Umst b*
.1 e 2 ~M'."i.*a (.
L
. ' 4 BC emine uw 8, .
= 105'C.
g { a'swe ase t'r a s. ,wm.w*mmg g TEMPERATURE RISE FROM PCwER INPUT t i V 'c""k. . . ... ~ .om m , ..... - 25 C. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- q==ga' g gi . = A3,g . NORMAL ROOM AM8lENTS t '.'.. uan so*:. usnaam'?.
. .... n n -. m + . .. ; .. ,. _
A 8 ft FB FF Nt H8 HP 4
gg, y .ev s -3 c 4 Moderate Flow Red-Hai-m - V 3 WAY SOLENOID VALVES % For(oilfree) Instrument Air BULLETINS 206-380 208-448 M 3M ffRM.E'
- % *, K ", % " and %
- N.P.T. 20s-381 208-2e6 in e . ,,
206-832 210-036 ,A 4 W ' d. _ General Description Disc - 303 s.s. ., These rugged forged brass steel and Core Tube - 305 s.s. .
.~ $
atainless steel body valves are esce- Core and Plugnut - 430F s s. ) . cially suited for heavy duty industnal Sonngs - 302 s.s. and 17 7 PH s.s. > acclications. Important: No minimum operating Shading Cos! - Copper for brass and steel valves: Sh W stamien steat u
, p pressure is required. ,
valves. e ., Applications Seats - Ethylene grocytene er 303 s.s. Theyare onmanly used as pilot opera- Gaskets - Ethylene Procytene Coils: Continuous Cuty Cass H. tors on larger control valves in nuclear Temperature: %do 1809 No aluminum parts. power plants. Solenoid
Enclosures:
Two types are Ambient: Nominal Range. 32cF to These valves also may be used on: 1400F e air vises e machine tools available: e compressors (a) Watertight (NEMA 4 and 6). Installation: Valves must be moun ed e turbines with solenoid vertical and uorignt (b) Explosion-Proof and Watertight Specifications (NEMA 7C. 7Dand di Coarse Filter Integralin valve intet operation: Three types are availaele: Electrical: Standard Voltages: Optional Features: (a) Normally Cosed 24,120,240. 480 volts. A-C. t>O Hz (or e Junction box enclosure :AC water.
' ) U iver al 50 Hz in 110 voit multicles). tight solenoid only)
Pipe sizes: 4*. %", M* and M* N.P.T. 6.12. 24.125,250 voits. 0-C. (battery a, n ua'
, ,eaded onduit huo 89 m Valve Parts in Contact with Media: e Screw terminal coils (AC watertignt Body - Brass. Steet or 304 s.s., as solenoid only)
(b' listed. Other voltages available wnen recuired. . Viton elastomers Specifications * *M C ~ M AC Construction l eP ussunumer.e.rmea,t
- 0. Co .m 5 Pressere See vu.e ..e. tassesse. ee ore.rees - 4..r e..
I' ".'l*' 5e .or.s. cose. o , TrT's;,'e O'.! F?e*
**"*"*e. '""'.
5*"*"*'"* 8ee, " ' " ' " _ *S ' a'7,' une e sies i ergarmee oeenc Unsrersm 4 (P 5 L) *F. Facter Casset4=m eer l Cmaseg momeet Wetens 4 3 OC ILbs a 3% % 200 100 600 ISO 35 2 % 380-1 206 832 L Srass 20 - a C% % 200 LOO 600 180 35 2 % 380-2 244322 8 tass 20 - 4 G% % L 50 75 600 180 45 * % 380 3 2 % 832-3 Brass 20 - 4 3% % 200 IPO 600 180 35 061844 2 % 832 4 Gras ;3 - 4 3% % 150 75 600 180 45 2%38&S 2 % 832 5 Stats 20 - 4 3% % 100 50 600 180 15 206-380-4 206-832 6 trass 20 - 4 1 3% % 600 50 600 880 15 206-380-7 'C&832 7 kass 20 - 4 {
% % 200 100 1500 180 35 208 264 1 210-0 % 1 2ec 20 - 6
% 1 150 75 1500 180 45 208-264-2 210-036 2 Sitet 20 - 6
% us 100 50 1500 180 15 208 264 3 210 036 3 9e* 20 - 6
% ks 00 50 1500 180 75 208 264 4 2!00384 2ec 20 - 6 ,
ks 100 50 1500 180 75 t 208 266-5 2:0 036-5 gayss 20 - '
! I DC Construction j 0% % 200 100 600 180 35 -
- %38ti eress - 35 : 7 3% % 200 100 600 180 35 -
206-381 2 Br as s - 35 1 ' O% % 150 75 600 180 45 - 2 % 386-3 St ass - 35 1 + 3% % 200 100 600 180 35 - 206481 4 tr oss - 35 1 ' 3% 1 l50 75 600 180 45 - 2 % 381 5 9, ass - 35 1 7 3 a5 % 125 % 600 t 80 15 -
- 06481 6 tr as s -
35 1 O% % 125 % 600 180 75 - 206481 7 trass - 15 1
% % 200 100 1500 180 35 -
208 448 6 srec - 35 1 ;0 1 i (g % % 4e 150 ?$ 1500 180 45 - 208 448 2 ?,c - ;5 g :3 ( ) % 125 60 1500 180 15 -
- 00 a48 3 Dee -
25 1 ;0 ke ( L/ % 15 W 1500 180 15 - 208 448 4 2ec - 35 I .0 i % 125 W L500 180 75 - ;;8 448-5 la a*st - 15 1 .3 9ec 4 mees: 3 For aormany cioses oper.i.on use cataio8va seer hsfis F~ 3 wasemum AC. 0C confiavows ameie*t i 40*8 3 Fee norma 4 ocea coeration ese catase8va moet befia G' 3 8es.o.ent seats ($vms R' i a.enace 's atAce Ce
- 25 e ' W6u G
- 39
- s' #(e L a a; 3 For va ersa operapon use casmo8 ammoes 5.ma U" D Coarse futer swooned as pressure coaantion 2 aae 3 ong 5 l
Flow Diagrams Electrical Information n.nmm . s .,. c.4
'""c"***" ' 'a "
- NORMALLY CLOSED g DE ENERGlZED ENERGl2ED S$"*",,*
" I W PRESS. If PRESS.
E'='E aYs amin "be E='ia a-c Sc l SOL SOL dR d& a 3s 1 20 si s t es
.:2-acs l :: m !
CYL J (1) h EXH. (3) CYL (1) EXH. (3) A-C CONSTRUCTION NORMALLY OPEN 5 uu. p. uu - DE ENERGlZED ENERGlZED I' l l j _
, g ,,,
SOL E SOL
- i wk.Msi 2
] d
-Q:
M CYL PRESS. CYL QM [* ' uu.
}-
n h"" PRESS. (1) (3) (1) (3) LW R " UNI D L2% - imensw. VERSAL.m m2=a. OE-ENERGlZED ENEoG1 ZED 2 etts sea uc' Jar'M
/ * $EE ?ABLE)
SOL - (2) sot 1 (2) <
,-NpT at Acts 0
m Ys n 2 . R-
, tJ h >
I ji (3) III J T (3) L
~[ I, ea ii Ir Dimensions (ininches) CATALOG uouMTiNG Watertight Solenoid Shown. WP-EP Details On Request. NUusER wots Ost M n lR l S 208 264 1.2.3.4.5' %
6m L 'e :, 2 0 C CONSTRUCTION 6m Mu. , 206-340-l.2.3.4.5 'u s. .'. 5 1 'w 54 MAX j l l ; e , . - s l i l 1 ! ! I 1
>b D * ~ /
M { ( -= = = = H!l m 2 7 MOLES FCR MOUNTING isEE TABLE) l N *** I 2, a l' {e! g,;
/5Lf' 2
. , ir, ~
i I as W
-lNr ,7
- i 3N NPT 3 PLACES
..-s 2% ~
CATALOG MOUNTING NuuSER MOLE OfA. H K R $ f 206-3414 1 208448 4.2.3.4 5 C. 206 381 L.2.3.4.5 % If . t 6*. tH. 1% 6
.' .?,- ._.
- .-o High Flow " .
U_ . 3 WAY SOLENOID VALVES Red-Hat. jd BULLETIN g3ty. For(oilfree) Instrument Air kfn ff. g ggg N ", M ", X " and 1" N.P.T. P
~.
General Description Seals and Discs - Ethylene Propylene W These 3 way. internal piloted dia-' Diachragm Assembly - Ethylene
- phragm valves have only four opera- propylene. Brass Trim. j ting parts - a stainless steel core, two Core Tube - 305 s.s. . .
diachragms and a disc holder. Core and P'ugnut - 430F s.s. * ,- '.%'. Important: 10 p.s.i. minimum opera- Sonngs - 302 s.s. and 17-7PH s.s. V " # 8'"
- ting pressure differential recuired. Shading Coil - Cooper. V {. f C, .
Valve vents to "o" p.s.i. Pilot Seat Cartridge - Brass Applications Coil: Continuous O ty C: ass H Disc Holder - Stainless steel. Temperature: Fluid: To 180* F Used primanly as pilot operators on No aluminum parts. largercontrof valves in nuc! ear power Ambient: Nominal Range. 32cF to Solenoid
Enclosures:
Two types iacoF plants available: Mounting: Mcuntacle in any positicn They are also used in applications. (a) Watertight (NEMA 4 and 6). sucn as: without affecting coeration (b) Explosion-Proof and Watertight Coarse Filter:Integralin valve intet. e pilots e compressor unloaders (NEMA 7C 70 and 4). e cytinders e turbines Electncas: Standard voltages: Optional Features: Specifications 24.12o.240.480 voits. A-C. So Hz e Junction Box Scienoid Enciesure operation: Norma!!y closed and nor- (Watertight Solenoid only) (or So Hzin 110 volt multioles).
- Manual Coerator matly open, refer to flow diagrams. 6,12,24,125,250 volts. O-C. (battery , 3 Threaded Conduit Huo PfpeSizes: %*. 4" %"and 1* N.P.T. voltages). . Screw Terminal Coils (watertigrt Valve Parts in Contact with Media: 0ther vostages avaitable when sciencid onty)
O Sccy - Brass. required. . Viton Eastomers O Specifications
~
Nov m 5 w 5 es t g"'"',';, y ,y,, .gn
..a.een,~,.t ,-a,..
s.een e m, ei enn- __
=,
,=2
+,.
.r 5 .
e= t 5 e=
. ; a,,
d n ..
.ye Normally Closed operation. Forged Brass Bodies ID l 4 5 10 175 25 0 180 3 %P1316541 9P13165 t E 10 5 11 4 -
51 ie i % ;0 115 250 180 4 9P131664t *P1316451 17 4
- 5, 6e 10 5 4 R s 10 175 250 180 55 979316474( iP1316 AF5 E 10 5 17 4
- 5. 6 I 1 10 179 25 0 180 13 spe 3:s t ?st sp.f t 4 EJ* t to g 17 s a p, Normally open operation. Forged Brass Bodies IQ l
% 5 10 115 25 0 LIO 3 1893!656E 1813;6571 LO S 17 4 - 5- is j
? % 10 175 250 180 4'13:f67E 4 "'s 10 ! ?S 230 180 4
55
*iP131664 E iP1316 A76 E 98131447?!
10 5 10 5 17 a 17 4 a 5-5e iel i t i 10 175 250 180 13 %*1316 E:6 E $ P13:4E37t 10 5 11 8 - P. . I Flow Diagrams NORMALLY CLOSED NORMALLY OPEN of.tNERolzto (NERolztD of.tNERol2t0 (NERGIZED
.._ .._ _ .._ 1 en.ou y c y ,isaa- en.on c,.. e. en.oo c, . o- en.on c,m 4m '8' C r ' .y 5' 5,. ,5 1 r-'
f"') W
& U r- q.
~I L L.!
[l
..,.-- ~.,,,,. ' ,..... s -.,,-. -
' P fP' 7
7s Electricallnformation 40ll'.llf. 51 llT!.? Ij .c h p .
! 3( 5}
a5 e Sc Sc se ir a to s 23 as 27 502 34-m DimenSlons (ininches) Watertight Solenoid shown.WP EP details on request. X" AND M" SIZE i 5% MAX. N OR H NPTg _l _1 M NPT 'l \ ' 2M -- 6M E x 4s k. . - l -~ -
. == 2s .
g 5 T k ,,hh l [ ;
% DIA. -
g 4 HOLES FOR H ggg.
-" YL " ,)
MOUNTING L--6M MAX. ^ O I _I i L 1 X' AND 1" SIZE P b M NPT M CATALOG NPS316A NPS316E (O NUMBER 74E 76E 34E.36E P1PE M 1 i SIZE l i i i L 3h 4 i M OR1NPTJ ' M WhPRESS 'P' H 6h 7% l l
%DIA. 4 HOLES FOR MOUNTING l
\
>-s AVAILABLE ON M-NPT SIZE ONLY p
l $ l $g , W 5% 6%
-O m% l l
E m l
. 5XH e-g ,
M N i 2% i 2l, ! MAX. [ V 3,, M AX. l l , ! , N L_ li / , R I 2 l 1s f ' J cYL S Sh l X
, u l l ' A' CI}
I v , l L-18%:u L MAX. 8
s,. m. - -- r e ,
. . . AsCa~
M We M1HlatBIO SIZE 3 WAY SOLENOID VALVES 8 Red-Hai- - 1 . .'
\ a W BULLETIN X
.pd/
For (oil free) Instrument Air M" N.P.T. gg, - a.r., NP8320 ,g c m -- General Description exhausts cressure when solenoid is sQp This compact design eliminates the dwergized ,[ onfice connection in the solenoid - (b) Normally Coen - acclies cres- .% all connections are in the valve body sure when solenoid is de-energized; providing in-line picing. exhausts pressure when solenoid is This modern design concept with ori. energized (c) Universal - for normally closed fice and once connections in the body also permits coil reolacement without or normany open operaten. Selecdon . J opening oice connections - now nec- C' diV8'en of pressure can be ao- 3, g essary on other 3 way valves. cHed at 1. 2 or 3. Applications Ploe Size: %* N.P.T. Valve Parts in Contact with Media: 6.12. 24.125. 250 volts. 0-c. (battery These valves are commonly used to voltages). acoly pressure to and vent pressure Body - Brass or 303 s.s. as listed. from cylinders and diachragms or for Sealsand Discs - Ethylene crooylene m een selection and diversion of pressure. recuired. Core Tube - 305 s.s. Coil: Continuot s Cuty C: ass H They are onmanly used as oilot opera-tcrs cn larger control valves in nucivar Cnre And Augnut - 430F s s Temperature: Fiuid: To 160 F power plants. re nng - 302 s.s. and Ambient: Nominal Range. 32 F to Some typical applications are: Shading Coil - Cooper (brass body); " Silver (stainless steel body). Installation: Mountacle in any cosition oneum c cylinders Disc Holder - Stainless Steel. without adecting operation p
- calot operators Core Guide (A-C) - Brass. ounting: See dimension dawings.
U e air conditioning No aluminum parts. Coarse Filter:Integralin valve inlet. solenoid
Enclosures:
Two types O einstrumentation
. air dryers e compressors avadaele: Optional Features:
(a) Watertight (N EM A 4 and 61.
. Junction Box Solenoid Enclosure Specifications (b) Exolosion-Proof and Watertight (Watertignt Solenoid only).
(NEMA 7C. 70 and 4).
- Manual Coerator operation: Three types available: Electrical: Standard Voltages: . '4' Threaded Conduit Huo.
(a) Normally C!csed - acclies cres- 24.120.240.480 volts. A-C. 60 Hz . Screw Terminal Coils ;Watertignt sure when sciencid is energized: (or 50 Hz in 110 volt multiples). Solenoid only). Specifications
- Brass Body O
- c. Pt MTA i =e e
J a n
,_ = _. ,m. m .we .=, 3 =
an c. 4C l EkC E Facier m".w m.w AC OLC N aP Universal operation 0 w- i iPeesswe at 2 w 3.myp # ' ~ l "s 125 75 300 ta0 as $Ps320A172t sPg 320 Ai T3t 10.5 17 4 a i, 2e i
'4 % 15 50 300 LIC !$ MP$320A174E iP1320 A175 E 10 5 17 4 *' in 2% l it 35 25 300 180 31 MP1320AI T6E 4P1320 Al 77( 10 5 17 4 a 1% 2% l
% 20 12 300 180 ;%
34 9Pt 320Al ?8( iPt320AIT9E 10.5 17 4
- 2% l Nor iPtes_mally Closed operation .frms l e se 21 / .
- g de 175 150 300 180.
'4 14 150 115 39 MP9320Al82t 4PS32041831 10.5 17 4 a ;e 2*a-I 300 180 Il MP9320A184E 971320 Ail 5E 10 5 a U.
IS 50 17 4 25 i
't 300 180 31 9P1320Al86E %#1320 A187t 10 5 17 4
- W 25
% ei 25 MXI 180 38 iP9320Al88f MP 9320 A189E 10 5 17 4 a t'e Ps l l
O) V Normally open operation
'Pressee as se 7i rt~ l
- a. 175 i35 300 1s0 Os *Pu 0Ais2r Puz0Aine 10 5 t7 4 * .. 2s
% % 140 100 300 180 15 9P1320 Ai ga( iP9320 A19st 10 5 17 4
- h 25
% 10 55 300 ISO 31 9Pt 320 Al %E 4P9320At97E 10 5 17 4 w I's 2%
t% a0 30 t 300 180 .38 MP1320A198( 4PS320A199E 10 5 17 4
- 1% 2%
l ! 9
l I es Specifications e Stainless Steel Body I 2 j re e w m -- 4,r n-s er
.me_, ',""5 Ele c. 3 'E' g w w unreme .
i 1 - , - ,= ere c., - - as e. \s! Universal Operation 'tmeier to mew Disorem se**wl l 4 t00 65 300 tse .09 mes32057E *Ps3205sf 10 5 17 4
- h 2
% % 40 a0 300 1M .13 NP832059E 9P832060E 10.5 17 4 m Le 2 4 30 20 300 180 31 NP93206t t NP932042E 10.5 17 4 a 1% 2 Normally Closed Operation 'tm*8er to Mew 06*erem hi l 4 123 125 300 180 . 09 NP83206JE 9Pt32064E 10.5 I 17 4 w th 2
% % ti0 45 300 ISO .-:.15' NPS32093E 9PS32094E 10.5 l174 4 1% 2
% 40 40 300 180
' .3f MP93206SE 'eP832064E 10 $ ) 17 4
- 1% 2 Normally Open Operation *tmoser to Mew asserem sesown l 4 123 125 300 180 .09 . MP832067E MP832064E 10.3 17 4
- l's 2 4 hr 110 65 300 '180- ".13 "
- MP132095E 9PS320%E 10.5 17 4 e tM 2
% 40 40 300 ' 180 31- 'eP832069E 9P132070E 10 5 17 4
- 1% 2 meses: o Coarse teiter swooneo at ornaute connectica 2 and 3 oniy ElectricalInformation Flow Diagrams
,/l"ta a 5;;;;',,y - - . . - - I IJ
- j 33 l .! l_ l !
%- *qm. .e-.s .m
+r,pe. y.7.r
. i
. ., w w.L. ,a.r .wr-
+
5 as a 1 SJ Sc 0$c == e= ,, e= o,, e= .== n IF 4 10.5 45 3s 793 22 27-502 wJ DimenSlonS On inches) Watertight Solenoid Shown. WP.EP Details On Request. STAINLESS STEEL 800Y CONSTRUCTION 54 MAX. I I ! l 1' fJ-3 MAX.--! L: A
; 3g c h NPT e 44 MAX. E
, - .?
"' l p"3'b MANUAL CPERATOR M NPT (3 PLACES) SCREW TYPE h
-lN IS ~ % DIA.
CIA.
-l'%-(2 HOLES FCR MOUNTING) l BRASS BODY CONSTRUCTION
- 54 MAX. - 3 MAX.4 l
J l l- J ' L1 l - y N NPT. g
-b 44 MAX.
"I h
- i 1
h2 3 MANUAL CPERATCR l i g 4 NPT. PUSH TYPE j (3 PLACES) N ll
- 2 MOUNTING HOLES l
"%l- r
% CEEP FOR 88
{1%" THO. CUTTING SCREWS , 10 I
j do # N QuickExhaust 3 WAY SOLENOID VALVES
^=
Red Haf. 7.3 b For (oil free) Instrument Air
- Normally Closed and BULLETIN .igi d+ ,"*,,2
, s:
f:t %.Q. . Normally Open Operation N" and N" N.P.T. NP8321 ?"'$ . .@ Y--_ . . . .~-
,a General Description Pipe Sizes: X" and W N.P.T.
These internal pilot operated solenoid Valve Parts in Contact with Media: ; . valves have an oversized exhaust ori. Body - Brass. N ,, p fice to provide fast venting of cylinders Seals and Disc - Ethylene crooylene. U~ and diaphragms. Core Tube - 305 s.s. Important: 15 o.s.i. minimum opera- Core and Pf ugnut - 430F s.s. d ting cres ure differential is recuired. - .:,. Sonngs - 302 s.s. and 17 7PH s.s. % Valve will vent to zero D.s.i. Applications Shadng Cod - Cooper. y; ' y C Pilot Seat Cartndge - Brass. Primanly used as pilot ocerators on larger control valves in nuclear oower Disc Holder - Stainless Steel- Coil: Continuous Duty Class H. olants. Piston - 303 s.s. Temperature: Fluid: 180*F They are also used in apolications. No aluminum oarts. Ambient: Nominal Aange. 32CF to such as. solenoid
Enclosures:
Two types 180*F.
- cylindet s = clutches avariable. Instailation: Mountable in any cositien (a) Watertight (N EMA 4 and 6). witnout affecting coeration.
Specifications Operation: Two types available- hs onyC. O nd 4 Coarse men Integralin valve inin ( (a) Normally Closed - acclies pres. Electrical: Standard Voltages: Optional Features: exhaust pres re non enoid 24.120,240,480 volts. A-C. 60 Hz . Junction Box Solanoid Enclosure (O de-energized- (or 50 Hz in 110 voit multiples). (Watertight Solenoid only)
. Manual Coerator V' G (su)re when solenoid is de-ene'gized:
b Normally Open - acolies pres. 6.12. 24.12 5, 250 volts. D-C. (battery . Screw Terminal Coils (Watertignt voltages). Solenoid Cnly) exhausts pressure when sclericid is other voltages available when . viten Elastomers energized. recuired. 4" Thi eaced Concuit Huo Specifications om,,i= y,1";'m e~ ~ Mr.'.h
,1 .-
L"" s "l'l tt . . i "/71;ill. . "
- ', "ali 3
1 i ] I . a J:' O i i d I i .: J xx mt te i 2 c c. u u h .* 7, Normally Closed operation E ](A . - - - .
% % '% 15 150 200 180 $ L2 %Pt321 Ait MP1321 ASE to t 17 4 w ;% 2'3
% N '% 15 ;10 200 180 5 12 gPt321A2( NP1321A4E 10 $ 11 4
- 1% ".
Normally open operation R I/ E:
~"
(g 4 N 'N 15 ISO 200 180 8 12 9P1321 Aj( 9Pgj2; A1[ 10 5 11 4 a i% . !t
% % :% 15 150 200 180 8 12 9Pf321A4E 9Pf 32! A4E 10 5 17 4 a :% 2't Dimensions (in inenes)
(Watertight solenoid Enclosure shown. WP-EP detai.s on request.) g d '"
. Electrical Information U e i > .;. ,dikq[#f &fs',$'El,.,qP .mtem w 9 gr m
*^"-
v =. i,2 /.'. n .. I , 'i,
~ ,
,.,'.*.. I u I :
.,o g _m.. x
< u4 l toS lu l .i l 27,02 l :.m 11
=
D, Redundant Control Red-Hat. 3 WAY SOLENOID VALVES . BULLETIN For(oilfree) Instrument Air 8.M. < X " N.P.T. NP8323 p.g w..s . . General Description pilot operator on larger control valves c .e in eclear power plants. These direct acting solenoid valves have forged brass bodies and two sole- Sp6CillCationS not.1s suitable for any combination of Operation:(Refer to Flow Diagram). j A-Cand 0-Cvoltages. Pipe Size V." N.P.T. 14edundant Solenoid Valve Parts in Contact with Media: , Valve has two independent solenoids. Body - Brass i each or both capable of operating Seals and Disc - Ethylene Propylene valve when electnc power is con- Core Tube - 305 s.s. nected (energized). Valve will not shift Core and Plugnut.- 430F s.s. to onginal position unless both sole- Core Spring -302 s.s.ano 17 7 PH s.s. Com Continuws Cuty Cass H noids are electrically disconnected Shading Coil - Copper (de-energized). This prevents valve Temperature: Fluid: To 180* F Disc Holder - s.s. from shiftmg in the event of a possible No Aluminum Parts Ambient: Nominal Range. 32*F to coil failure or failure of the normal Solenoid
Enclosures:
Two types 180*F. electne power source. ,g3,3,93ggen ygyn;339,,, ,ny en,,nnn 8V8d8
- without affecting coeration.
Three way valve is supplied as stan. card but can also be used for 2 way (a) Watertight (N EMA 4 and 6). Coarse Filter: Integral in valve inlet. operation (normally open or normally (b) Explosion-Proof and Watertight Optional Features: closed) merely by plugging one pipe (NEMA 7C. 70 and 4). connection. . Junction Box Solenoid Enclosure. Electrical: Standard Voltages: (Watertight Solenoid Cnly). (
\
Appilcations 24,120.240,480 volts. A C, 60 Hz To maintain uninterrupted control as (or 50 Hzin 110 volt multiples)- e Screw Terminal Coils (Watertight Solenoid Cnly). long as either of two power sources is 6.12,24.125, 250 volts. O-C. (batterf . Viten Elastomers. applied to valve. Primanly used as a voltages).
- 3" Threaded Concuit Hub.
Specifications: s ". ll'i'% . '"*E" 7n i.1*** I = aaa. ll,;',;,
"*l, "
- .i w s. s".3 i s"% i%1 5"A"" 5"."* "aC
$i 35 "$ 7 5 61 Y $:, 1:2 ::s 1:2 ::s a u x 33
;3 Normally Closed Opetation i 9's 125 125 500 180 09 MPt 323A L){ 9Pg323A35( 9PS323A20( 97132]A34( ;35 10 5 17 4 I 2% 39 4 % 110 100 500 180 15 9PS323A2tt 9PS323A37( 9P9323A22( 9Pf323A38( 10 $ 10 $ 17 4 2% 33
% 40 40 500 180 31 9Pt!!3A23E 9P9323A39E 971323A24E 9P1323A40( 10 1 10 5 17 4 2% li.
Normally Open Coeration I
'*e 125 125 500 180 c1 979323A271 9Pt]22A43E 9P1323A28E 9PS323A44E 10 5 10 5 17 4 2 '. 3 --
% % 110 100 500 180 15 9Pt323A29( 'ePt323A45E 971323A3C( 9P1323A468 ;35 10 5 17 4 % 3, 4 40 40 500 180 31 9Pt]23A3t[ 9PS323A47[ 9P1323A32( 9Pt]23A44( l0 5 10 5 17 4 2% l Flow Diagram Dimensions (ininenes)
Normally C:osed Normally Open (Watertight Solenoid Enclosure
, , , , %'*,",",,",,*,,",",,'"*,,",,',,0,o**,*,*,,-
, shewn. WP-EP details on request.)
Mafl - / M ~ rj i M / l." 7 M o / 7" _ , , , , , l
. . . _ , , _ _,,,o ElectricalInformation
%h$[ ' '
w 4.j e,. '
@ Q - - 11 . , , , .
O = P=w.
. 'n = s .. s .- 'f 9 Q ~"' l e ,
e n. 17 4 10 5 23 45 27 5t2 34-793
-==.a.=_=.
- . =.:, ~
a wm sen. t I 12
I m Electrw.il Information i i IMPORTANT: Pe 'r D *e Y/nT. The cressure and exhaust knes must be kect fully ocen and the minimum sensere Sc pressure differential must be main-g=8 g ,, ,, tained to insure crecer cceration of the ke wens w.n. p.m: , w se osc valve. ASCO sceed Contress and other w is a to s 23 as 27502 ss-7ss such ccmoonents must be instatlec in the Cytincer hnes only. Flow Diagrams DUAL SOLENOID
$1NGLE SOLEMOID 3,,,,,,,, 3,,,,,,,,
i.ast Enerosse Last Eneresee CYL8 'f j CYL A CYt.8 jg lf CYL A CYLO J b CYL A CYLB JL CYL A _r vb _rv _r v n _rvn
- : / / : / / : r L f- a tr-a L f- " a L_n-a U a U un a " Exn a un. a o,.
Psitss. entsi p,Ess. **t 5 s. Dimensions (A C Onlyt) Oninches) Watertight Solenceds showet WP-EP details on request. t c4 & meas.ons avanaese en reeuest [ )) k. SINGLE SOLENot0 CONSTRUCTION -G- DUAL SOLENOID CONSTRUCTION l - E l- M NPT. W MAX. rA 4 ! / 2 MOUNTING HOLES DIA.'O' N W M AX.-
's
,.. N NPT.
p p ,,--- p M .. .J . __ .. t . . . MAX.I' , , , ,, , );k * [ p y l i , ,,,J f l' - uw ,- H MAX.
;CYL 'B' NCYL'A.
PRESS /Nbx4 \EXH. "Z' .M 4'
-Ya (PRESS. \EXH.
EXH. CATALOG PtPE DIA. NUM8ER slIE O E F G H J L M N P e w x y z gins NPS344A70E S N *. 2.s 13 44 l 18, 3g 2.. . *. 3g .. . f 4's. , ig pg
. l3 NPS344A72E s., ., , 24 m .s is 3. 3. , 3., ,. ., c. r. ,.
NPS344A76E s., , e, 2.s v. s. . m, . 4 i ... 3. . ... ,,. n :s 1. , ,
~P m 4 s, . 2.s 13 s. ~ n ... .. 4 . . j ,, .. . es j us l , j , l nm
~;;>:::= s., , s 24 n , x. i, 3. .. ... .. .s c. e.. ..
g' g s.1 ' S, U *J 3 ' '. 34 6 v. 25, Av. 4% 1.. 44 6s $ d :, 2's n :s . 14
ASCOe Red-Ha e " Product" Family h - For cornplete details or literature on any of the products listed below-Contact the nearest ASCO sales office (see back cover) or your local ASCO Authorized Stocking Distributor. i Brand-new. fuli colcr.136 cage ASCO' RED-HAT' Scienoid Valve Catalog. ASC6 'ieTa#Sokmold has inctuces nearly 2000 standard 2. 3 and
- 4. o ,.m , ..
^"C = =
f 4 way solenoid valves plus manual re- a== 1,, =,y- l
- set and soecial purpose valves air J ,
coerated valves, fluid power acces-sones, air controls, and a complete se-lection of UL FM and CSA listed or 8 accroved solenoid valves for combus-tion service. --
'I sy p
f it s simofe to select and order ASCO procucts from Catalog 30 (secarate i cnce list included). ASCO' 2. 3 and 4 way stancarc scec:al purpose and mocified sciencic and air coerated valves for on-coarc as weil as en-sand manne acchcaticns. The ASCO pressure and remoerature switenes incorocrate a ciaontagm ciston tyce of oressure senscr 1*.O's'l'.7e"r0 or a vaoor cressure fined temoerature sensor. A unicue carented asternating fulcrum casance ciate witnin
'eowesi caiance ne switen mechanism allows one source of pressure or temoerature to be controllec by two incecencent aciustao6e sonngs This allows inceoendent aclustment of botn set and reset coints over the total switen
- p. ! range.
,y Whatever your soecifications or acchcations there s an ASCO TRh% int 8 oressure or re<roerature
'Y V sween availacie from stock for all incustnal recuirements: Actustacle and fixec ceaceand tyces + Two-
)y y IN " stage (dua0 types e Manual reset tyces e Differential cressure controis
- Vacuum tyces e A essure rarges from 12" Hao to 3000 P S.I.G and temperature ranges from -60** to +510** General ourocse. aster-
~Y E C tiget and exososion.oroof types e Transducers for air, water. gas, oil, steam and ccrresive service We'e are 170.000 vanations possete from more than 2000 standard pressure switcBes - and mere ?an 2Ccc vananorts possbie from over 500 standard temocrature switer'es. witn the most wanted 'eatures n eve <y f,*,,l,".'*,**'.'*'*'
s icn , C*os No m
%I ll\
switen. There s no waiting for a factory soecap Pressure Switenes for Comoustion Service and Procesa Systems These pressure switches are designed to & c, m.acate uL and FM recuirements 'Or cer oust;cn ser-
,,,_ m vice. Switen assemay units for FM "cressure suoervison/ switenes' ncluce visual cc;catten ci swacB position. Pressure transducers for UL combustion service have a Tyoe 316 stainless stees tacnesom 'Or
% ~= .~% - fuet oil or a double cBarroer 'or fuel gas aco4 cations. Switen assemony units ad ' ave an aciustacie set point and are availacie witn adjustacie. non-aciustacle or manually coeratec reset points For comosete cetads recuest Form P7036.
Nuclear Acpications - ASCO oressure and terroerature switcBes are avanacle fcr Cass :E safer / 'e-
., lated ecusoment recuirernents. Contact ASCO for cetaus.
-i.i ,
' T-UTERATURE ALSO AVAILABLE CN: ASCO Ucued Level Control e ASCO Lmit Switenes e ASCO P*es-sure Switches for Corrosive service.
NEW Compact Line of _, r",n = 3.e -""l ASCO IRI7' PolNI. -- l ASco cesigns anc manufactures a ecm-tete one of contres ecuioment for emer-W# "8" I Pressure anci i
~
MM gency cower systems anc energy ccB-Temperature Switches
. m se,,ancn t,,ns,,,c,cnnconcac,.e c,e
.m .- , contrei wnnng contact:rs. scoe state f # "*
1
- All Front Access fer Panelboards *
- Comcact Size for CEM e Totally en- Ccrretete cerails are :rovicee n AScc m et atat g f* ( . en closed and Augged for General Co.
Industry. r o, coa o...oca... ,.co.c ca oo so arcas [ ASCO has been designing quality controls since 1888!
ASCO Manufacturing & Sales Organization
.0 0N O, a mo-CI u-u0 0, min m.t..es e.st.-se. - am Refer to Seattle Castrict Sales Omse Autsmsts Smitta Cs SW3 OmCE gIts ',r"* an,,,,,,,
.ws, as "*ga Y'o*v*e'inesn e eied 3100 W. Aiassma St risonsk fat 77C9% Automatu $mten C& cre. es.
ALSMutMUL Jim MGICS 87187 ret 013 5234401 Sete *!!. 2041 P'eaeer Ct. AS *** mm sseast aresos tas Elastremagnets e Doctroms Centrod' See Matse. Cast 94403 seats aca. tan ross a. emines4 lem melW43eg 8. C*-se st seien s. siscs Ca. ins. Tot.1412 5742725 e 3205 Canemare, a 1. CL AL Butt & Anasewees, int s.e, ee
$UTTLt Ot5f tlCT 123 OmCt as e.s.,=,ve,.ee, a m ,ms nee an, ,e.u ewme's sA ictues. ttSuseanst***
fat (509 346328g P. O. Ses 64143 4450 N. Gwen AdJ fel.1317)IS&5704 Autometu Seeten C& Icessee suarseust "[,n's",*[wUa*E"os AstJN4f0N. YA.,085TRICT 3AL13 gFTICI 814 g,,,,,, ,,,,,, i A , tem, se,to c. uumu00 uu3 OmCI P. a se,IC ims.ndeeneAvenue N! 18004
. non ...,o a.
P. & ses 1413. Arungeon Amtsasta 3= ten C6 feL con 4544157 *mde.e a ., coes,.e,8= g , , ,,,,,,,ee cow es us. i om a wasmacos,222cu ei YL *2210 2us wat use s smCou.m Tus e I Tel 003 5221337 amaname. neicaisee 49007
.tetret omco Jonssistient Jone T. Nicnesas Assoc.
svartussa, s.iartmai.a ciff M.'em
,,,,,g,,,,,
nunTA st:TmCT sua OmCt iel 41e Ju42:2 m t uma st ** sve, n. v Inu 3,ee,,,
>. ..,e.,,,e, se .e ,s m ,,,,_,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.
I A i smic. c. UN5&B C!ff. IN350 eel 64131 Tet m 42nu j,a,,;;p a , e. e e..es ., Slet s1 sete 210A TAAAPA Ot!TRICT 3M3 0FFICI 'fu'. " Sa23 G3eanese Dr. N L Dunr.se $mse & tarneenas, int sees sees sec 30328 1546 freest Age.a IeL 31e 5252908 h,",,,h, gig, se,,a,,.,e,,g,i,, M7,'tas R,M ates 1211 Norta West Shere Sist me asa seq., stesse es. LS$ Am4ER CRIFOANIA 90BU ,, BRmetAC. MaaMO 2H27 'sants. 3;omma.ra ...se ,es, e v. SCA. Int WARDIOU$t & FACTCRT BEANCH 13 272 C '*' t s am ana S 900 Sorms it a,m,e,s,.,Se,rvue,tca Ca3. & StacsTUL1A Musessa 74129 g*r***a'e
, g g*=y*,fg * * ***f u- unuuen sof nem P. & ses 1250 Aetenses entiaeerwt Int itsees,. e v.
paasstaa, sasacas e a. see acas ase ,seimmese m l BlatuletaAll OLITRICT IRIS OFTtCt :5545 L Weseyse 8M. 90043 'nsma omcas 1501 L 32xta SL Autament $mtch C& fat 213 6857ul fet, c31s $455703 8**=****e*l''C****
. teos we esswaf 131 samovena 200 Century Pers $ath ** 8" ** 28 ewwpe a sww ae.a.c.e, s ee seno.u.an as m v soLawwe,e s anee,w s,eds tae. fn 6CD 9474371 g g,Qas seessmaet s
gg pg,v,ege,m en,,, , usein ofnew tirot shseet ght. nacenet seetise ememesa ese so fet (2163 22S4700 Ptfftagetit Pt)MesTtvanta 15233 astmac'*4 unte se se seemaev. ease saw.we a tuote,,emi tenes. eicesia COLUMOUS 0Nie Anoersa>4een, i.es. 8r. Cmest Q fet (413 248.%60 O \[ gg
'"*'"'8*" *%e*0.U s sa
! o.
q ues. wooes at P 18es 123. merthmg'an, Q. 43C83 sesue - fet. 61414853133 onze o. a t e a n msis .. 4 s..eeem aw . ettaluone tuts OmCt sisterse esos no asse sentests a 6 e.s.ce..nt.rica.,:
. no sure aeev avsteis. a ion o'te suavm. awau t.=>;e
,DALUS SIS,TRICT 1Au3 CmCtav.rema.rie
,,,,,,,_,,,C, e .am $mte.s C.a.es. n..se ee s - sese . .. _ .e.e,.. ,eee.,. ee ,e,..e Mcament vt 23230 No see er i ee+senes sa a twwe a tai e a as sa b'2m3T2?e"a h i ,>= g;= ~ ~ ~ e. e.
sse.e. . tas ,-. e. em.e. e me se,.eep
- ~ ~ ~ -
. . . 4 e.ae e. ,
Opvrt. COL 0aA00 84204 as e e usaeus eos.cenweee n ROCE 85ume 1Au! OmC1 e .c.ou. e ses. avico,.a.nce.em ees . i tre. g page weena.c _ m on e c,o.eese,*
. tass. cs us.
*19ee P **'"*"'"'".
I,41 De<e. ore Diet f Ca Sti ee '3333 5715215 automate seven Ca. g l,pg, ,, ,,,, n=== 3 a . ew * *erson a s*n em. 411. Satefy steg .1900 3.e Ave. ,se.ees, .,ea, c,,te*aumee eneistem. usacos DET20tf ti!TSICT SAL 110mtg acca asians. tuiacos 61201 esse ama a ce a.s zew us Automate Seiten ca. Osage We fun estime e s. am us es===s ei ase4 h 2435$ $eutlehest et. $dete 1C$ in Ola 6W450 enewsmmes w mne senu saa amm. es annuars ,,,,c,,, *w*.,w
.as ses .,, g g u a n.,
j g [ '"#I 57. LOUT 3 0tITtsCT 1Rt10 MCI
,,,se, s.,,.. C.
sesemeusva. svee unas ace et. sr s. M. .'e,.,8,,',,,;,,, o e- ise,. . s.e, e.. tessa. sees cat a cucwoo. Sete 230,111 west Port P'aze * '""""" ****C*'8FW ' 1 8" '*8
#0NOLULO. MAwast
[A .,V / h Arvat IRL togwweree uscsoner, p,eeutts Olv. U L8*L M8 UI4I fel. iJte 8784130 esenesterarnes se seve=ene soirca ss.s f estaat. aft 9 E sple E se _ _ a s. stases seja esewe e a s'ei.no.ea ee as oe. esee ce.e : i uma, p. g, g,, g7 igg, esee.e..e e ao se Me.eeves pet M 5 ALT uit CITT. UTAN 641?S **meo , , , , , , %,,,, uns s~ si,.417 .t xn C t,. (e.eme C. ee., , .m se. s , , , . . Tel ICS 441J264 4459388 255 Crosstesse 34.4 Tot 301) 437.7741 coe e e.see .uase. ee st se.s e , sir .o,e 3. ,. u.eeea ..,
.a a n si .
ieuse we two rems Aum Tc Swnth Ca uun rumf an0 atCafnt OmCts =e m 70es amt etw amt CintCr raCf0ef isntsufifats. Ffertae Part. Nee 1erwt 07832 e fetestese unstersi n Y. - 213 344378p 4.L-(201) 9462000 e feios,138422 and 136423 wammousas i.e emcaso ars Los aneat.as. aumoniato sTocene oestneoutons meouenotre ma untrts svarts n .e 2 3
s' s.. . w '~' FIGURE 10.5-1 DESCRIPTION OF ASCO PILOT VALVE OPERATION PROCESS VALVE CLOSED PRESSURI SOLENOID VALVE DE ENERGIZED
. ER -
~ (PRESSURE CHAMBER VENTED) 8 k N2 AIR W SUPPLY y
VENT
/ h OPEN b PROCESS VALVE IS CLOSED BY SPRINC. THIS IS THE SATE!'?
RELATED POSITION <w C PROCESS VALVE OPENED PRESSURE SOLENOID VALVE ENERGIZED ER - (AIR SUPPLY TO PRESSURE CHAMBER) L J I N A AIR yy SUPPLY g+ V VENT CLOSED U PROCESS VALVE IS OPEN \s
FIGURE 10.5-2
-t I = .
M. . 2 ,.3 [ I
*e=_
=* E CGO
;- g <v<
e
-----. - :5 a *
~. g -
W
'e
*g i E
e k *
, I o
- u
~
- . c<
03 '= w =
~mE ..
=
x
- z
.=. [
G
' m
'- a
. E
- 5. .
s E
- s
,I b,-
2
.2 ~ z a
a ., i N I N .I N
~ 2 :u 'l
.=
[ - I f l \ \ q 2
- a ~ I .
- 2 is.J runavw3.naA '
l 8175C 1. e _ ._ _ _ _ , _ _ , _ , -.r- + " ' - ' " " ' ' ' " " ' " ~ "
.s ...
G . 4 -2/ FIGURE 10. 5- 3 f E ACTUM. LOCA S/MUUT/CN 8Y ENV/t0NHENTAL
- EXPOSWE (57EAM / CHEM / CAL) n s Y
, ep u r,
*5 $
snti of - =
',= !
wnao.
- E,c! :
we
$og $ uta
~
ts S4 sard st - = M u i cy
- E a w:
~
l i E s e?-{ t' O n ,~ s 2 1, 2
! W r ,I wi s .
h -
- > 4ts du-3':2 roe r - = s i
. ~
. n:
%o N
= 2-
)f hh ^ g e-[
.an v -.
t N) __, s N ~..l 7N // -
'* .~
~'
\- .
i, yI'
'i 2x G = . .l 7" F =
f ( $--w% E f5 ;,l
.e ? *- i l'!
28 9 - = : e
- x i k l .~:e 3 1 Nw # JN 5 R ~ +, ,~ -s % ; t' 55072 = e < .
mx se sur q m
-t-Ak
?
g useo . = 3~~j ,
~%Q % 4 i!
'3M Z ^ -
\- Q *1 Q% ,
*, yx i -
m w a ssc7.7 ~
=
!*f m
j l 't n? E $T
~vi
;t; o =
4 m m .<3 105402 I
@'sd/ W.) sam'ssrs/3ct, rumgj d
. s ,. .*.
FIGURE 10.5-4 \l CONTAINMENT ISOLATION CONFIGURATION l USING ASCO SOLENOID PILOT VALVES 1.A. TWO AIR OPERATED VALVES IN SERIES IRC ORC
. l .
I I IRC = INSIDE REACTOR CONTAINMENT ORC = OUTSIDE REACTOR CONTAINMENT FC = FAILS CLOSED o t 1.B. AIR OPERATE 0 VALVE IN SERIES WITH CHECK VALVE IRC ' ORC O* O M i I w 1.C. AIR OPERATED VALVE IN SERIESWITH MOTOR OPER ATED VALVE I 1RC ORC l a. l I 0 . Scd l l I
- MAY INCLUDE MORE THAN ONE ASCO SOLENOlO PILOT VALVE IN SERIES.
/
O , f l,
' l
FIGURE 10.5-5 O OTHER ISOLATION SCHEMES USING ASCO SOLENOID PILOT VALVES 2.A. TWO AIR OPERATED VALVES IN SERIES O O
)d )(
FC FC 2.B. ONE AIR OPERATED VALVE IN SERIESWITH CHECK VALVE -
,O
>d FC 2.C. ONE AIR OPER ATED VALVE WITH MULTIPLE ASCO SOLENOID PILOT VALVES SAFETY SIGNAL B""M e = = SAFETY SIGNAL A AS= AIR SUPPLY L 1 S S W' -
u e 2.D . ClJf AIR OPERATED VALVE WITH SINGLE ASCO SOLENOID PILOT VALVE S V FC
- MAY INCLUDE MORE THAN ONE ASCO SOLENOID PtLOT VALVE IN SERIES.
O _ . - . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . . , _, , , . , .___,_,,._,,m. --__,-..,--.__-.,,g.,. _ , ,. - -.-,--
PIGURE 10.5-6
=
( m m W Av0 la I . _ = W W
= amm.
=
a
=
~
, a 2
~ ~4 2. ~=
. . IB M tl - a=
,.# - .=
Eh
#p# -
2 4
= _>
d _ 3-
#p >E
# a-
# , w2
=>
2 e =a
< _, =q e -- . -
k a M2 z= a= a "_
- e w =w I<
l
=*
I I ==
=-
=z 2
3 I sNin st - w=
-w f
* "o 2=
N" 3-f - -< (w
= ."_
b W l =
$N,!n $ - -=
, Nin c
, e . j 4
===e i
, I, "'" .
i 3 , g - =
. i I -
== ...
- - - I l ; 25 E -
e E i m ta - ; I ~, 3, - - I =-6 s%s% 1 -
==
g-s% I s s - 2 g===
=
~ = -
l l
- 2 l I S
- 2
~
c
~ >
de*IWO1YvidW11 r i M i V 6 I i i h t t
--. -- _ . . - . . - - , . - . - .-,,,-._..-,--,_.n, .~-e~~ - - . , .
, , _ . . . . . , _ . . ,.-..,,,n.--_,
FIGURE 10.5-7 vp ' I w
.S.
M
=3
. .I .E.
=
' e .. ~
=V"e I==
~aa _
**I= #
s .e ,s _e
- 2 E u m-. _
3 ii se me ===
. 4 M
a -
=<
= a.
5 - z.<= a
~
a 3 >. g=
=2
$MN ( -
l b9 - 3 a"
=2 3
W e =a.*=* a a u = _a, E Ua
- - =
] 2 ==
4u
= ==
25= e . , . - -
! "* ew
- a e.
I aus
- t w'l C
=
=
,i - .=.
W
! M S
4 9 e i . s:Isi e
=
I 1 l ' l g g i g l, d S O a 3 4 2 = 3 2_ g . - f,*IWC17widn11 i
- . . - .,s.ac }
I D
,.- ~ ,.-.-,e - , - , , - - - , . . - - - ,,m., - , - . . , ,,...-nwn,, _ _ ,n .,._-,,,,,-r._--p..,nen,n~n..---.----_,,,,--,,.,,,..m-,n-.
LT A llU. l . IH. i 1 IUNCTION AND l'OSITION OF l'ROCESS VAI.VV.S Irril.I7.I N(: I - Unit i IJUA1.1FIF.Il AECO Sol.ENOIDS 2 - Unit 2 UNIT I AND COMMON, A - Common UNIT 2
~
Tag Number ASCO Position (Unit) (Valve) Model Number Normal / Safe Location Safety _ Function 1/2 8028 NP831654E N0/FC Fuel llandling Bldg. Cth. Isol. 1/2 8033 NP831/>54E NC/FC Fuel llandling Bldg. Cth. Isol. 1/2 8047 NP831654E NC/FC Containment Cth. Isol. 1/2 8145 NP831654E NC/FC Containment Pzr. Aux. Spray Isol. 1/2 8152 NP831654E N0/FC Aux. Bldg. Cth. Isol. 1/2 8153 NP811654E NC/FC Containment Ltdn. Isol. 1/2 8154 NP831654E NC/FC Containment Ltdn. I r.o l . 1/2 8160 NP831654E N0/FC Containment Cth. I::al . 1/2 459 NP831654E N0/FC Containment Ltdn. Isol. 1/2 460 NP831654E N0/FC Containment Ltdn. Isol. 1/2 8823 NP831654E NC/FC Containment Ctb. Isol. 1/2 8824 NP831654E NC/FC Containmer.t Ctb. Isol. 1/2 8825 NP831654E NC/FC Containment Ctb. Isol. 1/2 8843 NP831654E NC/FC Containment Ctb. Isol. 1/2 8870A NP831654E NC/FC Aux. Bldg. Bit. Recirc. Isol. 1/2 8870B NP831654E NC/FC Aux. Bldg. Bit. Recire. Isol. 1/2 8871 NP831654E NC/FC Containment Cth. Isol. e . I
=
4706t e G G
litNCllON ANO l'OSITION OF l'ltt H :FS val.VF.S lil l t.l Z I NG I - Unil I QUAL.lFIED ASCO Sul.ENDIDS 2 - Unit 2 UNIT I TJ!D Cott10N, A - Conu m UNIT 2 Tag Number ASCO Position (Unit) (Valvel Model Number Normal / Safe Location Safety _ Function 1/2 8880 NP831654E NC/FC MSIV Area Cth. Isol. 1/2 8881 NP831654E Nc/FC Containment Cth. Isol. 1/2 8883 NP831654E NC/FC Aux. Ridg. Bit. Rectre. Isol. 1/2 8888 NP831654E NC/FC Aux. Bldg. Ctb. Isol. 1/2 8890A NP831654E NC/FC Containment Ctb. Isol. 1/2 8890B NP831654E NC/FC Conta inment Ctb. Isol. 1/2 8964 NP831654E NC/FC Aux. Bldg. Ctb. Isol. 1/2 7126 NP831654E N0/FC Containment Cth. Iaol. 1/2 7136 NP831654E N0/FC Fuel Handling Bldg. Ctb. Isol. 1/2 7150 HP831654E N0/FC Fuel Handling Bletg. Ctb. Isol. 1/2 7603A* 206-381-6RF N0/FC Aux. Bldg. Sghd Isol. 1/2 76035* 206-381-6RF N0/FC Aux. Bldg. Sghd Isol. 1/2 7603C* 206-381-6RF N0/7C Aux. Bldg. Sgbd Isol. 1/2 7603D* 206-381-6RF N0/FC Aux. Bldg. Sgbd Isol. 1/2 7699 NP831654E N0/FC Containment Cth. Isol.
- Supplied with two solenoid valves.
S~ 9 9
FUNCTION AND POSITION OF l*ltOCESS val,VF.S IITil.17.ING I - IInit I QUAI.IFIED ASCO Sol.ENOIDS 2 - Unit 2 UNIT I AND COMMON, A - Conanon UNIT 2
- ~
Tag Nurnber ASCO Position (Unit) (Valve) Model Nurnber Normal / Safe location Safety Function 1/2 510* NP8321A5 6 N0/FC MSIV Are.e Edwtr. Isol. 1/2 520* NP832tA5 h N0/FC MSIV Area Edwtr. Isol. 1/2 530* NP8321A5 b N0/FC MSIV Area Fdwtr. Isol. 1/2 540* NP8321A5 6 N0/FC MSIV Area Fdwtr. Isol.
- Supplied with two solenoid valves.
~.
7A s 4 7(ifit O O 9
lifNCTION AND PilSITION OF Pitori'.S9 VAI.VES IITil.17.INf; I - tiesi t 1 QUAI.IFIFD ASCO SOI.EN0lDS 2 - Unit 2 UNIT I AND COMMON, A - Conum UNIT 2 Tag Number ASCO Position (Unit) (Valve) Model Number Normal / Safe Location Safety Function I/2 2628B NPK8 316A74E N0/FC Containment Cth. Vntin. Isol. 1/2 2626B NPK8316A74E N0/FC Containment Ctb. Vntin. Isol. 1/2 3507 NPK8320Al86V NC/FC Containment Ctb. Isol. 1/2 3513 NPK8320A186V NC/FC Containment Cth. Isol. 1/2 3501 NPK8320Al86V NC/FC Containment RCS Pr Bdy isol I/2 15212A NPK8320Al86E N0/FC Containment Sghd. Isol . (AB IIELB) 1/2 15212B NPK8320Al86E N0/FC Containment Sgbd. Isol . (AB IIELB) 1/2 15212C NPK8320A186E N0/FC Containment Sgbd. Isol . ( AB IIELB) 1/2 15212D NPK8320A186E N0/FC Containment Sgbd. Isol. (AB HELB) 1/2 15214 NPK8320A186E N0/FC Containment Ltdn. Isol. ( AB IIELB) 1/2 15215 NPK8320A186E N0/FC Containment Ltdn. Isol. (AB IIELB) 1/2 15216A NPK8320A186E N0/FC Containment Sghd. Isol. (AB HELB) 1/2 152168 NPK8320Al86E N0/FC Containment Sgbd. Isol . ( AB IIEl.B) 1/2 15216C NPK8320Al86E N0/FC Containment Sgbd. Isol . (AB IIELB) , 1/2 15216D NPK8320A186E N0/FC Containment Sghd. Isol. (AB llELB) 1/2 5242* NPK8320A186V NC/FC MSIV Area Fdwtr. Isol. 1/2 5243* NPK8320Al86V NC/FC MSIV Area Fdwtr. Isol. ~
- Supplied with two solenoid valves.
1 47069
lilNCilON ANil htSITION OF l'Itot:F.SS VAI.VF.5 lirII.I7.ING ! I - Unit I QtlAl.l FIFli AECO EOI.FNOlllS 2 - Unit 2 IINIT I ANil COMT10N, A - Conumm UNIT 2 Tag Number ASCO Position (Unit) (Valve) Model Number Nornol/ Safe lencation Saf ety Function 1/2 5244* NPK8320Al86'v NC/FC MSIV Area Fdwtr. Isol. 1/2 5245* NPK8320A186V NC/FC MSIV Area Fdwtr. Isol. 1/2 9378* NPK8320A186V NO/FC Aux. Ridg. Oth. Isol. 1/2 3508 NPK8320Al86V NC/FC Fuel llandling Bldg. Cth. Isol. 1/2 3514 NPK8320Al86V NC/FC Fuel llandling Bldg. Ctb. Isol. 1/2 3502 NPK8320Al86V NO/FC Fuel llandling Bldg. Cth. Isol. 1/2 5194 NPK8320A166V NC/FC MSIV Area Sg. Chem. Addn. Isol. 1/2 5195 NPK8320A186V NC/FC MSIV Area Sg. Chem. Addn. Isol. 1/2 5196 NPK8320A186V NC/FC MSIV Area Sg. Chem. Addn. Isol. 1/2 5197 NPK8320A186V NC/FC MSIV Area Sg. Chem. Addn. Isol. 1/2 5278 NPK8320A186V NC/FC Aux. Bldg. Sg. Chem. Addn. Isol. 1/2 5279 NPK8320A186V NC/FC Aux. Bldg. Sg. Chem. Addn. Isol.
- Supplied with two solenoid valves.
4 4 706t e -- G G
FUNCTION ANil POSITION OF Plu H:F.SS val.VFf; Irril.lZINf; i - Unit I QtlAI.lFIFil ASCO SOI.FNOIDS 2 - Uinit 2 U21T I ANil COMMON, A - Common UNIT 2 Tag Number ASCC PosItlon _ UnitL ( (Valve) Model Number Normal / Safe 1.ocation Safety _ Function 1/2 5280 NPK8320A186V NC/FC Aux. Bldg. Sg. Cliem. Addn. Isol. 1/2 5281 NPK8320A186V NC/FC Aux. Bldg. Sg. Chem. Addn. Isol. 1/2 9446 NPK8320Al86V N0/FC NSCW Pumphouse NSCW Bd. Isol. 1/2 9447 NPK8320A186V N0/FC NSCW Pumphouse NSCW Bd. Isol. 1/2 2627B NPK8316A74E N0/FC Equip. Bldg. Ctb. Vntin. Isol. 1/2 2629 B NPK8316A74E N0/FC Equip. Bldg. Ctb. Vntin. Isol. 1/2 12596 NPK832tA2V N0/FC Aux. Bldg. Rht. Intake Isol . (IIVAC) 1/2 12597 NPK8321A2V N0/FC Aux. Bldg. Rht. Intake Isol. (llVAC) 1/2 13005A NPKR120A186E N0/FC MSIV Area Steamline Isol. 1/2 13005B NPK8320Al86E N0/FC MSIV Area Steamline Isol. 1/2 13006A NPK8320A186E N0/FC MSIV Area Steamline Isol. 1/2 130068 NPK8320Al86E N0/FC MSIV Area Steamline Isol. 1/2 13007A NPK8320A186E HQ/FC MSIV Area Steamline Isol. 1/2 13007B NPK8320Al86E N0/FC MSIV Area Steamline Isol. 1/2 13008A NPK8320Al86E N0/FC MSIV Area Steamline Isol. 1/2 13008B NPK8320A186E N0/FC MSIV Area Steamline Isol. . 4706t O O 9
EUNCTION ANil POSITION OF PitoCESS val.VES Irril.17.lNf I - Ifnit I QUAI.lFIED AF.00 SOI.ENOIDS
'3 2 - Unit 2 UNIT I AND COMMON, A - Conunon UNIT 2 Tag Nmnber ASCO Position (Unit) (Valve) Model Number Normal / Safe Location Safety Function 1/2 10957 NP8320A185V NC/FC Outside Areas Rwst. Sludge Mixing isol.
1/2 10958 NP8320Al85V NC/FC Outside Areas Rwst. Sludge Mixing isol. 1/2 780 NP8320A185V N0/FC Containment Ctb. Isol. 1/2 781 NP8320Al85V N0/FC Aux. Bldg. Ctb. Isol. 1/2 7773 NP8320A185V NC/FC Outside Areas Rmwst. Isol. 1/2 1733A NP8320Al85V N0/FC Outside Areas Rmwst. Isol. I/2 7760A NP8320Al85V N0/FC Aux. Bldg. Rmwst. Isol. 1/2 17605 NP8320A135V N0/FC Aux. Bldg. Rmwst. Isol. 1/2 77335 NP8320A185V N0/FC Outside Areas Rmwst. Isol. 1/2 15196* NP8321ASE N0/FC MSIV Area Fdwtr. Isol. 1/2 15197* NP8321ASE N0/FC MSIV Area Fdwtr. Isol. 1/2 15198* NP8321A5E N0/FC MSIV Area Fdwtr. Isol. 1/2 15199* NP8321A5E N0/FC MSIV Area Fdwtr. Isol. 1/2 5087 NP8320Al85V N0/FC AW Pumphouse Cst. Isol. 1/2 5088 NP8320 AIR 5V N0/FC A W Pumphouse Cst. Isol. 1/2 5158 NP8320A185V NC/FC AFW Pumphouse Cat. Isol.
- Supplied with two solenold valves.
~
I
~
l G G G
lifNCTION AND POSITION OF i itocESS VAI.VV.S tlTil.17.I N(; I - tinit ! QUAL.lFIED ASCO S01.EN0ll)S 2 - Unit 2 UNIT I AND COMMON, A - Conm m UNIT 2 Tag Number ASCO Position (Uni _ t ) (Valve) Model Number __ Normal / Safe Location _ Safety Function 1/2 5162 NP8320Al85V NC/FC AFW Pumphonse Cat. Isol. A 19722 NP8320A185V N0/FC MSIV Area Elec. Stm. Bir. Isol. A 19723 NP8320A185V N0/FC MSIV Area Elec. Stm. Bir. Isol. 1/2 2790l* NP8320Al85V NC/FC Aux. Bldg. Cth. Isol. 1/2 9385* NP8320A185V NC/FC Aux. Bldg. Cth. Isol.
- Supplied with two solenoid valves.
O e 7
~
O O 9
FUNCTION AND POSITION OF l'I'tM:ESS VAI.VES IIT il.17.l Nt; I - Unit I QUALIFIED ASCO SOLENGIDS 2 - Unit 2 UNIT I AND COMMON, A - Conanon UNIT 2 Tag Number ASCO Position (Unit) (Valve) Model Number Normal / Safe Location Safety _ Function I/2 12010 NFL831654E NC/F0 AFV Pumphouse Afw. Pumphouse Air Intake l l l 1/2 12086 NP M 31654E N0/F0 Diesel Cen. Bldg. Diesel Cen. Bldg. Intake /Exh. l I/2 12096 NFL831654E N0/F0 Diesel Cen. Bldg. Diesel Cen. Bldg. Intake /Exh. 1/2 12098 NPM31654E N0/F0 Diesel Cen. Bldg. Diesel Cen. Bldg. Intake /Exh. l 1/2 12099 NPL831654E N0/F0 Diesel Cen. Bldg. Diesel Cen. Bldg. Intake /Exh. I 1/2 2636A NFL831664E N0/FC Control Bldg. Elect. Penet. Area Exhaust 1/2 2636B NFL831664E N0/FC Control Bldg. Elect. Penet. Area Exhaust 1/2 2638A NFL831664E N0/FC Control Bldg. Elect. Penet. Area Exhaust 1/2 2638B NFL831664E N0/FC Control Bldg. Elect. Penet. Area Exhaust A 12152* NFL831664E N0/FC Control Bldg. Control Room IIVAC isol . A 12153* NFL831664E N0/FC Control Bldg. Control Room HVAC isol. A 12162* NPM31664E N0/FC Control Bldg. Control Room IIVAC isol . A 12163* NPM31664E Flo/FC Control Bldg. Control Room HVAC isol.
- Supplied with three solenoid valves (2 NPM31664E,1 NPM31666E)
~ ~.
R
. ,~..
it!NCTION ANI) POSITION OF PI:OCESS VAI.VES IITil.17. int: I - linit I fjUA1.lFIED ASCO S01.ENoll15 2 - Unit 2 UNIT I AND COMMON, . A - Comrnon UNIT 2 Tag Niunber ASCO Positinn (Unit) (Valve) Model Nusnher Normal / Safe I.ocation Safety Function A 2528 NFL8316A74E N0/FC Fuel llandling Bldg. Thb. IIVAC Supply Isol . A 2529 NPL8316A74E N0/FC Control Bldg. Fhb. HVAC Supply Isol. A 2514 NFL8316A74E N0/FC Fuel llandling Bldg. Fhb. IIVAC Supply Isol . A 2535 NPL8316A74E N0/FC Control Bldg. Thb. IIVAC Supply Isol . 1/2 12146* NPL8316E34E N0/FC Control Bldg. Control Room Isol. 1/2 12147* NFL8316E34E N0/FC Control Bldg. Control Room Isol. 1/2 12148* NPL8316E34E N0/FC Con'rol Bldg. Control Room Isol. 1/2 12149* NFL8316E34E N0/FC Control Bldg. Control Room Isol.
- Supplied with three solenoid valves (2 NFL8316E34E, 1 NPL831636E).
o O
. . ,~ .
EUNt* TION AND POSITION OF l'ItOCESS VAI.VES IITil.17.ING I - Unit ! QUAI.lFIED ASCO SOI.F.NOIDS 2 - Unit 2 UNIT I AND Com0N, A - Conunon UNIT 2 Tag Ntonber ASCO PosILlon Model Ntaber Nornial/ Safe Location Safety Function (Unit) (Valve) NFLR320 AIR 4E N0/F0 Diesel Cen. Bldg. Diesel Bldg. IIVAC Intake 1/2 12095E Diesel Cen. Bldg. Diesel Bldg. IIVAC Intake 1/2 12095F NFLR320AIRGE N0/F0 NPIA320 AIR 4E NC/FC Diesel Cen. Bldg. Diesel Bldg. IIVAC Isol . 1/2 121005 Diesel Cen. Bldg. Diesel Bldg. IIVAC Isol. 1/2 12100C NFLR320A184E NC/FC NPIR320A184E NC/FC Diesel Cen. Bldg. Diesel Bldg. HVAC Isol. 1/2 12101B Diesel Cen. Bldg. Diesel Bldg. IIVAC isol . 1/2 1210lc NFLR320 AIR 4E NC/FC NFLB31654E NC/F0 AFW Piumphouse Afw. Pumphouse IIVAC Exhaust 1/2 12010A e - 11 S 8 e
.. . - - -- . .- - . -.- . - . . . - . . - . - . _ _ . . . . ~ .
.s . : .-
l 'Q L C/ ABBREVIATIONS USED IN TABLE 10.5-1 , l Valve Position (Normal / Safe) ; ( NO - Normally Open l NC - Normally closed l FO -- Fail Open , l FC - Fail Closed I j Safety Function I 4 Ctb - Containment Building Isol - Isolation Pzr - Pressurizar Aux - Auxiliary Ltdn - Letdown Bit - Boron Injection Tank Recirc - Recirculation Sqbd - Steam Generator Blowdown Fdwtr - Feedwater RCS - Reactor Coolant System O Bdy Pr AB Pressure Boundary Auxiliary Building HELB - High Energy Line Break Sg - Steam Generator Chem - Chemical Addn - Addition NSCW - Nuclear Service Cooling Water Bd - Blowdown l Vntin - Ventilation Rht - Recycle Holdup Tank KVAC - Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning Rwst - Refueling Water Storage Tank - l Rmwst - Reactor Makeup Water Storage Tank f Cst - Condensate Storage Tank Elec - Electric Stm - Steam Sir - Boiler Afw - Auxiliary Feedwater Exh - Exhaust Elect - Electrical Penet - Penetration Thb - Fuel Handling Building ()' l
y- , l 0 - o. ALIIX4AlsLE LEAKAGE HATE OF PIIDP VALVES TABLE 10.5-2 I Process Valve Pilot Valve Process V.s1ve Pilot Valvo Pilot Allowable Allowable taak T,5) No/titU P.srt No. S$fety Positios Exn. Cv Mounting Residtaal Pres. Rate of Pilot IIV-5194 tu%3120AINV Closed (MSIV Area) .31 Vert.U.R. 13.6 psi 203SCMI IIV-5195 tu%5120Al%V Clo w l(MSIV Area) .31 Vert.U.R. 13.6 psi 2O ISCHI tiV-5196 tu%s320AlEV Closed (tGIV Area) .31 Vert.U.R. 13.6 psi 203SCMI tiv-S l'R ru%s320AIE V Clo w i(MStV Area) .31 Ve rt .U.it. 13.6 pai 2t)3SCMI Pistwr Glote liv-130thA115 tRCil20Alda'W (, Clo w i(MSIV Area) .31 Vert.U.R. 7.53 pcsi 143SCMI IIV-13OO6A&u tu%!320AIMfg; Clo wl(MSIV Area) .31 Vert.U.R. 7.63 psi 143SCMt g ilV-13OO1Aill ta%3320A1367 Closed (MSIV Area) .31 Vert.U.R. 7.63 psi 143SCHI g ilV-13OOilAsis tu%132GA16V Closed (MSlv Area) .31 Ve rt .II.R. 7.63 psi 143SCMI t* Fistwr Glote t'3 e IIV-780 tP 3tl20A135V Clo w l (MSIV Area) .15 Vertical 20 psi 12SSCHI f A/D Gate Inverted m u ilV-IS196 tuM121ASE Closol (MSIV Ar.ta) Exluust port Vert.U.R. 20 psi. 11V-15191 2 pilot valves Cloused (MSIV Area) Cval.2 Vert.U.R. Botta A&E vents IOO2SCMI IIV-IS193 in s.tri.ss Cloaml (MStV Araa) Inlet port Vert.U.R. ostly A vesits IOO2SCMt fly-IS L'r) Clasmi (MSIV Area) Cv=.8 Vert.tl.nl. only B vents SS*>SCFil t I l s-
I (
\ .
(/ - s I A!JAMAHLE LEAKAGE HATE OF PflDr VALVES Process Valve Pilot. Valve Process Valve Pilot Valvo Pilot Allowablo Allowable leak Tsj tb/t#U Part tb. L tety Position Exh. Cv Mountiswj Rosinisal Pres. Rate of Pilot K l (Imatiosa) ilV-3507 tuh320A136V Closed (in Cont) .31 Vertical 13.3 psi 19t! Scal Pister Glota Upright (U.R.) tiV _1511 tR> 120A13e>V Closed (in Cont) .31 Vert.U.R. 13.3 psi 19t! Scat Fisikir Glotas llV- l'x)l IR$ 320AlduV Closuel (in Cont) .'31 Vert.U.R. 13.3pesi 19elSCHI Pist ar Glote liv-15212A, tR>fil20 Alt 16E Closial (in Cont) .31 Vert.U.R. 16.25 psi 223 Scal 8, C, & D Fistier Glotu llV-1521tiA tR> 120A136E Closini (in Cont) .31 Vert.U.R. 16.2Spai 223SCFil B, C, & D Fastwr Glots: LV-5212 tu't' l l2t)AI AV Closant(MSIV Area) .31 Vert.U.R. 4.lpsi LV-5248 2 Ptiot Vilves Clo:el(MSIV Area) 31 Vert.U.R. Botti A&B vents LOSSCHI LV-52tl la & ries Cl.use !(MSIV Aro.s) . 11 Vert.U.R. only A vents libSCHI LV-521'> Par Proi:ess VA Clo:secl(MSIV Aru.s) 11 Vert.U.R. only B vents 75SCtli Pistser Gli Amr
l ,e (~ ,-
~ / GJ \ ,) s, I
l l AIJAtlAldR LEAKAGE IWrE OF Pl!Dr VALVES Process Valve Pttot Valve Process Valve Pilot Valve Pilot Allowable Allowat)le Leak Taij tb/Mtu Part tu. Safety Position Exh. Cv Mountirvj Residual Pres. Rate of Pilot AllV-l'3 /22 t4Pil320Ald5V Closed (MSIV Area) .15 Vertical 20 psi 125Sctli Inverted AltV-l'il23 t4Hil20Ald5V Closed (MSIV Area) .15 Vertical 20 psi 125SCb11 Invertal 1 i l l l i I l l
a . -. , . . . TABLE 10.5-3 Qualification Qualification Test valve No. Test Model Test Valve No. Test Model L 1 210-036-1F 10 NP8323A38V 2 K206-381-3RVF 11 NPS344A70V 3 206-381-6RF 12 NP8344B68E 4 NP831655E 13 NPS314C2SV d 5 NPK8316A74V 14 NPS317A29V 6 WJNP8316E34E 7 NP8320A185V 8 NP832063E 9 NP8321A2V R$7R/BUT/dN d/ 7/?NN/4/L L Y JMk///UM7 CfS/dNA444W/7/A VAT /47/dNS /N 7Ne Gudt///urtCN 7?s717/WS pe4dMf Y90 f GudDATAfidN 917 edul_%A4901 1 l Anntg4BLt wordrieugt t t 2 j . 4 t i s 4 ' 9 t t '9 l m or stg ntg s t4 6
$LfC71/ CAL TYPf AC l JI J i Jf l I/ 5 l JI /\ I
- h h DC l f J f Jldl i d' dl dl I J' Jf J Z:LI MatD und 7 7 fA t/N 6 10. $ l n di l l /\ l /! J1 i H.C l
' 6 l l ' ; I t /t JI 17.4 i
- l l JI Jl l J' / / l J! l '
20.0 J/ ' l t ' o J3. / l / l l ' i 304/Weto CD/L TYPT LfAD&D lJ J/ JIJ; J / / J d'J J h 2:f1av 7tRM/Md4 1 J J l t n l $3LfHCICINCLDS:,tRt 77P? MA ffA714M 7 J J l .JJ J l GClfli,t~ r \ tA .
. i o *:NNya~i
. \d <J ;J J s J J!
v4Lvenocr7/91 &#A!3 1 JJJJJlJ d'd J,J;/ JI h 3794L \ d' t ' l / . t
- I 2147tH6 TYP9 #f tst.sfur L d' d J J dlJ; /* Ji d' Jf J1/; JI h Mf7AL \/ l , , ;
d Jl eLA17:Mf! TfM #50*:{hU$o lJ JJ Jl J ' I tf ,
)
h V/ 73H l J J !J J J Jt f Jl VALVE 7199 3 * *vdY l/ J J J f J J J // / Jl h 4
- rud y l -
. /; / i 0111/Cf tilI.'.sters) 3/44 l .
J f l
///4 I J >
\
1/32 l e J .t i I
//a i !
l
! J//4 l/ i 1
f //d 'd J; IJ t n '/jt J l l ./M l J - l O ! I
,, l .' l 1/8 l !
d' '
, , s t
t
!!/Ab l . .[ \
- t i J/4 1 6 I i i l ,
i I t/f I f / I'I I lJi l > I ! I l
I-o ,- ,s. TABLE 10.5 4 ISCMEDIX/ASCO QUALIFICATION TEST ACS 21678/TR REV. A Qualification Test Valve No. Test Model 1 HVA-206-381-6F 2 NP 8344A71E 4 HVA-206-380-3RF 5 NP 8320A184E 6 NP 831665E 8 NP 8321A5E 9 NP 8323A39E Test Valve Nos 3 & 7 were for t st information only and were not part of the 6 Generic families of valves. Table As Distributien of technically significant design parameter variations in the qualification test items. O Qualification Test Valve No. Available - l Parameters Variations 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 Remarks ! i i l Electrical Type 120V-AC .X X i iA Valve No. 9 has 2 125V-DC X X, X 'X 6 B solenoids - A(AC) l
& B (DC) l Solenoid Watt 10 5 i X :
A! Rating 17.4 t iX i X!XiB! 20.0 I X! i i 35.1 iX i i ! i e i . Solenoid Coil Landed IX I XlXiX X IX 3 A Types Screw Terminal i i ! i :B SolerioiIl ! Watertinnt I
'XtX Y' Enclosure Type lExplosionProof/ iX X:
l X lX l l t I ! l Valve Body Brass XiXiX!X XiXiX! Type Steel e i i e ! i i I i l l Seating Type Resilient ! XiXtX X'XlXi O- ' Elastemer Type - Ethylene Prooylene X X X X XIXlX Viton
s;J A - TABLE 10 5 4 Centinued ISCMEDIX/ASCO QUALIFICATION TEST ACS 21678/TR REV. A Cualification Test Valve No. Available - Parameters Variations 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 Remarks Valve Type 3-way !X X X X !X X 4-way i X. ' i # 6 e
! # ! i ' f Orifice Size '1/*6 I I i 6 i (inches) V12 1 X ' '
1/R I ' i IX ' ' V 16 i i 1/4 X X I i 4/12 I IX* M/16 X l t i 11/t2 ! ! , O VR I I I i ci/R I I X, I
! I i i Pipe Size 1/4 X XfX iX 'X 1/8 X i l l 1/2 Xi i
O I
,. t TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMAN & ASH'MORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW O cAmoLta suskosmo An#ffA.0EORGIA 30303 aos e,e.cooo JAMES E. JOINER **dt** o.esce om avsete February 27, 1986 Morton B. Margulies, Esquire Chairman - Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
~~ ~'
Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Gustave A. Linerberger, Jr. Administrative Judga Atomic Safety and I.icensing Board Panel O U S. auc1 ear aeeutatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 RE: In re Georgia Power Company, et al.. (Vogtle . Electric Generating Plant, Units T and 2) j NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 i
Dear Administrative Judges:
Exhibit F to the Applicants' Testimony of George J. Baentali, George Bockhold, Jr., Stephen J. Cereghino, William V. Cesarski, and Harold J. Quasny on Contention
- 10.5 (ASCO Solenoid Valves) submitted on February 24, 1986, consisted of ASCO Catalog No. NP-1. Page 13 of that catalog was inadvertently omitted from the copy
attached to that testimony. A copy of that page is enclosed. Yours trul: ,
- f. )\ t-lk%M[ k W) es E. iner ,,
O aca mu Enclosure cc: Service List
0 # = High Flow E0d-ll8f, 4 WAY SOLENOID VALVES 2 Position Single and Dual Solenolds BULLETIN For (oilfree) Instrument Air X" to 1" N.P.T. NP8344 i General Description These are heavy duty two position 4 Caution: Do not energize both sole-way valves with rugged forged brass noids simultaneously. bodies and poppet type seats and ' pipe sizes: M", %', M*, M* and 1" N.P.T. --
- discs, providing tight seating.
The main valve discs are power driven Valve Partain Contact with Modla: F ' in both directions by line pressure - Body - Brass. no retum sonnos. _ i Seals - Ethyione Propylene. Applications oi,c, _ yiton Primarily used as pilot operators on larger control valves in nuclear power Core Tube - 305 s.s. Coll: Continuous Duty Class H. plants. Core and Plugnut - 430F s.s. Temperstus e: Fluid: To 180'F. They are also used in applications. Springs - 302 s.s. and 17 7PH s.s. Ambient: Nominal Range 32'F. to such as: Shading Coil - Copper. j goop, e cylinders e clutches Pilot Seat Cartridge - Brass Installation: Mountable in any positkm Specifications Shaft Gasket - Lead /Qad Copper, without affecting operation. Operation:Two types available: No Aluminum Parts. Coerse Filter, Integral in valve inlet. (c) Single Solenoid - The valve solenoid
Enclosures:
Two types are changes position when the solenoid available: b energized; the valve returns to its original position when de-energized. (a) Watertight (NEMA 4 and 6)' @ nel Mures:
'" " 'v' (b) Explosion Proof - Watertight e Junction Box Solenoid Enclosure.
(NEMA TC,70 and 4). (Watertight Solenoid Only). tion Weno
' le energized. Valve will not return to Electrical: Standard Voltages:
its original position until opposite
- ManuelOperator solenoid is energized. Solenoids may 4 60. .Hz be energized momentarily or
,j.d2 0 - e
- Threaded Conduit Hub
- continuously. 6,12,24,125,250 volta, D.C. (battery voltageek e ScrewTerminalColls.
Minimum on time of coil for dual (Watertight Solenoid Only). solenoid valves is 0.3 second on air Other voltages available when service required.
- Viton Elastomers.
Specifications
.1 4 r.p wer e
, a _. ,,,,
ts s ==.-. ==.-. . at :. s -, 1 M M ~ H H WP Y meesee a (se i M M to its its ate les J l mes344A10E nes344A718 14 3 17.4 n 4% $W M M 10 12S 121 4e8 les La 32 mes344A1N nes344A7M las- 17.4 n 9% 10 M M 10 125 12S 40s IN l.4 ff nes344AJet mes344A15t r leJ
- 17.4 n pH le M N to 125 its see .las u u nes244Aret mes344 Ant )as 47A n leW igm I N lo its its see les u sa nes344Aret mes344Aist ,' le s 17A n leW sen O - ' - ~
<sm-
, M M lo sto 125 see les .a i mes344eest mes m oset las it.s n su 7 N N 10 soo its see les 'L4 tJ nes344eiot mes m eert tas 17.4 n le let i M M le sie les ese les te u mesmesat nes m enet , las r . sta n le leu
! M N le 3eo its les u es nes344eset nes344eest las 37,4 m tot set i M le see trs e
. see see . ;*lse
,s4 mes>44eest ers>44eest > sas ' ,ga n 194 seu l C
rm g QJ 26115.0 BRT 518 1 MR. CliURCHILL : Your Honor, these witnesses are 2 ready for cross-examination. 3 JUDGE MARGULIES: You may proceed, Mr. Feig. 4 CROSS-EXAMINATIOt1 5 BY MR. FEIG: 6 Q I would like to start off asking the panel 7 basically what the function of these valves is and what could 0 happen if these valves were to fall? 9 A (Cereghino) The function of the ASCO solenoid f- 10 valves is to control the reporting of instrument error to the (3) 11 operating diaphragn of safety-related process valves and 12 dampers. The valves, ac we have stated in our testimony, are 13 configured in such a fachion that when the ASCO solenoid 14 valve is de-energized, the operating diaphragm or cylinder on 15 your proceau valve and damper la connected to the atmosphere, 16 permitting the air pressure in the diaphragm, the operating 17 cylinder, to be vented to the atmosphere, thuc allowing the 10 proceau valve or damper to change position. 19 Q What could happen -- what kind of consequences -- 20 what would happen if, say, this valve were to fall? 21 A In our testimony, again, we have addressed the 22 configurations of the process valvec and dampera, which (O y 23 include ASCOs as their appurtenances. And we have shown in 24 the testimony that given a single fallure at any ASCO + 25 solenoid valve or the asnociated process valve, that ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Mrk33&N46
V 26115.0 BRT 519 1 safety-related functions at Plant Vogtle would not be 2 impaired. l l L 3 Q On page 60, letter A there, it says; "The failure l 4 of a single ASCO solenoid valve cannot jeopardize safe l l 5 operation of the Vogtle electric plant." i ! 6 Ilow many failures would it actually take to 7 jeopardize safety at the plant? Let's say there were several 0 failures. Wouldn't it be possible that several failures of l 9 these valves could cause safety problems? 10 MR. CHURCIIILL : Your lionor, I would like some l 11 clarifica tion on that. You know the plants are designed l 12 under the single failure criterion with redundancy, and I'm l 13 wondering if his question is going to that aspect of it l 14 within the confines of the NRC requirements in that respect? l l 15 MR. FEIG The single failure -- you are saying, l l 16 then, that it can only fail -- you are assessing the problem 17 here saying that a failure only one time is all that has been 10 assessed? Saying that this valve -- let's say the valve l 19 malfunctions, does not work one time, that's the only way you l 20 assess this problem? 21 MR. CliURCilILL : No, I'm saying -- I'm asking the 22 question: Are you addressing this within the NRC single l f% () 23 failure criterion which does require redundant trains on 24 safety-related equipment? l 25 JUDGE MARGULIEG: Are you talking about ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage mo-33MM6
() V 26115.0' BRT > 520 1 simultaneous failures? 2 NR. FEIG: Right. 3 THE WITNESS: (Dockhold) llow many failures are you 4 talking about? There's 140 valves listed on the table. We 5 need more clarification on the panel. 6 BY MR. FEIO: 7 Q Well, I guess I'm just asking -- I really -- I 8 don't, today, presenting these questions, I don't sit here as 9 a technician and engineer as well. I do understand that (g 10 there is -- it you have 144 valves and you have a failure,
\m) 11 one valve could fall several times; all of them could fall 12 several times. Perhaps you could just tell me how many times 13 can a valve fall?
14 The question is how many times can a valve fall 15 until it jeopardizes the safety of the plant? Until you 16 replace the valve? Until you stop the plant from operating? 17 I'm just concerned that more failures at once, you begin to 10 say, well, this jeopardizes the safety of the plant. 19 A (Cereghino) All right. Again, in the testimony we 20 describe the design of the Vogtle plant and the redundancy 21 that has been provided for those applications where we do use 22 ASCO solenoid valves as appurtenances to our process valves O V 23 and dampers. 24 To address this concern of common mode failure we 25 do, in fact, go through environmental qualification to ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Rfo.336-6M6
r"N l] 26115.0 BRT 521 1 demonstrate that our equipment will not suffer the common 2 mode failure. We examine the possibility of common mode 3 failures. 4 The plant is designed to withstand the single 5 failure of one of these process valves or dampers. And when 6 we consider that single failure, what we mean at that point 7 is that that valve, damper or whatever we've assumed has 8 single failed, is no longer available to us. It is not a 9 one-time -- or a periodic failure, but it is a loss of f~s 10 function in that particular device for the duration. ( l
'~
11 Q Duration being -- 12 A Duration of the event that we are trying to 13 mitigate. 14 0 Could you clarify that for me? The event that you 15 are trying to mitigate -- meaning the actual failure of the 16 valve? If one particular valve failu, you are saying that, 17 therefore, that valve is considered no longer operable? 10 A That's correct. 19 Q Okay. So there are, you are saying, over 20 140-some-odd valves there. Each one takes the place of one 21 that doesn't function? 22 A No, sir. What I said was that we had designed the (O,) 23 plant with regard to process and flVAC, such that there is 24 redundancy for each of the functions that must be performed. 25 When I do a single failure analysis I look at my ability to ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 37(x) Natlonwide Coverage 8(0 33MM6
e i 26115.0 BRT 522 1 perform the function, given a single failure. I do not take 2 multiple failures unless there is a mechanism for that 3 multiple failure to occur. 4 I take the single failure plus any consequential 5 events of that single failure and the consequential events of 6 the initiating event. 7 O Then the consequential failure of the single event 8 -- what are the consequences? I'm still not clear on the 9 consequences of the failure of a single -- as you say single 7 10 event? t
^'
11 A (Bockhold) There is none. The plant is put in a 12 safe shutdown failure as a consequence of the single 13 failure. 14 JUDGE PARIS: As a consequent of the single 15 shutdown? 16 THE WITNESS: (Bockhold) During an event, 17 depending on the type of failure, the plant would be in a 18 safe shutdown configuration. Other systems would be 19 providing appropriate flows and coolings to the plant. 20 BY MR. FEIG: 21 Q You said " depending on the type of failure." 22 Perhaps you could explain that, what types of failures you x 23 are talking about there? 24 A (Bockhold) There's 144 valves in this list in 25 various systems. We have redundant systems to perform safety ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
j 26115.0 BRT 523 1 function, we have redundant valves to perform safety 2 function. You could pick a particular valve and we could 3 walk through a scenario, but these scenarios have been 4 analyzed and presented in our final safety analysis report; 5 and basically, with a single failure, the plant, during an 6 event, is put in a safe shutdown configuration. 7 Q How many valves would have to fail simultaneously 8 to jeopardize plant safety? 9 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, I think we are getting f- 10 outside NRC requirements. This is approaching a challenge to ( 11 the regulations in the NRC requirements and, as you know, 12 there's a special provision that any such challenges have to 13 be specifically put in writing and certified up to the 14 Commission. 15 JUDGE MARGULIES: If you could tell us which 16 regulation you feel that he's challenging? 17 MR. CHURCHILL: I guess that would be in the 18 appendix of part 50 that sets forth the criteria for the 19 single failure. That would be criterion - 20 THE WITNESS: (Cereghino) Appendix A to 10 CFR 50 21 provides the general design criteria. There's a number of 22 them and many of those general design criteria which have to i 23 do with specific aspects of the plant design -- it includes 24 the statement that it should be designed for a single 25 failure. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
J 26115.0 BRT 524 1 MR. CHURCHILL: I night also add, your Honor, that 2 the issue here is environmental qualification and it's not 3 plant configuration of valves. 4 JUDGE MARGULIES: The objection is sustained. 5 MR. FEIG: I would just say that, this being a 6 public hearing, I think the public should know. It's 7 difficult to go through all these documents. People should 8 know that if several of these valves were to fail, they 9 should know what this could mean and what kinds of problems
,S , 10 it could lead to as far as plant safety is concerned.
V 11 JUDGE MARGULIES: The objection was sustained. 12 You may ask your next question. 13 BY MR. FEIG: 14 Q On page 67, line 2 -- well, reading from the 15 beginning -- "The planned maintenance and surveillance 16 program requires that all ASCO solenoid valves be replaced 17 prior to the expiration of their qualified life." 18 How is the qualified life of those valves 19 determined? 20 A (Cesarski) Qualified life of an ASCO solenoid 21 valve is determined based on the test programs that we use to 22 qualify the valve. 2g
, / 23 Q Could you tell me what are the values for these 24 ASCO valves?
25 A Are you asking what is the qualified life? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
i \ l x m/ 26115.0 BRT 525 1 Q Yes. 2 A The qualified life of the valves at Plant Vogtle 3 is four years. 4 Q Four years? 5 A That's correct. 6 Q You are saying that the qualified life is four 7 years, therefore if these valves were to fail in operating -- 8 I mean the plant life is considered to be 30 years -- that 9 failure of these valves after four years -- what happens if f~, 10 it were to fail?
! )
~
11 A (Bockhold) Let me explain that a little better. 12 At four years these valves are replaced, the ones that are 13 qualified for four years. Some are qualified longer than 14 that, so a new valve is put in its place so the safety 15 function of that valve continues. 16 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Mr. Cesarski, point of 17 clarification on your previous answer, "four years 18 qualification," does that make any -- that four-year time 19 period make any assumption with respect to whether the valve 20 sees only normal plant operational duty environment? I'll 21 ask just that question. 22 THE WITNESS: (Cesar ski) The qualified life from (~
) 23 the test program is based on the normal environments at Plant 24 Vogtle to which the valve would be exposed during that time.
25 JUDGE LINENBERGER: All right. Then, your having ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Co.erage 800-336-6M6
1 ( \
~/
26115.0 BRT 526 1 said that, let me ask you: Are you in a position to say how 2 much that, or to what extent, for any model valve, that 3 four-year qualification under normal plant conditions might 4 be altered by virtue of the valve having to live through a 5 transient, an incident, a design basis accident or what have 6 you? 7 THE WITNESS: (Cesarski) The valve is also tested 8 to qualify to any applicable design basis event that should 9 occur during that four-year time. The four years is just a
-s 10 normal operating time. If a design basis event were to occur 7 \ )
11 the valve has also been tested to survive that event. 12 JUDGE LINENBER7ER: Thank you. 13 JUDGE PARIS: Fr. Bockhold, with regard to this 14 paragraph, in the last sentence you say "once removed from 15 service, the solenoid valve will be inspected for 16 degradation." If you find it's degradated I assume you throw 17 it away; right? 18 THE WITNEES: (Bockhold) We would go ahead then, 19 sir, and look at those parts. We have a trend program that 20 checks for common mode failure, and if we are getting 21 excessive degradation we would go ahead and really correct 22 that situation in the otaer valves.
,) 23 JUDGE PARIS: You would use that information to 24 try to correct the new valves?
25 THE WITNESS: (Bockhold) To try to correct the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
'a 26115.0 BRT 527 1 valves that exist out there and the replacement valves. We 2 would really reduce the qualification life, if required. 3 JUDGE PARIS: I see. And if it's not degradated, 4 what do you do with it? 5 THE WITNESS: (Bockhold) We would change out the 6 soft parts in those valves and refurbish the valves and 7 return them to service in another system. 8 BY MR. FEIG: 9 Q With regards the actual process of replacing those rm 10 valves, would you perhaps explain the safety risk involved in t . 11 that process? I think that would be of interest. 12 A (Bockhold) I don't consider there's any safety 13 risk involved in that process. The process valve -- this is 14 the solenoid valve, teeds a process valve. When you 15 de-energize the solenoid you vent the air and that puts that 16 process valve in its safe configuration, so the fact that 17 that solenoid valve is out of the picture, the process valve 18 is in its safe configuration. 19 Further, we have administrative controls for 20 control that the system is in a safe configuration. So there 21 is no danger. 22 Q There are some questions I would like to ask
~
(h 23 regarding Dr. Deutsch's testimony yesterday. \_) 24 On page -- the bottom of page 4 and top of page 5 25 of his testimony he states that -- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
's_.)
26115.0 BRT 528 1 JUDGE PARIS: Where are we, Mr. Feig? 2 MR. FEIG: Dr. Deutsch's testimony. This is the 3 bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5. He states that 4 nowhere is the simple statement made " verified that the valve 5 functions properly. Clearly the Applicants do not have an 6 adequate maintenance or surveillance program for ASCO 7 solenoid valves." 8 BY MR. FEIG: 9 Q The question I would have is how would this be s 10 corrected? 11 A (Bockhold) I don't agree with Dr. Deutsch -- or 12 Mr. Deutsch's statement. I'm not sure if it's Mr. or Dr. 13 Q It's Doctor. 14 A (Bockhold) I don't agree with his statement. I 15 don't believe we have a problem. 16 Q So you are saying there's an adequate maintenance 17 and surveillance program? 18 A There is an adequate maintenance and surveillance 19 program; yes, sir. 20 Q Continuing on that page he asks -- he states, 21 "Another interrogatory that Applicants refused to answer but 22 were forced to by the Board, asked how physical orientation ( ,) 23 of ASCO valves was considered during environmental 24 qualification testing." 25 Dr. Deutsch is signifying that this is very ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-M7-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
q;
)
26115.0 BRT 529 1 important information. 2 I would ask how has this been taken into account? 3 A (Bockhold) What is very important information? 4 Clarify your question, sir. 5 Q Its concern about the physical orientation of ASCO 6 valves. It states, on page 5 of the addendum to his 7 testimony, under procedure number 26060-C, under 4.3 B. 8 MR. CHURCHILL: Excuse me, do the witnesses have a 9 ccpy of Dr. Deutsch's testimony?
<^s 10 THE WITNESS: (Bockhold) I'm not sure that we -- I
( $
~
11 have read it in the past. I think he's talking about caution 12 and maintenance procedure. 13 THE WITNESS: (Quasny) We don't have the 14 attachment. 15 BY MR. FEIG: 16 Q Yes. It's under that section. 17 A (Bockhold) I'm not sure of your question, sir. 18 Q It states there, 4.3, under the cautions, it says, 19 under B, " ensure solenoid is mounted in the position 20 indicated on the nameplate." 21 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Excuse me, Mr. Feig, will you 22 tell us which page you are on? These pages are numbered 6 of (- ( _) 23 10, 5 -- 24 MR. FEIG: 5. This is 5 of 10. 25 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Thank you. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
/ a' 26115.0 BRT 530 1 BY MR. FEIG: 2 Q So it says, in his testimony on page 5, his actual 3 testimony, it states, " Applicants stated that they were 4 designed to perform in any orientation, the only requirements 5 being that the solenoid enclosure be sealed, so with the 6 exception of 206-381-6RF"-- has this been taken into account? 7 A (Bockhold) Has what been taken into account? 8 Maybe I can restate your question and -- 9 Q I guess the question is, here it states, "is ,x 10 mounted in the position indicated on the nameplate." Over ( i 11 here it says " designed to perform in any orientation." 12 I guess there is some difference there and I guess 13 he was concerned, we are concerned about that. 14 JUDGE PARIS: Ask him a question, Mr. Feig. 15 BY MR. FEIG: 16 Q Has this been taken into account? 17 A (Cereghino) Yes, sir, the orientation of the 18 valves has been considered. The cnly limitation on 19 orientation provided on ASCO is the 206-381-6RF valves which 20 must be mounted verti: ally. They are in fact mounted 21 vertically. 22 A (Bockhold) And that's why there's a caution in (3 () , 23 that maintenance procedure for that particular valve. 24 MR. FEIG: I don't have any further questions. 25 JUDGE MARGULIES: Thank you. Mr. Bordenick? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
wj 26115.0 BRT 531 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. BORDENICK: 3 Q I believe this question is addressed to 4 Mr. Cesarski. You have some testimony beginning on page 30, 5 carrying over to page 31. On page 31 you make the statement, 6 "Under the conditions used in the Westinghouse /ASCO tecting, 7 3.65 days simulated that one year of post-accident 8 operation." And then it goes on. 9 My specific question is whether or not the one 10 year is meant generically or does that apply specifically to
<~)
G 11 Vogtle, the Vogtle facility? 12 A (Cesarski) The one year and 3.65 days that 13 simulate the one year are derived generically by 14 Westinghouse. We say generically, we mean a composite of 15 roughly 27 or 28 plants that Westinghouse deals with, one of 16 which is the Vogtle plant. So, Vogtle would fall within that 17 envelope mentioned in the testimony. 18 MR. BORDENICK: I have no further questions. 19 JUDGE MARGULIES: Judge Linenberger? 20 EXAMINATION 21 BY JUDGE LINENBERGER: 22 Q Lest I forget about it, let's return to the x_) 23 earlier question and answer, subject touching on four years l l 24 of qualified acceptable operational life under normal l 25 operations. l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 l
I l
- 1 Q ,)_
26115.0 BRT 532 1 One of you gentlemen, I believe it was 2 Mr. Bockhold, indicated that the ASCO valves would be 3 routinely taken out of service and examined at the end of 4 four years. Have I remembered that correctly? 5 A (Bockhold) Sir, the clarification is that we have 6 a surveillance program where we go ahead and stroke the 7 process valve which operates the ASCO valve more frequently 8 than that, but at the end of the qualified life, really for 9 the soft par ts in the ASCO valve, we take the process valve fs 10 and that system out of service and we go ahead and take the ( ) 11 valve physically out of the place and put a new valve in its 12 place. 13 Q All right, sir. What I was leading up to 14 explicitly here is that, given the occurrence of some 15 significant off-normal event, and I won't define that term at 16 the moment, would that be a cause for altering the four-year 17 period? 18 A (Cesarski) Based on the testing that's done, if a 19 significant event happens -- I assume you are referring to 20 within that four years -- the valve has been designed and 21 tested to survive those events, at least up to a minimum of 22 one year atter that event per the testing. As far as what () _ 23 1. ppens to the valve then, after all that has happened, I'd 24 have to refer that back to George. 25 A (Bockhold) If we had a very significant event like ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
( ) v 26115.0 BRT S33 1 a loss of coolant accident where we had very high radiation, 2 then of course we would have to relook at all those valves 3 and prc'sably have to replace those for some kind of 4 significant event because their environment may have exceeded 5 the qualification. Of course we'd get our engineers 6 involved. 7 Q All right, sir. You say of course you would do 8 that. I say of course, that's logical that you should or 9 would. But let me ask you, do you have any administrative
,f s 10 controls that assure that you, indeed, do that? In other \ ) '~'
11 words, sometimes logic is lost in the stress of an unusual 12 event, and I'm wondering if there's something about your 13 procedures, surveillance, maintenance, that would assure that 14 this item is looked at? 15 A (Bockhold) We are really talking about a severe 16 type unusual event that exceeds the qualification on those 17 valves. Many of those events are covered by our technical 18 specifications and require notifications to the NRC and 19 further discussion with the NRC to ensure that we do take 20 appropriate action. So, I'm answering there are controls, 21 via the law under some of those events. 22 Q It seems to me, perhaps I'm missing something,
,m s ,
) 23 that you are speaking in terms of operational principles or 24 post-event recovery activities, somewhat generically. My 25 concern is whether -- what's the likelihood that something ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33 9 666
L_ _) 26115.0 BRT 534 1 like an ASCO valve survival after a significant event might 2 be overlooked just in the stress of finding out what's 3 happened and getting on with the show. 4 A The recovery period after a severe event takes a 5 long time, sir. Therefore, I feel that it won't be 6 overlooked. 7 The valves were qualified to a set of criteria. 8 When we exceed that criteria we have to go back and really 9 change out the valves to make sure that they can perform
<~ 10 their intended saf ety-related function.
( ' 11 Q What is it that makes you have to do that beyond 12 everyday horse sense or logic? 13 A We really have -- 14 Q Is there something in your tech specs procedure 15 manual, maintenance manual or something, that says -- 16 A Yes, sir, therd is. Really that's the overall Q/A 17 program associated with discrepancies. Every time we would 18 have an event on a piece of equipment where the equipment 19 would exceed what its envelope was, we'd write ourselve. a 20 discrepancy, that discrepancy would be evaluated and 21 processed to either use the equipment as is, if it was only a 22 minor event and you could, or simply replace the equipment. 's ,) 23 So there are administrative controls in place to handle all 24 types of events on equipment. They are generic but, you 25 know, I think that answers your question. Yes, sir, there ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
i J 26115.0 BRT 535 1 are administrative controls in place. 2 Q Fine. Gentlemen, in your prefiled testimony, at 3 pages 3 and 4 there's a listing of, I believe, five topics or 4 six topics that -- five topics that the Boa-d had earlier 5 identified in dealing with Applicant's motic i for summary 6 disposition of this contention. I should like to address the 7 first item for just a moment, in the context of earlier 8 discussions you had with Mr. Feig. 9 My impression is that your answers to Mr. Feig's
,e y 10 questions -- and I say, this is my impression, I may be wrong
( )
~
11 -- predicated ASCO valve failure implicit, at least on either 12 a failure of, let's say electrical energy supplies to the 13 valve or a failure of air supply to the valve, and you 14 characterized the system response as being fail-safe. 15 Is your answer, or were your answers to Mr. Feig 16 equally applicable if valve failure had occurred, not because 17 of aic supply or power supply but because, for example, an 18 elastomer had turn in the valve? Would that kind of failure i 19 also result in a safe shutdown configuration? Or fail-safe 20 or -- 21 A (Cereghino) Yes, sir. In the testimony we 22 identified various configurations which the process valves
,m s_,' 23 that have safety-related valves, ASCOs, as appurtenances, 24 could appear in the plant. Those are in figures 10.5-4 and 25 10.5-5.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
v) 26115.0 BRT 536 1 Then there's also that discussion at approximately 2 page 60 in the testimony. 3 What we show is that, should that ASCO and ASCO 4 solenoid valve, single ASCO solenoid valve fail in such a 5 fashion that the process valve did not -- a single process 6 valve did not move to its safety-related position, that the 7 design of the systems is such that you would still be in a 8 safe configuration. 9 Q Pardon me for jumping around a bit here, but let's g~s 10 go to the fifth item, near the top of page 5 of your C 11 testimony, which, in essence, addresses the question of how 12 representative were the valves that were subjected to ; 13 environmental qualification testing. How representative were 14 they, are they, of production run valves that have been or 15 are being installed in tha plant? 16 Now, let me be more specific than that. As I'm 17 sure you are aware, 10 CFR 50.49 (e) (8) touches on this 18 question generically. If I read one portion of your 19 testimony, prefiled testimony correctly -- and that's the 20 portion beginning at about page 65 -- I conclude that rather 21 than address explicitly the subject matter of 50.49 that I 22 alluded to, you have, instead, taken the position that each p) ( , 23 ASCO valve installed will be preoperationally examined, 24 functioned, exercised or whatever word you want to use; and 25 it seems to me, then, that the testimony is saying that that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 33& 6646
'd 26115.0 BRT 537 I will be the basis of reliance on the fact that you have 2 something installed in the plant that is representative of 3 what might have been tested in the environmental 4 qualification program. 5 It's a longwinded way of getting to a specific 6 question: Have I interpreted your answer currectly or, 7 indeed, have other measures been taken to assure that 8 production run items in the plant have no significant 9 manufacturing differences from similar models tested in the em 10 environmental qualifica tion program? ( )
~'
11 A (Cesarski) Your Honor, I do believe you are not 12 interpreting our answer correctly. It is imperative in any 13 qualification program that the test items you test are, in 14 fact, representative of the items you will either have 15 supplied or will supply in the future to the plant. 16 The way we specifically do this for ASCO, ASCO 17 does not make valves and stock them on the shelf. They make 18 valves based on an order from a customer. When we ran our 19 test programs -- when ASCO runs its test programs, they build 20 the valves for that test program to the identical production 21 procedures, manufacturing procedures; the materials are 22 identical; the valves that would be supplied to the field -- p) (_ 23 there is no difference between those valves tested and the 24 valves supplied to a plant such as Vogtle. 25 ASCO has a quality assurance system that has been ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
I em f ) v 26115.0 BRT 538 1 audited by Westinghouse and every major valve manufacturer. 2 Those assurance programs ensure that materials are not 3 changed in the valves; material suppliers are not changed; 4 production procedures are followed for every valve that is 5 made and supplied to a nuclear plant; drawings changes are 6 not made; design changes are not made. Everything that can 7 be done to ensure that the valve tested is identical in 8 design, materials, construction and testing to the valves 9 supplied to nuclear plants is done. That is more or less a 10 standard practice in our world of buying equipment like 11 this. 12 We don't rely, in terms of supplying the valves, 13 we don't rely on the plant itself. That's all additional 14 controls to make sure the valves are operating properly. The 15 valves as supplied and installed, the quality assurance 16 systems to that have been audited and reviewed by suppliers, 17 ensure that the valve that Vogt'e has received is, in fact, 18 represented by the valve that was tested. 19 Q Do you other gent 1gmen have anything to add to 20 that? 21 Okay. Let's go on. 22 Mr. Bockhold, I believe you indicated earlier that O (. ,) 23 there is something on the order of 144 different ASCO valves 24 in the plant; is that correct? 25 A (Bockhold) In the list contained in here, the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-317-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336-6646
/ .
t ! V 26115.0 BRT 539 1 safety grade ASCO valves, there are additional ASCO valves 2 that are not safety grade. 3 Q Thanks for that clarification. Now, my question 4 in quite simple. So far as the Board is aware, at least, the 5 environmental qualification program that was treated in 6 Applicant's motion for summary disposition on this contention 7 dealt with four specific models of ASCO valve. My question 8 to you is: Is it indeed true that none of the 144 valves 9 listed in this prefiled testimony represents a model other g- 10 than the four that were dealt with in describing the C' 11 environmental qualification program? 12 A (Cesarski) The valves listed in the table 13 represent valve models, ASCO, that were in fact tested in the 14 qualification program. None of the valves on that table are 15 not represented or are not in the same design family as the 16 valves tested. 17 Q All right, sir. Let me come back to that by.now 18 hopefully familiar four-year time interval that we have been 19 discussing, and play the usual "what if" game. 20 Suppose a plant -- what if a plant incident occurs 21 two weeks short of the expiration of that four-year period, 22 at which time you would take the valve out and determine i% ( ,) 23 whether there had been any degradation. What prevents the 24 plant from being in jeopardy if that sort of thing occurs? 25 A (Cesarski) The four-year qualified life is good ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-66M
C/ 26115.0 BRT S40 1 based on actual test data for the entire tour years. If 2 anything happens within the four years, whether it be one 3 hour, one day, or right at four years, the valve has been 4 tested and proven good for that entire four-year period. S If it happened before four years the valve would 6 be in even better condition than it would be at four years to 7 survive that accident. 8 Q Okay. But I say to myself: I have been fortunate 9 enough, for example, to have bought things with a four-year 73 10 warranty and the day before -- or the day after the warranty / i \/ 11 expires, so does the article that I've purchased. I hear 12 your words and I have no reason for not believing them, but I 13 just have to relate that kind of personal experience to this 14 situation and ask if you have anything further to add here? 15 A (Bockhold) We have a surveillance program, sir, 16 that periodically goes ahead and strokes these valves. Part 17 of the surveillance program is to do timing on valves, and 18 really you can see degradation by a change in the timing on 19 the valve, so that really adds to the fact that our 20 confidence that, besides the initial testing, the ongoing 21 surveillance testing gives us really a very hich confidence 22 that we'll be able to detect any degradation on the valves, n) 23 JUDGE PARIS: Do you keep a record of response 24 times on the valves and compare the new response times to the 25 former response times to the valves? Or do you compare the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
26115.0 BRT 541 1 response time of a valve with a generic figure? I'/ l 2 THE WITNESS: (Bockhold) We compare the response 3 time of a valve to a generic figure, an acceptable band. In 4 maybe high sensitive valve areas we might trend a particular 5 individual valve, but in general it's a band and it's a 6 pass / fail-type criteria. 7 If you get degradation in the ASCO valve it would 8 fall outside that band. 9 (Discussion off the record.) 10 BY JUDGE LINENBERGER: 11 Q With respect to the answer given to Dr. Paris' 12 question, Mr. Dockhold, the prefiled testimony at page 67 13 indicates that "The information from the in-service testing r3 14 program will be trended so that degradation can be predicted Q 15 and maintenance intervals can be adjusted." 16 ; Is that statement -- it sounds to me that that 17 statement may be somewhat at variance with what you said to 18 Dr. Paris, but I'm not sure. 19 A (Bockhold) We trend, whether we have any failures 20 -- we are really looking for common mode failures, sir, a 21 specific valve failing for whatever reason. So we are 22 looking for common mode failures and by trending, whether the 23 valve passes or does not pass that stroke time test, that 24 band -- what you are getting is you are getting data that -- 25 of a large number of valves. They are all performing in p V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 1 BRT 542 1 1 accordance with their band and you don't end up with a 2 generic or a common mode-type failure. 3 If you had one valve that did fail, you'd go find 4 out why it failed, okay? But you'd rely on a trend program 5 to also indicate potential common mode failures in your 6 system. So it's not really a time plot. It's -- really the 7 trending is looking at common mode failures. 8 Q All right, sir. 9 JUDGE LINENBERGER: I believe that's all I have, 10 Mr. Chairman. 11 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is there any redirect? 12 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, we may have a question 13 on redirect. I wonder if we may have a short recess before (m 14 we resume, at which time we'll be prepared to complete very V 15 short redirect and then present our panel on 10.1. 16 JUDGE MARGULIES: Let's take a 10-minute recess. 17 (Recess.) 18 JUDGE MARGULIES: Back on the record. Is there 19 any redirect? 20 MR. DAVENPORT: Yes, your Honor, we have a few 21 questions. 22 JUDGE MARGULIES: You may proceed. 23 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. DAVENPORT: 25 Q Mr. Cesarski, you in your testimony identified the a U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 543 1 qualified life of the ASCO solenoid valves at plant 4 of four , 3 s> 2 years. Is that the qualified life for all four times 3 discussed in your testimony? 4 A (Cesarski) No, the four-year time period I used 5 was the shortest qualified life of the solenoid plants at 6 Vogtle, that specifically applies to the NP8316 models and 7 the NP2118 models. The other two models that are used, the 8 NP83220, and the 206-381-6RF models have a qualified life ot 9 eight years. 10 Q Mr. Bockhold, will you please explain what testing 11 will be performed to verify the operation or the valve? 12 A (Bockhold) We do preoperational testing on the 13 ASCO valve which requires the ASCO valve to be stroked before gS 14 we start the plant up, and we are in that process of Q ,) 15 preoperational testing right now. Further, as plant life 16 proceeds, after initial start-up, we do in-service testing of 17 these valves which, again, strokes the ASCO valves to ensure 18 that these valves operate and perform their appropriate 19 function. 20 Q And how does this testing verify the proper 21 operation of the ASCO solenoid valve? 22 A The ASCO solenoid valve has to change its position 23 such that the air is appropriately vented and the valve would 24 close or open, depending upon its safety-related position. 25 The ASCO valve changes position and then the process valve G' ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 544 1 changes position within the time frame required. i \
'/ 2 0 Mr. Cesarski, would you please explain what margin 3 existed in the qualification tests with respect to the 4 four-year qualified life established by those tests?
5 A (Cesarski) The qualified life is determined by a 6 test, relates to the entire gamut of normal environments. In 7 our testing, for instance, in terms of normal radiation 8 environment, we tested the valve not to four or eight years, 9 but to in excess of 40 years, in terms of normal 10 environmental radiation. 11 We cycled the valve well in excess of 40 years of 12 cycling of a valve in a plant like Vogtle, a minimum of 13 20,000 times. The aging itself, the thermal part of the r~N 14 aging, is done to a time period and at a temperature that
\_/
15 equates to four years or eight years at 140 degrees, assumed 16 Vogtle plant environment. The actual normal environments at 17 Vogtle are 120 degrees or less. So there's a built-in margin 18 on every one of the normal environmental parameters. 19 Q Would you also explain what margin existed with 20 respect to the one-year post-accident operating time of the 21 qualification test established for the ASCO solenoid valve? 22 A The one-year post-accident time equates in the 23 test to a specific length of time at the temperature 24 post-accident that was done in the test. That equates to 25 3.65 days. We tested the valves well in excess of 3.65 days,
,7 q)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 NationwHe Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 545 1 up tc a maximum of 30 days post-accident, which equates to as I i k/ 2 much as eight years of post-accident time. 3 Q In the qualification testing, what condition were. 4 the valves in at the time they were exposed to design basis 5 accident conditions? 6 A When you do the time test sequence, you must, 7 before going into the DBE environment, you must fully age the 8 valve, radiationwise, thermally, cyclically and 9 pressurization aging. The valve is in its end of life-time 10 condition for normal environments before you hit it with the 11 accident. 12 Q Mr. Bockhold, in your testimony you refer to 13 events exceeding the qualification levels of the ASCO gS 14 solenoid valves. Are there any design basis events for Plant L.) 15 Vogtle that would exceed the qualification levels for the 16 ASCO solenoid valves? 17 A (Bockhold) There are no design basis events that 10 would exceed those levels. 19 MR. DAVENPORT: That's all the questions we have, 20 your Honor. 21 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you have anything further, 22 Mr. Feig? Mr. Bordenick? 23 MR. BORDENICK: No, sir. 24 EXAMINATION 25 BY JUDGE LINENBERGER:
<m
() ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 546 1 Q One follow-up question with respect to Applicant's
\
's 2 counsel's question about these valves. In your answer, 3 Mr. Cesarski, I believe you spoke -- when you answered 4 counsel's question -- you spoke about "the valve." It wasn't 5 clear to me that the answers you gave applied to all four 6 models of valves. 7 Can you enlighten me on that, please? 8 A (Cesarski) I'm not sure which question you are 9 talking about in terms of "the valves." 10 Q There were a couple of questions, as I recall, 11 asking about margins with respect to required operating 12 lifetime after the design basis event versus what was 13 observed for the valves in the environmental testing. And in g3 14 answering that question, at least, you spoke of "the valve." O 15 It was not clear to me whether you were singling out one 16 model or whether your answer was generic to all four? 17 A (Bockhold) My answer war intended to be generic to 18 all four valves, valve types. 19 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Thanks. That's all. 20 MR. FEIG: Mr. Chairman, could I ask one question? 21 JUDGE MARGULIES: Yes, Mr. Feig? 22 MR. FElG: I notice several times through the 23 testimony here by the panel the word " generic" has come up. 24 Just for clarification, I know we have brought a number of 25 generic concerns, numbers of generic concerns out. Perhaps
.O l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
26115.0 BRT 547 1 the panel could explain what they mean by " generic." And I'm
)
\J-2 a little bit unclear as to why our testimony over and over 3 again on generic concerns on safety of the plant were thrown 4 out, while we hear over and over again today the word 5 " generic" related to specific related problems of these 6 valves specifically. 7 MR. CHURCHILL: This panel has no knowledge of 8 what he's referring to as far as other things, where the word 9 " generic" was used. They can explain what they meant by 10 generic. 11 JUDGE PARIS: Yes. I think that would help. 12 Mr. Feig is talking about generic problems and they were 13 talking about generic standards, I think. Perhaps they could i r^s + 14 clarify it.
%J 15 THE WITNEGS: (Cesarski) When we use the word 16 " generic" in terms of testing, we test the valves in a 17 program not just to cover the requirements of Vogtle but to 18 cove" the requirements of many plants. Many other plants 19 have requirements that are more severe than Vogtle. So we 20 have to do a test that encompasses all these plants. It's 21 called a generic test. It is not just specific to one plant 22 but we cover, in some cases, as many as 40 or 50 plants.
23 That's how we use the word " generic." All the environments 24 and test parameters are then designed to encompass all those 25 plants. n ' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 548 1 MR. FEIG: With regard to that, then, I really -- (_ h k/ 2 I have a very serious problem in the sense that they can look 3 at testing amongst 40 or 50 other plants, and over and over 4 again we have brought to the panel -- to the IJRC and the 5 safety board, a number of similar concerns that have been 6 proven in other plants, documented over and over again in a 7 number of other plants. 8 Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you could clarify how this 9 is allowable or admissible as evidence, whereas our questions 10 and concerns as relates to every other plant designed by 11 Westinghouse, built by Bechtel, have been completely 12 disregarded by the panel? I think that the public just 13 deserves an explanation as to why -- where the difference is: f3 14 the difference between our questions and our evidence versus U 15 the evidence here presented by a panel of experts using 16 generic concerns. 17 JUDGE MARGULIES: You would have to tell us about 18 the specific ruling we made, and we would have to look at the 19 specific ruling and not discuss the matter without reference 20 to a specific instance. 21 Is there anything further of this panel? 22 MR. CHURCHILL: Applicants have nothing further, 23 your Honor. 24 JUDGE MARGULIES: You are excused. Thank you. 25 (Panel excused. ) t'%
! I 's /
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
26115.0 BRT 549 l l 1 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is Staff ready to proceed? ( , l 2 MR. BORDENICK: Yes, Judge Margulies. Staff calls 3 Armando Masciantonio. 4 Whereupon, 5 ARMANDO MASCIANTONIO 6 was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 7 was examined and testified as follows: 8 DIRECT EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. BORDENICK: 10 Q Please state your full name for the record. 11 A My name is Armando Masciantonio. 12 Q Where are you employed? 13 A I'm a mechanical engineer in the Office of Nuclear r3 14 Reactor Regulation, the NRC, Washington, D.C. 20555. YJ 15 Q Mr. Masciantonio, do you have in front of you a 16 document entitled, "NRC Staff testimony of Armando 17 Masciantonio on Joint Intervenors' Contention 10.5, ASCO e 18 Solenoid Valves," which consists of 17 pages, two 19 attachments, first attachment being four pages in length and 20 the attachment 2 being the single page? 21 A Yes, I do. 22 Q Was this document prepared by you or unde
- your 23 supervision?
24 A Yes, it was. 25 Q Do you have any corrections to this testimony? 17 i l
\_./
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33 & 6646
7 26115.0 BRT 550 1 A No.
)
2 Q Are the statements contained in the document which 3 I have previously identified true and correct to the best or 4 your knowledge and belief? 5 A Yes, they are. 6 Q Do you adopt that document as your testimony in 7 this proceeding? 8 A Yes, I do. 9 MR. BORDENICK: Judge Margulies, at this time 1 10 would move that Mr. Masciantonio's prefiled testimony, which 11 I have previously described, be incorporated into the record 12 as if read. 13 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is there any objection? A 14 MR. CHURCHILL: A p;' '_ i c a n t s have no objecti3n. L) 15 JUDGE MARGULISS: There being no objection voiced, 16 the document will be incorporated into the record as if 17 read. 18 MR. BORDENICK: I have no further questions. 19 (The document f ollows :) 20 21 22 23 24 25 ,o
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8043366M6
8 . STO (' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-424 et al.
~~ J 50-425
) (OL)
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, ) Units 1 and 2) ) < NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF ARMANDO MASCIANTONIO ON JOINT INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 10.5 (ASCO SOLENOID VALVES) Q.1 Please state your name and position with the NRC and summarize your professional qualifications. A.1 My name is Armando Masciantonio. I am presently employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as a mechanical engineer in the Engineering Branch of PWR-A, Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). Before November, 1985, I was employed as an equipment qualification engineer in the Equipment Qualification Branch , Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor. Regulation. I was responsible for the technical reviews, analyses and evaluations of the adequacy of the environmental quclification of electric equipment important to safety and safety-related mechanical equipment, whose failure under postulated environmental conditions could adversely affect the performance of safety systems in nuclear power plants.
- l
[D - Before joining the NRC I was employed as an engineer by Vitro Laboratories Division of Automation Industries, Inc. from February, 1981 until May,1982. I was respc9sible for the environmental and seismic qualification of the safety-related electronic control equipment ' supplied by Vitro Laboratories Division. Specifically, my duties were to develop and write the environmental and seismic qualification test plans, procedures and reports and to oversee the test and procurement activities in support of qualification. Prior to that. I was employed at the U.S. Naval Surface Weapons Center as a mechanical engineer from August, 1972 until January, 1981. My duties involved support of the development, test and evaluation of advanced naval weapons. I have a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering (1972) from Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a Masters degree in Mechanical Engineering (1976) from the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. , and a Masters degree in Administrative Science (1980) from the Johns Ilopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. Q.2 What is the purpose of this testimony? ' t A.2 The purpose of this testimony is to address Joint Intervenors' Contention 10.5 and to respond to the Atomic Safety and Licensing i Board's " Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motion for Summary , t
Disposition of Contention 10.5 re: ASCO Solenoid Valves)" dated
.Tanuary 7,1986.
Contention 10.5 challenges the environmental qualification of the Automatic Switch Company (ASCO) solenoid valves used at Vogtle. The contention is based on the results of tests performed by the Automatic Switch Company and Franklin Research Center (FRC) and . the subsequent issuance of NRC notifications. Q.3 Please describe the results of the FRC research tests. A .3 The Nuclear Regulatorv Commission , Office of Nuclear Ragulatory Research (RES) sponsored a qualification methodology research test on seven ASCO solenoid valves . This research test program indicated a number of failures which had not been experienced in previous qualification tests performed by the manufacturer. The FRC test specimens consisted of seven different valve models, of which five valve models were artificially aged, and two valve models were naturally aged. The natural aging, which was done by the manufacturer, consisted of exposing the two test valve models in an air oven at 140*F (60*C) for three years. The valves were pressurized with nitrogen and valve solenoids were continuously energized. Of the seven valve models that were tested, one passed and six failed during the LOCA/MSLB test. Of the six valve models that failed, four models were artificially aged and two valve models were naturally aged. Failure was defined as the inability of
the valve ' to perform its function. The anomalous behavior noted during the tests have been evaluated and resolved to the satisfaction of the staff. The nature of the FRC test was a qualification methodology research test, not an equipment qualification test, and allowed the ' valves to cycle at high temperature during thermal aging. Because of the unrealistic, severe preconditioning which the artificially aged valves received, the NPC staff concluded that the failures of the FRC artificially-aged valves were inconclusive. However, the failure of the two naturally aged valves (models NP-8316 and NP-8344) during the FRC test cannot be discounted since they were not subjected to the same severe preconditioning as the artificially - aged valves. Based on the results of that test, the NRC staff concluded that the failure of two naturally aged valves (NP 8316 and NP 8344) justified downgrading the level of the previous staff accepted status of ASCO valve model NP 8316. Details of the staff position on this matter are found in IE Information Notice 84-23, "Results of NRC-Sponsored Qualification Methodology Research Test on ASCO Solenoid Valves" a copy of which is included in this testimony as Attachment 1. l Q.4 What are the NR C's regulatory requirements for environmental qualification of equipment important to safety? L
h 4 A.4 The regulatory requirements for environmental qualification are stated in General Design Criterion 1 and 4 of Appendix A and Sections III, XI, and XVII of Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. , Part 50. Specific requirements for environmental qualification of electric equipment important to safety are stated in 10 C.F.R. I 50.49,
" Environmental Qualification of Eloctric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants."
I Regulatory Guide 1.89, Rev.1, provides a method acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with 10 C.F.R. I 50.49. This Regulatory I Guide endorses IEEE Standard 323-1974, "IEFE Standard for Qualifying Class IE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Q Stations," the industry standard used to demonstrate environmental ! qualification of equipment. Additional guidance is found in NUREG-0588, " Interim Staff Position on Environmental Qualification I of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment." Q.5 What is the purpose of environmental qualification? l J A.5 The purpose of environmental qualification is to demonstrate that equipment used to perform a necessary safety function is capable of maintcining functional operability under all service conditions postulated to occur during the installed life for the time the equipment is required to operate. Regarding the Board's question at p.13 of its January 7,1985 Order, of how long any of the valve models will be required to operate in VEGP following an accident.
post-accident operability time is a function of the specific system requirements ,and varies for each application. The qualification pr. ess must demonstrate that the equipment is indeed capable of the specified length of operating time following an accident. Q.6 How does the staff assure that the period of required post-accident operability is adequately specified? A.6 The applicant must establish the period of time each specific piece of equipment is required to operate in order to perform its
- safety-related function. The Staff's environmental qualification review for the Vogtle plant, which will be performed prior to
?icensing, will verify that the period of post-accident operability has been properly specified and the demonstrated post-accident operability time envelops the specified requirements.
l Q.7 How does the qualification process assure ths t a piece of equipment is capable of performing its required safety function during and after a design basis accident for the period of its installed life (qualifted life)? A.7 Environmental qualification can best be achieved by subjecting a representative piece of equipment to a test program which simulates the expected environmental and service conditions the equipment l O- will see during its installed life, followed by exposure to the l d
l 1 O expected design basis accident during which the equipment is ' required to operate. The program typically consists of the following sequence of tests: Baseline functional teste 4 m ., - Accelerated aging to place the equipment in a physically aged state equivalent to the condition in which it would be at its end of life. Accelerated aging includes thermal aging, radiation exposure, operational cycling and other stresses such as vibration, pressure, etc. which the equipment would likely encounter during its installed service life. Design Basis Accident test to demonstrate that the piece of equipment, at the end of its installed life, is capable of performing its required function for the period of time required during and after the most severe design basis event it will see. Other methods such as operating experience and analysis in < combination with partial testing can also be used to demonstrate qualification. These other methods are reviewed on a case by case basis. This qualification process provides reasonable assurance that equipment of a specific type can perform as needed during its installed life. This process is endorsed by both industry and the NRC. j
.h
' dft Q.8 What is the purpose of " margin" in a qualification program?
A.8 Margin is the difference between the environmental and operational levels applied during qualification testing and the most severe service conditions under which the equkpment is required to operate. Margins are applied to account for unquantified uncertainties such as the effects of production variation,s and other inaccuracles. Adequate margin can be assured by increasing the level of test, number of test cycles, and test duration. Q.9 How is the specific test unit to be used in the qualification test program selected? O A.9 The test unit used for the qualification program should essentially be selected randomly from the production run. No special consideration should be given to selecting any specific unit for the purpose of influencing the results of the test. In order for the qualification process to be considered valid, the test specimen must show the same performance characteristics as the production model. Q.10 Does the qualification process recognize the possibility of anomalies during the test program? A.10 Yes. A proper cualification program should establish failure / acceptance criteria before the start of the test. Any anomaly observed during the test must be evaluated and resolved to
-g_
s assure that it is not a safety-related concern. Anomalies judged to be equipment failures must be evaluated to determine if the failure is. random or caused by the combined influences of age and harsh operating conditions (commor. mode failure). The qualification ' process does not eliminate random failures. It is intended to assure that the equipment does not experience common mode failure. If common mode failure results, the equipment cannot be considered qualified to the levels of the test program. In addition, any operational limitations identified during the qualification test, such as, sealing, installation and interface ] requirements, must be implemented in the plant installation of the
- equipment. For example, this would include sealing of the NP8316 valve housing where required for particular VEOP applications.
Since qualification tests showed that unsealed solenoid housing could result in water intrusion into the solenoid housing which could cause improper operation, ASCO recommends that ASCO valves be installed in a manner that prevents water inleakage. The staff evaluation of the anomalies is addressed in succeeding questions and answers. See Q and A 16,17,18 and 19. Q.11 How are ASCO solenoid valves typically used in nuclear power ! plants? O __._____________.__________m_____. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 A.11 ASCO solenoid valves are generally used in safety-related applications such as controllers for air operated valves. By controlling the flow of air to air operators, ASCO solenoid valves
, will cause process valves to either open or close. In response to 1
the specific question posed on the Board Order at p.13 regarding whether any type of failure of any of the valve models considered will result in achieving an unsafe configuration, the staff has no information as to the Vogtle - specific configurations. .In general, these solenoid valves are designed to operate in a fail safe mode; that is, loss of power to the solenoid will result in its achieving a safe condition. These valves are generally found throughout the plant, both inside and outside containment. Further, if a valve. is
.i determined to be qualiffed it is recognized that it will not experience common mode failure as explained in Answer 10.
O.12 Which ASCO solenoid valves are used in the Vogtle plant? J L A.12 The Applicants have stated that the only ASCO solenoid valves used in the Vogtle plant which fall within the scope of 10 C.F.R. I 50.49 are model numbers NP 8316, NP 8320, NP 8321, and 206-381-6F. Q.13 What is the extent of the NRC staff review of the qualification , status of ASCO solenoid valves? 1 A.13 The NRC staff has reviewed the following qualification reports pertaining to ASCO solenoid valves: e P
= .
. . . -.._~ .
' (a) Isomedix Test Report No. AQS 21678/TR-Rev A, i
" Qualification Tests of Solenoid Valves" March , 1978,
. Revision A July 1979.
(b) ASCO Test Report No. AQR-67368/ Revision 1, " Report on Qualification of ASCO Catalog NP-1 Solenoid Valves for Safety-Related Applications in Nuclear Power Generating l Stations," March 2,1982. l (c) Westinghouse Topical Report WCAP-8587, Revision 6 (NP)
"Mothodology for Qualifying Westinghouse WRD Supplied NSSS "
I Safety Related Electrical Equipment ," WCAP-8587 EQDP-HE2/HE5, WCAP-8687 EQTR-HO2A/HOSA, and WCAP-8687 Supp. 2-IIO2A/HO5A Addendum 1 Revision O. i O (a) auaro'ce-3424 "=a iP=
- au >iric tio# a rea re t Program and Failure Analysis of Class 1E Solenoid Valves" l prepared by Franklin Research Center, November 1983.
, Qualification tests (a) were conducted by Isomedix, Inc. for ASCO and established the qualification of ASCO valves to current 1978 standards. Tests (b) and (c) above were conducted by ASCO/ Westinghouse to qualify ASCO valves to a higher level. 1
- Tests (d) were performed by Franklin Research Center under !
contract to the NRC for the purpose of qualification methodology research.. 3 i
. . . . - ~ _ . . . - - _ . _ _ _ -. . . . __ - _ . - - . - . _
2 D A comparison of pertinent test parameters is shown on - Attachment 2. Q.14 IIave the ASCO qualification tests been properly conducted? 4
\
A.14 As evidenced in the test reports reviewed by the staff, the
- qualification programs were properly conducted in accordance with ,
accepted standards. Test results show that all anomalies were appropriately addressed and valve performance was demonstrated in .l 1 t agreement with the staff position. I l I Q.15 Where is the staff position on the qualification status of ASCO
- solenoid valves explained? '
A.15 The staff position on the qualification status of ASCO solenoid ' valves has been made known in IE Information Notice 84-23, "Results of NRC-Sponsored Qualification Methodology Research Test j on ASCO Solenoid Valves" and Information Notice 85-08, " Industry 1 Experience on Certain Materials Used in Safety-Related Equipment." i l ,l : l. Q.16 What is the specific staff accepted qualification level for ASCO valve model NP 8316 and what is the basis for the staff position? l .l A.16 As stated above, ASCO valve model NP 8316 is considered quellfled I j to the levels reported in Isomedix Test Report Number
., p.
l 1
1 l O AQS 21678/TR, Revision A. This valve model was capable of performing its required safety function during and following a design basis event (DBE) simulation with a peak temperature of 346*F. The valve had been preaged to the equivalent of 4 years at 140*F and had received a radiation exposure of 200 megarads. All anomalics were resolved in accordance with the process stated in answer 10 of this testimony. The higher level of qualification claimed in ASCO Report ITo. AQR-67368 is not accepted by the staff because of the failure of a naturally aged NP 8316 valve during the NRC-sponsored tests at Franklin Research Center. The test conditions during the FRC test O r t hi iv i ii *a t a e = ai'< a = ri= = ** ^ = c o te t-reported in Report AQR-67368. Based on the review of the FRC test results during which a naturally aged NP 8316 valve failed after 2.75 hours, the staff has also concluded that there are circumstances in which valve model NP 8316 might be considered acceptable for use in environriental conditions as severe as those listed in ASCO report AQR-67368 / Rev. 1. These include situations in which the valve is only required to operate early into an accident, as in the case of isolation valve applications, and in which subsequent failure does not degrade other safety functions nor mislead the operator. Under inese circumstances, report AQR-67368/Rev. I will be an acceptable qualineation document for valve model NP 8316. Similarly, if the
' ~n v valve is required for long term operation, an analysis in accordance with NUREG-0588 can be used to show that even though the ambient
, temperature may be greater than 346*F for a short period of time, the temperature of the valve will not exceed 3460F. This temperature corresponds to the valve qualification level determined by the Isomedix tests. If this can be shown, the valve can be considered qualified by Isomedix AOS 21678/TR-Rev. A for long term operation. Q.17 How has Westinghouse shown that ASCO model NP 8310 is qualified for the appropriate levels in light of the above? A.17 Westinghouse has provided a method of addressing the long term environmental qualification of ASCO valve model NP 8316 in topical report WCAP-8687, Supplement 2 - HO2A/HO5A, Addendum 1 Revision 0, dated January 1985. This report documents the anelyses which demonstrate qualification to a derated Westinghouse generic LOCA/MSLB temperature profile which has a maximum peak temperature of 4000F for approximately three minutes. The derated Westinghouse generic profile is based on a heat transfer model developed by using the actual thermocouple data and test environmental parameters from the Franklin Research Center test. The model predicts the temperature response of an ASCO ; solenoid valve exposed to a LOCA/MSLB. O
l . . i l l lO l ' Westinghouse concludes that the maximum temperature of ASCO NP 8316 solenoid valves installed in plants whose accident environments are enveloped by the derated Westinghouse ( . l LOCA/MSLB profile will be less than 345eF and therefore qualified 1 l by Isomedix Report No. AOS 21678/TR-Revision A. l l The staff has reviewed the information provided in WCAP-8ft87, ; Supplement 2 - HO2A/HO5A, Addendum 2, Revision 0, dated January 1985 and finds that the approach used to generate the derated Westinghouse generic LOCA/MSLB profile is reasonable and ' i acceptable as a means of establishing an eravironmental qualification level for ASCO valve model NP 8316. j The derated Westinghouse generic LOCA/MSLB temperature profile envelops the staff's accepted accident prof!!e for the Vogtle power plant. Q.18 What is the speelfic staff accepted quellfication level for ASCO valve > model NP 8321 and what is the basis for the staff position? A.18 ASCO valve model NP 8321 is considered quallfled to the levels ; reported in Isomedix Test Report Number AQS 21678/TR-Rev. A. This test included preaging equivalent to 4 years at 140*F, peak accident temperature of 346*F and radiation exposure of 200 megarada . The reported snomalies were adequately resolved in accordance with the process described in answer 10 of this l
.- ~_ _. . . _
O testimony. Da, sed on these test results this valve model is considered qualified to the levels reported in Isomedix AOS t 21678/TR-Rev. A. t Based on information submitted by the applicant, the staff
; understands that these qualification levels exceed the stated service ; and accident requirements for this valve model at the Vogtle plant.
Q.19 What is the specific staff accepted qualification level for ASCO valve models NP 8320 and 206-381-6F and what is the basis for the staff position? A.19 These two valve models are considered qualified to the levels ! reported in ASCO Report No. AOR-67368. This test included
" preaging to the equivalent of 8 years at 1400F, a peak accident temperature of 420*F and radiation exposure of 200 megarads. All test anomalies were adequately resolved in accordance with the process stated in answer 10 of this testimony. Based on the test results, these valve models are considered qualified to the levels reported in AQR-67368.
The staff accepted qualification levels exceed the stated . requirements for the Vogt!e power plant. Q.20 What is the staff position on the resultc of the FRC tests? O
n A.20 Eecause of the unrealistic and severe cycling of the valves during the high thermal aging temperatures, the test results of the valves which were artificially preconditioned cannot be considered conclusive and the previously demonstrated qualification levels are still considered valid. The two naturally aged valves (Models NP 8316 and NP 8344) were not subjected to the severe preconditioning received by the other valves . Therefore, the failure of these two valves must be considered as valid failures. Since the FRC tests were patterned after the same standards and environmental conditions as in the ASCO AQR-67308 tests, tbc staff has negated the previous O ec at "c or v tv a > " " 8328 to ta au >i'ic tioa i v i ci i o in the AQR-67368 report and relles on the Isomedix tests for the qualification levels of valve model NP 8316. Q.21 Has the qualification status of each ASCO valve used at Vogtle been established? A.21 As detailed above, the staff concludes that adequate documentation i is available to establish the environmental qualification of each of the ASCO solenoid valves used at the Vogtle power plant. The qualification levels established envelop the specific Vogtle requirements for each valve model. A site audit will be conducted ' prior te licensing to verify that a record of qualification in accordance with 10 C.F.R. I 50.49(j) exists and is maintained for the Vogtle plant. D
ATTACHMENT 1 SSINS No.: 6835 IN 84-23 s UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT .. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 April 5, 1984 ,, IE INFORMATION NOTICE NO. 84-23: RESULTS OF THE NRC-SPONSORED QUALIFICATION METHODOLOGY RESEAPCH TEST ON ASCO SOLENOID VALVES [ l Addressees: _ All nuclear power reactor facilities holding an operating license (OL) or
- construction permit (CP).
Purpose:
This information notice is provided as an early notification of a potentially significant event concerning the failure of two naturally aged Automatic Switch Company (ASCO) solenoid valves. These valves are ASCO models NP-83.16 and NP-8344. The failure of these two naturally aged valves occurred during the LOCA/MSLB (Loss-of-coolant accident / main steam line break) simulation phase of a qualification methodology research test conducted by the Franklin O.- Research Center (FRC). It should be noted that this information notice is not addressing the earlier concerns dealing with the Viton/EPDM material used in ASCO solenoid valves as aescribed in previously published information notices. It is expected that recipients will review the information for l applicability to their facilities and take appropriate action. A response is not required. Description of Circumstanc s: Recently the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) sponsored a qualification methodology research test on seven ASCO solenoid valves. The test program was developed by FRC for the NRC. This research test program resulted in a number of failures which had not been experienced in previous qualification tests performed by the manufacturer. The FRC test specimens consisted of seven different valve models, of which five valve models were artificially aged, and two valve models were naturally aged. The natural aging which was done by the manufacturer, consisted of exposing the two test valve models in an air oven at 140*F (60'C) for three years. The valves were pressurized with nitrogen and valve solenoids were I,' continuously energized. *
, j The test program'was patterned after the requirements of IEEE,323-1974, 344-1975, 382-1980, and NUREG-0588, Rev. 1, with the exception that the two naturally aged valve models (model NP-8316-66E, and model NP-8344-A71E)
( were not exposed to radiation preaging. All seven valves were subject to DBA radiation followed by LOCA/MSLB simulation. The specified temperature /
'8403140263
IN 84-23 O April 5, 1984 V Page 2 of 3 pressure profile for the simulated LOCA/MSLB exposure, and details of the FRC Solenoid valves test program and failure analysis can be found in NUREG/CR-3'474'(published in November 1983.) Of the seven valve models that were tested, one passed and six failed during the LOCA/MSLB test. The valve model which passed was artificially aged and had a metallic seat. Among the six valve models that failed, four models were arti-ficially aged and two valve models were naturally aged. Naturally aged valve model NP-8344 failed after 14 minutes into the test, and naturally aged valve l model NP-8316 failed after 2.75 hours into the test. Failure was defined as the inability of the valve to perform its function. j Failure of naturally aged valve NP-8344 was attributed to the elastomer sticking to valve metallic parts. For naturally aged valve NP-8316, the failure was attributed to the cumulative degradation of the elastomer diaphragm. , Discussion: - The NRC staff has reviewed the FRC test results and has made the following observations: (1) the nature of the FRC test is a qualification methodology A research test, which has allowed the valves to cycle at higher temperature V during thermal aging, and (2) that the actual temperature profiles during both LOCA/MSLB transients , sere higher and longer in duration than recommended by industry standare.. The NRC staff concluded that the failures of the FRC artifically-aged valves were inconclusive. However, the failure of the two Ndturally aged valves (models NP-8316 and NP-8344) during the recent FRC test cannot be discounted since they were not subjected to the same severe precondi-tioning as the artificially aged valves. Similar valve models as those naturally aged valves that failed the FRC te'st were also tested by ASCO and Westinghouse (W) in 1982. The results of this-- test were documented in ASCO Report AQR-67368, Rev. O, March 1982 and WCAP 8587 EQDP-HE2/HES Rev 4, WCAP 8687 EQTR-H02A/H05 Ruv. 2. In the ASCO/W test, ; model NP-8344 failed and model NP-8316 passed. Both the 1983 NRC/FRC test and the 1982 ASCO/W test were patterned after the same standards and since model NP-8316 failed the recent NRC/FRC test, the NRC staff considers that model NP-8316 may not be suitable for the environmental conditions and operat-ing time requirements as reported in the aforementioned ASCO/W test reports. , Westinghouse has been informed of these findings in a NRC letter dated December 23, 1983 from R. Vollmer (NRC) to E. P. Rahe (Westinghouse). Similar models of these same two valves were also tested in 1978 and reported in Isomedix.AQS report number 21678/TR-Rev. A. Applications in which ( environmental conditions are enveloped by test conditions described in this fm Isomedix AQS 71678/TR-Rev. A report, are considered acceptable. , i () l
IN 84-23 April 5, 1984
. Page 3 of 3 If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the Regional Administrator of the appropriate NRC Regional Office, or this Office.
.g '-
/fALAyJ4
~
/
dward L. Jordan, Director l Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response W Office of Inspection and Enforcement Technical Contacts: N. B. Le, IE (301) 492-9673
* ~~"
A. Masciantonio, NRR (301) 492-8205
Attachment:
List of Recently Issued IE Information Notices , M G e O
1 t Attachment
- IN 84-23 p) April 5, 1984 V
LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED
. IE INFORMATION NOTICES Information - Date of Notice No.'- Subject Issue Issued to 84-22 Deficiency in COMSIP, Inc. 03/29/84 All power reactor Standard Bed Catalyst facilities holding an OL or CP 84-21 Inadequate Shutdown Margin 03/28/84 All power reactor facilities holding an OL or CP 84-05 Exercise Frequency 03/28/84 All power reactor facilities holding 1.
an OL , 84-20 Service Life in Safety- 03/21/84 All power rea'ctor - Related Systems facilities holding an OL or CP 84-19 Two Events Involving Unau- 03/21/84 All power reactor i thorized Entries into PWR facilities holding Reactor Cavities an OL or CP 84-09 Lessons Learned from NRC 03/7/84 All power reactor Rev 1 Inspections of Fire Protec- facilities holding
. tion Safe Shutdown Systems an OL or CP (10 CFR 50, Appendix R) 84-18 Stress Corrosion Cracking in 3/7/34 All power reactor Pressurized Water Reactor facilities ho.l. ding .
Sysetms an OL or CP 84-17 Problems with Liquid Nitrogen 3/5/84 All power reactor - Cooling Components Below the facilities holding Nil Ductility Temperature an OL or CP
, 84-16 Failure of Automatic 3/2/84 All power reactor Sprinkler System Valves to facilities holding Operate an OL or CP 84-15 Reporting of Radiological 3/2/84 All power reactor Releases facilities holding ',
' " . ,"
- an OL or CP OL = Operating License CP = Construction Permit
O O Attachment 2 O - ASCO SOLEN 0105 TEST NidCRAli~flBFARison Age Conditioning DRE Sinulation IEEF Qual. Life Test Stds.* Sequence Thermal Cyclic Radiation Radiation MSLR/LOCA Claim llsed etY Tests _ FRC ME/ 15.3 days 2.000 cycles e 50 Mrads 150 Mrads 420*F peak 4 yrs 9 146*F 323-1974 Baseline CR-3424 9 131'C thermal aging 8 0.5 Mrad /hr # 0.5/0.9 30 days (Arrhenius) 344-1975 Radiation temp. Mrad /hr 382-l % 0 Thermal Aging (8 cycles per Pressure Aging minste for 21 Fear / cycling minutes per day Vibration for 12 days) Seismic DFF Radiation LOCA/MSLB ASCD/W 18 days 2.000 cycles e 23 Mrads 182 Mrads 420*F peak 8 yrs P 140*F 323-1974 Baseline 1982 P 121*C thermal aging 9 0.7 Mrad /hr P 0.9 30 days (Arrhenius) 344-1975 Thermal Aging 6 36R temp. (1.3 cycles Mrad /hr 382-1972 Wear /cyclino per minute first 3P2-1980 Pressure Aging 24 hrs; 180 cycles Radiation Aging over balance of Vibration aging period). Seismic 18.000 cycles P DBE Radiation room temp. LOC *./ CLB 1 ASCO 12 days 48 cycles e 50 Mrads 150 Mrads 346*F peak 4.4 yrs # 140*F 323-1974 Baseline l 1978 9 131*C thermal aging 9 0.5 Mrad /hr p 0.8 30 days (10*C rule) 344-1975 Thermal Aging , Isomedia temp. (I cycle Mrad /hr 382-1972 Radiation Aging l AQS 21!78/TR every 6 hours). Wear / Cycling l 40.000 cycles 9 Vibration i t room temp. Seismic DBE Radiation l LOCA/MSLB i l { i
26115.0 BRT 551 1 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you have any questions? 's ' 2 MR. FEIG: We don't have any questions on this. 3 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you have any questions, 4 Mr. Churchill? 5 MR. CHURCIIILL : Applicants have no questions, your 6 Honor. 7 JUDGE MARGULIES: Judge Linenberger? 8 EXAMINATION 9 DY JUDGE LINENBERGER: 10 Q Sir, have you reviewed the prefiled testimony of 11 Applicant's panel on this subject? 12 A Yes, I have. 13 0 Do you have -- are there any areas covered by that 14 testimony that you feel Staff would take exception to, or 15 that you might disagree with? 16 A No. 17 Q Point of clarification. Perhaps it's only 18 semantics, but, for example, at page 3 of your prefiled 19 testimony, answer A3, third sentence indicates that "The 20 FRC" -- and I presume that stands for Franklin Research 21 Center; is that correct? 22 A Yes, sir, it does. 23 Q - " test specimens consisted of seven different 24 valve models." 25 Now, the question I have here is, were there (On) ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage En33MM6
26115.0 BRT 552 1 really seven different models? Or were there a certain t i x/ 2 number of specimens of a particular model? We have in past 3 summary disposition exchanges, discussed, I think, only four 4 models. So I'm curious if the seven models here included 5 some models not dealt with previously in summary disposition? 6 A Okay. I'll try to clarify that. 7 There were, actually, seven different valve 8 specimens. Those seven valve specimens did encompass all of 9 the valve models, the four different valve models that are 10 used at the Vogtle plant. 11 There were some repeats as far as the specific 12 models. There might have been two of the same model within 13 those seven specimens that were tested but there were seven (g 14 actually -- seven different valves tested. O 15 Q But not seven different models? 16 A Not seven different models, no. 17 Q All right, sir. At page 5 of your testimony, the 18 second full paragraph under answer A4, it refers to Revision 19 1 of Reg Guide 1.09 as offering an acceptable method for 20 complying with 10 CFP 50.49. 21 Are you in a position to say whether that portion 22 of 10 CFR 50.49 is the part dealing with assurance that test 23 specinens are representative of end use specimens? 24 A You'd have to review 10 CFR 50.49. That's an 25 entire regulation dealing with environmental qualification. f's (v ) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l 26115.0 1 DRT 553 ' 1 I believe in there there is a statement, either in the rule
's \_/ 2 itself or in the matter -- when the rule was promulgated, 3 where it requires that the test specimen be representative of 4 the actual installed specimen.
5 Q Well, specifically the Board pointed out that 6 under 50.49, sections (e) (8 ) dealt with the question of 7 allowable manufacturing -- among other things, allowable 8 manutacturing deviations that might creep into installed 9 models or specimens that might be different from those of j 10 test specimens. I'm just, really, asking you here whether 11 Reg Guide 1.89, Revision 1, does, indeed, address that kind 12 of consideration? 13 A Section (e) (8 ) talks about margin. It doesn't f3 14 really talk about the representativeness of the test specimen O 15 versus the installed specimen. 16 Q Thank you. It does talk about margins. But I 17 still ask the same question. Does Reg 1.89, Revision 1, 18 address margins? 19 A Could I take a look at Reg Guide 1.89 revision 1, 20 before I address that? I believe it's in there, but I want 21 to be sure. It's also addressed in IEEE, 1974, which ic 22 endorsed by the Reg Guide. If I could take a minute to take 23 a look at that? 24 Q All right, fine. 25 A Your lionor, I can't find that document with me. I A O ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage R00 336-eM6
! 26115.0 l BRT 554 l 1 will provide a cite for the panel here, as far as the i / ) U 2 specific requirements that the piece of equipment to be l 3 tested has to be representative of the equipment being c 4 installed in the plant. There is a document which relates to 5 that. I can't quote that right now, unfortunately. 6 Q All right, sir. 7 I find no place in your testimony that would 8 indicate that the Staff has any, let's say, quarrel, with the l 9 approach and, indeed, the conditions of the environmental l l l 10 qualification program to which these four models were I 11 subjected. Are you in a position to, indeed, confirm that? t l 12 A Yes. That is correct. We have no quarrel. We l 13 have reviewed those documents a number of times in detail and l q 14 we have no problems with those qualification tests the way V 15 they were performed. 16 , JUDGE LINENBERGER: All right, thank you, sir. 17 That's all I have. 18 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is there any redirect, 19 Mr. Bordenick? 20 MR. BORDENICK: No we have no redirect. 21 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is there anything further of this 22 witness? l 23 You are excused, sir. Thank you. 24 (Witness excused.) 1 1 25 JUDGE MARGULIES: That concludes the testimony on l
)
G ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(n.136 M46
26115.0 BRT 555 p) i 1 10.5. 2 We will now move to Contention 10.1. Is the 3 Applicant ready to proceed with their panel? 4 MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. Applicants would like to 5 call to the stand Joel Kitchens, Mark L. Mayer, Patrick H. 6 Nau, Harold J. Quasny and George Bockhold. 7 JUDGE MARGULIES: I'm going to swear the panel. 8 Whereupon, 9 JOEL KITCHENS, 10 MARK L. MAYER, 11 PATRICK R. NAU, 12 and
/'N 13 HAROLD J. QUASNY U
14 were called as witnesses and, having first been duly sworn, 15 were examined and testified as follows: 16 DIRECT EXAMINATION 17 DY MR. LEWIS: 18 Q Mr. Kitchens, will you please state your full 19 name. 20 A (Kitchens) Joel Kitchens. 21 0 Dy whom are you employed? 22 A Dechtel Power Corporation, Western Power Divicion, 23 Norwalk, California, 24 0 Will you please describe your education and 25 professional experience, please? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage lux) 3366M6
26115.0 BRT 556 1 A I have a bachelor of science degree in electrical / k '1 2 engineering from the University of California. I have a 3 business management degree in management of -- In business 4 management. I have been involved in cables and cable 5 insulation activities for about 37 years. 6 Q Do you have before you a documented entitled 7 " Applicants' testimony of Joel Kitchens, Mark L. Mayer, 8 Patrick R. Nau and Harold J. Quasny on Contention 10.1"? 9 A I do. 10 Q Does this document contain your testimony for this 11 proceeding? 12 A Yes, it does. 13 Q Do you wish to make any corrections to this 14 testimony? 15 A No, I do not. 16 Q Mr. Mayer, will you please state your full name. 17 A (Mayer) My name is Mark L. Mayer. 18 Q By whon are you employed? 19 A I'm employed by the Dechtel Power Corporation, 1 20 Western Power Division in Norwalk, California. 21 Q What is your position with Dechtel? 22 A I'm an engineer with Bechtel on the Vogtle l 23 project. 24 Q Could you please briefly describe your education 25 and professional experience? O O ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 557 1 A I have a bachelor of science in nuclear (VD 2 engineering. I have been involved with the Vogtle project 3 and specifically in the areas of radiation shielding and dose 4 calculations for the past 4-1/2 years. 5 Q Do you have before you the document entitled 6 " Applicants' testimony of Joel Kitchens, Mark L. Mayer, 7 Patrick R. Nau and Harold J. Quasny on Contention 10.1"? 8 A Yes, I do. 9 Q Does this document contain your testimony in this 10 proceeding? 11 A Yes, it does. 12 Q Do you wish to make any corrections to this 13 testimony? p 14 A I have one clarification, on page 10. G 15 Q What is that clarification, please? 16 A On the top line of the page where it says, "At 17 VEGP, no safety-related equipment will receive a total 10 integrated dose", after the word " equipment" the tollowing 19 words need to be inserted: "Containing cross-linked 20 polyolefins, ethylene propylene rubber, Hypalon, or 21 Neoprene." And then to continue reading as is. 22 Q Mr. tJa u , will you please state your full name. 23 A (Nau) My name is Patrick R. Nau. 24 Q By whom are you employed? 25 A l'm employed by the coatings and nonmetallics ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage muk336 6646
26115.0 BRT 558 1 section of the materials and quality services group of (~%> s
\_/ 2 Bechtel National, Inc.
3 0 Would you please describe your education and 4 professional experience? 5 A I have a bachelor's of science in polymer science 6 from the University of Southern Mississippi. I have been 7 enployed in the coatings and nonmetallic section for tour 8 years and one of the responsibilities I have in that position 9 is to evaluate, and make recommendations and selections of 10 nonmetallic materials for Bechtel jobs. 11 Q Do you have before you the document entitled 12 " Applicants' testimony of Joel Kitchens, Mark L. Mayer, 13 Patrick R. Nau and Harold J. Quasny on Contention 10.1"? (-
'v 14 A Yes, I do.
15 Q Does this document contain your testimony in this 16 proceeding? 17 A Yes, it does. 18 Q Do you wish to make any corrections to this 19 testimony? 20 A No, I do not. 21 Q Mr. Quanny, will you please state your tull name? 22 A (Quasny) My name in Harold J. Quaany. 23 Q By whom are you employed? 24 A I'm employed by Dechtel Power Corporation, 25 Norwalk, Western Power Division. O) ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage sk34 M46
26115.0 BRT 559 1 Q What is your position with Dechtel? \ 2 A I'm the equipment qualifications supervisor. 3 0 Would you please describe your education and 4 professional experience? 5 A Yes. I graduated with a DSEE from ChicaQo 6 technical college and I have been in engineering for over 39 7 years. I have been head of the supervisory -- that is, of 8 the qualification group for over three years. 9 0 Do you have before you two documents, one entitled 10 " Applicants' testimony of Joel Kitchens, Mark L. Mayer, 11 Patrick R. Nau and liarold J. Quasny on Contention 10.1" and 12 the other entitled " Applicants' testimony of George Bockhold, 13 Jr. and Harold J. Quasny on Contention 10.1"? 14 A Yes, I do. 15 Q Do these two documents contain your testimony in 16 this proceeding? 17 A Yes, they do. 18 0 Do you wish to make any corrections to this 19 testimony? 20 A No, I do not. 21 Q Mr. Dockhold, would you please state your full 22 name. 23 A (Dockhold) George Dockhold, Jr. 24 Q Dy whom are you employed? 25 A Georgia Power. O v ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 37(u) Natkmwide Cmerage R(sk)46M6
26115.0 BRT 560 1 Q What is your position with Georgia Power Company?
's' 2 A General manager of Vogtle nuclear operations 3 department.
4 Q Do you have before you a document entitled 5 " Applicants' testimony of George Dockhold, Jr. and Harold J. 6 Quasny on Contention 10.1"? 7 A I do. 8 Q Does this document contain your testimony? 9 A It contains my testimony, 10 0 Do you wish to make any corrections to this 11 testimony or to the attachment? 12 A The resume and the attachment should be updated to 13 be the same resume as in 10.5. 14 MR. LEWIO: Your lionor, the copy that has been 15 provided to the court reporter containa the more current 16 resume, which is the name recume that was attached to 17 Applicant's testimony on contention 10.5. 18 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you wish to substitute it? 19 MR. LEWIG Yes, cir. 20 At this time Applicant moves that "Applicantn' 21 testimony of Joei Kitchens, Mark L. Mayer, Patrick H. Nau and 22 Haroid J. Quaany on Contention 10.1" and " Applicant'a 23 testimony of George Dockhold, J r. and liarold J . Quaany" be 24 incorporated into the record an if read. 25 JUDGC MARGULIEUs Any objection? There being no O v ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Natkmwide Coverage MXM 4 M44
26115.0 DRT 561 1 objection, they are both incorporated into the record as if
/
\,
L' 2 read. 3 (The document follows ) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ' 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l Ace FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC, 202.m.nm N ikm kiecmerase moS'**
e $(l(l) p ()_ February 24, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1 In the Matter of )
)
l GEOP.GIA POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-424 (OL)
) 50-425 (OL)
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, ) Units 1 and 2) ) l p> N-APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY OF JOEL KITCHENS, MARK L. MAYER, PATRICK R. NAU, AND HAROLD J. QUASNY l ON CONTENTION 10.1 (DOSE-RATE EFFECTS) l Ql. Please state your names, employer, and address. ! A1. (JK, MLM, HJQ) Our names are Joel Kitchens, Mark L. l Mayer, and Harold J. Quasny. We are employed by Bechtel Power Corporation, Western Power Division. Our business address is Bechtel Power Corporation, 12440 East Imperial Highway, Norwalk, California 90650. (PRN) My name is Patrick R. Nau. I am employed by Bechtel National Inc., Research and Development Division, Mate-rial and Quality Services Department. My business address is
Bechtel National Inc., P. O. Box 3965, San Francisco, O California 94119. Q2. Please state your occupation and describe your educa-tion and professional experience. l (JK) I am Assistant to the Chief Electrical Engineer, Bechtel Power Corporation, Western Power Division. I am an electrical engineer with thirty-seven years of design, supervi-sory, and management experience in power engineering fields. I received a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering from the University of California, Berkeley in 1948. A summary of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto as Exhibit A, which I incorporate herein by reference. (MLM) I hold the position of Engineer, Bechtel Power ( Corporation, Western Power Division. I am a nuclear engineer. I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Nuclear Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981. Since then, I have been a part of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VECP) nuclear engineering group and have worked on, among other things, project radiation shielding and equipment radiation dose calculations. A summary of n.y professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto as Exhibit 8, which I incorporate herein by reference. I l (PRN) I am a Coatings Engineer in the Coatings and Nonmetallic Materials Section of the Material and Corrosion l l
I
<N Group, Materials and Quality Services Department, Bechtel Na-(y tional. My job responsibilities include nonmetallic materials of construction as well as coatings. As such I have been in-volved in the evaluation and selection of plastics and i
1 elastomers in radiation environments for a number of Bechtel projects. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Polymer Sci-ence from the University of Southern Mississippi. A summary of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto as Exhibit C, which I incorporate herein by reference. (HJQ) I am an Equipment Qualification Supervisor with l the Equipment Qualification Group, Bechtel Power Corporation, ; f Western Power Division. I am an electrical engineer and hold a Bachelor of Science degree from Chicago Technical College. A () summary of m/ professional qualifications and experience is ; attached hereto as Exhibit D, which ! incorporate herein by reference. Q3. Please state the purpose of your testimony. A3. The purpose of our testimony is to respond to the first three issues that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated for hearing in its January 23, 1986 Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention [ l i 10.1 re Dose Rate Effects).1/ These issues relate to the 1/ The fourth issue designated for hearing was subsequently I deleted by the Licensing Board's February 13, 1986 Memorandum 7, (Continued Next Page) l N~) l l l 1
,_x Affidavit of Joel Kitchens, Victor L. Gonzales, and Mark L. ;'-)
Mayer (July 30, 1985) (hereinafter " Affidavit of Kitchens et al."), which was submitted in support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Joint Intervenors' Contention 10.1 (Dose Rate Effects). The three issues are: The Board is unaware, from the in-formation submitted, whether XLPO is the only polymer whose electrical in-sulation property was evaluated subse-quent to radiation exposure. Applicants have not stated what sig-l nificance in to be derived from re-l suits of the Duke Power Company's cable surveillance program, vis-a-vis a 40 year service life in VEGP. The scope and results of the mechani-cal stress tests on prototype VEGP ca-bles are not explained. l Q4. Please define what in meant by the term " dose-rate l effect." l ! A4. The term dose-rate effect means that the amount of degradation experienced in an irradiated material is dependent not only on the total integrated done, but also on the applica-tion rate of the radiation. In other words, a dose-rate offect I (Continued) i l and Order (Ruling on Applicants' Motion For Partial Reconsider-ation of Board Ruling re contention 10.1). The fifth and sixth i issues designated for hearing by the Licensing Board concern l maintenance and surveillance, which is addressed by "Appli-I cants' Testimony of George B. Dockhold, Jr. , and liarold J.
- Quaany on Contention 10.1 (Dose-Rate Effects)."
l p) ( 1 l l exists if the degradation observed in samples of a material ( receiving equal total integrated doses varies with the rate at which each sample is irradiated. I Q5. How do dose-rate effects pertain to the environmental qualification of equipment? A5. To qualify equipment important to safety to withstand accident conditions, it is necessary to take into account l equipment degradation that could occur before an accident. Thus, for environmental qualification, the preconditioning (aging) of equipment to its end-of-normal life condition is considered. The normal life of equipment, however, is long; most equipment has a service life equal to that of the plant -- ap-proximately forty years. It is therefore generally impractical to age equipment naturally. Recognizing this limitation, the commission specifically permits accelerated aging. See 10 C.F.R. I 50.49(e)(5). [ Radiation exposure during normal operation of the i plant is one contributor to aging. Accordingly, the acceler- l ated aging used in environmental qualification testa must simu- l t l late the degradation attributable to the low dose-rate radia- f tion environment to which equipment would be exposed over its normal life. To simulate the effects of this environment, I equipment is exposed to radiation at a high dose rate for a . I t O l i i i I
~
relatively short period of time. The generally accepted indus-( try practice has been to use dose rates on the order of 0.01 to 1.0 megarads/hr for this purpose. When a high dose rate is used to simulate aging attributable to radiation, the possibility of dose-rate effects ! arises. Dose-rate effects are not a concern for the portion of environmental qualification testing that simulates accident conditions, since the dose rates used in testing are comparable to the actual dose rate that would be experienced during the most severe design basis accident. Therefore, the only issue is whether the use of a high dose rate to precondition equip-ment simulates normal aging. Q6. Please summarize Contention 10.1. A6. In 1981, K. T. Gillen and R. L. Clough of Sandia Na-tional Laboratories conducted a study addrnasing dose-rate ef-facts in ethylene propylene rubber (EPR), cross-linked polyolefin (XLPO), chloroprene (Neoprene), and chlorosulfonated polyethylene (Hypalon). This study is entitled NUREO/CR-2157, ' I " Occurrence and Implications of Radiation Dose-Rate Effects for l Material Aging Studies" (June 1981). Contention 10.1 asserts that VEOP mafety-related equipment containing any of the four polymers addressed in NURE0/CR-2157 has not been properly qual-ified because high dose rates customarily used in accelerated aging produce less degradation in these polymers than low done rates. O l 1
Q7. Please describe the four polymers which Gillen and O Clough addressed in NUREG/CR-2157. i A7. Chlorosulfonated polyethylene, also known as Hypalon, l is a polymer produced by reacting chlorine and sulfur with l polyethylene. Some of the hydrogen atoms along the i j , polyethylene chain are replaced with chlorine and sulfur. The resultant modified polyethylene-based polymer exhibits rubber-like properties and is classified as an elastomer. Chloroprene, also called Neoprene, is a homopolymer j formed entirely from the chloroprene monomer. Chloroprene is ; also an elastomer. ] Ethylene Propylene Rubber is typically a copolymer of ! { ethyler.e and propylene monomer units or a terpolymer of ethyl-ene, propylene, and diene monomer (EPDM) units. EPR is an ]{} j elastomer. , The term cross-linked polyolefin does not refer to a specific polymer. The polyolefins are a group of polymers j based on aliphatic alkene monomers. Polyolefins may be j homopolymers based on a single repeating olefin monomer or a l copolymer based on two alternating olefin monomers. Examples 1 of polyolefin homopolymers are polyethylene, polypropylene, and polybutylene. Examples of polyolefin copolymers are , t ethylene-vinyl acetate, polyallomers, and polymethyl pentene. i These polymers are thermoplastics. Cross-linked polyolefins 7 are olefin polymers linked together with short chains or 4 branches at various points. ! i
-) Cross-linked polyethylene (XLrE) is the polymer most often ~
referred to generically as XLPO. Sandia has informed us, how-ever, that the polymer that was designated as XLPO in the Sandia study (NUREG/CR-2157) was a copolymer of ethylene and I vinyl acetate (EVA). Q8. How does radiation affect such polymers? j A8. When polymers absorb radiation, the energy of their atoms is increased. As a consequence, free electrons are pro-duced rupturing the chemical bonds and fragmenting the polymer molecules. The process of irradiation changes the chemical structure of the polymer molecules by breaking them into i smaller molecules (scission) or by forming the molecules into a . more non-linear network (cross-linking). The molecules may [ also reform in their original network, leaving no not structur-al change (recombination). The competition between the rates ; of these chemical processes determines the changes in polymer properties due to irradiation. Q9. Please describe the Sandia study (NUREG/CR-2157) and its results. A9. Gillen and Clough tested EPR and XLPO (EVA) cable in-sulation, and Hypalon and Neoprene cable jacketing. These ma-terials were stripped from the cables and irradiated in air and nitrogen at radiation done rates ranging from approximately 1 0.001 to 1.0 magarads/hr. Material degradation was followed i v l
using ultimate tensile properties (elongation and tensile i ( strength), swelling measurements, and infrared spectroscopy. i Radiation dose-rate effects were found in air envi- [ i i ronments at high total integrated doses for all of the materi- , t l als tested. The mechanism for these effects appears to be the 1 result of competition between cross-linking and scission. As f the dose-rate is lowered, there is more time for oxygen diffu-sion into the material and chemical reactions to occur, and ! scission therefore becomes more important. The results of the ; study are shown in Figures 1 through 4. Q10. What is the significance of these results? A10. The dose-rate effects observed in these four polymers are minor. Moreover, the differences in the rate of degradation caused by the various dose-rates decrease as the l total integrated dose decreases. In other words, dose-rate of-facts are more pronounced for higher doses. At and below total doses equal to the maximum normal 40-year total dose determined for safety-related equipment at VEOP (and expected doses are less) dose-rate effects are insignificant. In the cass of ethylene-propylene rubber and Hypalon, the reduction of tensile properties is virtually the same for ! all dose rates up to a total integrated dose of 20 megarads. In the case of Neoprene, the redu: tion is virtually the same for all dose rates up to a total integrated dose of 10 l >0 "~ l
Conbm og VLPO, N. HgM or &cpuL 1 megarads. AtVEGP,nosafety-telatedequipment[willreceivea total integrated dose for 40 years normal operation greater than 10 megarads; and most such equipment will receive less than two megarads. Thus, for EPR, Neoprene, and Hypalon, the dose-rate effects observed by Gillen and Clough are insignifi-cant irrespective of polymer application. Of the four polymers addressed in imREG/CR-2157, only l EVA (the sample designated as XLPO) exhibited dose-rate effects that were discernible at total doses below 10 megarada. EVA, however, is not used at VECP in any nafety-related equipment subject to a harsh environment. Nor can the results for EVA be used to predict similar effects in other cross-linked polyolefins. A new study by Sandia, released after Applicants' motion for summary disposition was filed, has evaluated dose-rate effects in cross-linked polyethylene. K. T. Gillen, R. L. Clough, and N. J. Dhoqqe, fMREG/CR-4358, " Applications of Den-sity Profiling to Equipment Qualification Issues" (Sept. 1985). Sandia evaluated among other things the degradation of tensile i properties of XLPE insulation at various done-rates. The re-suits are shown in Figure 5 and demonstrate that dose-rate ef-facts in XLPE are not significant below 20 magarada. l l Thus, the done-rate effects observed by Gillen and l Clough in XLPO, EPR, !!ypalon, and Neoprene are insignificant with respect to safety-related equipment at VECP. Moreover, one should also recognize that the dose-rate effects observed l L) 1
i l t i ! l by Gillen and clough are probably exaggerated. In their study, l l l
- pieces of cable insulation were stripped from the wire for the !
tests. The insulation material was thus completely exposed to oxygen in the ambient environment. In actual application, An-6 sultion is covered with a jacket material. Although the jacket l l l is primarily for mechanical protection (protection from abra-sion, cuts, etc.), this covering significantly reduces the oxy- ! gen available for radiation-induced oxidation of the cable in-sulation. Since oxygen diffusion into the materials is ! postulated to be a major contribution to the degradation mecha-nism, the applicability of the Sandia test results to cable in-i stalled at VEOP is questionable, f I Q11. The Licensing Board stated that it is unaware, from f i I the information submitted, whether XLPO is the only polymer i whose electrical insulation property was evaluated subsequent [ to radiation exposure. Were any other polymers so evaluated? 6 All. In the Affidavit of Kitchens et al., the affiants ; assumed for the purpose of their analysis that the dose-rate effects observed in the polymer designated as XLPO in NURE0/ I i l CR-2157 (which was EVA) were applicable to XLPE. The only l safety-related application of XLPE, or of any other type of l ! XLPO, subject to a harsh radiation environment at VEOP is cable I insulation. To demonstrate that the dose-rate effects observed ! in XLFO did not compromise safety-related cable, affiants ! i l Q . l
\
I i
l l l l t described the results of another Sandia study which demon-l strated that degradation of the mechanical properties of XLP0 insulation does not prevent the cable from performing its re- I i quired electrical function. This particular Sandia study is 1 NURE0/CR-2932, E. E. Minor and D. T. Furgal, Sandia National ; I Laboratories, " Equipment Qualification Research Test of Elec- . l tric Cable With Factory Splices and Insulation Rework Test l ! No. 2" (Sept. 1982). i In Minor and Burgal's study (NURE0/CR-2932), the XLP0 l l ! materials that were tested consisted of XLPE. Electrical cable i I insulated with these materials was exposed to a relatively low ! dose rate (0.062 megarads/hr) for a t.otal integrated normal op-erational dose of 50 megarada. Then, after elevated tempera-i ture aging, the cable was exposed to an accident dose of 150 megarade at a rate of 0.77 magarade/ht Despite severe degra- ! dation of mechanical properties, the cable was able to perform its electrical function at all times. This series of tests was ! conducted according to industry standards (IEEE 323-1974 and l l IEEE 383-1974) and HRC guidelines (NUREG-0588). Minor and Furgal concluded that the methodology employed by the nuclear i industry to quality ele. trical equipment (which includes accel-ersted aging), is adequate despite tha dose-rate effect on me- j chanical properties studied by 0111en and Clough. ( I We are not aware of studies that evaluated dose-rate j effects in the electrical properties of polymers other than l
-12
XLPE after radiation exposure. The electrical properties XLPE (-] v and EPR after radiation exposure were evaluated in two addi-tional Sandia studies, but these studies did not assess dose-rate effects. The two studies are NURE0/CR-3538, L. D. i Bustard, "The Effect of LOCA Sinaulation Procedures on Ethylene Propylene Rubber's Mechanical and Electrical Properties" (Oct. 1983), and NURCO/CR-3588, L. D. Bustard, "The Effect of LOCA l Simulation Procedures on Cross-Linked Polyolefin Cable's Per-formance" (April 1984). Of course, during environmental quali- ' fication testing, all safety-related cables undergo an insula-tion test after LOCA simulation. Q12. The Licensing Board stated that Applicants have not stated what significance is to be derived from results of the i j Duke Power Company's cable surveillance program, vis-a-vis a 40 year service life in VEOP. Pleane discuss the significance of the Duke study. < I I l A12. In the prior affidavit, we noted that additional in- ' l formation regarding dose-rate offects may be obtained from a Duke Power Company Study. Duke Power established an informal cable life evaluation program at its oconee Nuclear Generating Unit 1, which became commercially operational in 1973. t l For this program, representative specimens of con-trol, instrumentation and power cable were placed in selected l locations within the reactor building so that they would be : Y . () I I
l . l , r-) (~/ subjected to a normal in-containment environment. The cables ( were for the most part insulated with EPR and had Neoprene } i l Jackets. Some samples were insulated with cross-linked t polyethylene and covered with Neoprene jackets. For all cable samples, the average radiation exposure i 1 rate was 0.65 rads /hr during operation and 0.12 rads /hr when l the unit was shut down. The actual exposure level that each ! sample received is considered to have varied considerably over i the length of the cable dependent upon the exact location of I the cable within the reactor building. These dose rates are f t quite low in comparison to rates used in the Sandia investiga- i tions, but are representative of the dose rates expected to l occur at VEGP. l ({} Samples of these cables were removed after 5 years and again after 10 years of exposure. Physical and electrical ! tests were conducted to determine the degree of degradation of I the cable components. In all cases, the cablue were in good i I condition with no more deterioration observed than would be ex-pected over a similar period in a non-nuclear environment. In ) fact, in one instance, the physical properties of the cable sample actually improved during the ten year period.
]
The significance of the Duke Power Company's cable l surveillance program is thaw a* ', war exposure to the low dose- I rate, radiation actually encountered in operating nue1 9ar power j planta has not done detectable harm thus far to cables of the I l O l 1
. i t
( same general type that are used at VEOP. While this experience ; cannot yet be extrapolated out to forty-years, it is at least an indication that dose-rate effects are insignificant. Fur- , i thermore, the results demonstrate that there will be plenty of ' time to benefit from operating experience gained from other plants and to take any necessary corrective action if signifi-l cant dose-rate effects are identified. t Q13. With respect to the Affidavit of Kitchens et al., the Board stated that the scope and results of mechanical stress tests on prototype VEOP cables have not been explained. ! l l Please provide this explanation. A13. In the prior affidavit, we noted that with respect 1' i to electrical insulation, Gillen and Clough have suggested that mechanical properties are of interest primarily when consid-ering the effect of catastrophic failure under the influence of I some applied stress. Cable qualification tests at VEOP, how- l ever, currently include a mechanical durability test for cable i l 5 i applied following the simulated normal and accidental environ- ; 1 ! mental conditions, f r l This stress test is applied to test samples of all VEOP safety-related cables. The test complies with IEEE-383-74, section 2.4, which states Upon completion of the LOCA simulation, the i specimens should be straightened and re- i coiled around a metal mandrel with a diame-ter of approximately 40 times the overall cable diamster and immersed in tap water at l l
t room temperature. While still immersed, l l O these specimens should again pass a voltage withstand test for 5 minutes at a potential l of 80 V/ mil ac or 240 V/ mil dc. NOTE: The post LOCA simulation test demonstrates an adequate margin of safety by requiring , mechanical durability (Mandrel bend) fol-l lowing the environmental simulation and is more severe than exposure to two cycles of the environment. I Id. The samples used to qualify each type of VEGP safety- ' related cable passed this test. Q14. What is your conclusion regarding Contention 10.17 A14. It is our conclusion and professional opinion that { the dose-rate effects observed in NURE0/CR-2157 are insignifi- i i cant with respect to safety-related equipment at VEOP, and that the dose-rates used in artificial aging of VEOP safety-related equipment are appropriate. I 1 l l . I i l \ f i l l0 -1e-l L I I , ! I t I
l f I* i lO i l , * =- VEGP NORMAL 40 YEAR TOTA 1. ItiTEGRATED DOSES I8 i , , ( i.. . e+ n 1M, - i l 1. t - " . , t 1~ i l + ? I d .
- 9. 8 -
O i O '
,@ O l.thveWnt O noeme ~
A N -teent ! We O 9.9 esame ! o i..w., !
+ si warne in g l
. I
* ~
O e j
. ok m l
1 0 8 # la l# im I A4614fl9 Delt,he&O 1 l F10URE 1 -
, Aging of Cross 11nked Polyolefin Insulation O
'(
1 G
- i f
"--VEGP NORMAL 40 YEAR TOTAL INTEGRATED DOSES 1
i 3 I i I - f-p- p 1M, i O l o.9 - 0 - O ! n - _ t 1
, 3 0 1.t wasme i
l O se weemt l s, , a 98 weemt O t 3 weeme Ot. ster
\ @ +
- wa< n, I
O .., _ L 0 s- ; O f ' ' i 0 M la IM les 840latim cost , wag I 1 FIGURE 2
,. Aging of Ethylene-Propylene Rubber Insulation i
i
- . - . r VEGP NORMAL 40 YEAR TOTAL INT 7,GRATEL DOSES i
l.2 a i i _o T4 C C L U O O -
\
o.5 - O
~
O o.3 -
-Q31 O 914 ***r I
a 0 200 *wmr W, , 6 47 wWMt O 8.4 weemr
@ 0 1 * * **r a
- 0. 5 -
O C'
- g. -
,1
' b
, , O O .l 100 W N 0 50
' R40lafl0N 005E , wt AD s
\
e A
+
FIGURE 3 Aging of Neoprene Jacket (Polychloroprene) ,
\
s
>b' p_ )'
y. i . , s tf . e
. A.- - ,- 3 4- - -
.,L
- ~ ,,
d
~
O
.= c VEGP NORMAL 40 YEAR TOTAL INTEGRATED DGSES 1.2 , i i '
3
, n U C e ._ g o , n , A w , 0.1 -
(@ o m wasmr
.' , a rio weemr -
3 g A M waemt . eg, , O s.a weemt 0 i . 5 ==*r o.s - S O
~
a O O
, t I '
O 50 le 150 M N R401 Ail 0N 005E , MtAD FIGURE 4 Aging of Hypalon Jacket (Chlorosulfonated Polyethylene) O O
O 40 YEAR NORMAL INTEGRATED DOSES FOR VECP APPLICATIONS
, = r
- x 1 1
- 0 0 o g3 .
0.M -
- A s o o s e 0.50 -
> 0.50 - o 300 trod / k h air D 64 trod / hr h air 0.25 -
0.25 O !# x ioso trad / w h H,
' ' ' ' ' ' l 0 0 '
O i 0 25 *C M 10 0 125 0 25 50 M 10 0 125 ' Dose, Mrod Dose, Wad Fiaure 5: Mechanical property results for the radiation aging of a chemically crosslinked polyethylene cable insulation material at - 43*C. The tensile strength after aging divided bt the tensile strength before aging (T/To) and the tensile elongation after aging divided by the tensile elongation before aging (e/eo ) are plotted against the total integrated radiation dose under the various indicated dose-rate and atmospheric conditions. i l O
EXHI8IT A JOEL KITCHENS Assistant to the Chief Electrical Engineer h Sechtel Power Corporation, Western Power Division PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS EDUCATION BSEE - University of California, Berkeley - 1948 Susiness Management Certificate Program, University of California, Berkeley - 1973 i EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
37 years design, supervisory and management positions in power engineering fields. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 1966 to present: Bechtel Group - various locations 1956 to 1966: Anaconda Company - Wire and Cable Division i New York and San Francisco ; I 1948 to 1956: Pacific Gas and Electric Company San Francisco PROFES$10NAL AFFILIATIONS: Fellow, Institute for the Advancement of Engineering Senior Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Member, IEEE Insulated Conductors Committee Member, Project Management Institute Registered Professional Engineer, Arizona and California SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INSULATED CABLE FIELD Ten years with the Anaconda Company, Wire and Cable Division. These years included the following positions held and duties performed: o 31/2 years as a Cable Engineer doing cable design, specification writing, inspection and manufacturing engineering. o 2 years as a Regional Engineer doing application engineering and providing technical assistance for sale personnel and clients. o 21/2 years a Chief Cable Engineer with full responsibility for design, specifications and quality for the company's insulated products in the low voltage and medium voltage field. o 2 years as General Manager of the Cable Acc 1 ries Division in charge of i design, manufacture and marketing of the ai. .,sories product line. During 19 years with the Bechtel Group of Companies, have been a Cable Specialis' with responsibility for insulated cable master specifications for all voltages and applications. Have been a member of the IEEE Power Engineering Society Insulated Conductors Committee and have represented Bechtel on this connittee for this full time. Have actively participated on subconnittees and working groups responsible for maintaining and revising, as necessary, cable industry qualification standards such as IEEE Standard 383. O
EXIIIBIT B ( ' MARK L. MAYER ENGINEER Bechtel Power Corporation, Western Power Division PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS EDUCATION BS, Nuclear Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology-1981 EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
4 years as a nuclear engineer EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 1981 to present: Bechtel Power Corporation, Western Power Division PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: Registered Professional Engineer, California O SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS IN THE RADIATION ANALYSIS FIELD Four years with the VEGP nuclear engineering group. Responsibilities and duties have included: o Input to, and review of, project cadiation shielding calculations. These duties required the review and understanding of the plant layout, operation and radiation sources.
- o Input to, generation of, and review of, project equipment radiation dose calculations. These i duties required a review of radiation sources and j accident scenarios to identify qualification doses. i I
i 6 0
EXHIDIT C PATRICK R. NAU f' \ EDUCATION: B.S., Polymer Science, 1981 University of Southern Mississippi i
SUMMARY
- 4-1/2 YEARS: Corrosion Engineer, specializing in coating formulation and application, plastic materials, and elastomers.
EXPERIENCE: 1982 - Present: Bechtel National, Inc., Research and Development / Materials and Quality Services Department, Materials and Corrosion Group. Mr. Nau's activities are in the areas of coatings and nonmetallic materials of construction and include material selection, preparation and review of specifications, review of suppliers procedures, problem analysis and inspection and monitoring of applications. Mr. Nau has completed extensive studies on temporary preservatives, composite materials, geomembranes and gasket materials and has done a considerable amount of work in the areas of elastomers and thermoplastics. His experience includes the use of most instruments used to analyze and inspect coatings both before and af ter application. In addition he has experience in laboratory work using scanning electron microscopy and infrared spectroscopy. . Mr. Nau has completed the Materials and Quality Services Inspector training program. He spent six months inspecting extensive coating and lining work on the scrubber outlet ducts, stacks and a number of assorted tanks for Colstrip Units 3 & 4 in Colstrip, Montana. He has also been involved in inspection and monitoring of the lining of a large water tank for the Limerick Generating O Station in Pennsylvania and a variety of coatings for the Hope Creek Generating Station in New Jersey. Most recently, Mr. Nau has completed a six muu:h assignment in South Korea where he functioned as the client coating inspector for Chevron's offshore platform, Esther. He has also performed coatings work on Chevron's Hidalgo of fshore platform, Occidental's San Miguel platform and the Harriet offshore platform in Australia. 1981 - 1982: Mr. Nau was an associate chemist in the Thermark Corporation laboratory developing coatings formulations. PROFESSIONAL DATA: ! l Member: Steel Structures Painting Council (SSPC) i 1 O February 1986 - R&D/ Materials and Quality Services f
l EXHIBIT D MAROLD J. QUASNY
*)
,( Education: BS. Electrical Engineering, Chicago Technical College !
Business Management Certificate, University of
, California, Berkeley 1 t Summary: 39 Years: Electrical engineering supervision in power plants and industrial and government facilities Experience: Mr. Quasny is presently the Supervisor of the Equipment Environmental Qualification Group providing technical support for all of the domestic and overseas nuclear power plants.
Prior to this, he was a coordinator for the Chief Electrical Engineer for three nuclear and two fossil power plants and modifications to two existing power plants. Responsibilities included the technical and administrative coordination of the project and review of the discipline operations. Mr. Quasny was the Assistant Project Engineer and Electrical Engineering Supervisor on the 80-MW Hawaiian Wind Fara Project. Prior to this, he was on the electrical technical staff ar senior h technical representative of the Chief Electrical T Engineer for various power plant projects. His responsibilities included solution of key j technical areas on projects requiring aulti-project overviews, including four nuclear and one fossil fuel projects. i Previously, Mr. Quasny was an Administrative Assistant to the Chief Electrical Engineer ' responsible for personnel and salary administration and also manager of the reliability engineering group. He had the project engineering responsibilities for the ! conceptual studies, master planning, final ! engineering design, and client assistance during l the construction of a gas turbine assembly and ' test facilities of over 260,000 square feet. As Engineering Group Supervisor, Mr. Quasny was responsible for the engineering and design of l g { more than 10 types of facilities, including the fl Mead Converter Station to convert high voltage AC ll to 750-v de for power transmission. He has been l responsible for the engineering design of high () reliability power systems for airports and prepared a handbook on the engineering design of airport high reliability power systems. l l 3299W
b
!. HAROLD J. QUASNY (continucd) i ,
Oc Prior to joining Bechtel, Mr. Quasny was
; associated with Aerojet-General, where he was Project Engineer on a high thrust nuclear rocket test facilities complex and high powered radar l
i facilities, including a diesel power plant in the Pacific and various facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base. In addition, Mr. Quasny was a Lead i
, Engineer responsible for various industrial and government projects, including additions and modification at the Idaho Falls Complex.
Mr. Quasny was an Electrical Engineer for C. F. Braun active in the design of the multi-million dollar flying "A" refinery complex. At Harza Engineering, Mr. Quasny was an Assistant Project Engineer on an underground hydroelectric
' power plant for El Salvador. He also had engineering design responsibilities on hydroelectric power plants, transmission systems, and substations.
Professional Affiliations: Member. Engineers Institute of Electrical and Electronics !" O Member. Electrical Maintenance Engineers Association i Member, Society of Military Engineers l g Member. Engineering Institute for the Advancement of I () 3299W l
F 7 St: (23
't February 24, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l In the Matter of )
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. -~ ~~
) Docket Nos. 50-424 (OL)
) 50-425 (OL)
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, ) Units 1 and 2) )
's APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY OF GEORGE BOCKHOLD, JR.,
CJ AND HAROLD J. QUASNY ON CONTENTION 10.1 (DOSE-RATE EFFECTS) l My name is George Bockhold, Jr. I am employed by Georgia Power Company as General Manager, Vogtle Nuclear Operations. My business address is Georgia Power Company, P. O. Box 1600, Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. A summary of my professional quali-l fications and experience is, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which I incorporate herein by reference. My name is Harold J. Quasny. I am employed by Bechtel Power Corporation in the position of ;quipment Qualification i Supervisor. My business address is Bechtel Power Corporation, 12440 East Imperial Highway, Norwalk, California 90650. A sum-mary of my professional qualifications and experience is (} i I I i L_____----_----___-_------------
i l 1 -) () attached hereto as Exhibit B, which I incorporate herein by reference. Ql. Please state the purpose of your testimony. A1. The purpose of this testimony is to describe the VEGP Maintenance and Surveillance Program as it pertains to Conten-tion 10.1. This testimony relates to the last two issues that
- the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated for hearing in l
l its January 23, 1986 Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 10.1 re: Dose Rate Effects). Q2. Please describe the VEGP maintenance and surveillance program. A2. Prior to fuel loading at Unit 1, Applicants will im- . plement a Maintenance and Surveillance Program following the l l guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2. Applicants' commitment to Regulatory Guide 1.33 is set forth in Section ! 1.9.33 of the FSAR. Applicants' Maintenance and Surveillance l Program is described in Section 4.2 of " Environmental Qualifi-l l cation of Safety-Related Equipment Located in a Harsh Environ-l ment" (September 1985), and in FSAR response to NRC Staff ques- l tion Q271.1 (Sept. 6, 1983). Planned Maintenance and Surveillance is a program that schedules equipment maintenance, calibration, and l l ) l l 1 l I
't { () surveillance activities. Its purpose is to maintain equipment in a condition safe for operation, minimize unplanned outages due to breakdown, and provide a mechanism by which greater than anticipated degradation of safety-related equipment can be de-tected and remedied. The program is being developed using per-sonnel experienced in the area of maintenance and surveillance of electrical, mechanical, and instrumentation and controls equipment. Under the program, a planned maintenance and surveil-lance checklist is prepared for each piece of safety-related equipment and identifies the maintenance and surveillance tasks to be performed. If the task requires removing components for internal inspection, an equipment-specific procedure is refer-enced describing how the removal and inspection is to be per-formed. If the task only requires visual inspection of the outer areas of the equipment, it is described on the checklist. The content of the program is derived from the following sources: Manufacturer / Vendor recommendations i Lubrication requirements Calibration requirements Field verification of equipment descriptions Industry experience Qualification testing results () With respect to Contention 10.1, the qualification testing results have special significance. All vendors sup-plying safety-related e'quipment to Plant Vogtle are required to identify critical, age-sensitive, environmentally-degradable organic components and to specify replacement intervals based on test or analysis. Bechtel, the VEGP Architect-Engineer (AE), reviews and verifies each vendor's test and analysis re-sults. The information is then used in preparing Environmental Qualification Data Packages (EQDPs) which include maintenance and surveillance requirements specified by vendors in their test reports. These EQDPs are transmitted to Applicants' Environ-mental Qualification Task Force (EQTF), which reviews the ven-dor's information and the AE's evaluation for completeness and validity. If satisfactory, the EQTF approves each EQDP and transmits a copy to the VEGP Equipment Qualification (EQ) group. The EQ group identifies all equipment tag numbers in-cluded in the EQDP and transmits this information along with the maintenance and surveillance requirements from the EQDP to the Planned Maintenance (PM) group. The PM group then prepares replacement schedules, planned maintenance and surveillance checklists, and procedures (if necessary). In addition to that required by the planned mainte ' nance and surveillance checklists, surveillance and operability 0
~. . . -- __ _ __. . .- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _
Y testing are performed by the VEGP Inservice Testing Program and t the Technical Specification Surveillance Program. The Inservice Testing is conducted in accordance with ASME i Section XI. All safety-related pumps with a Class lE power l source and safety-related active valves required by ASME Section XI are tested on a regular basis. The pump testing in-cludes' determination of flow curves, vibration, bearing temper- ! atures, and differential pressure. The valve testing includes t
- determination of leak rates for isolation valves, stroke times, ;
fail safe verification, and position indication verification. The Technical Specification Surveillance Program covers all equipment required by the VEGP Technical Specifications. The VEGP Technical Specifications specify requirements for test ! 1 2 frequency, acceptability of testing, and measured parameters.
! When required, corrective maintenance will be per- '
l: formed to assure that equipment will operate satisfactorily. <
, Such corrective maintenance will become part of an equipment i
i history file. Proper documentation of corrective maintenance ; actions will highlight recurring situations in similar equip- !
- +
4 ment and will provide data to identify component past-performance trends. Furthermore, equipment or component
]
failures detected in other nuclear power plants will be avail-able to VEGP through Industry Event Reports, NRC IE Bulletins,
, i Information Notices, Letters, and Directives, and '
1
-S- l 1
1 ,
! i 4 l': l () Manufacturers' Information Notices. VEGP will review these re-l l ports to determine their applicability and will modify its t maintenance and surveillance program accordingly. ' l ! l l Q3. Please describe the surveillance activities that will j j be performed on safety-related cables. j A3. The maintenance and' surveillance program for i
- l safety-related motors includes a provision for the megger of I '
insulation in accordance with the manufacturers' recommenda- j tions, typically every 72 months. This testing is planned to l be performed for the motors from the associated motor control center or switchgear. Thus the cables and electrical penetra- i tion assemblies will be meggered with the motor windings. This f surveillance is capable of detecting insulation degradation, I and the location of degradation can be traced to determine which component is at fault. 1 In addition, a program will be implemented to period-ically inspect selected cables inside the containment. The ca-1 bles will be selected by type and material to envelope VEGP instrument and control cables. The location or locations of the inspected cables will be selected in areas where higher temperature and radiation fields are anticipated. The inspec- , tion will be a visual check of the cables to identify signs of l degradation, i.e., cracking, flaking, discoloration or O s The first (baseline) (-s) powdering of the exterior of the cable. inspection will be conducted prior to commercial operation, and visual inspection will be periodically repeated every five years. This interval is adequater since all VEGP safety re-i lated cables have undergone an IEEE-323-1974 qualification pro-l gram, which included pre-aging, and all have a qualified life of 40 years, rapid degradation of cables.should not occur. l Q4. With respect to Contention 10.1, what is the signifi-cance of the VEGP maintenance and surveillance program? A4. Critical, age-sensitive, environmental-degradable components in safety-related equipment located in a harsh envi-ronment are environmentally qualified for their service life by ( test or analysis, and this qualification does not depend on maintenance or surveillance. Maintenance and surveillance i does, however, provide a mechanism by wh'ich greater than antic-l ipated degradation of such components can be detected and l remedied. Hence, the maintenance and surveillance program pro-l l vides additional assurance that safety-related equipment will l perform its intended function if needed. i l l l t l l \ 1 l 1
3 . 4
~_s EXHIBIT "B" l \
)
VEGP-FSAR-13 TABLE 13.1.2-1 (SHEET 1 OF 70) RESUMES OF ONSITE SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL George Bockhold, Jr., general manager - nuclear operations Date of Birth: August 31, 1944 Educational Background U.S. Naval Academy, 1966 B.S., power plant engineering Work Experience Nuclear, Georgia Power Company Position: General manager, nuclear operations Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Dates: April 1983 to present Location: Plant Vogtle yg
~
Plant Status: Construction and startup (, N-J
)
Job
Description:
Manager of the startup and operation of two 1160-MWe Westinghouse nuclear units. Responsibilities include staffing an organization of over 900 technical and support persenr.el including contractors, directing the initial plant test program, and safely and efficiently managing the operation and maintenance of these units. These responsibilities include utility assets of 7.2 billion dollars. Position: Manager, nuclear training Dates: 198'.-1983 Location: Atlanta Job Oescription: Managed the initial startup ar.d operation of two Georgia Power C:mpany training centers. Cirected the gr:wth of nuclear training to put in sertice 10 million dollars of training eculp. ment including a staff change frem seven to seventy employees. Training responsibilities included simulat:r, health physics, maintenance, techn clan, and general employee training. The (~'s training plans were designed to exceed ( ) , INPO accreditation and NRC requirements and provide Georgia Power Company with the most professional operations and Amend. 16 4/85
1 .
,r
V VEGP-FSAR-13 TABLE 13.1.2-1 (SHEET 3 OF 70) testing, human factors angineering, and mathematical reliability modeling. This project included both nuclear and fossil simulators.
, As director of operations services and manager, training center services, he managed activities associated with on-site support of power plant startup, operations, and maintenance. He directed General Physics' use of Browns Ferry and Sequoyah Power Plant Simulators at the Tennessee Valley Authority Power Production Training Center. Responsibilities included the supervision of the simulator training staff and NRC licensing and requalification programs. He was the supervisor of experienced instructors.
7s Directed the preparation of and developed BWR and PWR simulator courses () and course materials. During this period, he performed detailed investigation of Browns Ferry and 1-Sequoyah Plant design, construction, and operation to develop control room procedural materials. Con Edison, New York - Indian Point Station, New York Position: Nuclear training director Dates: 1975-1976 Job
Description:
Responsible for all Indian Point training; responsibilities ranged from general employee training to licensed operator training and jcb performance evaluation. Supervisor of licensed instructors and director of the nuclear simulator: simulater respons:bi'; ties included direction of maintenance personnel to maintain and upgrade system hardware and software, and supervision of simulator training, NRC 11:ensing and certification programs. Further responsibilities included the review and pretesting of Unit No. 3 startup , procedures. (~')N
\m Position: Nuclear simulator director Dates: 1973-1975 Job
Description:
Manager of the simulator project; responsible for the coordination of Amend. 16 4/85
'vl VEGP-FSAR-13 l TABLE 13.1.2-1 (SHEET 4 OF 70) activities between the contractor, the NRC, and Con Edison's departments.
Interface included programs to produce fidelity of simulation and NRC demonstration and certification. Preparation for responsibilities required both formal and informal training associated with computer technology. Director of training for
. licensed operators and operator candidates utilizing the simulator facility; responsibilities included supervision of instructors, programmers, and maintenance personnel. Instructed and directed Unit No. 3 startup crew simulator training to achieve operator licensing on both Units No. 2 and 3.
Position: Production engineer ['T Dates: 1971-1974
\-) Job
Description:
Various maintenance and operations responsibilities for Indian Point Units. Specifically, special , responsibilities included: i
- 1. Licensed shift engineer responsibilitiec during Unit No. 2 startup to above 20 percent pcwer including unit testing.
- 2. Supervision of mechanics and operators during the refueling of Unit No. 2.
- 3. Maintenance supervision in high radiation areas during steam generator tube plugging of Un:t No. 1.
G5her Experience and Training Position: Commissioned Naval Officer Dates: 1970-1971 Location: Various with United States Navy Job
Description:
U.S. Naval Nuclear Power School. (~N Bainbridge, Maryland. Division Oirector N) of Chemistry, Materials, and Radiological Fundamentals. Instructor of undergraduate cellege level courses in nuclear engineering systems. Responsibilities included supervision of Amend. 16 4/85
V VEGP-FSAR-13 TABLE 13.1.2-1 (SHEET 5 0F 70) instructors and preparation of course material. Dates: 1968-1970 Job
Description:
USS Simon Bolivar (SSBN 641), a Polaris nuclear powered submarine. Responsibilities included the following division officer billets - ship's damage control assistant, electrical and reactor control officer. All duties included direction of six to fifteen technicians on operation and maintenance of various equipment, (from air conditioning systems to reactor protection circuitry). Further responsibilities included implementation of a computer-orientated preventive maintenance system for shipboard equipmen*, Watchstanding duties (~N included officer-of-the-deck (COD) and
\_) engineering officer-of-the-watch (EOCW). The'EOCW is the senior watch officer who is responsible for the safe '
operation of the nuclear power plant, . ine'uding reactor safety, electrical power generation, and propulsion. The OOD reporte directly to the commanding officer for the safe navigation and operation of the ship. Dates: 1966-1968 Job
Description:
Navy-specialiced training including officer nuclear propulsion and submarine schools. Qualified ECCW at naval reactor's land-based nuclear power plant in Windsor, Connecticut. i
.O \x-)
l I
j EXIIIBIT B BAROLD J. QUAsNY 4 Education: 35 Electrical Engineering, Chicago Technical College
, Business Management Certificate, University of
- California, Berkeley Summary
- 39 Years: Electrical engineering supervision l in power plants and industrial and
. government facilities Experience: Mr. Quasny is presently the Supervisor of the
. Equipment Environmental Qualification Group providing technical support for all of the domestic and overseas nuclear power plants.
l Prior to this, he was a coordinator for the Chief l Electrical Engineer for three nuclear and two fossil power plants and modifications to two l existing power plants. Responsibilities included
) the technical and administrative coordination of the project and review of the discipline operations. . Mr. Quasny was the Assistant Project Engineer and 1 Electrical Engineering Supervisor on the 80-MW Hawaiian Wind Fara Project. Prior to this, he i was on the electrical technical staff as senior i technical representative of the Chief Electrical l Engineer for various power plant projects. His responsibilities included solution of key i
technical areas on projects requiring multi-project overviews, including four nuclear and one fossil fuel projects. i Previously, Mr. Quasny was an Administrative Assistant to the Chief Electrical Engineer responsible for personnel and salary administration and also manager of the reliability engineering group. He had the project engineering responsibilities for the conceptual studies, master planning, final engineering design, and client assistance during
- the construction of a gas turbine assembly and test facilities of over 260,000 square feet. As Engineering Group Supervisor, Mr. Quasny was
. responsible for the engineering and design of more than 10 types of facilities, including the Mead Converter Station to convert high voltage AC to 750-v de for power transmission. He has been O responsible for the engineering design of high reliability power systems for airports and prepared a handbook on the engineering design of airport high reliability power systems.
4
.-- - , - - , , . - _ . , , , . - - - . _ - . , , , _ _ _ . _ - . _ _ - _ , _ , - . . , _ _ , . _ _ , , , __ _ , _ ~ , - - . , , , - - . , , - - . , . - - - , - . - - -
.---,.-,,,n_.
f. HAROLD J. QUASNY (continued)
' '( )
, Prior to joining Bechtel, Mr. Quasny was i associated with Aerojet-General, where he was Project Engineer on a high thrust nuclear rocket test facilities complex and high powered radar l
facilities, including a diesel power plant in the i Pacific and various facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base. In addition, Mr. Quasny was a Lead Engineer responsible for various industrial and 3 4 government projects, including additions and modification at the Idaho Falls Complex. Mr. Quasny was an Electrical Engineer for C. F. Braun active in the design of the multi-million dollar flying "A" refinery complex. At Harza Engineering, Mr. Quasny was an Assistant , Project Engineer on an underground hydroelectric ' power plant for El Salvador. He also had engineering design responsibilities on hydroelectric power plants, transmission systems, and substations. Professional Affiliations: O Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Member, Electrical Maintenance Engineers l Association Member, Society of Military Engineers Member, Institute for the Advancement of Engineering l O
26115.0 BRT 562 ( (v ) 1 MR. LEWIS: The witnesses are available for 2 cross-examination. 3 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Feig? 4 MR. FEIG: No questions. 5 MR. DORDENICK: No questions. 6 EXAMINATION 7 BY JUDGE LINENBERGER: 8 Q Mr. Bockhold, before we get into the technical 9 subject matter, I should like to ask about a portion of your 10 professional qualifications which appears on the second page 11 of Exhibit A of yours and Mr. Quasny's prefiled testimony and 12 it falle under the heading of EPRI simulator performance 13 measurement system. 14 A (Bockhold) Yes, sir. 15 Q The question is, had the EPHI performance 16 measurements system already come into existence at the time 17 that the activity discussed here took place, the activity 18 discussed in your resume? Or was that activity a part of the 19 effort leading to the development of the EPRI system?
, 20 A The EPRI system was a research project. At that 21 point I was with the Genera Physics Corporation. The 22 General Physics Corporation won a contract to go ahead and 23 really compare expert operators' opinions of operator 24 performance and computerize that to evaluate operator 25 performance on specific scenarios.
O V ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage mO34(M6
26115.0 DRT 563
) 1 Did that answer your question, sir?
2 0 I believe it does, yes. Going back to the first 3 page of your resume, near the bottom of the p+1e ihere is a 4 reference to INFO accreditation? 5 A INPO? INPO, sir? INPO accreditation) 6 0 INPO accreditation requirements. I waated to ask 7 you if you recall when those accreditation requirenents came 8 into existence in comparison to the time span of the pericd 9 of time 1981 to 1983, in which that discussion falls under 10 the heading of? 11 A To answer your question, INPO had developed some 12 quidelines and had some initial plans. The utilities at that 13 point were following the plans and making preparations fot 14 the accreditation process. 15 INPO had a number of meetings with the utilities. l 16 We participated with those meetings and really went ahead and 17 factored our plan, such as job task analysis, into our 10 ongoing training proqrams to upgrade those training programs 19 to meet tho accreditation requirements as they finally 20 evolved, i 21 Q Go, durinq that period of time there was no final 22 INPO document, so to speak, that you were molding company 23 activities to conform with? This was an evolutionary l 24 process, if I understand you correctly? 25 A Yes, sir. I characterize it as an evolutionary ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationeide Coverage Mn UMM6
26115.0 DHT 564 b
%J 1 process during that time frame. Since then, we have an l 2 accreditation board and utilities have received accreditation l
- 3 for various programs.
l j 4 JUDGE LINENDERGER: You gentlemen, I address all i 5 of you here at this point -- well, let me ask you. Are you 6 gentlemen f amiliar with a memorandum and order f r om this i j 7 Doard dated la inuary of 1986, ruling on Applicant's i 8 motion for summary s sposition of the Contention 10.1, having ! 9 to do with doce rate i.'ects? I say, are you gentlemen ( l 10 familiar with that? Or is there any one of you who is not 11 familiar with it? Let's put it that way. ! il All right, fine, I 'll take it that you all are. I 1.1 THE WITNESG: (Dockhold) I may not be an expert on
-( ) al# tim t went on in this document, sir.
14 I l 15 BY JUDGE LINENBERGER: 16 Q ril, neither may I, but we'll forge ahead 17 anyway. 18 The thing I'm leading up to here la that it was 19 the Board's impression that Applicant 's po::ition in their l 20 motion for aummary disposition with respect to doae rate 21 effects oa polymer materials of -- that had been identified 22 by the contention, that Applicant's position was that the i 23 acceptability of thece polymers with respect to their i 24 performance in a radiation environment was, for the most 25 part, if not entirely, based on certain testa of those T ACE.FEDr.hAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationside Coverage Mk).*66M6
26115.0 BRT 565 (3l 1 polymers that had been performed, primarily tests performed 2 by Sandia fiational Laboratory; and further, there was an 3 observation that another nuclear plant had logged some 4 satisfactory experience with one of those polymers. 5 In comparison with that, the Staff's position -- 6 it in the Board's impression, with respect to this motion for 7 summary disposition, that the Gtaff was going to be looking 0 primarily, if not exclusively, at an onaoing surveillance 9 program of the Applicants to acsure themselves, presumably 10 coinciding with the Applicants assuring themceivec, that the 11 particular polymers were not unacceptably degrading under 12 radiation effects. 13 tiow then, the prefiled testimony of Applicants, b 14 comewhat unlike the information provided in the affidavite 15 accompanying the motion tor aummary disposition of this 16 contention, the prefiled testimony seems to the Board to 17 pretty much hang Applicant's hat on an ongoing curveillance 10 program and to a much lesser extent, it seems to me, on prior 19 testing of these polymers. ! l 20 Forylve the lonqwinded foundation for the l 21 following question: l Is the Board correct in perceiving that 22 there la a difference in Applicant's position here? A r. d , if l 23 not, can you quntlemen explain how the pocition is not I l 24 ditterent? And, forgive me, Mr. Churchill, but I'll fold in 25 a second question, here, and nay: If, indeed there han been o) ( v ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Mn))MM6 l
l t 26115.0 BRT 566 , 1 a change, why? If not, please explain the matter to the 2 Board. 3 I care not who answers this, who from the panel 4 would answer this question. 5 A (Kitchens) well, the testino requirements of cable 6 insulation for nuclear power plants goes back to the 7 beginning of the industry, and the standards and requirements 0 are pretty well embodied in the IEEE insulated conductors 9 committee, which is the body that prepares and makes the 10 cable standards for the industry. 11 I have been a member of that board for close to 30 12 years, and I have been party to a great deal of t he- testing 13 and qua1ification work that has been done.
, rh 14 Dose rate effects, ac well as most other effects, 15 have been investigated in depth.
16 In preparing this testimony, we had been asked to 17 answer specific contentions, and these contentions, at least, 10 my interpretation is that -- they were primarily based on the I 19 Sandia Nureg 2157 tests, which implied a dose rate etfect. i l 20 And that is the reason that the testimony is directed l 21 specifically to that. l 22 0 Sir, when you discussed cable insulation, do you l l 23 make a decision here in anything you said between insulation 24 and jacketing of cables? l l 25 A Yes, there is a distinction between insulation and I (D l O l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 37(X) Nationwide Coverage 8m 336-%m
l l 1 l 26115.0 BRT 567 , i l - l 1 jacketing; however -- (] 2 Q I understand there is a distinction. But in what i ! 3 you said, were you -- were your comments exclusively confined l 4 to insulation? Or did they also-include jacketing comments? l l 5 A It would include jacketing as well, i l 6 Q Thank you. Now, sir, I guess I'm a bit at a loss i 7 here, but I don't think I heard you answer my question. I l 8 wanted to get clear the jacket insulation matter before l l 9 pursuing this further. Dut, as I said, I don't think I heard 10 you answer my question. And let me go'back to the question, l 11 lest my longwinded discussion might have obfuscated it. l l 12 Was my question clear? Or do I need to rephrase l l 13 it? l p 14 A (Kitchens; I thought I answered it or obviously I 15 misunderstood you or neglected..something. Would you rephrase 16 it or repeat it, please? 17 A (Mayer) Your question really relates to the 10 difterence between the prior affidavit and the current 19 testimony; is that correct? 20 Q That is c,orrect. The Board'got the impression in 21 the prior affidavitu that Applicants w6ro.relyin( primarily 22 on prior testing of these polymers, and g*.ts the impression 23 currently from the prefiled testimony that the Doard -- that 24 the Applicants are relying primarily'on a surveillance 25 program to assure them that the polymers don't degrade
~
v
)
ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverue 800-336 6M6
26115.0 BRT 560 7s 1 unacceptably. And I'm curious about that apparent 2 difference. 3 A (Mayer) Okay. Our position has not changed in 4 terms at what the dose rate effect will be on the polymers. S We still bel.ieve that there will be no adverse degrada tion on 6 the polymers that we do use. However, in the interests of 7 addressing all the concerns raised by the Board, we prepared 8 additional testimony to address the maintenance and 9 surveillance program that will be installed at Plant Vogtle. 10 Q So you are saying that this testimony should not 11 be read or interpreted, I should say, to represent a change 12 in Applicant's position with respect to the acceptability of 13 these polymers; is that correct? p D 14 A I believe that to be correct. 15 A (Kitchens) Certainly it's not my intention to 16 change it. My position has not changed. 17 JUDGE LINENBERGER: All right, sir. 18 (Discussion off the record.) 19 EY JUDGE LINENBERGEH: 20 Q Would one of you gentlemen just briefly summarine 21 the intent and the nature of stress tests that were performed 22 on Vogtle cables that might see duty in a safety-related l ! 23 application? i 24 A (Kitchens) Hal, I think that would be yours. I ! 25 A (Quasny) The stress tests that were done were in
\
l x_) l l l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
?02 347 3700 a 'ationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
L m s % 26115.0 1
, BRT i- 569 1,
( ) 1 accordance with the IEEE 383, wherein, after the complete 2 aging and going through a LOCA condition, the cable is taken 3 and removed out of the chamber and is straightened out. Then 4 it is put around a mandrel which is in a diameter equal to 5 about 40 diameters of the cable. 6 It is then inserted into water at room 7 temperature, ar.d then the -- a voltage is put on it to test 8 the insulation value that will show that the insulation will 9 still be good after this stress test. This is done, as I 10 say, after the LOCA, which is usually a 100-day type of a 11 test. 12 Q Does this - you mentioned electrical testing of r , 13 the insulation. Does the stress test result in any kind of (
\_s) 14 measurement or determination with respect to the jacketing of 15 the cable?
16 A The fact that the cable has gone through the t' 17 entire sequence of aging and testing, it is at its 18 conceivably worst case condition. 19 So, when you take this bent cable out of the 20 chamber and straighten it out, it proves the mechanical 21 durability of it as far as the fact that then you put it over 22 a mandrel again and insert it in the water, and thereby you 23 have tested it for the stress that's on the cable, mechanical j l 24 stress, plus the f a c t, that after going through that 25 mechanical stress, you put the voltage test to it to show ( \ , ,ry
- t. I N_;
l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTEftS, INC. 202-3474700 Nationwide Coverage S 800 336-6646 i
26115.0 BRT 570 ( 1 that its insulation value or its probability, and really 2 poscibility of functioning will be there. 3 Q To put it in my own words to be sure I understand 4 it, should I infer from what you've said that if the 5 jacketing had been substantially degraded during the prior 6 exposures that it had undergone, radiation and other things, 7 that if the degradation of the jacket had progressed very far 8 toward being unacceptable, one would see this, the impact of 9 this on the i n s ula t i.o n ? Is that the proper -- 10 A No. This is insulation that we are testing now. 11 This is concerning the insulation test. Not the jacket 12 itself but the insulation would withstand the conditions. 13 Q Then 1 must have misunders toott because I thought I G 14 heard you say that the stress test also gave come indication 15 about how well the jacket -- 16 A No, I'm sorry. If I implied that, I didn't mean 17 to. 18 Q I must have misunderstood it. 19 So, then, are you saying that the stress test does 20 not address jacket degradation a t all? 21 A In this case, the requirement is that the 22 insulation is tested so that that would show what the 23 insulation can withstand. 24 A (Kitchens) Could I add a clarification? For these 25 tests the jacket is removed before aging, on the premise that O \x .,] ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-MA4
26115.0 BRT 571 ( 1 exposing the insulation to the harsh environment is the most 2 critical condition that you can cet, so it is tested to the 3 extent that the jacket doesn't even exist at that point. 4 JUDGE PARIS: Does this mean you are taking no 5 credit for the jacketing? 6 THE WITNESS: (Kitchens) Exactly. 7 I would like to also add that the test voltages 8 used are in the neighborhood of 20 times the voltage that the 9 conductor would see in service. Most of these cables are 10 tested at 2400 volts during the stress test, whereas they are 11 applied in a 100- to 120-volt range, for the most part. 12 BY JUDGE LINENBERGER: 13 Q Perhaps I'm confusing something here, but I 14 thought I saw somewhere in one of the other sets of testimony 5 15 that we are talking about right now a reference to meggering 16 tests on the insulation. Am I right about that? This is 17 addressed? 18 A (Dockhold) Yes, sir, we do in-service muggering 19 tests as part of a continuing surveillance on cabling systems 20 in these environments. That does not relate to the 21 qualification test directly. That's in-service. 22 Q ;Okay. Understood. Understood. 23 Now, I thought I also -- I think I also recall 24 reading that the meggering tests were performed or will be 25 performed for cable in certain applications, with that cable O V l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
26115.0 BRT. 572 () I connected to, let's say, a motor that it is supplying energy 2 to, 3 My question there is, if that is indeed a 4 condition under which the insulation resistance is being 5 meggered; that the -- it seems to me that the motor 6 resistance, motor winding resistance is going to be so small 7 that I don't quite understand how meggering the insulation is 8 going to give a meaningful answer? 9 A You are going from the outside of the insulation 10 to one of the conductors to determine the insulation value. 11 Q All right, sir. That explains that. 12 JUDGE MARGULIES: Dr. Paria? 13 EXAMINATION .O (/ 14 BY JUDGE PARIS: 15 Q I'll address my question to Mr. Bockhold, and it 16 relates to answer 3, page 6 and 7 of your testimony relating 17 to the surveillance program for safety-related cables. 18 At the site visit yesterday, when we first entered 19 the reactor building we were shown a junction box, the cover 20 of which had been removed. Inside there was a cable; 21 apparently two cables had been joined there, and the 22 jacketing had been removed from most of the cable, exposing 1 23 the insulated conductors. And we were told that this sort of I 24 procedure had been followed elsewhere in the plant. That is, 1 1 1 25 the jacketing had been removed from the cables in junction l (~' l
. l l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. :
26115.0 BRT 573 (3 boxes so that you could inspect safety-related cables -- you (y 1 2 could inspect the insulati'on itselt. 3 In going through the plant, I saw two or three 4 other junction boxes elsewhere with covers removed, but in 5 all of them the conductors were still covered by the cables. 6 My question is: llave you removed the jacketing 7 from the insulated conductors in junction boxes for 8 safety-related cables elsewhere in the plant? And, if so, 9 where? 10 A (Bockhold) We plan to complete the development of 11 the program. We have not completed the development of the 12 program. We plan to have selected junction boxec in, really, 13 the higher-temperature, higher-radiation environments and (] 14 then to ensure that those cables have their jacket removed l 15 and do appropriate visual inspections of that as part of the 16 surveillance program, your lionor. 17 Q So this is something you plan to do and have not 18 completed yet? 19 A That's correct, sir. 20 JUDGE PARIS: All riqht. Thank you. 21 JUDGE MARGULIES: Hedirect? 22 MR. LEWIS: No, your lionor. 23 JUDGE MARGULIES: In there anything turther of 24 this witness? The pa ne l ? 25 The panel ic excused. Thank you. rh !v) ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage mn-33MM6
26115.0 BRT 574 l
- ! /^')
v 1 (Panel excused.) 2 JUDGE MARGULIES: This witness was previously 3 sworn, Mr. Bordenick. You may proceed, l l 4 Whereupon, i 5 ARMANDO MASCIANTONIO 1 6 resumed the stand and, having been previously duly sworn, was 7 examined and testified further as follows: l 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION l l 9 BY MR. BORDENICK: ! 10 Q Would you please state your full name for the ( 11 record. l l 12 A Armando Masciantonio. l 13 Q Will you please state the name of your employer, l') ! (/ 14 your position and address? l 15 A I'm employed by the NRC, the Office of Nuclear 1 16 Reactor Regulation as a mechanical engineer. The address is 17 Washington, D.C., zip code 20555. 18 Q Do you have in front of ycu a document entitled, 19 "NRC Staff Testimony of Armando Masciantonio on Joint 20 Intervenors' Contention 10.1, Dose Rate Effects" consisting 21 of seven pages? 22 A Yes, I do. 23 0 Was this document prepared by you or under your 24 supervision? 25 A Yes.
'O 't-l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80i>33MM6
26115.0 BRT 575 1 Q Are there any corrections to this document? 2 A Yes. I would likd-to make one correction. 3 Q Would you give the pace number and then please 4 allow the parties an opportunity to turn to that page. 5 A Okay. On page 6 of the testimony, the top line, 6 first line references an ANSI standard. The correct number 7 should be at the very end of the line, N18.7-1976. 6 At the end of that paragraph, the last line before 9 the end ot the paragraph that starts, " analyses, frequency, 10 and type of service or age of the items," the comma after 11 " frequency" should be removed. 12 Q Are there any other corrections? 13 A No. () b 14 0 Ac corrected by you here this mornino, are the 15 statementa contained in your pref iled testimony true and 16 correct to the beat of your knowledae and belief? 17 A Yes, they are. 18 Q And do you adopt this prefiled testimony, which I 19 had previously identified, ac your testimony in this 20 proceeding? 21 A Yes. 22 MH. DORDENICK: Judge Margulics, at this time I 23 would move that Mr. Masciantonio's prefiled testimony be 24 incorporated into the record as it read. I will r:u pp l y 25 copies to the reporter with the changes noted here thic (3
\_]
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 1700 Nationwide Coverage 80tb336-fM6
i 26115.0 BRT 576 l 1 morning made in the copies that I provide. l 2 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is there any objection? There l 3 being no objection, it will be bound into the record and 4 treated as if read. 5 (The document follows:)
; 6 7
i 0 l l l
, 9 l
10 t i 11 I i
; 12 l ) 13 r l
l l 14 ) i i
! 15 16 4
l 17 ! i l 18 { I 19 ,
! 20 ; i j 21 l l
22 l I 23 1 24 i l 25 1 l l l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Natwn*ide Coverage 800 33&ua6 ! I
J f76 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i NUCLEAR #EGULATORY COMMISSION i i . ; 1 j . BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAPD f i ! f In tho Matter of ) *
) :
GEORGIA PO11ER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-424 r eM. ) 50-425
) (OL) I j (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, ) l Units 1 and 2) ) ;
i ' l
; NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF ARMANDO MASC! ANTONIO i ON JOINT INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 10.1 j (DOSE RATE EFFECTS) '
j Q.1 Please state your name and position with the NRC and summarize 1 1 your professional qualifications. !O i A.1 My name"is Armando Masciantonio. I am presently employed by the ! j U.S. Nucleer Regulatory Commission as a mechanical engineer in the ; Engineering Branch of PWR-A Division of Licensing, Offlee of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). j Before November,1985, I was a I employed as an equipment qualification engineer in the Equipment
~
l Qualification Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear l Reactor Regulation. I was responsible for the technical reviews, i l, analyses and evaluations of the adequacy of the environmental quali-i fication of electric equipment important to safety and safety-related [ mechanical equipment whose failure under postulated environmental conditions could adversely affect the performance of safety systems in nuclear power plants. Before' joining the NRC I was employed as i )
! U an engineer by Vitro Laboratories Division of Autoir.ation Industries, !
- e- '
Inc. , . from February, 1981 until May, 1982. I was responsible for ; the environmental and seismic qualification of the safety-related [ electronic control equipment supplied by Vitro Luboratories Division. Specifically, my duties were to develop and write the environmental t and seismic qualification test plans, procedures and reports and I i l oversee the test and procurement activities in support of 1 ] qualification. I j Prior to that, I was employed at the U.S. Naval Surface Weapons j Center as a mechanical engineer from August,1972 until January,1981. 1 l F.fy duties involved support of the development, test and evalue.tlon of advanced naval weapons. ; 1 I have a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering (1972) from Drexel l University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a Masters degree in I Mechanical Engineering (1976) from the Catholic University of J America, Washington, D.C., and a Masters degree in Administrative ' \. Science (1980) from the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 1 i
- Maryland, i
1 Q.2 What is the purpose of this testimony? I i A.2 The purpose of this testimony is to address Joint Intervenors' Contention 10.1. The contention challenges the appropriateness of i l the rate of application of radiation during qualification tests for four
- specific materials used at Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP)
- I i
Ethylene Propylene Rubber (EPR), Cross-linked Polyolef1n (XLPO), 1 4 - - - _ _
chlorosolfonated polyethylene (Hypalon) , and chloroprene (Neoprene). Q.3 Why are materials exposed to radiation during qualification tests? A.3 Equipment and materials are exposed to radiation from the normal operation of the plant. The long term degradation which results from normal operation must be accounted for. Radiation is applied as part of the environmental qualification aging program to place equipment in an aged state equivalent to its end of installed life so that the effects of a design basis accident on the ability of the equipment to perform its intended function can be determined, o Q.4 !!ow is radiation applied during the qualification progran? A.4 Because of the prohibitively long time it would take to expose equipment to real time radiation dose rates, the Commission in 10 C.F.R. 50.49, allows accelerated aging of equipment during a
. qualification program. A higher dose rate may be applied during qualification tests than would be received by the equipment during its installed life. Radiation doses of approximately 1 megarad per hour are used during tests.
Q.5 !s this an adequate simulation of the radiation effects? O 5
~
i t J V A.5 Research testa have shown that most materials exhibit a " dose rate . I effect!' to some degree. This means that the amount of degradation l l experienced by the material depends not only on the total dose received but also on the rate at which the radiation is applied. t Industry qualification standards and the NRC recognize that aging offects which cannot be adequately accelerated must be accounted l for. This includes any effects of dose rate differences between
! actual and test conditions.
Q.6 Of the four specific materials identified in this contention, do any {
! exhibit a " dose rate effect"?
A6 Haned on the results of Sandia National Laboratories tests as . t i reported in NUREG/CR-2157, " Occurrence and Implications of Radiation Dose-Rate Effects for Material Aging Studies", of the four : materials listed , XLPO la the only one which would exhibit any l significant degree of " dose rate effect" at the expected total doses of \ l the VEGP. l { Q.7 Is XLPO the only material whose electrical insulation property l was evaluated subsequent to radiation exposure? l
; A.7 No. In typical cable qualification tests the electrical insulation 1
1 property is evaluated for all insulation materials tested. i
I a l l U O.8 How is XLPO used at VEGP? l l l l l l A .8 The Applicants state that the only application of XLPO at VEGP is in cable insulation. ' Q.9 How does the staff assure that the known " dose rste effects" for-l XLPO ull! not become a safety , concern for cable insulation at VEGP? A.9 When " dose rate effects" are known to exist, material aging data
. generated at high dose rates are treated cautiously if a low dose rato application is Intended. In order to account for dose rate effects, the staff requires applicants for an operating license to L develop and impicment surveillance /nalntenance procedures which will detect age-related degradation and take corrective action before a safety problem develops. I i
Q.10 What is the standard by which the staff determines the acceptable quality of such a maintenance / surveillance program? A.10 The staff requires that a maintenance /nurveillance program be t implemented to identify and prevent significant age-related degra- , dation of electrical and mechanical equipment. In the FSAR, the applicants have committed to follow the recommendations in , Regulatory Guide 1.33 Rev. 2 " Quality Assurance Program l Requirements (Operation)," which endorses the more detailed l l guidance contained in American Nuclear Society /American National l l l
1 l l ' A> l 7'. 7 - M 7.L l O G Standards Institute Standard ANS-3.2/ ANSI N1811976;
" Administrative Controls and Ciuality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants." This standard defines the scope and content of a maintenance / surveillance program for safety-related equipment which is acceptable tc the staff. The program should assure that provisions for preventing or detecting age-related degradation in esfoty-grade equipment are specif!ed and include (1) l l utill Ing experience with similar equipment , (2) revising and l
l updating the progran as experience is gained with equipment during ! the life of the plant. (3) reviewing and evaluating malfunctioning i equipment and obtaining adequate replacement components, and (4) establishing surveillance tests and inspections based on reliability q analysen, frequency d type of service or age of the items, as u oppropriate. The staff has asnessed the applicants' Quality Assurance (QA) program for the operations phase to determine if it complies with tho l requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50 Appendix D. " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants", including Regulatory Guide 1.33. Revision 2. In Section 17.4 of the Vogtle Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-1137, the staff concludes that the applicants' description of the QA program, if properly implemented, is in compliance with applicable NRC regulations and acceptable for the operations phanc of VE0p. l l l
i' .* f l In order to fulfill its commitment, the applicanta must provide a l program that incorporates the above guidelines and state that the ' i : l maintenance / surveillance program will be implemented at the time of j fuel load. The applicants must also provide a description of the specific program that will be used to detect unanticipated. l l age-related degradation of electrical cables inside containment. The l l staff will verify *5at an appropriate program is implemented at VEOP. Q.11 What conclusion have you reached regarding the possible " dose rate f effects" identined for XLPO in NURE0/CR-2157 as it applies to VECP7 O ' A.11 Dased on the poselble " dose rate effect" for XLPO as identined in NURE0/CR-2157 and the requirement to implement a i surveillance / maintenance program to detect and correct any l unanticipated degradation of electrical cables at VIOP, ! believe that ! there is adequate assurance that any increased deterioration of I cable insulation due to the expected low radiation dose rate will be : discovered, if any exists, and will not cause an unsafe condition to i occur. - l 1 l
l 26115.0 BRT 577 MR. DORDENICK: I have no further questions. V) 1 2 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Fein? l 3 MR. FEIG flo . l 4 JUDGE MARGULIES: Any questions? 5 MR. LEWIS: No questions, your lionor. 6 EXAMINATION 7 DY JUDGE LINENDERGER: i 8 Q Sir, what in the current status of Staff's I 9 poottion with respect to Applicanta providing a curveillance 10 program for these polymera of interent with respect to dose l l 11 rate offecto? l 12 A In the testimony that was submitted for thin 13 hearing, the Applicanta have described a surveillance procram 1 14 tha t would apecif ically address any unanticipa ted degrada tion j 15 of thean cablon and baaed on the information provided there 16 that would be an acceptable proqram. 17 Q Co you are caying you have no quarrel with the way l 10 Applleants propoco to p1oceed hete; in that correct? 19 A That's correct. I 20 Q lla n there been any formal -- any former formal 21 approvale by the Staff of Applicant's proposala in thia 22 respect? 23 A Yen, air. There han. 1 24 0 Can you briefly tell un about those? In other 25 wurda, what in it Applicant -- what in it the Staff aaka 1 O Act!.Fl!DlinAL Rt!PonTrins, INC. 202347-)?(H Natkin* kle Cmerage mn))MM6
26115.0 DRT 578 p). ( I for? What is it that Applicant supplied? What is it that v 2 Staff did with it, et cetera? Very briefly, not in great l l 3 detail. ' 4 A Dasically what the Staff is looking f or is soIne l l 5 added assurance that unanticipated degradation, meaning any l 6 degradation that would not be discovered during the l 7 qualification process, that type of degradation should be l 8 addressed and some provisions should be made to discover any l 1 9 such degradation, if any should exist. 1 ! 10 Dasically what other Applicants have provided, and ( 11 we have approvod, is a program similar to what was described l ! 12 by Gecrgia Power, where they have undertaken a surveillance 13 program to check the condition of the cable periodically and 14 measure the resistance, the insulation resistance of the 15 insulation such ac was described here, and in that way trend 16 any degradation that can be occurring over a period of time. 17 Other programs have been described which are more 10 detailed, by other Applicants, and those have also been found 19 acceptable. 20 1 could deucribe those if you'd like. 21 Q No. That's not necessary. Just specifically, 22 ponnibly repeating myst1f, has there -- is there, at this 23 time, a formal Statf approval in existence with respect to 24 Applicant's proposed surveillance program? 25 A Au far as Georgia Power specifically? O ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 37(x) Nation *ide Coverage N)o-33MM6
26115.0 BRT Si3 [m) 1 Q As far as Georgia Power specifically is concerned. V 2 A The program described will be approved in the 3 cafety evaluation report, which will be written after the 4 environmental qualification program is reviewed and looked 5 at. That would be the formal approva1. 6 0 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I infer from several 7 things that you have said and the things that I have read 8 that the Statt, in essence, has -- my worde, not yours -- 9 blessed what Applicants propose to do with respect to such a 10 surveillance program, but that as yet Staff has not formally 11 approved it because you are awaiting certain information, au 12 1 think you just indicated. 13 Is that a proper -- 14 A No. 15 Q Then please help me here. 16 A We have -- based on the information they have 17 provided, we have no quarrel with the program that they have 18 described for the surveillance and maintenance of cableu as 19 described in my testimony. And we do bless that program. 20 Formal approval of that program will be given when 21 the GER is written, and that's going to be done prior to 22 licensing. There is no additional information that will be 23 required. 24 Q All right, sir, llave you f amiliarized yourself 25 with the prefiled testimony of Applicants on this subject? I o l U l l 5 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-66m
26115.0 DRT 580
/ 1 A I have read it, yes. \J 2 Q And do you have any disagreenents or reservation.:
3 about anything they have said in the prefiled testimony and 4 in discussions here this morning? 5 A No, I don't. 6 JUDGE LINENDERGER: Fine. Thank you very much. , 7 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is there anything further of 8 this witness? , l 9 MH. BORDENICK: We have nothing fut her. 10 MR. LEWIS: No, your Honor. 7 11 JUDGE MARGULIES: There being nothing further, you 12 are excused, sir. Thank you. 13 (Witness excused.) f U) 14 JUDGE MARGULIES: That concludes the testimony on i 15 conter. tion 10.1. 16 We have the matter of further scheduling of the 17 hearing. The only contention that remains is Contention 7. 18 Would you tell us, Mr. Feig, how you plan to proceed with 19 that? 20 MR. FEIG: We would like to request that we 21 proceed with this. Mr. Lawless should be here after lunch. 22 I wonder if we could proceed after lunch. 23 JUDGE MARGULIES: We have the matter of a motion , 24 to strike Mr. Lawless' testimony. Does GANE have a member 25 here who will arque that motion? nv ACE. FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage mn)3MM6
26115.0 BRT 501 A (o, ) 1 MR. FEIG: Yes. I will, sir. But I'd like to 2 request that we recess until after lunch and -- until 3 Mr. Lawless gets here. 4 JUDGE MARGULIES: That's a reasonable request. 5 We will take an early luncheon, l 6 What time would Mr. Lawless be here? 7 MR. FEIG I hipe he'll be here by 12:00 or 12:30 8 JUDGE MARGULIES: We will recess for lunch until i l 9 quarter of 1:00, 10 (Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m. the hearing was l l 11 recessed, to be reconvened at 12:45 p.m., this same day.) l 12 l 13 l O < i C) 14 15 16 , 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (O GJ 1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 682 I} ' 1 AFTERNOON SESSION (12:45 p.m.) 2 JUDGE MARGULIES: Back on the record. Are the 3 parties ready to proceed? 4 MR. FEIG Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lawleaa -- I hase 5 been unable to qet ahold of him, so I assume he's on hic 6 way. I would like to request that we not continue until he 7 returno. 8 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is there any way to contact 9 him? 10 MR. FEIG: We tried, lie said he 'd be here by 11 2:00, and hcpefully by 1:00. We tried to contact him and 12 couldn't get ahold of him. O 13 JUDGE PARIS: lle 's in Augusta? (_) 14 MR. FEIG: Yes, sir. 15 JUDGE MARGULIES: Would you be able to arcue the 16 motion at this tine? 17 MR. FEIG: I can't argue the motion until he cets 16 back -- gets here. 19 JUDGE MARGULIES: I don't see that we have any 20 other choice but to recess until 1:30. 21 (Receas.) 22 JUDGE MARGULIES: Back on the record. Will the 23 panel resume their placea? 24 Whereupon, 25 STAVROS S. PAPADOPULOS. O V ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Natlonwide Coverage Mo 31MM6 L___ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - _ _ . . _ . _ - . _ _ - _ _ - . . - _ _ _ ______________ __ _ _ _ _____ _
26115.0 i DRT 503 n V 1 THOMAS W. CROSDY, 2 CLIFFORD H. FARRELL, 3 and 4 LEWIS H. WEST 5 resumed the stand and, having been previously duly sworn, 6 were examined and testified turther aa follows: l 7 JUDGE MARGULIES: You may resume your quectioninq, O Mr. Lawless. 9 MR. LAWLESS: Thank you. 10 CROSS-EX AM IN ATIorJ (Resumed) ( , 11 UY MR. LAWLESS: 1 l 12 Q In earliet testimony the panel tectified that the I 13 marl was uncovered for only ono day. Was that the entire 14 i l marl curface? Thia Ic underneath -- or in the power block 1 15 area. l 16 Was that the entire marl surface, includino the 17 100- by 140-foot cut, underneath the auxiliary building? l 10 A (Crosby) tio , it was -- portions of the excavation 19 were exposed for just 24 houra. [ l 20 Q I'm sorry, I micond it. You said there were junt 21 portions? , l 22 A Yes. 23 0 So, at a time a portion was exposed for 24 hourn? ! 24 A Separate areas were excavated down to the top of 25 marl; then they were innpected by an engineering geologist Act! FEDERAL REponTiins, INC. l 202 347 37(N) Natloneide Coverage MIk 34 M46
__ = _ _ . 26115.0 DHT 504 r\ 1 and approved, and then they were coverr.d up with backtAll. 2 Q So ditterent areas were expoced up to 24 hours at l 3 a time? 4 A That's what I said. Yen. Not up to 24 hours at a , 5 time. That was the maximum that was perminalble, , f l 6 Q "Up to." okay. I'm sorry. , l I 7 !!ow did you protect the vertical cuts from l 0 exposure to alr? l i l 9 A They were coated with shoterete. l l l 10 0 I'm carry, say again? l l 11 A They were coated with shotcrete. i l ! 12 Q Shock? I l 13 A Shot. l 14 0 3-h-o-t? I lb A HLoht. 10 Q C-r-o-t-e? 17 A Right. 10 Q Uo the vertical cuto were exponed for how lonq? 19 A Ho longer than 24 hourn. 20 0 Was any of the mati danaged an a result of itn 21 exposure to air? Did any or it crumbin? 22 A I t' ther e wrare any arvaa that m le exposed and 23 deteriorated, they were cicaned off prior to appilcation of 24 either the backfill or the 9hoterote. I 25 0 co, any mari nurface that did crumbio wan removed Act.FEDl!RAl. REl'ORTURS INC. 202.)47.)ht) Natkinekle Omerare mik))6(AM L - __._______________________ _ _ _ _
26115.0 DRT SOS I V 1 before treatment? 2 A IC it dehydrated, it was removed prior to 3 covering. 4 JUDGE l'ARIG : Mr. Patroll, we are having S difficulty hearing you. Tap that mike and make cure it in f> on. 7 TilC WITN1:GG (Croaby) I'll apeak up maybe. O DY MR. LAWLI:GGi ! l 9 Q Do you consider the marl to be alluvium? 10 A (Crosby) No. 11 O If it la not alluvium, why did you calculate a 12 harmonic meann? 13 A (Farrell) There's no tolationship beteen the 14 neologic origin of a mater tal and the determination of a l 's harmonic mean for the ef f ective primeabilit y thr ough layeted 16 media. 17 Q G ), 1f I underniand you corsectly, the neologie 10 material ltoolf tu not impottant. What in important is it it i 19 in layered medium, then you dhould ude a harmonic meann; in
/0 that conrect?
71 A Yen. 22 O Gince it in not connidered to be an alluvium, in 23 thetn vertical t' l o w tbrough thn marl? 24 A There in a potential for vortirai fIow throuqh the 25 mai 1. G' I Aci!.Fl!!n! mat. RI!Pon ri!Rs, INC. 2ntmmm s,w,n.a.emm , = m uu
e 26115.0 DitT S06 e (' 1 0 Hy the potential, do you mean that there are no 2 strean lines through the marl? 3 A An we discuased yesterday, the marl han a certain 4 permeability and there In a certain gradient acrona the 5 marl. Given that we have a certain gradient and certain e 6 permeability, there will be come flow through the marl which 7 la proportional to the gradient and the vimeability. < 0 Ao I testified yesterday, with accumed 9 permeability ot 10 to the minun 7 eentimetera per second, 10 which la our upper bound on the permeability of the marl, the 11 amount at flow through the mall would be equivalent to about 12 1.0 inchen ot watet per year ac an upper bound of the amount 13 of flow that occurs th!ough the marl. I 14 0 liu t in comparinon to the horizontal ! low rate, th" l$ ver tical f low rate an compartion to the flow rate, in it an i t; accurate chalacter12ation to s uiple a t that by and lanqo these 17 to almost excluulvoly horizontal flow arnt virtually 10 neallalble vertleal flow? 19 A The average rechasue in the area la 12 inchen pet 20 year. The 1.0 inches of downward flow la teally our cotimate 21 of the maximum flow through the marl. 22 0 I m i n ried that. 23 A it's our outimate of the maximum flow throuqh the 14 mat 1. M, Q What wa st the numbet? I minded that. , O ; l Act!.11!1)1!nAI. Ritron ti!Rs, INC. m u.nm s o n. a. c m .,,,, mmu
a 1 l 26115.0
! BliT SU7 I
l '# 1 A 1.0 inchan, i i l l t 1 2 0 1.0 inchen? i 1 l
- l. 3 A per year. Go at the nout, the i10w through -- the l I ,
) 4 hor i::o n t a l Clow within the water table aquiter la at leaut l ) i i b nine timen that of the flow which occurs vertically, i ! ( l 6 0 30 It would neera to me, then, you are cayinq that i 1 i 7 the flow in primarily horizontal? ! i ! O A That's what wn atated in our tentimony and we cay j i
! i 9 it again. That's true. ;
l i I 10 0 I would like for you to comment on thin quote from j r
, i i 11 Ilouwer on 132: "If the flow 10 mainly vertical, the harmonic 1
)l 12 neanc should be taken." < i IJ Could you comment on that, pleace? j 14 A What do you want me to connent on it? I 1 lb Q Do you agree with it? I t l 16 A (pa p utopuloa ) Yoc. We aqre" with it. 1he tact 11 that we calculated a harmonic mean tot vortleal flow, f 10 conn 1derino the vertleai flow through the marl, obviounly l j 19 nhown that we aqree with the otatement that Mr. Huuwer has in i i ! 20 hid book that when you have flow vertically acroca layoted l 4 { 21 varth nyntems, the harmonic moana in the appropt late way at j 72 calculating permoability. l l i 23 V lie aayu " i t' the t' l ow in mainly," and I would l r i 24 ottean "mainly" vertical. 25 Jhat you havn puudented here in that the flow ta j , i 1 1 Aci!. Flint!RAI. Ri!Pon flins, INC. 202147.)hu Ndhemelde Cmerage m u 14 p.46 l _=_ ._ _. _. - - f
i I I l I < l 26115.0 ; I DHT S60 l l ! b - l' v primarily hori::ontal . } 1 f 2 A (Papadopulos) It'a ditricult to try to give a 3 1 3 courne in hydrogeology in five minutes. But what Mr. Douwer 1 4 meana in that when you are considering the flow in the 5 vertical direction across a layered nyatem, you une the 1 { 6 harmonic mean. That does not mean that all the (fe's has to 4 i go in the vertical directlan. You have to consider only that 7 l l 0 portion of the flow which 1e colnq vertically. 4 9 Maybe an example in thernoconductivity nay help 10 you. If you have neveral layered solida whlen have a ! i 11 ditterent hydraulic conduct.ivity '.nd you are trying to j l } ! j 12 transfer heat through the nyt. tem, and you put . ocurce at the ; 13 upper right -- Inti corner o[ thin block wh2ch conciato of j 14 neveral layera of ditteront thermal conduct 'Gty, there will } i [ j 15 be heat moving both in the horizontal direction and heat i i f I 16 moving in the vertical direction. The puttion or th+. heat f 17 noving in the vertical direction will be controlled by the f i I ! 18 harmonic mean thermal conductivity of those layern. The { 19 portion of heat flowing in the horizontal direction would be lj ) 1 ( I 20 controlled by the arithmetic mean of theJe layera, 1[ you are 21 goinq to deal in averaqe temperature changen in that block. + [ 22 Q Thank you very much. Would you now comment on I 2J thin next quote ftom houweni llowever - the however la my } i 24 comment, that's ny paranthetic comment. Ar.rt after the L 25 however starts hla quote. Ilowever, "The average K normal to l j - i i
}
i ~ ACl!.Fl!DiiRAI, Rl!!'ORTl!RS, INC. l 20114137m Natlon*Ide Cmerage an34 ud6
- I
26115.0 DHT SO9 (V 1 atream lines will be closer to the arithmetic mean." 2 A What kind of a ra y a t e m 13 he talking about? 3 A (Crosby) Could you tell us exactly where that is 4 on page 132. S Q Yes. It's on page 132. Give me a second and I'll 6 find the sentence. 7 It is in the middle paragraph, the second acntence 8 f om the bottom -- actually the tourth line f r om the bottom.
') It starte -- the centence starts with, "If the flow through 10 such layers in mainly horizontal, the arithmetic mean of K ol 11 the individual layers should be used."
12 A (Pa padopulo s ) I just answered t ha t question, 13 Mr. Lawleas. I told you when you are considering the flow in-14 the horizontal direction, you abould une the arithmetic 15 near. When you are concidering the flow acrono the layern, 16 you chould uce the harmonic mean. 17 Q Oh, I understand what you are saying. But what he i 10 in stating here la that when the flow la primarily in the l ') horizontal direction, you abould use a -- 20 A And you are considering the flow in the horizontal 21 direction, then you should une the arithmetic mean. 22 0 And when the flow -- when you are looking at flow 23 in the vertical direction, when the principal vector -- flow 24 voetor is horizontal, then you should not une a harmonic 25 meann, you should une an arithmetic moann; in that correct? n v Act!.Fl!Dl!RAL Riii>onTt Rs, INC. 202-)47 3700 Nationalde Coverage mio.)M ud6
26115.0 BRT 590 f
) '~' Your 11onor , this is assuming a 1 MR. CHURCHILL:
2 fact that I don't believe is in evidence. I haven't heard 3 any ten timony of these witnesses about the horizontal vector 4 or segment of flow through the marl. 5 There were some questions and answers about the 6 horizontal flow through the groundwater, unconfined aquifer 7 portion above the marl. But I have heard not?.ing about 8 horizontal-flow through the marl. 9 MR. LAWLESS: I apologize. There was a very quick 10 transaction that dook place between Dr. Papadopulos and 11 myself, when I asked him if, in his professional opinion, 3 12 that the flow was -- I didn't say professional opinion, ['T 13 excuse me -- I said did he feel that the flow was then
%J 14 primarily horizontal, and he said yes, it was.
15 THE WITNESS: (Farrell) When you were asking us 16 what the direction of flow is in the water table aquifer as 17 i opposed to the flow through the marl, we say it's primarily 18 horizontally through the water table aquifer and that the 19 quantity moving through the marl, from the water table 20 aquifer, is relatively insignificant. I think he expressed I 21 what that upper bound quantity is. 22 Now you are asking,about the rel'ationship between 4 23 vertical and horizontal flow determining what effective 24 permeability you would apply to these directional components
,s 25 of flow. You seem to be asking why we use the harmonic mean I
..s
, 3 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
't . 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 591 ( ) '# when we say the predominant direction of flow is horizontal. 1 2 But we are talking about two different mediums, two different 3 components of flow. 4 Q If you are standing -- if you can imagine yourself 5 standing right atop the marl, representing the 6 three-dimensional stream lines, at that point the stream 7 lines can go one of three ways: They can go in the primary 8 direction of groundwater movement, and you have a statement 9 that that was usually toward the northwest; they can go 10 normal to that in a horizontal direction, and that would be 11 northeast and southwest; and they could go normal again to 12 that and that is either -- that is straight downward.
/' ; 13 A (Papadopulos) First of all, I would like to Q) 14 correct you. There is no flow so the southwest. The flow is 15 primarily to the north from the power block, 16 0 I agree.
17 A Second, the mainly horizontal flow applies to the 18 water table. If you are going to look at transport within 19 the water table, where the flow is horizontal, then the 20 arithmetic mean would be the appropriate thing, provided you 21 are within a homogeneous medium. 22 However, when you consider the flow vertically 23 downward across the marl, which is a layered system, then 24 through the marl the flow is mainly vertical. Therefore the 25 harmonic mean of the permeabilities is the appropriate value Lj ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6M6
26115.0 BRT 592 i ) I to use. 2 Q We also did talk yesterday about the marl itself, 3 saying that the marl was anisotropic, and anisotropy, which 4 is referenced in your testimony and on page 56 of Bouwer, is 5 called a phenomenon, and I would like to have your comments 6 on this. It is called a phenomenon, and it is the rule 7 rather than the exception for alluvial deposits. 8 A (Crosby) I believe we already explained to you 9 that the the marl is not alluvium. 10 Q Alluvial deposits -- let me rephrase that. 11 In alluvial deposits, is there a comparable rate 12 of vertical flow to the marl flow? s 13 MR. CHURCHILL: Objection. The witness testified [~'J 14 these were not alluvial deposits. 15 MR. LAWLESS: Yes, that's correct. However, in 16 the section in Bouwer's book on anisotropy that's where the 17 harmonic means were developed and it would seem to me to be 18 fascinating to find out if, as Bouwer suggests, the harmonic 19 mean is used when there is primarily vertical flow, and 20 anisotropy and vertical flow are a consideration. It would 21 seem to me to be important and relevant to find out what is 22 the typical vertical flow through alluvial deposits. 23 JUDGE MARGULIES: We are trying to resolve matters 24 at issue here and are dealing with the merits of the 25 contention, and we are not here to discuss things that might
\
v 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
26116.0 BRT 593 1 be interesting or just a general educational course in 2 geology. It has no place here. 3 MR. LAWLESS: I apologize. Let me make it more 4 relevant, then. 5 If it is relevant in this vein, it we can show 6 that the wrong equation was used to calculate the harmonic 7 means, then it is quite relevant. 8 T81E WITNESS: (Papadopulos) Excuse me, 9 Dr. Lawless. 10 JUDGE MARGULIES: Just one minute. 11 The objection is sustained. You may move on from 12 there. T b] 13 14 Q BY MR. LAWLESS: What is the harmonic mean most influenced by? 15 A (Farrell) We shculd point out here that the 16 permeability that we applied to the marl was not based on the 17 harmonic mean. The permeability that we used was based on 18 the upper bound of in situ testing of the marl. 19 Q But you did calculate the harmonic means to give 20 some comparison to that in situ testing so that you would 21 feel good about the in situ testing; is that correct? 22 JUDGE PARIS: Mr. Lawless, would you cite the 23 place in the testimony that you are referring to, please? 24 MR. LAWLESS: I'm sorry, yes. Give me one second, 25 please. ( 1 \~) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
26115.0 BRT 594 g i ! 1 On page 20, in the top paragraph there is a 2 statement: " Assuming the 10 laboratory tests" -- at that 3 point. " Assuming the 10 laboratory tests are a 4 representative sample of the layers present in the marl, the 5 harmonic mean permeability would be .045 feet per year. 6 Adopting an average vertical permeability of 1 foot per year 7 is therefore reasonably conservative." 8 THE WITNESS: (Farrell) The discussion of 9 calculating a harmonic mean based on the laboratory testing 10 of the permeabilities of the marl is presented as an 11 illustration rela'.ing to all of the testing done. Totally we 12 are saying that we think that using 10 to the minus 7 [~N) 13 centimeters per second or, in feet per year, .1 foot per (_./ 14 year, is a conservative value. 15 BY MR. LAWLESS: 16 Q The point is, then, if I can recapture that 17 question, you did use the laboratory data to help you in l 18 feeling that the limit you did use was a conservative value? 19 A (Farrell) Of course we used that. It was -- the I l 20 measurements were made. We addressed that, l l 21 Q Is it true that the harmonic mean is most 22 influenced by very small numbers? l l 23 A (Papadopulos) That's correct. i 24 Q Referring to the data that you presented a couple 1 25 of days ago, then -- of all of the data points that you j (~') s_- l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
26115.0 BRT 595
,o.s t t 1 presented a couple of days ago, ranging from 10 to the minus 2 9 at the lowest to a 10 to the -- to five values of 10 to the 3 minus 6, is it not true that 10 to the minus 9 number will 4 have the greatest influence?
5 A (Papadopulos) That's correct. That's exactly 6 coming to the exan.ple I presented a few monents ago. 7 If you take those layers of different thermal 8 conductivity and stick an insulator in between, no matter how 9 thin it is, the flow across that layered system would be 10 controlled by that insulator. 11 Q Is it not true, then, that one small number, such 12 as 1 times 10 to the minus 9, can make the harmonic mean much ['N 13 lower than both the geometric and arithmetic means? 14 A That's correct. That means that water will not 15 flow across a low permeability layer, no matter how much more 16 permeable adjacent layers are. 17 A (Farrell) You are referring to 10 samples, 18 laboratory samples, implying those are the basis for the 19 permeability applied to the marl. 20 There were 95 in situ tests of the marl, which all 21 indicated -- pardon me -- correct me -- all of the 95, except 22 for three, indicated a permeability less than 10 to the minus 23 7. 24 I might add, also, that each one of those in situ p_ 25 sets represents a larger sample than all of the laboratory (v) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336- % 46
26115.0 BRT 596 r l'h 1 samples. 2 Q Was the choice of a harmonic mean calculation 3 based on the strength that such a calculation would give your 4 choice of 1 times 10 to the minus 7 centimeters per second 5 instead of it being the proper test? Or, excuse me, instead 6 of it being not the proper test? 7 A (Papadopulos) We just explained that the proper 8 way of calculating the mean permeability for a system which 9 is layered, and across which you are considering flow, is the 10 harmonic mean. So your implication that the harmonic mean 11 was chosen for other reasons is insulting. 12 Q I do not mean to be insulting and I apologize if g?) 13 it seemed that way. O 14 Then I take it that you still stand by your choice 15 of calculating K by the harmonic means versus the arithmetic 16 means? 17 MR. CHURCHILL: Objection. Asked and answered 18 possibly 67 to 70 times already. 19 JUDCE MARGULIES: The objection is sustained. 20 BY MR. LAWLESS: 21 Q Are you familiar with the scientific method? Is 22 the panel familiar with the scientific method? 23 A (Pa padopulos ) Scientific method of doing what? 24 Q Just the scientific method; the definition? 25 A I am not. I o ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide coverage 800 336-6M6
26115.0 BRT 597 I l 1 A (Crosby) Yes. It's part of basic science. 2 Q Are the panel members familiar with concentration 3 gradients? 4 A (Papadopulos) Correct. 5 Q Are you familiar with the -- is the panel familiar 6 with the various predicted -- excuse me -- versus actual 7 transmission vectors of radionuclides in the literature? 8 A (Farrell) Would you clarify that question? 9 Q Are you familiar with the various predicted versus 10 actual pathways that radionuclides take in the environment, 11 in the literature? 12 MR. CHURCHILL: Objection. Objection. The ("} x_/ 13 question should be more specific and should somehow colorably 14 be related to some aspect of the testimony. If we could have 15 clarification? 16 JUDGE MARGULIES: Can you become more specific so 17 we know where you are going and what we are dealing with? 18 MR. LAWLESS: Yesterday we wound up talking about 19 strontium 90 and cesium 137 and tritium. We were talking 20 about a hypothetical case and I am making this a general 21 question in line with some of the guidelines that were given 22 to me yesterday. ' 23 MR. CHURCHILL: We have a general question on top 24 of a hypothetical which I'm not sure -- 25 MR. LAWLESS: No, the hypothetical is what we were ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 598 I ) I talking about yesterday. The general question is this: Are 2 they familiar with the various predictive methods of 3 calculating radionuclide migration versus the actual data 4 that is available to compare those predictions against? 5 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, I have to object to 6 this question. If he's referring to specific data, specific 7 calculations, or even specific nuclides, somehow relate it to 8 this testimony. 9 MR. LAWLESS: Give me one second. 10 JUDGE MARGULIES: Could you relate that, 11 Mr. Lawless, to the statement of testimony? 12 MR. LAWLESS: Yes. Okay. Thank you. rN 13 JUDGE MARGULIES: Could you give us a page
\Y 14 reference?
15 MR. LAWLESS: Right. We were talking about 16 strontium 90, and one of the questions that was asked and 17 answered referred to the strontium 90 transmission rates over 18 at the Savannah River plant; and the Board directed that they 19 respond to whether or not they were familiar with that 20 literature and, as I recall, they answered no. So I don't -- 21 to generalize that a little bit more, in general -- or are 22 they familiar with the literature of predicted or calculated, 23 as they have done, transmission rates of radionuclides versus 24 the actual rates. 25 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, that is a (n v) s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 233M686
26115.0 BRT 599 7-( ) mischaracterization of the testimony yesterday. They did not 1 2 say that they were unfamiliar with any particular piece of 3 literature. 4 I still cannot relate that to the specific 5 testimony of this witnesses. Furthermore, it sounds like 6 he's simply > lowing the same ground. 7 MR. LAWLESS: I beg to differ. Quite possibly the 8 opposing attorney does not remember it. Yesterday we had a 9 long discussion on strontium 90 transmission rates, and I had 10 requested whether or not they were familiar with the 11 literature on the Savannah River plant's actual transmission 12 rates of strontium 90 and the Board directed that they 13 respond to that, after some length -- and as I recall -- (V~) 14 let's see, the individual that did respond, I believe, was 15 Mr. Farrell, who was sitting to the right at that time. 16 JUDGE MARGULIES: Was that at about page 28 in the 17 testimony? 18 MR. LAWLESS: I'm sorry. I don't have a copy. 19 This is just in my recollection. 20 JUDGE MARGULIES: Would Applicant have an 21 additional copy of the testimony? It will be helpful to all 22 of us. 23 JUDGE PARIS: Mr. Feig, do you have a copy of it? 24 MR. FEIG: I don't have a copy of it. 25 MR. CHURCHILL: Doesn t he have a copy of the (3 L) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
26115.0 BRT 600 l 'i k I testimony of these witnesses? 2 MR. LAWLESS: I'm sorry. I'm talking about the 3 transcript. 4 JUDGE MARGULIES: I'm talking about the prefiled 5 testimony. 6 MR. LAWLESS: I'm sorry, I misunderstood. 7 JUDGE MARGULIES: And making reference to page 8 28. Is that where you were? 9 JUDGE PARIS: On page 28 they have some calculated 10 reductions in concentration of three radionuclides moving in 11 the backfill northward from the plant. In you could relate 12 what you are asking to that, perhaps we could understand
/~]
V 13 where you are going. 14 MR. LAWLESS: Yes. As a matter of fact, thank you 15 very, very much. We were talking about that yesterday and we 16 were referring to this and these are calculated numbers. 17 At that point I had asked if they were familiar 18 with the literature on actual transmission rates of strontium 19 90. 20 JUDGE PARIS: At the Savannah River property. 21 MR. LAWLESS: At the Savannah River plant and, if 22 you recall, you directed they respond to the question and I l 23 believe Mr. Farrell said "no." l 24 JUDGE MARGULIES: And part of your question was -- ' 25 you used the term " dealing with the real world" and their I r~m 1 LJ l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 601 / )
~
1 answer -- their response was that they were dealing with the 2 real world. That's all part of the same testimony that you 3 are speaking about. 4 MR. LAWLESS: Okay. Thank you. 5 But the point is that they did not have -- they 6 were not familiar with the actual data of the strontium 7 transmission rates at the Savannah River plant. 8 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, I object to this line 9 of questioning on two bases: One, to the extent it was gone 10 into, and it was gone into quite a bit yesterday, this ground 11 has been covered; two, there is no relevance to the 12 coefficient of distribution of strontium 90 at the Savannah /) 13 plant to the Vogtle plant. The coefficient of distribution LJ 14 is proportion and is a function of the particular materials 15 within which it is, particularly grain size and the amount of 16 clay contained. 17 The NRC will not accept data from another plant 1 18 across the river, nearby, far away. They insist on actual l 19 samples tested and calculated from the actual plant site. It 20 is totally irrelevant what the experience was at Savannah 1 21 River. l l 22 MR. LAWLESS: Mr. Chairman, the way the attorney ) l 23 phrased that, in a way he is right and that's why I phrased 24 my question as are they familiar with the predictions versus i 25 the actual rates. That is quite relevant because that then
,'s, (V
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 602 ( ) 1 gives us some sense of belief, that that is a good test for 2 the equations that are being used to mage these 3 calculations. 4 JUDGE PARIS: Why don't you ask them if they know 5 of any examples of calcu.ated rates that have been compared 6 with actual rates for the same site? 7 MR. LAWLESS: Thank you. 8 BY MR. LAWLESS: 9 Q Do you know of any examples, using your equations, 10 for a site comparing calculated versus actual? 11 A (Pa padopulos ) Yes, I do. There has been a study 12 very recently made by Lenny Konikow of the U.S. Geological ('N 13 Survey as a post mortem on model activities; that is
's J 14 comparing predictions made with the use of models with actual 15 happenings.
16 (Discussion off the record.) 17 THE WITNESS: (Papadopulos) The site which was 18 considered was the Idaho testing site in Idaho, where 19 radioactive waste was one of the waste materials which was 20 disposed of. 21 At the time the modeling effort was done, about 22 early '70s, predictions were made that the radionuclides 23 would reach the property limits within four to five years; 24 come prediction was made. A recovery system was installed 25 along the prop rty boundaries to recover any radioactive
/T U
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
26115.0 BRT #iO 3
- )
U 1 materials or other waste materials that may cross the site 2 boundary. The wells have been in place; it has been 5.0 3 years since the predicted arrival time. The wells are not in 4 operation because the waste has not arrived to the site S boundary. 6 Q Do you have a citation on that? Or approximate 7 citation? 8 A It was a paper presented by Lenny Konikow at -- 9 Q Excuse me. Say that one more time, please? 10 A K-o-n-i-k-o-w. I don't have a copy of the paper 11 with me but I'd be very happy to send you a copy. 12 Q Oh. I would appreciate that. You are referring
^
(d N 13 14 to the INEL site, the Idaho Department of Energy site, Department of Energy at Idaho Falls? 15 A That's correct. 16 Q Referring back to our discussion on groundwater 17 divides, in figure 14, 15 -- I believe 17 -- no. Not 17. 18 In figures 14 and 15 you have pictures of 19 groundwater divides? 20 A (Crosby) Are you referring to our testimony? 21 L And figure 10. That was the one I was missing. 22 Figure 10, 14 and 15 you had pictures of groundwater 23 divides. The grcundwater divides have been added. 24 A Figure 14? 25 Q This is of the February '86 testimony? i O t
%j ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 500-336-6646
l 26115.0 BRT 604 (^) t ; l i
\"# 1 A (Farrell) You stated figure 10, which does i
2 identity -- has on it groundwater divides. Figure 14 does - 3 not. 4 Q Okay. Wait one second. You are right. Thank 5 you. It's tigure lu, then, and IS. 6 This is to be compared to figure 9 in your July 7 '85 document. The groundwater divides were added. Could you 8 explain why you did add the groundwater divides? 9 A (Farrell) There has been questions about 10 groundwater divide discussion in these proceedings, or 11 leading up to the proceedings, and we put on the illustration 12 of a groundwater divide to illustrate those discussions. 13 Q As I recall the testimony, and I will just try to 14 paraphrase it -- please correct me if I misstate it -- you 15 said that -- or the panel said that contamination, in your 16 opinion, in your professional opinion, would not cross the 17 groundwater divide; is that correct? 18 A (Farrell) That's correct. 19 Q Go essentially that would have no value? They 20 were iust being used here for illustrative purposes? 21 A I don't know what you mean by value. The value is 22 to identify where they are for discussion purposes. 23 Q For the testimony. 24 A The questions asked where the groundwater divide 25 is. I think that's a value in itself, isn't it? O) t o ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80i>336 6M6
26115.0 BRT 605 (- 1 Q Are you familiar with chemical and radionuclide 2 datums? 3 MR. CHURCli1LL : Objection. 4 JUDGE PARIS: What was the question? 5 MR. LAWLESS: Are they familiar with chemical and 6 radionuclide datums. 7 MR. CHURCHILL: Par too general and vague a 8 question. 9 JUDGE MARGULIES: Where are we headed? Can you 10 tell us where we are headed? 11 MR. LAWLESS: I may have taken this out of 12 sequence, proper sequence. I wanted to refer to the D 13 groundwater report and I thought they had referled to it in b 14 their testimony. I hope I'm not taking it out of sequence. 15 JUDGE PARIS: What is the report? 16 MR. LAWLESS: The groundwater monitor.'ng report 17 which was included as part of the testimony, 18 MR. CHURCHILL: If Mr. Lawless will point to the 19 particular place in the testimony he's asking about? 20 JUDGE PARIS: Is this the Vogtle Energy Generating 21 Plant groundwater monitoring program July 1985 -- 22 MR. LAWLESS: Yes. Thank you. 23 MR. CHURCllILL: That is not attached to the 24 testimony. It may be refelenced to the testimony. If he's 25 coing to ask questions on this, I would like him to point out O: LJ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 606 ( i
I where in the testimony it is.
2 MR. LAWLESS: If I have to find the spot -- or 3 could I just ask if it is in their testimony? I thought it 4 was. If I need to point out the spot it will take me a 5 couple of minutes to do so. 6 MR. CHURCHILL: Please point it out, Mr. Lawless. 7 JUDGE PARIS: Gentlemen, if you know whether it's 8 referenced or not, why don't you tell us so we can move on. 9 THE WITNESS: (Crosby) We are checking right now, 10 sir. 11 THE WITNESS: (Parrell) In our testimony it's 12 referenced on page 34, I believe. 13 MR. LAWLESS: Oh. Thank you. I was on page 7. (v"') 14 It would have taken me a while to get there. Thank you. 15 Would you like the question again? 16 THE WITNESS: (Farrell) I guess so. 17 MR. CHURCHILL: Sure would. 18 MR. LAWLESS: Okay. I'm sorry. 19 BY MR. LAWLESS: 20 Q So you referenced the monitoring -- the results 21 were presented in reference to a groundwater monitoring 22 document. Are you familiar with chemical and radionuclide 23 datums? 24 MR. CHURCHILL: Mr. Lawless, are you asking about 25 particular data in this testimony? O C ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 607 7- s i i
'~
1 MR. LAWLESS: I'm asking do they know what a datum 2 is, a d-a-t-u-m; a datum? 3 MR. CilURCHILL : First of all, we certainly can't 4 be talking about chemical datum because that's outside the 5 scope of this proceeding. It's been ruled on, 6 MR. LAWLESS: We could make it nuclide or 7 radionuclide datums. 8 MR. CHURCHILL: Are you referring to a datum with 9 respect to this report or this testimony or what? 10 MR. LAWLESS: We may have ruled out part of the 11 study of chemicals, but I think it's still important to know 12 what's going to be in a groundwater monitoring document. The 13 groundwater monitoring document is presented as part of, or { 14 referenced as part of their testimony. It's important to 15 know what's going to be in the groundwater monitoring 16 document. Are they going to monitor the chemicals in the 17 groundwater? Are they going to monitor the nuclides in the 18 groundwater? 19 MR. CHURCHILL: Mr. Lawless, why don't you simply 20 ask the witnesses Nhat are they going to be monitoring in the 21 groundwater program? 22 MR. LAWLESS: Okay. Thank you. That helps. 23 BY MR. LAWLESS: 24 Q What will you be monitoring in the groundwater
,_ 25 program?
v} ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Natienwi& Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 608 1 A (West) Water levels. 2 Q Strictly? 3 A (Crosby) The document you are referring to, 4 entitled " groundwater monitoring program," the purpose is 5 explained in the first paracraph of the document. It says: 6 "A program of frequent measurement of water table 7 wells was implemented in July 1985. The purpose is to 8 provide more detailed information to support the basis for 9 the hydrostatic loading design. This is in response to NRC 10 Staff concerns that the previous water level records were 11 short as a basis" -- et cetera. 12 So that is the purpose of the report. 13 Q I guess I'm taking issue with the title, 14 " groundwater monitoring." Why was it .iot called groundwater 15 level, or water level monitoring? 16 MR. CHURCHILL: Objection, your Honor. Objection. 17 JUDGE MARGULIES: One at a time, now. Let him . I 18 finish asking the question. Then you raise the objection. I 1 19 MR. LAWLESb: I'm taking issue with the title. 20 JUDGE MARGULIES: Ask your question. 21 MR. LAWLESS: If you are not going to be looking i 22 at any of the nuclides in the groundwater, why call it a 23 groundwater monitoring document? 24 THE WITNESS: (Farrell) Because that's what it ,
,_ 25 is. ,
i \ \ L--) ; ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 !
26115.0 BRT 609 / )
~'
1 JUDGE PARIS: Let's not quibble over the title, 2 Mr. Lawless. They told you what it is going to do. 3 BY MR. LAWLESS: 4 Q Will there be, in the groundwater monitoring 5 program, any measurement of the nuclides in the groundwater? 6 A (Farrell) I think Mr. Crosby just tried to explain 7 to you what the purpose of the groundwater monitoring program 8 was. I don't know how to expand on that. The purpose was to 9 meet concerns that the NRC had -- 10 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Mr. West, why don't you answer 11 yes or no. 12 THE WITNESS: (West) Chemical monitoring is not (^3 LJ 13 part of this program. You are right. 14 BY MR. LAWLESS: 15 Q Not just chemical, I eaid nuclide, so that would 16 be anything. 17 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Gentlemen, there's some 18 baffling lack of communication going on here. The word 19 " monitoring" can be applied to counting streetcars passing a 20 certain point. Obviously the word " monitoring" doesn't 21 necessarily imply nuclides of any sort, except to what goes 22 into making up streetcars, perhaps. So I think that for 23 communications to be meaningful, questions have to be asked 24 that have a meaningful content and answers have to be given 25 that are responsive to those questions. But getting into the
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
26115.0 BRT 610 7 \ \ ) 1 semantic differences in words like " monitoring" is going to 2 get us nowhere. But pardon me, let's try to make some 3 progress. 4 MR. CHURCHILL: Could I add one thing, there 5 certainly is at the plant a preoperational radiologica] 6 monitoring program to look for just these things. It's not 7 part of this contention. Has nothing to do with groundwater 8 flow and the consequence." of a spill after the plant is 9 operational. 10 Is there a question on the floor? Or are we 11 waiting for another one? 12 MR. LAWLESS: Just one second, please. (~]
\__-
13 BY MR. LAWLESS. 14 Q Then, in general, there will be follow-up on these 15 calculations? We will have data that will be presented rom 16 time to time in the future that will verify the calculations 17 that have been made; is that correct? 18 MR. CHURCHILL: Which calculations, Mr. Lawless? 19 MR. LAWLESS: The calculations, travel time 20 calculations and concentration calculations for tritium, 21 strontium 90, and cesium 137. 22 THE WITNESS: (Farrell) The calculations made for, 23 I guess what you are referring to is the time of travel of an 24 accidental spill which is a hypothesized or postulated 25 accidental spill; since it is not anticipated that will rm
]
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l 26115.0 ! BRT 611 ' ('~' ) I actually occur in operation, I don't see how it could be 2 followed up with any further calculations. 3 THE WITNESS: (Papadopulos) If I may add t'o that, 4 as Mr. Farrell says, the calculations down here are for a 5 hypothetical accidental spill. If such a spill indeed occurs 6 and is left uncontrolled to move for the next 15 years or 30 7 years or 123 years, all the data collected in that time I'm 8 sure will be made available to you, so that you can compare 9 whether this transport of radionuclides is similar to that 10 which was predicted in this hypothetical analysis. 11 BY MR. LAWLESS: 12 Q The hypothetical spill noted in your report was 13 suggested to be improbable. Can you specify how likely that {) 14 is? Let's see, I'll give a reference. 15 JUDGE MARGULIES: How does that relate to the 16 matters at issue here today? In the Board's memorandum and 17 order of November 12 we specified four areas -- Cive areas at 18 issue: Adequacy of geological-hydrological exploration; 19 uncertainty on the data on marl permeability and thickness; 20 data on marl continuity; direction of groundwater flow; and 21 5, groundwater travel time. Those are the things that we are 22 interested in here today. Those are the matters that are at 23 issue and those are the matters that we expect to resolve. 24 If your inquiries go beyond those, they are 25 irrelevant to this proceeding and serve no purpose. (v) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage En336-6M6
26115.0 BRT 612 \
' ') 1 MR. LAWLESS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I was referring 2 to page 25 where they are talking about a scenario that is 3 probably physically impossibic. It's part of their testimony 4 and I was trying to bound their statement " physically 5 impossible" and get them to express just what that meant.
6 JUDGE MARGULIES: Assuming they are totally 7 incorrect, and 3t's very possible, how does that relate to O the five matters at issue in this proceeding? 9 MR. LAWLESS: Well, I agree with you. It's one of 10 their comments. It's part of their testimony. 11 JUDGE MARGULIES: We want to treat material and 12 significant issues that will resolve these five areas. It 13 will be helpful if we stick to these material issues and () 14 significant issues. 15 MR. FElG: Mr. Chairman, I would like to request 16 that we take, a* this time, about a five-minute recess. I 17 would like to review some information. 18 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, could I ask for 19 planning purposes if the Intervenor knows hcw much 20 crosc-examination he may have? 21 MR. FEIG: We are almost near the end. We have a 22 few more questions, but we need to assess some of the 23 information we've just gotten and try to tie it to the rest 24 of our questioning. 25 JUDGE MARGULIES: Let's take a 10-minute recess. O O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationmide Coverage mxk33MM6
26115.0 BRT 613 ,m
) 1 (Recess . )
2 JUDGE MARGULIES: Back on the record. 3 MR. FEIG: Mr. Chairman, we would just like -- 4 corry. We wotJ. d like to have just a quick clarification 5 about the process as to -- we were told yesterday that we 6 would be allowed a period of time for follow-up, following 7 these proceedings? 8 JUDGE MARGULIES: I don't understand that. 9 MR. FEIG: Follow-up response to information that 10 we've gained in this proceeding? 11 JUDGE PARIS: After the proceeding you are to file 12 proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. And in
N 13 that you can argue.
(O 14 MR. FEIG How much time do we have? That's what 15 I wanted to know? How much time do we have for those 16 proposed findings? 17 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, the Applicants file 30 18 days after the close of the hearing. The Intervenors file 40 19 days; the Staff files its findings on day 50; and then the 20 Applicants have another 5 days to reply. 21 JUDGE MARGULIES: This is not for the submission 22 of new testimony. This is in terms of argument. 23 MR. FEIG: With the information -- 24 JUDGE MARGULIES: That is on the record. 25 MR. FEIG: Right. Thank you. We'll be ready in m b ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage Mn3EtM6
26115.0 BRT 614 7 (")' 1 iust a second. 2 BY MR. LAWLESC: 3 Q This is on groundwater velocity. You have 4 calculated the aroundwater velocity through the backfill on 5 page 26; the groundwater travel time was 30 years; and are 6 you familiar with the Savannah River plant literature on 7 predicted versus actual rates of groundwater travel times? 8 A (Papadopulos) Yec, we are. 9 Q Including the final environmental impact 10 statement, DOE EIG 0108, -- the final environmental im pa c t 11 statement, L -Reactor statement, Savannah River plant, 1984. 12 A I don't recall if I have seen that specific 13 document. I have seen several documents on the Savannah 14 River plant which pertain to calculations of travel times in 15 relation to preparino ny testimony and aspects of my 16 testimony, comparing different estimates made by -- for the 17 Gavannah River plant. 18 0 Would you think that this might be an acceptable 19 source in referencing groundwater travel times if you were 20 looking at predicted versus actual rates? 21 MR. ClluRCi!ILL: Your lionor, he just testified he 22 did not know if he was familiar with that document so he 23 didn't know if that would be an acceptable source. 24 JUDGE MARGULIES: Why don't you show the document 25 to the witness, Mr. Lawless? v ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationeide Coverage 80lk3 M-(M6
26115.0 BRT 615 1 THE WITNESS: (Papadopulos) From the bulk of the 2 document, I am sure I have not seen that entire document. 3 BY MR. LAWLESS: 4 Q Chapter F in volume 2 covers the hydrogeology 5 underneath the Savannah River plant; it's probably one of the 6 more recent books. 7 A (Papadopulos) I have not seen this document 8 specifically. 9 Q Would you look on page F-49 and F-437 10 A I seem to remember seeing some equations like this l 11 used in some other document. If I remember, it was DP83-829, 1 l 12 but I haven't seen this. l e'N 13 Q Yes, this document here, "The technical summary of U 14 the groundwater protection program at the Savannah River 15 plant." l l 16 A Is that DB03? l 17 Q Yes, DPST83-S-29. 18 A I have seen that. l 19 Q The equation that they have shown on F -- I think 20 it's 43 -- is their expression of Darcy's law? ; j 21 A Same equation you used. 22 Q Yes. Underneath Darcy's law, I think it's on 23 F-43, there is a sentence or two, I'm not quite sure if I can 24 geographically locate it for you -- or locate it precisely 25 for you on the page, but it is somewhere underneath that. O O o ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336 6M6
26115.0 ~ BRT Gli , x (' ) 1 They talk about groundwater flow rates? 2 A The ANM -- 3 JUDGE I>ARIS: What was your answer, 4 Dr. Papadopulos? 5 THE WITNESS: (Papadopulos) Which pace are you 6 referring to? 7 MR. LAWLESS: I think 43, and then a second 8 reference to groundwiler travel time -- or excuse me -- 9 travel rate on page F-49. 10 MR. CHURCHILL: If he could more specifically 11 locate this passage, I assume he will ask a question about 12 it.
% 13 MR. LAWLESS: Could I walk up and point it out?
(O 14 JUDGE MARGULIES: Certainly. 15 MR. LAWLESS: Okay. Thank you. 16 That one there. And that one right there. 17 (Indica tinc . ) Would it be acceptable to ask them to read the 18 groundwater velocities there into the record? Would that be 19 acceptable? 20 JUDGE MARGULIES: For what purpose? 21 MR. LAWLESS: It'.9 not necessary; just so long as 22 they have read it, seen it, I can reference l 't . in the 23 findings. 24 MR. CHURCHILL: Whether he can reference it in the 25 findings would depend on the appropriateness of how it was O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nation *Ide Coserage 800-336.fM6
26115.0 BRT 617 1 used and whether it ._ evidence or not. He did identify a 2 passage. He could ask a question on that. 3 MR. LAWLESS: All right. Thank you. 4 BY MR. LAWLESS: 5 0 How doca that number -- how do the numbers there 6 -- and I think the numbers range from -- 7 A (Papadopulos) There are several numbers. 8 Q Yes, there are several numbers. I think the 9 smallest number is something like 2 meters? 10 A I see 3.2; 7.6; 160; 131.7; 7.6; 76 -- 11 Q Right. So it runs then from 3.2 meters per year 12 to 76 -- through 76 meters per year and up to 160 meters per 13 year? v 14 A That's correct. 15 Q Okay. That's the groundwater flow ratr. How does 16 that compare with the numbers + hat you have seen in the 17 past? 18 MR. CilURCHILL: Seen in the past wher e, 19 Mr. Lawleas? 20 Tile WITNESS: (Papadopulos) Where? 21 DY MR. LAWLESS: 22 Q Excuse me. In the literature that you have -- 23 were familiar with, including the DPST03-829 document? 24 A (Papadopulos) To the best of my recollection, 25 velocities of 3 to 7 feet per day near the divide; 4 to 5 (G ) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide CoveraFe Mxk136-6646
h 26115.0 BRT ? 618 J I ;
~
1 feet per day near the outcrop, discharge area; and the range 2 of 30 to 70 feet per day in the area in between. 3 Q I'm sorry. I got the first part. I got the 4 divide. Could you repeat the.part after the divide? 5 JUDGE PARIS: Speak into the mike please, 6 Dr. Papadopulos. 7 THE WITNESS: (Papadopulos) These are the numbers 8 that were presented at DPST83-829? 9 BY MR. LAWLESS: 10 Q Yes. 11 A (Papadopulcs) The numbers were 3 to 7 feet per 12 year, to the best of my recollection. 13 Q Per year or per day? Per day to begin with. (] N_- 14 A Feet per day. I'm sorry. 15 In that document the numbers that were given -- I 16 can't remember without looking at the document, but -- 17 Q I cod 1d bring it up to you if you would like. 18 A There were calculations for Barnwell sands, which 19 were given -- the velocity in the cilty part of the Barnwell 20 sands of 4 feet per year -~ per day and another calculation 21 for the sand lens within the Barnwell sand which was 32 feet 22 per day. 23 MR. CliURCilILL: Was that feet per yeat or per 24 , day? 25 TIIE WITNESS: (Papadopulos) Feet per year. I'm
,~,
7 ,
~
/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide doserage 800-336-6646 i
26115.0 BRT 619
/n
( ) 1 sorry. Feet per year. 2 BY MR. LAWLESS: 3 Q That's, then, 3 to 7 feet per year -- 4 A I have the document in front of me, now I can 5 quote it exactly. 4.3 feet per year for the silty sands and 6 32 feet per year for a sand lens. There's also reference to 7 other velocities by other type of tests. 8 Q And how do those numbers compare with what's 9 presented in the EIS 108, page 43 and 49? 10 A Well, the numbers in one case are in feet per 11 year, in the other they are in meters per year. 12 The question is one -- I don't know -- the numbers
/~N 13 are different. The numbers, although they are in meters, V
14 obviously they are larger numbers. 15 Q You could -- 16 A But I don't know if they refer to the same area. 17 Do they refer to the same area? 18 Q It actually describes the area as being in the 19 center of the plant moving towa rd s the southern part of the 20 plant. 21 A These numbers here, in the LIS, are referring to 22 the A and M areas. 23 Q A and M area is -- 24 A That is where the solvent contamination is, those 25 numbers pertain to the F area. There's two different areas. p ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(0 336-6646
r' 26115.0 BRT 620
/; 's i 1 The document I referred to, DPST83-829 refers to F 2 area.
3 Q The numbers that you were referring to in that 4 document refer to the F area. 5 A Right. The Barnwell sands. 6 The one on page P 43 of the IF statement refers, 7 first of all, to the Congree formation, which is a formation 8 which is a deeper formation rather than being the same 9 formation than the Barnwell sands on the previous document; 10 and second, it refers to a different area of the site. 11 Q And it does discriminate between the areas by 12 saying the numbers near the A and M area are about 3 meters (] Tv/ 13 per year, and then as you move towards the southern part of 14 the plant they increase velocity up to 160 meters per year; 15 1.9 that correct? 16 A Right. But, still, the references is to the 17 Congree formation. So this is kind of comparing apples and 18 oranges. 19 0 But it is a predicted rate? I mean, excuse me, 20 it's an actual rate and we can then go back and compare that 21 with other predicted rates? 22 A It's a calculated rate. In both cases the 23 velocity is calculated to be so much. If it is a calculated 24 rate -- 25 0 Yes, I'm sorry? O O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6M6
26115.0 BRT 621
/~3 J
1 A -- for two different formations which have 2 different hydraulic gradients and different permeabilities, 3 it aas to be obvious that the velocities will be different. 4 0 Oh, yes. Yes. I did not mean to imply that they 5 would not be. What I'm suggesting is with that information 6 we can then compare calculated versus actual rates and we can 7 test the calculations. 8 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, I'm having difficulty 9 following the relevance. If he would just ask his next 10 question we can determine whether it's objectionable or not. 11 JUDGE MARGULIES: I'll give you the opportunity 12 to. /~ 13 MR. LAWLESS: I was going to back up to the first (_)T 14 question. 15 BY MR. LAWLESS: 16 0 You said are you familiar with the SRP comparison 17 of predicted and actual rate velocities -- 10 JUDGE PARIS: Let's not run through all the 19 foundation you already developed. If you are going to ask 20 the question, go ahead and ask it, sir. I think you are. 21 BY MR. LAWLESS: i l 22 Q If we know what the calculated rate is, in any I l 23 particular medium, we can then compare that calculated ra te 24 in that particular medium against the actual data that we 25 find in that medium? (D 'w.) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage MU-336-6646
f 26115.0 DHT 622 1 A (Papadopulos) That's correct. 2 Q That was all I really wanted to ask, and then I 3 wanted to make it germane to the discussion by saying then we 4 could do that with that data right there. If we had the 5 actual data and we have the report we can do that and compare 6 that; is that correct? 7 MR. CHURCHILL: Why doesn't he just ask his 8 question on the data? It's not clear what data he's trying 9 to -- he's asking the witness to say whether something is 10 correct before he's asked what numbers to compare. 11 MR. LAWLESS: I was just talking about the 12 process, that beina part of the literature, and as I started ('} 13 it was sufficient just to reference the document and ~~ t/ 14 JUDGE PARIS: You have gon' through this before. 15 We still don't have the question yet. What's the question? 16 MR. LAWLESS: No. No. That's as far as I want to 17 go. I have my answer. I'm happy with it. 18 DY MR. LAWLESS:
)
19 0 How is the strontium 90 bound to the soil? 20 MR. CHURCHILL: I'm sorry. Dound to the soil 21 where? 22 DY MR. LAWLESS: 23 Q on Page 26 there's a comment, "Because they are 24 chemically active and susceptible to adsorption, migration of 25 strontium 90 and cesium 137 in the groundwater will be ( L/ ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3%fM6
26115.0 BRT 623
,m '") I retarded." At the bottum of the page.
2 What is the process of adsorption? 3 A (Farrell) I don't think any of us on this panel 4 are qualified as chemists. That's what you are asking 5 equilibrium behavior -- equilibrium between solids and 6 fluids. 7 Q There was an early comment in your testimony about 8 cationic exchance. I don't know if I can find it very 9 quickly but it's in the very beginning. Was that relevant at 10 all to the strontium 90 and cesium 137 and tritium 11 radionuclide migrations? 12 A (Farrell) Yes, cation exchange velocity ir a . 13 measure of measuring its susceptibility to adsvrption. U , 14 Q And, so, in your opinion, then, the cation 15 exchange is important for the strontium 90 and cesium 137 16 retardation? 17 A It is my understanding, from the explanation by la chemists. 19 Q On page 27 you have a discussion of adsorption 20 retention factors vary due to Kd factors. On the first 21 paragraph you talk about the degree of retardation is 22 governed by the various physical properties such as bulk 23 density, aquifer porosity and radionuclide equilibrium 24 distribution coefficients. 25 Is it true that thero are other proporties that U ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Natlonwide Coverage 8m33MM6
26115.0 BRT 624 l ,a ( ) 1 govern retardation? 2 A (Farrell) There's other parameters. 3 A (Papadopulos) Would you repeat the question, 4 please? 5 Q Your first statement says "the degree of 6 retardation is governed by the various properties, buik 7 density, aquifer porocity and radionuclide equilibrium 8 distribution coeffitients." 9 Is it not true that there are other properties 10 that govern retardation? 11 A (Farrell) Other properties? I'm not sure what you 12 mean by "other properties." 13 Q Is it not true that there are other physical 14 factors that govern retardation of radionuclides in the - in 15 their transmission with the groundwater? 16 A (Pa padopulos ) I'm not familiar with any. 17 A (Farrell) I am not aware of any. 18 Q Does pH have any effect on transmission time? 19 A PH is not a physical property. 20 Q Physical or chemical property; thank you. 21 A Well, yes. 22 Q I had asked if there were other properties and I 23 quess -- 24 A Other parameters might be a better -- 25 Q Parameters. Yen. f_ x
'vY ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6M6
I 26115.0 l BRT 625 .O} i 1 A Yes. There are other parameters that enter into 2 it. 3 A (Crosby) But as you said, our statement says 4 "various physical properties." 5 Q In addition to the various physical properties 6 that you've outlined, and you agree that there are other 7 propertie.* such as chemical properties of the groundwater and 8 the radioniclides themselves that have an effect on 9 groundwater transmission -- on radionuclide transmission 10 time? 11 A (Farrell) Yes. 12 Q Why were they not considered in these 13 calculations? (~} v 14 A They were considered. 15 Q How were they considered? 16 A Well, for example, you bring up the subject of 17 pH. The samples that were tested were -- for example, the pH 18 -- I think you are referring to the fluid that is carrying 19 the isotopes for these tests, we collected samples of the 20 groundwater from the area in which the soil samples, the 21 backfill samples were taken, to use as a medium in the 22 testing of the distribution coefficients. 23 So the measurements were for in situ conditions. 24 Q So you did take the pH into consideration? 25 A (Papadopulos) We used the groundwater from the v ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage MX)336 66M
26115.0 BRT 626 ('\ 1 site. Whatever its pH was, the distribution coefficient 2 determinations were made using groundwater from the site, 3 hence, whatever the pH, predominant pH was in the 4 groundwater. 5 0 How about the physico-chemico matrix that the l 6 radionuclides might present themselves; waa that considered? 7 That is to say whether they were released accidentally or 8 otherwise in an organic form? 9 A (Farrell) We are discussing a spill of 10 radionuclide, hypothetical spill of a radionuclide waste at 11 the plant, that is generated at the plant. I don't know what 12 that has to do with organics.
~'s (J \.
13 14 Q The radicnuclides themselves, the matrix that they are in -- it's not just pure strontium 90 or pure tritium, 15 for instance. Tritium was considered, what, as tritiated 16 water? 17 A Well, that's an expression. 18 Q Right. That is fairly possible for the tritium. 19 But I guess I'm more concerned about the strontium 90 and 20 cesium 137. What is the matrix that they are a part of? l 21 What is there besides the strontium 90 and the cesium 137 22 that would be released at the same time? 23 A (Farrell) I don't recollect the makeup of the 24 radionuclides in the waste, total waste. 25 I think in terms of your questioning about the ! (~')
\J~
\
l l l I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6M6
26115.0 BRT 627
,- s *-- I chemical aspects of it, generally speaking from a chemical 2 standpoint, which is what the reaction of equilibrium 3 constant is affected by in the chemical aspects, is that they 4 are considered generally dilute solutions, the concentrations 5 from that standpoint. We talk about high concentrations of 6 radionuclides. It is a relative term, again, and we 7 shouldn't get that confused with high concentrations of the 8 chemicals. The actual isotopes are actually in a dilute 9 solution.
10 Q Right. The Board has directed me not to discuss 11 the chemicals, the effects of the chemicals on the 12 groundwater. I am not trying to do that. 13 What I'm asking is what effect it has -- any (~} v 14 effect that the chemical matrix that the radionuclides 15 themselves might be a part of, has -- have any interaction 16 effects been taken into consideration? 17 A (Crosby) Maybe I can simplify this in my own 18 mind. This was an experiment run on samples of backfill from 19 the site using the radionuclides that are the worst actors, 20 so to speak, in this spill. 21 The test was a model of what would actually 22 happen. The details of the reactions which would occur 23 between the backfill and the fluid is what would happen, as 24 best we could model in a laboratory, that data was just used 25 to test the conservatism of our calculation. /, \ t s
\j ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-310 Nationside Coverage 8(n3366646
26115.0 BRT 628 m ( l 1 As we state in our testimony, these values from 2 the experiment are all more than five times greater than the 3 conservative estimates of average values given by Irsherwood, 4 which is a new reg book. 5 Again, to be conservative, the lower estimated 1 6 average values of Irsherwood, so-and-so, were chosen. Okay? I 1 7 A (Farrell) I would also like to clarify that you 8 were asking about the influence of other constituents in the 9 solvent. I was pointing out that these are dilute 10 solutions. 11 In dilute solutions the influence of other solutes 12 has little to no influence. You can treat the individual 13 isotopes as if they were alone. (G3 14 Q Let me see if I understand you. Did you meat. 15 solvent or solute? I heard the word change. 16 A I think I got it correct. The solvent is the 17 water and the solute is the -- 18 Q I understand. You weren't referring to -- I got 19 you. 20 But, as I understand you then, you are saying 21 that, other than the radionuclide, there is no chemical 22 influence, no chemical interaction? 23 A What I had hoped to say, I intended to say was 24 that the concentrations of dissolved solids in the solvent 25 water is considered a dilute solution, and generally [%)~) ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(NF3366M6
a l 26115.0 , BRT 629 ! 1 ( h \ l I speaking, in a dilute solution the influence of the 2 individual isotopes within that solution do not have marked 3 influence on one another. 4 Q I would agree that one -- okay. Well, other than 5 the physical -- the physics of the physical properties that 6 are involved. So there would be that exception. 7 But what I am looking for, though, is the 8 strontium 90 in that storage tank, or the cesium 137 in that 9 storage tank, are not pure, are they? 10 A I don't know what you mean by pure. 11 Q It's not just strontium and nothing else, is it? 12 What is the chemical compound itself?
/'N 13 A I thought I answered. The chemical compound? \~ N 14 Q Yes. What is the chemical compound?
15 A There's individual ions that are dissolved in the 16 fluids. If they are not dissolved in the fluid that means 17 they are solid particles and they will not migrate through 18 the ground. I'm not sure what you mean. 19 Q Do you know what the chemical compound is in the 20 tank? 21 MR. CliURCHILL : Your Honor, he just answered these 22 were not chemical compounds. They were in solution. 23 MR. LAWLESS: Are we to assume, then, that the 24 tank is holding nothing but ions. 25 MR. CilURCIIILL: Your lionor, this has been asked. [ C/ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 33MM6 1
26115.0 BRT 630 [' ' 1 If it's not holding just ions then there are particles of 2 particulate matter that won't migrate. We are talking about 3 things dissolved in the groundwater. 4 JUDGE PARIS: Would the panel agree that it would 5 be acceptable to say that there are chemical compounds that 6 are ionized, in solution and ionized? 7 THE WITNESS: (Farrell) Yes. I'll go along with 8 that. 9 MR. FARRELL: 10 Q But the original chemical compound is unknown to 11 you? 12 A That's correct. p 13 Q Okay. Thank you. And any additional matrix U 14 effect that is there has not been studied? 15 A I'm sorry. Would you repeat t ha t'? 16 Q Any additional chemical matrix effects have not
. 17 been studied?
18 MR. CHURCHILL: I think we need a better 19 definition of "any additional chemical matrix effects." 20 MR. LAWLESS: Okay. Thank you. 21 DY MR. LAWLESS: 22 0 The matrix that surrounda the utrontium 90 or that 23 surrounds the cesium 137, whatever that matrix 13, the 24 interaction effects, that has not been utudied? 23 A (Farrell) I don't quite understand. The reactions O L] ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage M 3% M46
26115.0 BRT ti31 V) i 1 in the waste system? I haven't studied them. That isn't my 2 -- I'm not involved in that aspect of it. As far as the -- 3 what I am awarr of, in the soluti)n -- what is in solution in 4 these tanks, and the concentration of those radionucliden 5 that are of condequence. 6 0 Thank you. And no one else han studied those 7 matrix effects? 8 A (Papadopulos) None of un is a nuclear physicist, 9 nuclear engineer, or nuclear chemist. We are hydrologista 10 and would rather stick with something we know rather than 11 indulge in somethina we don't know anything about. 12 A (Farrell) 1nd we can't say it hasn't been studied 13 because it's not in the area of our experience. 14 Q So it's possible this han been studied. When we 15 talk about degreen at retardation, an in your study, I 16 presumed all of these things had been looked at. 17 MR. CiluRCllILL: Your lionor, I object to th13 18 repetitive mischaracterization of the testimony. They have 19 testified that the luotopen are ione and they are in a 20 colvent that is water. That is all that in relevant. They 21 testified to that. They shouldn't be acked to tentify about 22 other chemical effects that are not relevant to the transport 23 of these materials. 24 JUDGE MARGULIES: The paragraph apeaka in t<rmn of 2S various physical propertien. That's what it deals with. O O ACE FEDi!RAI, REl>onitins, INC. 202-)47 3700 Nationalde Cmerage 8%)1MM4
26115.0 BRT 632 C\
\ /
\
U 1 MR. LAWLESS: I think the opposing attorney put it 2 very nicely. That la the final -- that satisfica my question 3 very well, thank you. 4 DY MR. LAWLESS: 5 0 On page 30 you are talking about the theory -- 6 excuse me -- you talk about the Utley limeatone. It's 7 actually the top centence, or top of the line. "The Utley 8 might act as a conduit, permitting the groundwater exiting 9 the backtill to flow very rapidly to Mathea Pond." 10 JUDGE PARIS: What's the question, Mr. Lawleua? l 11 MR. LAWLESS: I'm corry. I forgot to ask it. l l 12 BY MH. LAWLESS: l The sentenco discuaces the poscibility that this l{ I 13 Q 14 could happen. Could the panel kind of put a boundary on that l l 15 poacibility? In it very likely or unlikely or what? l I 16 MR. CilDRCilILL : Your lionor, thic la irrelevant and 17 immaterial because, for purposec of thin testimony, these 1 j 10 experta have accumed, without even questioning whether it 19 would act as auch a conduit; accuminq that it would in our l 20 calculatiaan of acceptable concentratiora we have aucumed and i l 21 taken no credit for retardation through this Utley formation. I 22 MR. LAWLESS: He in abaclutely correct. I wanted 23 to find out what was the leal world ponalbility that the 1 24 Utley limectone could act as a condult. 25 MR. CllORCllILL: Immaterial to their testimony, i 1 i CN-) ace FEDERAL REPORTnns, INC. 202 347 3700 Nat6onelde Cmerage IWlo.)4MI6
26115.0 URT 633 r\ t lV 1 1 your lionor. 2 JUDGE MARGULIES: I'm going to sustain the l 3 objection. l 4 BY MR. LAWLESS: 5 Q There were calcula'.lona presented on the 6 concentration that would, as a result of a spill - that l 7 could reach Mathes, the calculations presented at the top of I l 0 page 31. The calculation la also compared with MPCs, MPCs on i I 9 page 29. The MPCs on page 29 referred to -- or the l j 10 concentrations compared there refer to concentrations after i 11 traveling through the backrill, l i l 12 My question refera to the Mathes Pond stream, and i 13 you've got a calculation of 3.2 times 10 to the minus 5 14 microcurlea per cubic centimeter. t l 15 JUDGE LINENDERGER: Hack on page 31 now, right? l l 16 MR. LAWLESS: You actually havn to flip between 29 17 and 31 to compare it to the MPC. I I l 10 DY MR. LAWLEUG i l 19 Q My question la this: If thic accidont did happen ; I I 20 and if It did meet all of the aanumptions presented here, l 21 then this la the calculation of the concentration that would I l 22 appear in Mathes Pond; la that cortect? l 23 A (Farrell) The calculation of a hypothetical npill l 24 analyaln -- analyala of hypothetical spill, initially accumes l 25 that the waste tank in -- fallu completely, the auxiliary lNJQ l i l AC1! FliotinAI. RtilionTI!ns, INC. , ! 202 347.170n Nathmekle Ometage mn))6 fM4
26115.0 13RT 634 (O"') 1 building fails completely, and the fluid from the tank is 2 instantly in the groundwater body, which I believe is 3 probably impossible. 4 We then analyze it only for convective flow 5 grot ndwa ter through the backtill . Not considering dispercion 6 within the backfill, take the concentration that would, under 7 those assumptions it would be discharqing from the backfill, 8 instantly translate that discharge to Mathes Pond -- not 9 taking any credit for travel of the major portion of the flow 10 path between the plant site and Mathes Pond or any credit of 11 time or diapersion effects on the decay of the radionuclide. 12 We take the concentration that was calculated for 13 discharge from the backfill and we have accumed that v 14 discharge into Mathes Pond. 15 The flow of the atream in Mathen Pond has beon 16 measured at 250 gallona a minute. We assumed a dilution 17 within the stream from Mathes Pond down through the drainage, la o f. which Mathen pond la a part, and annumed only that flow 19 within -- that measured at Mathec Pond, discharged at Mathec 20 Pond, an a cource of mixing and diluting that concentration. 21 And that's where that final value that you refer to in 22 determined. 23 Q You made a comment that this spill was probably 24 imposcible. In that based on )udgment? Or was there a ' 25 acientific inference used in that? O) m Aci!.Fl!Dl!RAI, RI!i>onTiins, INc. 202 347 37m Nanonwide cmerage m14mm
26115.0 DRT 635
,a 1 JUDGE MARGULIES: We have gone into that before, 2 Mr. Lawless. It's assumed that it happens. It really nakes 3 no difference. It's just assumed that it happens.
4 MR. LAWLESS: Thank you. 5 BY MR. LAWLESS: 6 Q Then, if that did happen and it did reach Mathes 7 Pond in that concentration -- I notice that you have -- you 0 can compare it to the MPC. If that concentration was in 9 Mathes Pond, how does that compare -- even though that water 10 would not be used for drinking purposes -- how does that 11 compare to the EPA drinking water standard? 12 A (Farrell) When you talk about the EPA drinking 13 water standards, there is no -- I don't see where that has 14 any consideration here. The EPA drinking water standards 15 covers many chemicals involved, dissolved constituents. I'm 16 not sure what you mean. There has been no comparison to 17 those standards. 18 MR. CHURCilILL: Your Honor, these witnesses have 19 not made this comparison. It is not necessary because nobody 20 ic noing to be drinking this water. This is an on-site pond. 21 MR. LAWLEUS: I understand that. They did make 22 the comparison to the MPC, and I'm saying if the accident 23 scenario and following accumptions were all met and the 24 release did occur, how can we compare the concentration in 25 the subsequent concentration in Mathes Pond with something v ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202447 37(X) Natlonwide Coverage Am33MM6
26115.0 PRT 636 o) I.
'~"' 1 that is normally done, and that is comparison with EPA 2 drinking water standard?
3 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Mr. Lawless, excuse me, but 4 you have gone to come length there to explain what it is you S are inquiring into, but before we go farther, I should like 6 to have you point to the various -- to one or other of the 7 various issues the Board has identified and identify for the 8 Doard which of those issues this line of inquiry goes to. 9 Would you please do that? 10 MR. LAWLESS: Yes. This is on the groundwater i ! 11 travel rate itself. This is part of it. This is part of 12 their testimony. l /' ' 13 JUDGE LINENDERGER: I'm sorry, but comparison of j 14 Mathes Pond radionuclide concentration with EPA drinking 15 water -- permissible drinking water -- permissible maximum 16 concentrations, I don't see the nexus between that and 17 groundwater travel time that has been discussed in the 18 testimony and that was of interest to the Board. 19 Can you tie the two together? 20 MR. LAWLESS: I will try to. Thank you. 21 JUDGE LINENDERGER: Well, excuse me. Wait a 22 ninute now. Maybe I've gotten myself in a box here. I don't 23 want a lona d.insertation from you about how you think they 24 are related. I just want to know very directly, very 25 explicitly how SPA drinking water -- allowable concentrations ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage En336 6646
26115.0 BRT 637 g! 1 of radionuclides in drinking water permitted by EPA relate to 2 what the Board said about the issue ot groundwater travel 3 time. 4 JUDGE PARIS: Let me raise one other point here. 5 On page 29 they are talking about concentration in 6 groundwater, and people do drink groundwater in this area, 7 although not on-site. 8 On page 31 they are talking about concentration in 9 Mathes stream. And people don't drink stream water, 10 normally, and they are not going to be drinking Mathes stream 11 water because it's certainly on-site. 12 MR. LAWLESS: But people do fish and people do go [) v 13 into areas where they are often not wanted to. And it is 14 possible that someone could access that water. 15 MR. DEWEY: That's a different contention, 16 though. It is not relevant in this proceeding. 17 MR. LAWLESS: The relevance -- I guess we are back 18 to the ' tra t question. The relevance is only this. They 19 have 1 sed an MPC comparison, drinking water standard is just 20 another comparison. Why not compare it to the drinking water 21 standard if you are going to compare it to the MPC? Why not 22 do that? 23 JUDGE LINENDERGER: Mr. Lawless, I think in effect 24 what you are saying is because there are parts of the 25 testimony that seem not to go to the issues identified by the L.- C )N i 1 l l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347-37(X) Nationwide Coverage Am336-6646
26115.0 BRT 638
,m
( ) 1 Doard, that gives you liberty to go to issues not identified 2 by the Board. The point the Board is making here is that we 3 don't see that liberty extending to you here. 4 If the testimony gets into matters that we don't 5 consider relevant to the issues that have been identified, we 6 will give it little or no weight. But you sit here and, 7 forgive me for saying this, but take up an awful lot of my 8 time because you think that the witnesses' testimony gives < 9 you carte blanche to explore anywhere you wish. And we just 10 cannot have that happen. It's just that simple and we are 11 coming awfully close to the point where we absolutely will 12 not let it happen. (S 13 So, please don't test us too far. V 14 MR. LAWLESS: I'm trying not to test you at all 15 and I apologize. And you were right at the beginning. It 16 was part of their testimony and that's why I was asking 17 questions about it. And that's it cut and dried. 18 MR. CliURCllILL : I've forgotten where we are, your 19 Honor. 20 JUDGE MARGULIES: We are waiting for another 21 question from Mr. Lawless. 22 MR. LAWLESS: Okay. Thank you. I am down to the 23 last question. And this has to do with the well grouting 24 technique. Would I be allowed a question on well grouting 25 technique? p) v ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202 347 3700 Nation *ide Coverase mn33MM6
26115.0 DRT 639
,O 1 MR. CHURCHILL: Not if I wete the judge you 2 wouldn't, Mr. Lawleas. That was specif.ically excluded, pagen 3 21 and 22 of the Board's ordes.
4 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Churchill, when you have 5 comments direct them to me and I will speak to Mr. Lawless. 6 MR. CHURCllILL: I'm sorry. A little bit of 7 excess -- 8 JUDGE MARGULIES: And your role in not that of a 9 judge. 10 MR. LAWLESG: Mr. Chairman, that is true. I won't 11 enter into it if not allowed, but in dioallowing it, one of 12 the commentn in disallowing was that we were -- 13 JUDGE MARGULIEC: Let's hear your question. I t~ , d 14 it's objectionable, counsel for the Applicants may object to 15 it and then we will rule on it. 16 MR. LAWLEGS: Thank you. 17 BY MR. LAWLEUS: 10 0 In the Bechtel report, cootechnical verificatlon, 19 work report results, Aucunt 1905 -- 1 20 JUDGE MARGULIES: What la your question? 21 BY MR. LAWLEGU 22 Q All right, sir. Let's nee. Geologic drijl log i 23 hole number 904. Was the amount of cement injected into that 24 hole to arcut the well aufficient to f111 out the drilled-out 25 volume of 46.0 cubic yardo without leavinq volds or r") l v i Act!.Fl!Dl!RAL Riii>onTrins, INC. 202 34717(N) Nationwide Cmerage RtIk14(M6
- p. . . . - . _ _ . - . - . . . . _ _ . - - - - - - - - . - - _ - - - _ . . - . - _ .
I 1 1 26115.0 ; j DHT 640 i O V 1 Interspaces? l l I j 2 A (Wert) Yes. It was. i ! l 3 Q what was the volume of the cubic yards of ! 4 cement pt
- into that well?
ll 5
$ A The 6-inch easing was grouted with 46.4 cubic teet 6 of cement, the annulus between the drill hole and the 6-inch l
{ I 7 casing. J ! 8 Q Was filled with 46 -~ ! l l l 9 A 46.4 cubic feet. i i 10 Q One last time, 46.2 cubic feet? I 11 A 46.4. I 4 i 12 0 .4 -- cubic feet? l 13 A Yec. I x ! 14 Q And what was the volume of the drilled-out volum i 15 in cubic feet? ! 4 l l 16 A The drilled-out volumo, approxinately 40. l 17 Q Cubic feet or cuble yards? la A Cubic feet. f r j 19 Q So the drilled-out volume wau 40 cubic yardn -- C 1 r 20 A Feet. f l 21 Q I'm corry. Cubic feet. And the cement orout wan ; 22 46.4 cubic feet? I l 23 A '1 h a t la correct. f 4 i j 24 MR. LAWLEGC: Thank you. That'n t.he laat i I 25 quention. l l ? i i-
}
P l ! l Act!.Fl!!ninal. Riii'onti!Rs, INC. l o2.m.nm sen.u, c.nm.. munma l w . - .._ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ -
26115.0 BRT 641 1 JUDGE MARGULIP3: Do you have any other questionn 2 for anyone on thic panel? 3 MR. LAWLESS: fJ o t on the -- 4 MR. FEIG: We don't have any more q u o:t t i o n.i o f 5 thic panel. 6 JUDGE MARGULII;G: Pardon mo? 7 MR. FCIG: We don *t have any queetiano at anyone 8 on this panel. 9 JUDGE MARGULIEG: Doon Staff have any 10 exanination? 11 MR. DEWEY: Yes. Junt a tow queutiona. 12 CROUG-EX AM I f4 ATIOfJ 13 itY MR. DEWEY: l 14 Q The pe ne: 1 han tectified thit there had L.*en a 15 cortaLn amount of "ronion at the Gavannah ifiver, ilow much 16 J U D G i: M A R G U L I I:3 : Could y<>u apoat, up? I7 I;Y MR, DEWl:Y: 1H 0 The pan.l h a ;, t e :: t i t i e d that thern'a a certain 19 amount o f. "roaton at the Cavannah River, I believ" yeatetday, 20 i n a n::w. t tu on" of fir . Lawlouc'u questions. 21 My quoation la if thore 1 ;. any pot.otial f or a 21 .: l q n i t l e a n t amount of etunion in that area over th" n e .i t 40
'Il ye'tl !)
24 J t;i UI, PAkID: Ate you talkinu ah'>ut tioaion of t he;
.9 natli e
Aci! FitoliitAi. Riii>oittitits, INC.
- ommoo moon.ue nnnne mo 96 cm,
26115.0 BRT 642 (m'~') 1 MR. DEWEY: Of the mari, yes. 2 Ti!E WITNESS: (Parrell) You mean the marl beneath 3 the plant? 4 DY MR. DEWEY: 5 0 At the Gavannah River. I believe you testified r, that -- Mr. Farrell testified that -- 7 A (Parrell) Oh, the Gavannah River? O Q Yea. 9 A I would say no. The Savannah Hiver la now very . 10 erf eetIvely contIolled by filood control dame. The eroslon 11 that -- potential erosion would be as a result of the river 12 eroding. With the control it la at grade, controlling not 13 havinq any crosion -- L 14 JUDGE PARIO: I can't hear you. Ib Tile WITNI:GU : (Fa rre l l ) As I understand now the 16 eroclon at the Gavannah River la reduced to eftectively 17 zero. 10 DY MR. DEWEY: 19 0 I coe. There was also a otatement made that there 4 20 had been come erocion in the Mathen range area of the marl. 21 Would these be a signilleant amount of erocion in the future 22 in that area? 23 A (l'a r r o l l ) In terms -- ecpecially in terma of the 24 plant life, the Ma t l'ou d ra i na an is -- the bann level la the i 25 rivannah River, no an lonq ad the Gavannah Hiver Itaelf an a i V l Act!.Fl!Dl!RAl. Rl!PORTl!RS, INC. 20244Mtm Nation.de emerese m1 w u.u.
l 26115.0 DRT 643 (~h I reference la s ta bi ll::ed , the drainage of Mathea Pond should 2 also be essentially atabilized. 3 JUDGE PARIS: Can I get one question here? My 4 understanding is the Cavannah Hiver has already eroded S through the marl; in that correct? 6 Tile WIT!1ESS : (Farrell) Yec. 7 JUDGE PANIS: And serves as a discharge for the 1 0 water tables above the marl and below the marl; in that l 9 correct? l 10 Tile WITNEGS: (Weat) Yen. I ( 11 Till: WITNESS: (Farrell) Yes. 12 IlY MR. DEWEY: O , %J 13 0 I believe you also stated -- well, my question l 14 ist lla n there been an erosion of the marl at Ileaverdam l l 15 Creek, or Daniele Hranch or Mathen Pond? 16 A (Farrell) At Mathen Pond, the Mathen Pond to l l 17 actually altuated in the marl, so there has been crosion l l 18 there. What I'm nayin<.1 la the elevation of the pond, the l 19 base of it, is below the top of the marl, the original top. l 20 Thetc hart obviously been erosion there. l 21 In licaverdam Creek and Daniele Isranch, just to 1 22 what dertree there may be eroalon of the marl itnelf, I don't 23 know because it han not been defined precinely. You can only l 24 say that the projection of the top of the marl 13, in the 25 area that we are -- in the vent of the alto -- the projection v i l l Act!. Flint!nat. Rt!Ponit!ns, INC. 202 347-)hl) Nalkmehlf Cmff age mikllMM6 w___._____ _______._._____________________._______._.________________.___._____._____________.________________________________.________________________________m
26115.0 DRT 644 1 l of the marl to Heaverdam Creek and Daniela Branch is 2 essentially below grade of those streams. 3 Q That answers my question. One other question 1 4 have for the panel inr In your answer to Mr. Lawlena 5 regacding travel time where you had various figures regardinq 6 calculated trave) time at SHP versus the actual travel time, 7 can you atate why these differences at GRP may not be 0 applicable to the nonwater travel time involved? 9 A (Papadopulos) The purpose of my testimony on the 10 subject wan primarily to indicate that although there were 11 apparent dif f erencen in calculated travel t im.s at 09P, 12 travel time calculations made by different methods, that the ' pb 13 differences in these travel times were not due to the method 14 of calculationa, but were primarily due to the fact that 15 different parameters were used in each calculation. 16 It we change -- if someone unen a permeability 17 which in ditferent than someone used previously, the two 18 entimates will become different. 19 So, in terms of comparinc travel times made by 20 ditferent methodologien, one han to put them all on a common l l 21 baulu. That was the intent of that tectimony I pienented on l l 22 thin subject, and it doen not have -- does not have a 23 significant relevance on the Vog t l e a l t er . j 24 MR. LAWLESU: I miused the last couple of l 25 comments, l O V I l ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Natkmwide Coverage pr>3E ud6
26115.0 BRT 645 ( 1 Tile WITNEGG: (Papadopulos) It doesn't have any 2 particular significance to the Vogtle site. 3 JUDGE MARGULIES: It doesn't have any particular 4 relevance to the Vogtle site. That was his last c o m m e n t. , 5 MR. DEWEY: That'a all the questions I have. l ! 6 EXAMINATION 7 DY JUDGE PARIS: 8 0 Most of. the questions that I had for the panel 9 have been asked and answered over the past couple of days. I 10 have one that wasn't. 11 On paqe 30 of the teatimony of the panel, the last l 12 centence on the paragraph beginning toward the middle of the l O 13 pace, you said you assumed that the tank is filled to 00 G' 14 percent of its total capacity and that the entire content la l 15 teleased. I junt wondered why you didn't accumn that it wan 16 100 percent fi11ed in 01 der to be conservative? 1 17 A (Farrell) The bacia for the 00 percent la the i l 10 quidelinen on the worat-cane design-basis analysic l 19 established by the NRC in their review plan of 15.7, I I l 20 believe. ) 21 Q Okay, In addition I have the question for l 1 1 t 22 Dr. Papadopulou, if I can Cind his tes timony -- here- it la. l 23 In your testimony, Dr. Papadopulon, you calculated 24 some linear pathway travel times and some nonlinear pathway 1 25 travel timen, and you did no on the banis of two modela. For !O ,v l I l Acu FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
- 202 347 39 0 Nationmide Coverage Nn336M46
rm - 26115.0 BRT 646 1 the curvilinear pathway, the model is diagrammed in figure 1, 2' the three-dimensional flow in an unconfined aquifer between 3 two parallel streams. And then, in figure 2 you show your 4 gmodel for a merely one-dimensional flow in an unconfined 5 aquifer between two parallel streams. And to my mind, the 6 models are markedly different; and I wonder what your 7 rationale is for comparing travel time estimates based on 8 such very different models. 9 A (Papadopulos) I was trying to address two issues, 10 your Honor, in doing that. 11 First, i n m'o s t natural systems the flow is 12 three4 dimensional, so my purpose of looking at figure I was, t; 13 in most natural systems flow is three-dimensional so I was N-) . 14 trying to point out that, in the three-dimensional situation, 15 as it will occur under natural conditions, the pathway, the 16 actual pathway is a much longer pathway than the linear 17 pathway and that, therefore, if one uses linear pathways to 18 calculate travel time, he is underestimating the travel 19 time. 20 Q Would that necessarily always be true? 21 A Yes. The pathway is always -- a shorter distance 22 would be the shortest pathway and therefore the time 23 calculated on the shortest pathway would be always the 24 straight line distance. So that was my intent for looking at 25 the three-dimensional. m,l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 647 i ) 1 Then, in going to the two-dimensional -- almost, 2 nearly one-dimensional model, I was trying to examina the 3 implications of using average velocity -- 4 Q Using what? 5 A Using the average velocity between two points 6 versus using the actual velocity along the pathway, which 7 would be varying along the pathway since the gradient would 8 be varying along the pathway. 9 Q Well, if you were modeling it in segments, in 10 three dimensions along a pathway which becomes very steep at 11 some point in the pathway, and therefore the velocity would 12 increase there, would your straight line modeling comparison 13 necessarily give you a shorter travel time? (~'); 14 A Yes. Because between the point of origin -- the 15 total head change between the point of origin and the point 16 of destination is still the same. We still start from a 17 given head and arrive to the same -- to a different head, 18 whether we go -- all the velocity that will be varying along 19 this pathway, the three-dimensional pathway, the total travel 20 time would be longer than that which would be calculated by 21 taking the two endpoint heads and the linear distance between 22 those two points. 23 A (Farrell) I might comment on that to what I 24 perceive is maybe a clarification. I think that you might be 25 thinking that on the curvilinear flow path, the / * ,
,/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6666
26115.0 BRT 648 (# ) 1 three-dimensional flow path described as in -- from the 2 initiating point to the discharge point that is described -- 3 at the initiating point the gradient is not as steep as it is 4 towards the end. But any increment along that flow path that 5 you take that the straight line path between any -- on any 6 increment is always going to be shorter than the actual 7 three-dimensional curvilinear path. 8 So when you talk about, as in the reference of 9 velocities calculated in the -- at the SRP, they talked about 10 at the initiating portion of the flow path velocities were 11 less and they progressively got larger towards the discharge 12 point. (~'T 13 That would also hold for any increment at any of 14 those -- along tnat flow path, if you took a straight line 15 flow path it would be that much faster than the corresponding 16 curvilinear path along that increment. 17 Q So, given that situation at SRP, if you calculated 18 the flow path curvilinearly and took into account the 19 steepness close to the stream, and compared that with a 20 straight line between the points, the straight line would 21 give you a faster -- ) l 22 A (Papadopulos) No, this doesn't have anything to do ] 23 with calculations at SRP. I 24 Q Closer. ; 25 A This doesn't have anything to do with calculations lV i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 649 7-s I at SRP. That was presented in a different section. This was 2 primarily addressing the issue on whether the use of Darcy's 3 equation as applied to a linear pathway would underestimate 4 or overestimate the travel time. I was trying to address 5 that iesue: Does Darcy's law underestimate or overestimate 6 travel time if I apply it between -- on the linear path 7 between two points? 8 So I approached the issue from two points. First 9 of all, let us assume average velocities but take two 10 pathways, one a linear pathway, which is the projection of 11 the actual pathway, and then the actual three-dimensional 12 pathway. 13 (~') V If I look at average velocities between those two 14 points, since the head change between those two points is the 15 same, we are talking about a total head change between -- as 16 in my figure 1, fron point A to the stream -- I have a given 17 head change. the gradient or head change. 18 Q Yes. Go ahead. 19 A So, if the average velocity along both pathways 20 would be the same, because I say I have a given head change, 21 so regardless of whether I come through this way or the other 22 way, if I'm averaging the velocity, the average would be the 23 same because the total head change between the two points is 24 the same. 25 Q All right. That is not as intuitively clear to me /,_ T \ l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 650
'# 1 as it is to you because I'm not a hydrologist.
2 If you modeled -- if you used a computer model 3 that would calculate short increments of travel and account 4 for changes in head, changes in contour between your point 5 and some much lower point do.vn here, such as the one at 6 Savannah River where we have a very steep contour right 7 before you get to the stream, do you think your straight line 8 would still give you a faster travel time? 9 A It is kind of like trying to explain the two 10 difference -- the two pathways -- maybe if I give you an 11 example. 12 If I have a ladder and I keep going up and down,
~ N, 13 up and down, up and down, whether I end up if I start down at (V 14 the bottom of the ladder and I ended up at the end of the 15 ladder, my work --
16 Q Your analogy loses me. 17 A As you are getting closer -- you are concerned 18 about a steep pathway near the stream; correct?' 19 0 That is correct. 20 A The distance from the same point, even on the 21 steep gradient -- 22 Q What are you looking at? 23 A Figure 1. If the total head difference between 24 two points is the same, the average gradient, going from one 25 point to the other, is the same regardless of the pathway ( ') v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
26115.0 BRT 651 i \
'~
1 because the total change, head change is the same. 2 So the purpose of the first picture, figure 1, is 3 to indicate that since the average gradient along any of 4 these pathways is the same, the choice of the linear -- an average gradient which is the same would result in an average 6 velocity which is the same. So the average velocity along 7 the curvilinear path would be the same as the linear path. 8 And since the linear path is shorter than the curvilinear 9 path, my using the linear path would result in a shorter than 10 actual travel time. 11 Now, underlying both these pathways is the 12 assumption that I am using the average velocity rather than () v 13 the actual velocity. So my next step was to try to look at a 14 nearly one-dimensional flow system and then examine the 15 aspect of -- using an average velocity versus using the 16 actual velocity along this pathway. 17 The reason I used a nearly one-dimensional model 18 for that was that, really, the mathematical solution to this 19 problem on figure 1 does not exist because it is 20 three-dimensional and much more complex and analytical, so we 21 don't have a solution for that problem. So I used a simpler 22 model where I had the solution for calculating both the 23 average velocity along the pathway and the actual velocity 24 along the pathway.
,,s 25 Q Okay. But when you say the mathematical equation
() ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
26115.0 BRT 652
\
i 1 for the curvilinear doesn't exist, it's not exactly true, is 2 it? It doesn't exist in something you can do with a hand 3 calce)r.or, but you could do it with a computer, could you 4 n o t'. 5 A Finite difference, numerically. 6 JUDGE PARIS: Okay. I think that's all I have. 7 JUDGE MARGULIES: Redirect? 8 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, could we have about a 9 10-minute break? 10 JUDGE MARGULIES: We'll take a 10-minute recess. 11 (Reces s . ) 12 JUDGE MARGULIES: Back on the record.
/N 13 MR. FEIG: Mr. Chairman, we were a little bit Cl 14 confused. We had Mr. Papadopulos' testimony and we had some 15 questions on that specific testimony to him and we are 16 treating that separate. Could we go ahead and ask two 17 questions specifically to Dr. Papadopulos?
18 JUDGE MARGULIES: Two questions to ask of him? 19 MR. FEIG: Right. 20 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you have any objection? 21 MR. CHURCHILL: No objection. 22 MR. FEIG: Thank you. 23 MR. LAWLESS: Thank you. 24 CROSS-EXAMINATION 25 BY MR. LAWLESS:
,r'm L)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
T 26115.0 BRT 653
'"# 1 Q The slug test was used to calculate K values in 2 the groundwater aquifer and my question relates to that. In 3 the K value data, in the data that was used to establish a K 4 value, did you use any tests of the means as was suggested by 5 Bouwer?
6 MR. CHURCHILL: Excuse me, Mr. Lawless. Could you 7 tell us where in this testimony you are referring to? 8 MR. LAWLESS: Oh. Okay. This is in the document 9 results of hydrogeologic testing power block area, Vogtle 10 Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. 11 MR. CHURCHILL: I thought the question was to be 12 on Dr. Papadopulos' testimony? (^] 13 MR. LAWLESS: Yes. I guess that was my
'w) 14 confusion. I had questions on this document itself. And I 15 had hoped to bring those questions up whenever I could.
16 JUDGE MARGULIES: Which document do you want to -- 17 MR. LAWLESS: This was his document that was 18 written on February '86. The title of it is, "Results of 19 hydrogeologic testing, power block area, Vogtle Electric 20 Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2." 21 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is that incorporated in any way 22 in your statement that was prefiled here today, 23 Mr. Papadopulos? 24 THE WITNESS: (Papadopulos) Not in my statement. 25 MR. LAWLESS: This is part of -- I've got just one
/ S U
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336M86
26115.0 BRT 654 l 1 or two questions on the K data and how it's calculated. 2 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, if he can relate it to 3 the testimony, we have no objections to these two questions. 4 JUDGE MARGULIES: Could you relate it to the 5 testimony that was given here today? 6 MR. LAWLESS: All of the testimony? Yes. This 7 document was used to establish the K factors for the 8 groundwater itself, the movement in the horizontal direction 9 as we were talking about earlier, and I withheld questions on 10 that until this time. And here's the question -- 11 THE WITNESS: (Farrell) Before this goes on, could 12 I interrupt? I suggest we make a clalification here. The K
/'~'s 13 values you are referring to, K here is used as a symbol for L) 14 permeability as opposed to the Kd values of retardation. I 15 think we should make a clarification.
16 MR. LAWLESS: Thank you. 17 BY MR. LAWLESS: 18 Q On the K values, from the four power block wells, 19 , did you do any tests on those values? 20 A (Papadopulos) Yes. 21 Q Statistical tests? What sort of tests did you do? 22 A Calculated the confidence limit, confidence levels 23 of the value used for making those calculations. 24 Q And what did you find? 25 A That the confidence level of the value that was
./m k l '%/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
26115.0 BRT 655 l /s 1( ') 1 used for the calculation is 84 percent. 2 Q That's confidence level of just those wells? 3 A Yes. 4 Q My second question is on the fifth well. There 5 was a fifth well that was studied as well -- excuse me -- 6 there was a fifth well that was studied additionally. But it 7 was left out of the K -- the calculation of K. Why did you 8 do that? 9 A (Pa padopulos ) Because that well was not opened to 10 the backfill. The purpose of the test was to determine the 11 hydraulic conductivity of the backfill material. The fifth 12 well was outside the backfill avenue, open to the Barnwell (~N
'sj 13 sands and a part of the Utley limestone.
14 Q I missed the last part of your comment, the fifth 15 well was part of the -- 16 A The fifth well was open to the Barnwell sands and 17 the portion of the Utley limestone. 18 Q So it does look like K values will vary as you go 19 through the backfill and into the soil that's not part of the 20 backfill? 21 A Yes. That's correct. In the backfill, actually, 22 since they vary in the backfill, as Bouwer indicates, we 23 should have used a geometric mean for this -- of this 24 permeability, which is 850 feet per year. However, Bechtel 25 people chose to use the maximum value that you obtain in this (v) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 656
/~
I l
I test, so, therefore, what I did in my evaluation of those 2 calculations, is calculated the confidence limit from those 3 four wells and determined that confidence in the value used 4 was 84 percent.
5 MR. LAWLES3: Thank you. That's the end of my 6 questions. 7 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Churchill, you may proceed. 8 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. DAVENPORT: 10 Q Mr. West, earlier you testified about the grouting 11 of well 904. Would you please describe how that well was 12 grouted?
,/^3 13 A (West) Yes. This well was one of the wells that V'
14 we drilled to obtain core data in the marl and to install a 15 piesometer outside of the power block. 16 The initial drilling of this well was with a 9-7/8 17 inch bit down to a depth of 88 feet. 18 At this point we installed a 6-inch steel casing. 19 We grouted this casina. the annulus between the hole and the 20 outside of the casing, with 46.4 cubic feet of cement. We 21 had lost circulation in the Utley limestone above the marl 22 while we were drilling this well. We had to cement it in two 23 different changes. 24 At the end of the second change we had the annulus 25 grouted up to 53 feet below Jand nurface. U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6646
26115.0 BRT 657 o <
' ~ ~
1 The next day when we went back in the hole to 2 start coring, we found that the casing had parted and it was 3 offset, so we decided to abandon the hole. 4 At this time we pumped in 28 cubic feet of cement 5 to fill up the inside of the 6-inch casing, and the remaining-6 53 feet of annulus outside the casing. 7 MR. LAWLESS: Could you repeat just those last 8 numbers again? I didn't quite get those. You pumped in 26 9 -- 10 THE WITNESS: (West) Pumped in 28 cubic feet of 11 cement to fill.up the inside of the 6-inch casing and the 12 remainder of the 53 feet of annulus between the 6-inch casing 13 and the hole wall. This completely sealed this hole. (~)'S 14 BY MR. DAVENPORT: 15 Q Dr. Papadopulos, earlier today you testified that 16 the horizontal flow was nine times the vertical flow. I want 17 to make it clear which vertical flow and which horizontal 18 flow were you talking about. 19 A (Papadopulos) I was talking about the horizontal 20 flow within the water table aquifer and comparing that with 21 the vertical flow across the marl. So my statement was 22 intended to indicate that the horizontal flow within the 23 confines -- within the unconfined water table aquifer is nine 24 times or more than the vertical flow downward across the 25 marl. Q,ey ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347,-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 658 7- s ( )
'~' You also referred to the recha'ge to the water 1 Q 2 table aquifer early in your testimony. Just so I'm clear, 3 what is the amount of recharge in the vicinity of Plant 4 Vogtle to the water table aquifer?
5 A 15 inches as calculated at the site across the 6 river. 7 Q Earlier Mr. Lawless asked you a question about 8 comparisons of actual travel times with :alculated travel 9 times. Are you f amiliar with any comparisons of actual 10 travel times with calculated travel times at the Savannah 11 River plant? 12 A Yes. There was an estimate made, using tracer
/~^ 13 tests, of a travel time of 70 years between the old burial N~
14 grounds and the outcrop of the effluent stream emanating from 15 near the site. 16 Apparently the channel had eroded to almost half 17 of toe channel -- had eroded and the travel time was in the 18 order of about 17 years, instead of the 70 years predicted 19 time. 20 A misinterpretation had been made of that data, 21 that since the channel was halved that the travel time should 22 have been halved also; that since it was less than 35 years, 23 that maybe the predictions which were based on tracer tests 24 were not correct. 25 That kind of calculation discounts the fact that (3 V l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
26115.0 BRT 659 p, ( l 1 the shortening of the pathway also shortens the distance over 2 which the gradient should be calculated. 3 I don't know exactly what elevation the stream 4 channel was eroded to, but if it was anywhere close to the 5 discharge point elevation, that would have also doubled the 6 gradient. 7 So, doubling the gradient and halving the pathway 8 should result to a travel time one-fourth the pr(dicted 9 70-year travel time or about 17-1/2 years. 10 Q You indicated that that 70-year travel time was 11 based on tracer tests. Would you explain what you mean? 12 A The 70-year travel time was based on a velocity of 13 40 feet per year derived from tracer tests conducted at the ("]% 14 site. However that 40-feet per year estimate, if I -- my 15 recollection is correct, was made on point dilution tests 16 rather than tracer tests. A value of .2 feet per day. 17 No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. My recollection -- 18 that was based on tracer tests where the range was from .00 19 to .13 feet per day, or an average of .11 feet per day, which 20 is equivalent to 40 feet per yaar and which -- over a 21 distance of half a mile. 22 Q Have tracer tests been used to calculate 23 groundwater velocities at Plant Vogtle in determining travel 24 time? 25 A No. They have not been used. A l i u.> l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 660 1 Q Yesterday, Dr. Papadopulos, you referred to a 2 distance of the power block area from the groundwater divide, 3 I believe shown on -- let me find the particular figure in 4 your testimony. 5 A (Papadopulos) I think it's figure 10. 6 Q Not your testimony, but the testimony of 7 Mr. Farrell, Mr. Crosby and Mr. West; is that correct? 8 A That's correct. 9 0 What is the distance between the divide ehown on 10 that figure and the power block area? 11 A That's about 700 feet. 12 Q You also referred yesterday in your testimony to a
/~; 13 publication by Frieze and Cherry that discussed log normal V
14 distribution. I would like to ask you what the correct page 15 reference in Frieze and Cherry is? 16 A To be correct -- I referred to page 40 of that 17 book. The correct reference should be page 30 and 31. 18 MR. LAWLESS: Could I ask the title of that? 19 THE WITNESS: (Papadopulos) Groundwater. 20 MR. LAWLESS: And the year? Approximate will be 21 fine. 22 THE WITNESS: (Farrell) 1979. 23 BY MR. DAVENPORT: 24 Q Now, Mr. Farrell, on the first day of this 25 proceeding Mr. Teper questioned you about the excavated area La ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 L_
26115.0 BRT 661 7 i' ') 1 that filled with water while construction was inactive on 2 Plant Vogtle between 1974 and 1976. I would like to ask you 3 some questions about that. 4 Would 1 caving that area excavated over that period 5 of time have any effect on current groundwater conditions at 6 Plant Vogtle? 7 A (Farrell) No. 8 Q Did that excavation expose the marl? 9 A No, it did not. 10 Q Mr. Crosby, I would like to ask you some questions 11 about figure 2 of your testimony. 17 A (Crosby) Yes? 4 13 Q Does that figure have any vertical scale shown on 14 it? 15 A No. Since this is a regional geolooic section, 16 it's schematic in its vertical direction. The scale only 17 refers to the horizontal scale. 18 Q Is that figure intended to show the distance below 19 ground surface of the formations identified? 20 A No. 21 Q What is, basically, the purpose of this figure? 22 A As I said, it's a schematic regional section to 23 clearly show the regional relatianships of the various 24 geologic units.
,s 25 Figure 6 of our testimony is specific to Plant L.)
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
26115.0 BRT 662
,a 1 Vogtle.
2 Q Now, Mr. Crosby, Mr. Lawless asked you about the 3 .3rl outcropping in the vicinity of Plant Vogtle. 4 Would you please describe generally the relation 5 of the top of the marl to the surface -- to the surface of 6 the ground in the vicinity of Plant Vogtle? Do you need the 7 question again? I was asking if you could please describe 8 generally the relation between the top of the marl and the 9 surface of the ground in the vicinity of Plant Vogtle? 10 A (Crosby) In the majority of the site area, the top 11 of the marl is about 80 feet below current ground surface. 12 The only place where it is exposed is as shown on figure
~N 13 251-12 of the FSAR, and it is basically only exposed along (d 14 the bluffs of the Savannah River. And near Utley -- Mathes 15 Pond.
16 Q And with respect to the stream channels that 17 border the site, what is their relationship to the surface of 18 the marl? 19 A They have cut down to -- through the Barnwell 20 sediments above to the top of the marl or below it. 21 MR. LAWLESS: Could I ask just one question on 22 that? It was cut down to the top? 23 MR. DAVENPORT: Your Honor, J object. 24 MR. LAWLESS: I just missed a word. 25 THE WITNESS (Crosby) It has been cut down to the O v ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 L
26115.0 BRT 663
)
1 marl or past it at the Savannah River. 2 MR. LAWLESS: "Or past it." 3 MR. DAVENPORT: 4 Q I'll address the next question to Mr. Farrell and 5 Mr. West. 6 Mr. Lawless questioned you about the permeability 7 test, the in situ perneability test that had been performed 8 in the vicinity of Plant Vogtle. In your opinion, are the in 9 situ permeability tests performed in the marl adequate to 10 determine the permeability of the marl generally in the 11 vicinity of Plant Vor tle? 12 A (West) Yes. r"; 13 A (Farrell) Yes. O 14 Q In particular, are those tests that you have l 15 performed adequate to characterize the permeability of the l l 16 marl to the south of the plant? l 17 A In relationship to the geologic exploration, in l l l 18 correlation to the marl; yes, they are. l l 19 Q On what basis do you make that conclusion? 20 A The considerable number of over 200 holes, as I l l 21 recollect, that have penetrated the marl in the area, l l 22 including extending to as much as 18 miles south of the j 23 site. The marl is consistently a tight, calcareous clay that 1 24 is found at the site area where the tests were run. The j 25 thickness is essentially constant throughout that area that ( ) m-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800 336-6646
26115.0 BRT 664 I has been explored. 2 Q Have you compared core samples taken from the marl 3 south of the plant with core samples taken from the marl in 4 the areas where you performed the in situ permeabilicy test? 5 A (West) Yes, we have. 6 Q And what did you find specifically? 7 A That the marl is consistent, a consistent unit 8 throughout. 9 Q Let me ask you a question with respect to figure 7 10 of your testimony. 11 Mr. Lawless asked you questions about the 12 tributary to Beaverdam that approaches the plant facility (~S 13 itself. How close does that tributary come to the power Q-] 14 block area? 15 A (Farrell) The head of the tributary is within 1500 16 to 2000 feet of the power block area. 17 Q Mr. Lawless also asked you about the comparison of 18 the power block heads in the water table aquifer with the 19 confined aquifer beneath the marl there. What does that 20 comparison show? 21 A The data we have -- the water level in the water 22 table aquifer, comparing that with the potentiometric surface 23 to the confined aquifer immediately below the marl, is 24 consistently a distance of 50 to 60 feet; a differ -- the 25 water table aquifer being higher than the confined aquifer. i n r~~b \ v 1 l I I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 )
26115.0 BRT 665 7 , i ;
1 Q And what does that difference in hydraulic head 2 tell you about the mari?
3 A It is a consistent -- the marl is a persistent 4 barrier to the migration of water across it. 5 Q Now let me ask you a question about the 6 groundwater divides shown on figure 10 of your testimony. 7 I'll address this to the whole panel. Are you 8 aware of any potential source of contaminants that is on top 9 of the groundwater divides identified in figure 10? 10 A (West) I am not. 11 A (Farrell) No. 12 A (Papadopulos) I am not.
,' ~N 13 Q Are you aware of any potential source of Q-)
14 contaminants within 100 yards of the divides shown on figure 15 10? 16 A (West) No. 17 A (Farrell) No. 18 A (Papadopulos) No. 19 Q Let me ask you a question now about the laboratory 20 measurements of porosity ot backtill materials that you have 21 testified to earlier. If I recall your testimony correctly, 22 you testified that in determining the value for porosity used 23 in your travel time estimates through the backfill materials, 24 you used the total porosity measurements of backfill sanples 25 that meet the compaction criteria for backfill material; is (~'u I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
26115.0 BRT 666 m f ) I that correct? 2 A (Farrell) Yes. 3 Q What is the average of all of'the porosity 4 measurements determined in the laboratory testing of backfill 5 materials? 6 A (Papadopulos) 36 percent. 7 Q If you had used a porosity of 36 percent rather 8 than 34 percent in calculating travel times through the 9 backtill, would the travel times Le longer or shorter? 10 A (Farrell) Larger. 11 MR. DAVENPORT: That's all the questions we have, 12 your Honor.
/) 13 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Lawless?
L) 14 MR. LAWLESS: Yes. For Dr. Papadopulos. 15 RECROSS EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. LAWLESS: 17 Q Your discussion of the seven years' predicted 18 travel time at the plant where half the channel was eroded at 19 the Savannah plant, as you suggested -- that travel time 20 actually came out to be 17 years versus the predicted 70 21 years. Your explanation of that was that it was because the 22 channel was cut in half; is that correct? 23 A (Papadopulos) That's correct. 24 Q The channel, as you are aware, as I think you may 25 be aware, was filled in and recompacted back to the original / T LJ ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationmide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 667 1'~ 1 soil surface. Are you aware of that? 2 A I'm not aware of when. I know that it has been 3 refilled but I don't know what the date is. 4 Q If they repaired it back to normal, to a normal 5 structure of what the normal surface was in that area, then 6 how long would the travel time take? Would 3t then take 7 another 17 years to go the rest of the way? 8 A (Papadopulos) From which point to which point? 9 Q From the point where the channel was cut to the 10 point of outcrop; in this case it was at Four Mile Creek. 11 A No. Because then -- I don't know how that channel 12 refilling has affected the gradients at that area, C' s 13 Mr. Lawless. v 14 Q Well, assuming that they could regrade it back to 15 the original surface, the original characteristics ot the 16 surface, recompact the soil, so forth and all that, per your 17 specifications, what would happen to the travel time? 18 A The travel time would be much faster from that 19 point on because you are closer to the outcrop, you are in 20 the area of steepet gradienLu. If you remember the numbers 21 that were quoted were that the gradients -- the velocities 22 near the outcrop area are much larger than near the divide. 23 So comething which has already traveled to the halfway point, 24 it would travel at a shorter tine between that halfway point 25 and the discharge point. Act-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l 26115.0 BRT 668 1 1 Q Would it be in the neighborhood of 17 years or 2 could you -- 3 A I didn't make that calculation. 4 Q In 1982, in a management appraisal report of the l l 5 repair, and a discussion with the contractor, Dupont, Dupont 4 I 6 estimated that the -- l 7 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, this shouldn't be 8 testimony. 9 MR. LAWLESS: There will be a question. 10 JUDGE MARGULIES: I think this is a predicate to a 11 question. 12 MR. LAWLESS: Yes. Thank you. ,'^1 13 BY MR. LAWLESS: </ 14 Q Dupont had estimated that the repair would 15 postpone the outcrop for an estimated one year. Does it seen 16 reasonable, then, that it would travel 17 years to get l 17 halfway and after the outcrop was repaircd, due to erosion, 18 it would travel the rest of the way in one year? 19 MR. CHURCHILL: There seem to be some assumptions 20 of facts that aren't in evidence is this a hypothetical and, 21 if so, could we have a clear definition of the conditions of 22 the hypothetical? 23 MR. LAWLESS: No. This is an actual case. 24 Dr. Papadopulos, in his questions by yourself, raised the 1 25 issue of actual -- ' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3/00 Nationwide Coverage 8m336-6646
26115.0 BRT 669
- )
1 JUDGE MARGULIES: There is no one here to 2 establish that that is the actual case, Mr. Lawless. You say 3 it is, but there's no way of -- unless you can establish it 4 as the actual case you'll have to deal with it as a S hypothetical. 6 MR. LAWLESS: I see. 7 DY MR. LAWLESS: 8 Q In the discussions of Dr. Papadopulos, in his 9 knowledge about actual versus predicted rates, were you aware 10 of the burial ground management appraisal report that was 11 done by the Department of Energy that discussed those 12 groundwater travel times?
'~
) 13 MR. CHURCHILL: Is that a published report? Could LJ 14 we have the citation to it?
15 MR. LAWLESS: It doesn't have a document number. 16 I can give you the document. 17 MR. CliURCHILL : Is it an official DOE report? 18 MR. LAWLESS: Yes, it is. 19 MR. CHURCHILL: Published? 20 MR. LAWLESS: It is an internal report. It in 21 accessible. It is considered public property. 22 MR. C il U R Cil I L L : Is that, in fact, a draft report 23 that was never issued? 24 MR. LAWLESS: That is, in fact, the draft report 25 that was never issued. But it has since formed a part of the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Nn336-6M6
26115.0 BRT 670 1 official -- as requested by Congressman Dingle to follow up 2 on the findings in that report. 3 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, he's asking if this 4 witness is familiar with a draft report that was never 5 issued. 6 MR. LAWLESS: but it has become public kncwledge. 7 JUDGE MARGULIES: Yes. We understand that, 8 Mr. Churchill. Maybe the witness is aware of it. 9 Tile WITNESS : (Papadopulos) I am not aware of it, 10 your Honor. 11 I have just had a note that says the management 12 appraisal report was provided to Georgia Power in discovery ('Q; ) 13 in this proceeding; is that so? 14 MR. CHURCHILL: The witness has answered he's not 15 familiar with the report. 16 BY MR. LAWLESS: 17 Q Are any members of the panel familiat with it? 18 A (West) It's possible that I am. I don't remember 19 it by this name. I have looked at so many of these different 20 things that without some other kind of identitication, I 21 I can't be sure. 22 MR. CHURCHILL: This is redirect of statements 23 made by Dr. Papadopulos. It is really irrelevant if anyone 24 else has seen it. 25 JUDGE MARGULIES: In terms of redirect, there was ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-M46
26115.0 BRT 671
~> 1 a lot of testimony by people in addition to Dr. Papadopulos.
2 MR. CHURCHILL: That's right, your Honor. This 3 particular area on the seven-year travel time was his 4 statement. 5 JUDGE MARGULIES: Well, I was lenient in redirect 6 and I'll be just as lenient with Intervenor in recross. If 7 you want to show th document to the panel, you may do so. 8 MR. LAWLESS: Thank you. 9 JUDGE MARGULIES: You may proceed. 10 MR. LAWLESS: Their answer was what? 11 THE WITfJESS: (Farrell) We have not seen this 12 report before. (^ x_/
) 13 MR. LAWLESS: They have not seen that report.
14 BY MR. LAWLESS: 15 0 Are you familiar with another docunent published 16 by Dupont, an internal memorandum entitled, " Issues pertinent 17 to the long ter.n operation of the burial ground," dated June 18 30, 1981? It's a letter report transmitted from H. Plar, of 19 Dupont to T.D. Hyman at the Department of Energy? 20 A (Crosby) IIo . 21 A (Pa pa dopulos ) I'm pretty sure I'm not familiar 22 with that. 23 A (Farrell) I don't remember anything like that. 24 Q On page 25 of this report it discusses the effect 25 of the tritiun migration in the burial ground after the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationside Coserage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 672 1 closure and after the repair of the cut channel. It sayr 2 that the tritium will continue to move at 30 to 50 feet per 3 year. The leading edge of the activity is moving three to 10 4 times faster. 5 Would this have an impact on the predicted versez 6 actual travel times of the groundwater that we were talking 7 about earlier? 8 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is this in the nature of a 9 hypothetical? 10 MR. LAWLESS: Yes. 11 JUDGE MARGULIES: Assume that it's true? 12 MR. LAWLESS: Assume that it's true, yes. (' 13 THE WITNESS: (Crosby) Since we haven't studied 14 the document and don't know the full context of it, we can't 15 address that question. 16 MR. LAWLESS: Thank you. Those are the only two 17 questions I had. 18 I would be glad to provide a copy if requested. 19 THE WITNESS: (Papadopulos) We haven't seen the 20 ducument. I dun't know what it is all about. But I still 21 feel that it would not be relevant. 22 You are talking about wl:ere we are already pas t 23 the point, very close to an outgrowth area. The figures that 24 I mentioned earlier -- gradients near the outgrowth area are 25 much steeper. We have seen estimates made at SLP of 475 feet ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
26115.0 BRT 673 1 per year near the outgrowth area. 2 In the Vogtle plant, travel times have been 3 calculated only for the backfill area. The backfill area is 4 not near the discharge point of the aquifer system. The 5 discharge point of the aquifer at Mathes Pond is a 6 considerable distance from the backtill area. 7 Given that, I.,would say that the fact that travel 8 times near the outorowth area in the Savannah River plant 9 would be shorter does not have any relevance to the problem 10 at Vogtle. 11 MR. LAWLESS: The reason for the question was 12 because you had presented the erosion of the channel problem 13 as an example of knowledge that you had about the Savannah 14 Hiver plant and the effects that predicted rates had in 15 comparison to actual rates. 16 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Dewey, do you have any 17 questions? I 18 MR. DEWEY: No, sir. 19 JUDGE MARGULIES: Judge Paris? 20 EXAMINATION 21 BY JUDGE PARIS: 22 Q The redirect reminded me of another question that 1 23 I wanted to ask the panel. You have testified with respect 24 to the position of the groundwater divide with reference -- l 25 the d2 stance of the groundwater divide south of the power 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
t 26115 J BRT l s 674 1 block, as illustrated in tigure 10, which is based on data 2 taken in December 1984. 3 Now, in November 1985, as i l lu s tra *.ed in figure 4 16, you show the groundwater divide actually, apparently 5 crossing the southeast corner of the power block; is that 6 correct? 7 A (Wes t ) Yes. , 8 Q And you attribute that to dewatering that is 9 taking place in connection with construction and backfilling; 10 is that right? 11 A (Farrell) The shift there is due to the 12 rewatering. (~ 13 Q Oh, rewatering. 14 A Rewatering due to the temporary rewatering that is 15 going on in plac2ng backfill. There is a marked increase in 16 the water being applied ir,.that area that will actua]Iy occur 17 under normal conditions. 18 Q All right. Now let me refer you to figure 15 19 which rhows the e su dw ter divides based on data collected 20 in 1971, whith s ior to construction; is that right? il A (West) Yes. 22 A (Farrell) Yes. 23 Q And there, too, the groundwater divide south of 24 the power block as it crosses the southeast corner of the 15 location of the power. block; is that right? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Ntionwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 675 1 A (Farrell) It passes the corner of the area of 2 excavation. That's true. 3 Q Well, my question is this: Is it conceivable that 4 these groundwater divides, and, in particular, the southern 5 groundwater divide, will move about in the future in response 6 to varying rates of recharge? 7 A (Papadopulos) That's true, your Honor. The 8 movement and the location of the divide would be, really, 9 dependent on average water levels over a period of time. All 10 these figures represent a one-time measurement of water 11 levels. 12 In terms of the direction of movement and the rate
)
13 of movement, things would be controlled by the average water 14 levels over a period of time. For short period of time, a 15 particle of water may move a little fact; the next period, 16 the recharge is down, it may move slower. 17 So, wha t would tell the rate of movement, and 18 direction of movement, would be the long-term average water 19 levels, and our evaluation included looking at average water 20 levels that prevailed prior to the construction period. 21 Rather than looking at one snapshot of the water levels, 22 looking at wells, we had records for a period of three years 23 before the construction started. And those water levels also 24 indicated that we have divides south of the power block over l , 25 the long term as well as to the east. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
26115.0 BRT 676
,m P
1 Q Well, you have acknowledged in your testimony that 2 it is conceivable that there might be ground flow toward the 3 northeast. And you have analyzed that and the consequences 4 of an accident, given those conditions. What are our 5 assurances that the groundwater divide positions will 6 preclude water movement to the southeast? 7 A (Papadopulos) We at Bechtel made a modeling study, 8 of which copies were provided. That model study was done 9 particularly for that reason, to establish that a divide 10 would always be present to the south of the site. 11 Essentially what the model addressed was, we have 12 a certain water level that prevails in the vicinity of the f^~'; 13 power block. Is it possible that the water levels south of 14 the site would be always lower than water levels at the power 15 block area? And the only way that could happen is to have a 16 very high transmissivity to the south of the power block so 17 that you can lower and move the divide into the power block 18 or north of the power block. And our evaluation on that 19 indicated that it is not possible to put a high enough 20 transmissivity to the south of the site and still maintain 21 water levels as observed in the power block area. So we kept 22 adjusting the transmissivity, where we can still maintain the 23 water levels in the power block area, and yet the 24 transmissivity would represent the highest tolerable one. 25 Q The highest what? ACE-FEDELAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8%33MM6
26115.0 B R "' 677 1 A The highest value of transmissivity with which you 2 can still maintain the water levels in the power block area. 3 And that indicated a much more severe divide farther south 4 from the power block area than we have in these figures. 5 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is there anything further of the 6 panel? 7 You are excused, thank you. 8 (Panel excused.) 9 JUDGE MARGULIES: We would now like to hear 10 argument on Applicant's motion to strike testimony of William 11 Lawless on Applicant's Contention 7, which was filed on March 12 6, 1986 by the Applicants. ~ 13 Do the Applicants have anything further to add or 14 is this their complete statement? 15 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, I would like to 16 participate in argument on this motion. 17 JUDGE MARGULIES: I don't want you to repeat 10 what's in your written statement. 19 MR. CHURCHILL: All right. Then I will do version 20 D, which is very short, and I will try not to repeat what's 21 in t!.2 written statement and just make a few maior points 22 that I think have to be emphasized. 23 JUDGE MARGULIE1: Why weren't they included in 24 your May 5, 1986 motion -- March 5, 1986 motion. Why do you 25 have something additional? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nation *ide Coverage Mn336-6646
26115.0 BRT 678 9 1 MR. CHURCHILL: I guess, your Honor, I really 2 don't have anything additional except to emphasize certain 3 points. If you would rather that we rest on the submittal 4 that we have submitted, it is okay with us. 5 JUDGE MARGULIES: I will get back to you on 6 rebuttal, but if you don't have anything new, then the 7 document speaks for itself. 8 Do you wish to be heard, Mr. Feig? 9 MR. FEIG: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 10 I would first of all like to request that you 11 allow Mr. Lawless -- Frofessor Lawless to take the stand to 12 explain or clarity, perhaps I should say, why his testimony gg 13 should be allowed. 14 JUDGE MARGULIES: You are the representative of 15 the organization and are expected to present the argument as 16 to why it should be allowed. 17 MR. FEIG: Well, I would say that I am not an 10 expert and I don't know the details of the notion. 19 Mr. Lawless has written the testimony and I would just like 20 to say it would <:eem only fair that he could argue his points 21 to clarify for you. I feel like the notion to dismiss really 22 should not be -- I don't think the testimony -- we don't 23 think that the testimony ought to be dismissed. I think we 24 would like to have it entered into the record, and I think 25 that Mr. Lawless should have the opportunity to explain why ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6M6
26115.0 BRT 679 9 1 he thinks it should be in the record. 2 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you have any objection? 3 Mr. Churchill? 4 MR. CHURCHILL: I think he asked that Mr. Lawless 5 take the stand. 6 JUDGE MARGULIES: Well, we certainly wouldn't have 7 him take the stand. 8 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, so long as -- we did 9 say yesterday that we would object and we did give you the 10 reasons. 11 In the interests of expediency and moving the 12 hearing along as we are closer to finishing up, we would not gg 13 object to Mr. Lawless arguing why his testimony should be 14 allowed in, provided he sticks to the legal issues which are 15 primarily the relevance of these contentions to the issues 16 which had been specifically admitted in this contention, and 17 not just provide further testimony or further dialoque on the 18 record about the substance of the aspects of his testimony he 19 wishes admitted. 20 MR. FEIG: Mr. Chairman, I would respond to that 21 by saying that it has come to my attention that -- we have 22 consulted with an attorney. I am not an attorney. We have 23 consulted with an attorney. We feel that at this time we are 24 really not ready to argue the legal points involved in this 25 particular issue. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Natka.,ide Coverage R4336-6(46
26115.0 BRT 680 1 Excuse me one second. 2 If you are not going to allow Mr. Lawless to enter f 3 his testimony -- first of all, I would like you to allow him 4 to do that. 5 JUDGE MARGULIES: That isn't the issue, Mr. Feiq. 6 The issue is hearing the Applicant's motion. After hearing 7 Applicant's motion and deciding the merits of it, a 8 determination will at that time be made as to whether or not 9 to permit Mr. Lawless to testify. 10 What you are asking to do is to disregard the 11 motion and permit him to testify, and there is no basis to 12 proceed in that manner. 13 MR. FEIG: I would repeat we -just don't have the g 14 legal counsel. I feel we would like to motion to adjourn in 15 consideration of thic until we can obtain legal counsel on 16 this. That's all I really have to say about that. We aren't 17 prepared to argue the legal points on this. 18 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Dewey? 19 MR. DEWEY: The offer was made to allow 20 Mr. Lawless to argue this motion as to why his testimony 21 shouldn't be stricken. The Applicant said it was all right 22 with them and it would be all right with Staff if he argues 23 the notion. 24 They've had plenty of time, plenty of advance 25 notice that this motion was going to be argued, so I don't ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 4 47 3700 Natioa*ide Cmcrage 800-33MM6
26115.0 BRT 681 9 1 see why now they want to postpone it. Mr. Lawless, as far as 2 Staff is concerned, can argue the motion. 3 MR. FEIG: It was brought to our attention -- I 4 wasn't here yesterday, it was brought to my attention today 5 -- yesterday we f ound out that Mr. Lawless would not be 6 allowed to argue the legal points and so right now we've got 7 to find an attorney to do that. 8 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you wish to say something, 9 Mr. Churchill? 10 MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, sir. The testimony was filed 11 two weeks before the hearing and shortly after we received 12 the testimony we c id file this motion in writing. We told 13 all parties at the prehearing conference in which the 14 Intervenors were participants that we were filing u motion in 15 writing which would give advanced fair notice to everybody. 16 We could have dune it orally but we thought it would have 17 expedited things if we did it in writing. That's why we did 10 it. 19 We also recognized that the other parties could 20 have the opportunity to argue orally without the requirement 21 to respond in writing as was normally the case. They could 22 have responded in writing, but it was understood by all 23 parties that they would be arguing this motion to exclude 24 Mr. Lawless' testimony. 25 We have heard at least twice since this hearinq ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Ntionwide Coscrage 800-336-(M6
26115.0 BRT 602 1 started this week that they would have people here to argue 2 the motion. 3 Last night, at the conclusion of yesterday's ; l 4 proceedings, we heard for the first time that they wanted 5 Mr. La w l e s <, to argue it. 6 I pointed out that I didn't think that was 7 appropriate. I didn't think the regulations provided for 8 it. And I gave them advanced warning that that was the 9 position I would take. 10 I have now backed off that position. I am willing 11 to let Mr. Lawless argue this motion. And now they are 12 saying, after all of this argument, that they need a lawyer. 13 Well, I don't understand what is going on. We 14 started out with two Intervenors this morning. One walked 15 out -- I mean at the beginning of the week. One walked out 16 with a dramatic flair, apparently leaving behind all his 17 issues still to be litigated, but leaving behind no 18 responsibility to proceed with prosecuting the issues that he 19 has raised in this hearing, fie 's stayed here, fie's here. 20 He's consulting with the remaining Intervenors. 21 They used to have an attorney. She has withdrawn 22 her appearance -- I don't know why. They have been on 23 adequate notice for I don't know how many weeks and months 24 about this hearing and they certainly knew about this. 25 We are prepared to proceed and they can have ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6 4 6
26115.0 BRT 683 1 anybody they want who is present here to argue this motion, 2 whether it be Mr. Feig or Mr. Lawless. 3 MR. LAWLESS: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman? 4 JUDGE MARGULIES: Yes? 5 MR. LAWLESS: Excuse me. Since it was suggested 6 that we would need -- or it appeared to be suggested that we 7 needed counsel, I have been in the process of trying to 8 obtain counsel today. I have made two or three calls. I do 9 not have it at thic time, but the motion that Mr. Feig is 10 making is in the hopes that I can obtain councel before the 11 end of the hearing. bince the hearings had another scheduled 12 week to run -- and that counsel could be obtained and we 13 could argue the motion and defend it -- argue against the 14 motion and defend our position at that time. 15 MR. CHURCHILL: May I read, your Honor, from a 16 statement of policy on the conduct of licensing proceedings 17 by the Commiasion? This is CLIO1-0, found at 13 NRC 452. 18 " Fairness to all involved in NRC'c adjudicatory 19 procedures requires that every participant fulfill the 20 obligations impuced by and in accordance with applicable law 21 and Commission regulations. While the Duard should endeavor 22 to conduct the proceeding in a manner that takes account of 23 the special circumstances faced by any participant, the fact 24 that a party may have perconal or other obligations or 25 possess fewer sources than others to devote to the proceeding ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 Muu .'.dnolimide Luterdge M433M646
26115.0 BRT 684 1 does not relieve that party of its hearing obligations. 2 "When a participant fails to meet its obligations, 3 the Board should consider the imposition ot sanctions against 4 the otfending party." 5 The thought that they could wait until the second 6 week to obtain counsel to argue a motion dealing with the 7 admissibility of testimony on an incue which we all knew 0 would be the very first issue taken up at this hearing has 9 got to be a brand-new thought and can't possibly be a basic 10 -- cannot possibly be entertained by the Daard. 11 We have offered to let them argue the motion. Our 12 position is they just don't want to argue the motion now. 13 They can forfeit. They can forfeit the right to the notion. 14 They can waive the right. The Board is perfectly free to go 15 ahead and decide it without their argument if they choone not 16 to do so. 17 MR. DEWEY: There doesn't seem to be any prejudice 10 to the Intervenor at this time if they are not allowed to 19 argue their motion. They have had plenty of opportunity. 20 They have been brinoing people in and out randomly. 21 Yeatoiday they were saying that Mr. Lawless would 22 argue the motion. I think that anything -- I would have -- 23 anything he would have to say would be on his own behalf and 24 he would seem to be qualifled to da so. 25 JUDGE MARGULIEG: Why did you feel yourself ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Ntion*ide Cmerage 800-33MM6
26115.0 BRT 605 1 capable yesterday, Mr. Lawless, and not today? 2 MR. LAWLESS: It was at his cuggestion. It 3 sounded like the arguments would be entirely legal and I 4 don't feel qualified. In fact, I don't know the statutes nor 5 the rules at all. 6 JUDGE MARGULIES: Well, this entire proceeding is 7 legal, yet the Intervenors have proceeded right up to thic 8 point through three or four days of hearing without an 9 attorney being present. Why should thic be any different? 10 MR. LAWLESS: I guenn it was only -- seemed like 11 much more of a legal issue un my own testimony and it was at 12 the opposing attorney's cuoqestion that I went out and tried 13 to obtain counnel this morning. There wac no game plan at 14 all to stall. There in none. 15 I would be ready to proceed tomorrow morning if I 16 had counsr1 at that time. 17 I quess I juct don't know what's involved in this, 10 co -- with groundwater I feel a 'ittle bit more contortable. 19 With the arguments on my own behalf for my own testimony, I'm 20 not quite certain what is involv"d. 21 MR. CilDRCilILL: Your lionor, I'm havinq difficulty 22 believing what I'm hearing. A witnesa who was brouqht in and l l 23 given perminaion by leave of thic court to help question, who i 24 in not even a member of thic organization, i :, now saying that 25 he ic disadvantaged b"cause he doean't have an attorney. ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage f46 336ud6
26115.0 DRT 686 I He's not the Intervenor, your Honor. IIe's not the party. 2 The party has had this motion in hand. We are not talking 3 about great lof ty statutes that are difficult to deal with. 4 Basically we are talking about the fact that 99 5 percent of his testimony is based on and aimed dilectly at 6 the specific things this Board has excluded. 7 MR. DEWEY: Staff seconds that statement. The 8 motion is not a very complex legal question. It's a factual 9 matter pertaining to the fact that the Board has already 10 ruled on most of the testimony that the Intervenor is trying 11 to enter at this tine. 12 MR. LAWLESS: I'm sorry, I missed his comment. 13 Could he express it one more time, please? 14 MR. DEWEY: The motion goes to the fact that the 15 Board has already ruled upon most of the testimony that you 16 are attempting to file, so it's a factual question. It's not 17 really a legal question. 10 MR. LAWLESS: Could we have a copy of the motion 19 to strike and could we riave a couple of minutes to take a 20 quick look at it and possibly we could proceed. 21 MR. FEIG: We can't find that document here. 22 JUDGE MARGULIES: We'll take a 10-minute recess. 2? (Recess.) l 24 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you wich to be heard? l l 25 MR. FEIG: Mr. Lawless will arquo the motlon. J l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 fJationwide Coserage sk33MM6
(_ _ , -- _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I 26115.0 BRT 687 s - l' 1 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you need any more additional 2 time to look at it? 3 MR. LAWLESS: It would be nice to have it, but I 4 think under the circumstances we are prepared to go. t 5 JUDGU MARGULIES: Would you want another 10 1 6 minutes? 7 MR. LAWLESS: If we could go ahead and start, if 0 we need a 10-minute break could we ack for it at that time? 9 JUDGE MARGULIES: I would expect you to argue the '
! 10 motion in ito entirety and uo right through it. So if you l
11 need the additional time, why don't you take the time now co 12 tha t you will be able t. o g o through the motion in its 13 entirety. 14 MR. LAWLESS: Yes. That would be very kind, if we 15 could have 10 minutes and then we'll be ready to 90. ; 1 16 JUDGE MARGULIES: All right. We'll take another 17 10-minute recess. la (Recess.) 19 JUDGE MARGULIES: Are you ready to proceed, i 20 Mr. Lawleas? 21 MR. LAWLEGG: Yec, cir. 22 JUDGE MARGULIES: You may proceed. l 23 MR. LAWLESS: What should I do at this time? ! 24 JUDGE MARGULIEG: Give your argumenta in recponse I { 25 to the motion. I ACE FFDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ) 202 347 37(1) intion* kle Coverage 80rk33MM6 )
26115.0 BRT 600 0 1 MR. LAWLESS: To the motion. 2 Let's see, on page 3 -- excuse me. Item number 3, 3 page 2, the attorneys -- the mot ion sayt; that the t e s t iloo ny 4 was fl]ed late, it was postdated or postmarked February 5 26th. The material was filed by myselt peruonally the 6 evening of February 24th. It was placed in the post off. ice, 7 main post office in Augusta, Georgia which has a pickup 8 before midnight, and no it should have been poctmarked 9 correctly for February 24th. 10 The question I would have here, are they referring 11 to the testimony which I did file tha t day or are they 12 reterring to the references which were inadvertently 1 cit out 13 o f. the testimony, but references that were a11 eady available ' 14 JUDGE MARGULIES: I think you may continut with 15 your argument. 16 MR. Cil u R Cil l L L : The point in the reference, wer" 17 inadvertently lett out of the teatimony and the refetence, 10 were mailed off t6o days later. fiu t the tectimony itself wac 19 mailed off that nicht, February 2/_th, a nct the ref er ences were 20 not necenaary to an immediate reading o f. the tectimony and 21 they were f or war ded . 22 The motion notea, on paqe 3, that my te.:timony and 23 the attachment virtually ignore the tive up"cific incueo 24 allowed by the Hoard; and inatead pertain alnont entirely to 25 lucues that the 11ceneinq board decided in Appiicant'c favor ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 37m Ntionwide cmerage suuwru,
_. _____.____ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ ~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ___. _ ._ _ ._ 3 26115.0 DRT 609 t t
- m. {
)
i ( 1 -- move for consideration. 2 I think both the testimony and attachment did i 3 address those issues. It tried to addreas them by using the i 4 ccientific method, not excludinq thinqc that thic person felt a 5 were poasible. I'll discucu that a little bit mor e. 6 On page 4, on the last sentence of the first 7 paragraph, the motion says that the argumenta used in my i 0 testimony do not addreca the iccuen designated by the lioa r d 9 for hearing, are nothing more than an untimely attack on the 10 Doard's rulinga; are for the most part vague and speculative 11 and should not be admitted. There wat never any intention 12 that I attack the Board'q rulinga. The scientific method is 13 a very u n t o r y l vi nt, method. 14 Fron m/ own point of view, I have the greatest
! 15 admiration and respect for the participanta here today a nd l ; 16 for the pact few dayu, but I think it'a very important that 17 the Boazd realize, as I hope that they do because that's my 18 intention, and I hope the opposinq attorneys realize, is that 19 1 tried to exclude all of my own peruanal feelinqs trom an i
( 20 a t t ack, not on the Board'a rulings, but for allowinq me t c> i i participate, on an attack on the very complicated and 21 I I 22 technical iaaues that are involved. { 23 The IJ ua rd -- excuse me -- the motion then queu 24 through my teclimony. With a quick readinq -- 1 may have 25 thinqu a little bit out of order -- but they do montion that ace.Fi!Dt!RAL Rt!PonTrins, INC. 202 347 3703 Nationside Cmerage N tt))MM6
26115.0 DitT 690 O V 1 my arguments are irrelevant, and I guess in my argument 1 2 would like to say irrelevant with respect to what? I think 3 -- I think, as a matter of fact, that my arguments were very 4 relevant. 5 The burial ground appraical report that was l 6 referred to earlier was, indeed, unpublished by the 7 Department of Energy for a very good reason, because Dupont, l 0 the prime contractor at the Savannah liiver plant, had 9 requested that DOE not publish the document; and that
- 10 document, along with the complainto that I filed with the l
11 Department of Energy Inspector General in 1983, represented a I 12 very clear warning by an engineer of serious contamination l l 13 problems at the Savannah fliver plant, problema due to lw 14 significant chemical contamination and movement of 1 l 15 alqnificant amounts of strontium 90 through the groundwater, 16 strontium 90 picked up by turtles and found in a commercial 17 hon f a rm of f the plant, and of existing nignificant levels of l l 10 strontium 90 in milk in thin area, in the Plant Vogtle area. 19 These warnings were ignored at that time and 20 that's why I tiled the complaints with the inspector 1 21 general. But they are, today, indeed, taken much more j 22 ceriously. Just like the warnings to the Gavannah 111ver I l 23 plant, my testimony and its attachment in a warning of the J 24 potentlal for serious problems at Vogtle in aroundwater I 25 contamination; and many of these innues, indeed, have been I N ,] ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 1700 Nationwide Coverage mn346M4
26115.0 BRT 691 1 disnissed by the Board. That is correct. They have been 2 dismissed. But it is possible -- excuse me -- it appears to 3 be possible that engineers who felt a warning should have 4 been given, didn't speak loudly or longly enouqh to prevent a 5 space shuttle disaster. That's something I feel very keenly 6 about. 7 As an engineer I think I have an obligation. I O owe it to my profession to treat the knowledge that I have 9 with all due respect to the individual that's involved, to 10 treat that knowledge with the scientific method and that is 11 to pursue the matter wherever it ooes. 12 In the Board's memorandum and order of November 13 13, 1905, served November 13, 1985, which is reterenced again 14 and again by the motion, the March 5, 1986 motion addresses 15 those incues in ny teutinony that I repeated that the Board 16 dismissed. Why did I include those thinqu? 17 On the strontium 90 uroundwater contamination at 10 Vogtle the Board said that they had been unable to find any 19 reference to groundwater contanination by strontium 90 in the 20 FEG. We concluded that there is no basic for thin 21 allegation, and therefore that the statement falls to raine a 1 22 genuine issue of fact. The attachment points out where the l 23 strontium 90 is located in the FEG. I think that's 24 important. 25 S t a ti s t i cal analyais of hydrodeoloq1c, or ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nailonside Coverage mxb33MM4
26115.0 BRT 692 l l 1 hydrological data. The Board ruled that Intervenors had 2 failed to show that a statistical analysis ot data from 3 exploratory wells is customary practice. I think if anything 4 has cone through during the past three days of testimony, 5 over and again, is that the Applicants, Georgia Power and 6 all, have admittedly, by their own testimony, have not used 7 statistical treatments of their data. In the testimony with 8 attachment that we submitted, we pointed out quite succinctly 9 and clearly what very fine sources in the industry feel about 10 statistical data and why it is important. 11 We've seen that there is a large question raised 12 in these hearings because statistical treatment was not C') 13 applied. It seems to me almost unforgivable for an engineer, 14 scientists, not to use the tools of the profession that are 15 available to them. And those tools are available. It would 16 have saved everybody a lot of time if we had known what the 17 proper applications were. 18 In the text used by Georgia Tech of this state, 1 19 their text titled " Introduction of hydrology" page 157 and l l 20 page 201, the text says, "Many hydrologic processes are so l l 21 complex that they can be interpreted and explained only in a ! 22 probabilistic sense. Hydroloqlc events appear as 23 uncertainties of nature and are the result, it must be i 24 assumed, of an underlying process with random or stochastic, l 25 domestic components. Information to investigate these ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 l4tionwide Cmerage MXb33MM6
26115.0 BRT 693 1 processes are contained in records of hydrologic 2 observations. tie thod s of statistical analysis provide ways 3 to reduce and summarize observed data, to present information 4 in precise and meaningful form, to determine the underlying 5 characteristics of the observed phenomena, and to make 6 predictions concerning future behavior." 7 It would have helped quite a bit it we had had 8 that this week. 9 " Probability and statistical applications to 10 complex hydrologic processes often require knowledge of the 11 joint distribution of several random variables and 12 consideration of the correlation between them. Dependence of 13 sequential events, a time series is also an important concept 14 of hydrulogy. fiethods of analysis can be extended over both 15 space and time. With the development of electronic computers 16 these methods and techniques have become a valuable element 17 in planninq and design." 18 I am quite aware of the costs of the plant. It is 19 over C8 billion. It would seem to me that methods and 20 techniques that have become a valuable element in planning 21 and design are important; that's modern technology, and the 22 Vogtle tacility should be designed with the best of that 23 modern technology. 24 Effect or settlement on the marl is another issue 25 raisod by the motion. Both the testimony, my tectimony and l l l I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 37(n) Nationwide Cmcrage mAkJwfM6
26115.0 BRT 694 1 the attachment address the effect of settlement on the marl. 2 In a very interesting interchange between the panel in 3 cross-examination, one of the questions that was raised was 4 were they aware of any means of egress for contamination to 5 migrate from the surface of the marl to beneath the marl. 6 And this question was asked repeatedly and the consensual 7 answer that seemed to come out was the only way that it could 8 -- contamination could be transnitted from one part of the 9 marl to the other was through percolation, through the normal 10 groundwater transport through the marl, vertically. The 11 settlement of the marl with the power block sitting atop 35 12 or so capped wells, wella grouted with cement, could push the 13 grouted wells down differentia 11y, in a differential rate 14 from the much more elastic marl. The grouted cement wells 15 are not elastic. They would not be elastica 11y deformed at 16 the same rate that the marl would be. 17 It is conceivable, then, that there could be a 18 different downward movement rate for both the wells 19 underneath Plant Vogtle and the marl; and this could open up 20 a pathway. So it's a very relevant issue. 21 There's no question that I was being dogmatic and 22 stickin" to what I thought was important and what I thought 23 was a very serious concern; but there is doubt, I think, in 24 the testimony given that there 1:; only one way for 25 contamination to proceed through the marl. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 37(X) Ntionalde Coverage MA33MM6
26115.0 BRT 695 1 The motion also points up that I had suqgested 2 that the NRC Staff should provide groundwater contamination 3 re s ul t.: from all other NRC licensed facilities in order for 4 the public and other Intervenors to be able to test the 5 efficacy of the NRC licensing process. What la at iacue 1 6 there is -- are the equations that are used by the geologista 7 and hydrogeologista trom Plant Vogtle. These equations, an 8 we have learned, have variables with large assumptions placed 9 on those variablea. 10 Is there any way to tie down that information to 11 what is already avai1able, what we a1 ready know or what we 12 already chould know? And I think an excellent way to bound l 13 those equationn and to also give teedback in the NRC 14 licensinq process for hydrogeologiata and geologists is to 15 know what the effect at real world data, what ettect it has 16 on those calculations. And that should be available. 17 On chemical wantes ac mentioned by the motion, 18 chemical wasteu are important for a lit of reasons. For 19 years the only thing at any concern at the Savannah Hiver 20 plant, of any real concern, were radioactive waate materialc, 21 radionuclide migrations through the environment. It haa only 1 22 been since 1982, 1983, that hazardous wastes or chemical 23 waste migration has become a real uerious inuue, since about 24 the time we beqan t.o arque on come of the se motions. 25 It's important to know what the chemical datum, ACE. FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 I446uneide Coverage NIL 33M4,46
26115.0 BRT 696 1 the chemical constituent datum in the groundwater in. The 2 datum was established back in 1971 .ind it seems to be devoid 3 of any reference to radioactive materials. The Savannah 4 River plant has been emitting radioactive naterials, airborne 5 waates, for now 30 years. In 1971 they had been emittinq it 6 for about half that time. But the important point la that 7 since the original datum was established in 1971, there could 0 be clonificant changes to the data, and it la inportant to 9 characterize those significant differences, if there are 10 any. There may not be any. Ilu t if there are any this should 11 be done. 12 Go a radio-themico constituent analyuin of the 13 oroundwater would provide that information, and not only 14 provide the information to establich a current datun, but 15 would help current plant Vuqtle and the state and the epa 16 environmental officiale know how Voqtle la being operat"d. 17 They would know what the chemicala in the water, if any are 10 found, mean when they are found later after operationc 19 begin. It would seem to me to be very important to have that 20 datum updated, and not just for chemical conatituenta but for 21 radionuclide constituents. That's very, very relevant. 22 And I suppoce that'u the end of our arqument at 23 thic time. 24 JUDGE MAltGUb1ES: Do you expect to arque on thic, 25 Mr. Dewey? ace FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 37(X) f 44tionwide Coverage Nn)4(M6
= - . _ - -
I j 26115.0 BRT 697 1 MR. DEWEY: Yes, cir. I'll try to be brief.' l 2 Mr. Lawless iuct stated that the testimony he ! l r 2 3 tiled was available on the 24th. We'll accept his statement 1 4 and therefore we will not join the Applicant in the latenesc S argument 1. t i 6 We believe that the majority of the tectimony l 7 filed by Mr. LawJecc was not relevant to this proceeding. l j 8 The test for admiccibility and evidence in the tJ H C 9 proceedinqu la cet out in 10 CPR 2 . 7 4 ( .3 ) ( c ) , and thic cection I i 10 netu out that only relevant and material evidence will be 1 11 accepted. 12 The Licensing Board in thei r flovember 20, 1905 IJ order hac set out the Icaueu which are designated ac the
- 14 contentions in t hic proceedinq, and the testimony which wac l
; IS tiled by Mr. Lawlear involvec argumonta which the lloa rd hac i
16 already re jec t ed in commary dispacition. Therefore, these 17 arquments a re- no longer rel"vant to thic proceeding and 1 10 evidence portaininq to them we aak not be admitted. 19 The Applicant hac cet out in hic motion thoco i 20 diCCerent areau where the thaa rd has already ruled. In order l 21 to save time I won't go through all the ateac where we agree 22 with the Applicant. I will juut 113t those arcan which -- 23 areas of Mr. Lawleca' tectimony which I believe are f 24 relevant, i 25 on the 7th page or Mr. Lawleca' tuntimony, under l Acti FliDI!RAI, RI!!'ORTliRS, INC.
- 20
- 44 m oo Natan idecmeran am)ww6
( __ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _
r-26115.0 BRT 690 1 the heading " Data on marl continuity," the second sentence in 2 that paragraph, the first paraqraph, statec, and I quote: 3 "On the one hand, the marl must be satistactorily mapped. 4 Dut on the other, breaching the integrity of the marl in 5 order to monitor the marl may be self-dereating by adding the 6 potential for additional contaminant flow pathwaya." Statt 7 believec that this sentence ic relevant to the iacues in the 8 proceeding and therefore need not be stricken. 9 Under the heading on the name page, page 7, 10 " Groundwater travel time," the first centence states, and I 11 quote, "Of concern to Intervenorn is not only water travel 12 time t h rouql. the power block cubcurface outward by predicted 13 Darcian flow, but since the power block subaurface coil hac a 14 significantly different hydraulic conductivity than 1% aubourface 3o11 nearby, the potential for rapid water 16 transport through fissurea in the backfill material exista." 17 We submit that thin t e s t. i mo n y is also relevant to the 10 testinony and therefore chould not be atricken. 19 Finally, in Mr. Lawlese' December 15, 1905 20 attachment, on the next to the laat page of that attachment 21 is a section entitled "Utoundwater travel time." 22 HR. LAWLESS: I'm carry, what paqe la that, 23 pleaan? 24 MR. DI:W UY : The next to the last page of your 2b attachment. The paqen are not numbered. Act!.Fli!M!RAl. Rr:PonTrins, INC. 202 347 37m Nationwide Cm erage mun)MM.
26115.0 BRT 699 1 MR. LAWLEGL: Thank you. 2 MR. DEWEY: There's a section entitled 3 " Groundwater travel time. We believe that i.e section is 4 relevant and should not be stricken. 5 Unless the Board wants me to be more specific 6 about the other areas, that will conclude my argument. 7 JUDGC MARGULIES: Thank you. Mr. Churchill? O MR. CHURCilI LL : Your lionor, my only comment on 9 Mr. Lawlesc' remarks are that he seemed in tact to have 10 indeed at the beginning of his remarks admitted that he was 11 addressing thoce issuec that the Board had excluded, was 12 being tenacious and dogmatic about it and explaining why he T 13 thouqht the incues should be in. He conceded that the Board 14 had, in tact, ruled them out. 15 The Board admitted Iive 1: ques . Thoce five incues 16 were outlined on pa go 30 of the Board'a order, the last paqe l 17 of the order, liu t more than that it wasn't iust that last i 18 page with just the title of the issues. You have to refer l 19 back to the apecitic paaru in the order where the Doard 20 defined the scope of those tive innueu; and it is our 21 contention that the material that han been cubmitted in 22 Mr. Lawlean' teatimony does not fall within the acope of 23 thone accues. 24 Secondly, the Hoard, in addition, cpecifically 25 addrocued variouc icsues that they had excluded. When you l l l Act FEDliRAL REPORTERS, INC. 20L)47 3700 Nationside Coverage Mx133MM6
26115.0 DRT /00 1 look at both or those, the definition ot the issues tha*.'s in 2 and the definition of the issues that's excluded, it seems 3 clear to us that all of Mr. Lawless' proper testimony, with 4 the possible exception of the last sect.on of the attachment 5 that Mr. Dewey referred to, has clearly in.an excluded by the 6 Board. 7 Now, Mr. Dewey referred to the paragra ph entit led, 8 " Data on marl continuity." He auqgested a septence that 9 might be relevant, the one about how the marl must be 10 satisfactorily mapped, but on the other hand the breaching of 11 the integrity of the marl in order to monitor the marl may be 12 celt-defeating. / 13 Well, the breaching of the integrity of the marl 14 in order to monitor it is the use of drill holes and wells 15 which have been grouted. That was a specific i n s tre that the 16 Intervenors raised as a contention as part of their 17 Contention 7; that waa a specific issue that the Applicants 18 asked for summary disposition on and supported their summary 19 disposition with virious aftidavits; the other parties 20 responded, this was a long process -- the hearing has been 21 going on now for almost two years -- a very lona, involved 22 process followinq a great deal of discovery. 23 The Board ruled out, at pages 21 and 22 of that 24 order, the consideration of wells as a pathway for 25 contaminants after reviewing all of the altidavits and ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. A2 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage M 3)WM6
26115.0 BRT 701 1 submittals of all of the parties. That sentence there can 2 only be referring to the fact that they are alleging that the 3 wells could provide another pathway, an issue which has been 4 considered and rejected. 5 The second item under the pa ragra ph " Groundwater 6 travel t .i m e , " on the same page that Mr. Dewey suqqested might 7 be relevant, says that: "Of concern to Intervenors is not 8 only water travel time through the power block subsurface 9 outward by predicted Darcian flow, but since the power block 10 subsurface soil has a significantly different hydraulic 11 conductivity than subsurface soil nearby, the potential for 12 rapid water transport through fissures in the backfill 13 material exists." 14 This is the tm .' t'a- in nearly two yearc of 15 proceedings that we have heard anything about, from the 16 Intervenors, about significantly different hydraulic 17 conductivities. We have discussed the conductivities of 10 various aspects of this. The aspect that the conductivity 19 of, say, the backtill is ditterent from the conductivity ot 20 the unbackfilled place ad jacent could be a cause of concern 21 has never been raised. It was not addressed by the Board. 22 It was not addressed by the parties. It was never a part of 23 the contention. 24 The second part of that, that it has a potential 25 for rapid water transport through tissures in the backtill ACE FEDERA! REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(uk33MM4
26115.0 DRT 702 1 material was not an issue, was not an aspect that has ever 2 been raised by the Intervenors in their initial promulgation 3 of the contention and in the arguments on summary 4 disposition. So, in accordance with the manner in which 5 these issues have been defined by the Board, based of course 6 on the original issues submitted by the Intervenors, we 7 contend that this is brand new and outside the scope of the 8 proceeding. 9 The third aspect, on the last page or the last 10 section of his attachment called " Groundwater travel time," 11 we have not argued that that one is necessarily irrelevant. 12 There is a motion -- there is an issue admitted in this g 13 proceeding about groundwater travel time. We do, however, 14 question its raa teria li ty . It looks to us like it's just 15 another argunent about why the Evard should consider 16 groundwater travel time, and in fact the Board has considered 17 groundwater travel time. 18 It also seems to be an attempt from Mr. Lawless to 19 belatedly explain why he asserted in his responses to the 20 groundwater summary disposition a.otion he failed to note that 21 when he alleged that groundwater travel time appeared four 22 times facter than was predicted, he failed to note that 23 erosion had cut thlough half of the travel path and would 24 also have affected the hydraulic head, the hydraulic gradient 25 through which it had traveled. He's apparently using this to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80M3MM6
26115.0 BRT 703 I explain why he failed to notice that. 2 But, most importantly, it says nothing about 3 groundwater travel time under the conditions at Plant Vogtle; 4 and we have always contended, and to a certain extent the 5 Board has agreed with us, that what is relevant in this 6 proceeding is whether or not the predicted groundwater travel 7 times at Plant Vogtle have been accurately characterized. 8 This aspect of his testimony, called groundwater travel time, 9 says nothing about the methodology or the equations or 10 anything, or the physical characteristics which would impact 11 groundwater travel time at Plant Vogtle. 12 The fact that these things, other than tne 13 groundwater travel time, are clearly outside the scope of the 14 hearing, I suppose is illustrated by the fact that we are 15 surprised by it. We didn't know about it. We had no way to 16 present direct evidence on it. We don't talk about fissures 17 or the differentials in the hydraulic conductivity. We have 18 no way of knowing even what he means or why. He's provided 19 no basis for that and we certainly didn't provide direct 20 testimony about grouted wells or any of the wells or the test 21 holes in the marl because that had been clearly excluded. 22 If this is brought in now at this point, then we 23 are left in the situation where you have new issues that we 24 did not kncu about at the time that we submitted our direct 25 testimony two weeks before the hearing and, therefore, we do ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 704 1 not have direct testimony in the record about them. 2 JUDGE MARGULIES: We will consider the matter over 3 night and render our decision first thing in the morning. 4 Is there any objection to getting started tomorrow 5 morning at 8:30? 6 MR. LAWLESS: Exc'tse me, I have none myself. Is 7 it possible for me to -- would it be acceptable for me to 8 just be here myself and proceed? 9 JUDGE MARGULIES: You leave us in the position 10 without the Intervenor being represented nere. 11 MR. FEIG: I understand that, Mr. Chairman. We 12 are just trying -- we have been trying to find people to get 13 over here to represent GANE. It's tough to get people to do 14 this when you are a volunteer organization; and I understand 15 that in the past, according to the attorney that we did talk 16 with, that some leniency has been allowed by various 17 licensing boards, perhaps to allow a witness to go ahead 18 without having representation from the group. We would lixe 19 you to perhaps consider -- 20 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you wish to be heard, 21 Mr. Dewey? 2 '. MR. DEWEY: In this particular case, your Honor, 23 Staff will waive the necessity of having anyone but Mr. 24 Lawless here. 25 MR. CHURCHILL: Is this only a question of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
26115.0 BRT 705 1 starting at 8:30? 2 MR. DEWEY: If Mr. Lawless comes by himself, Staff 3 will waive any other requirement in this particular hearing, 4 in this particular instance. 5 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Feig, I don't think you 6 answered the question. 7 MR. FEIG: We are having trouble getting 8 representation from GANE here tomorrow morning. We had -- or 9 tomorrow at all. We had not planned -- well, of course the 10 hearing did take a little bit longer than we thought. We 11 thought we had people lined up every day to be here to 12 represent GANE, but tomorrow seems to be a very difficult day 13 to do that. 14 MR. CHURCHILL: I take it that GANE is requesting l 15 that its witness appear tomorrow to present testimony, if in 16 fact the Board rules that any of his testimony is 17 presentable, without a GANE representative present? Is t' it 18 your request? 19 MR. FEIG: Right. 20 MR. CHURCHILL: If we can figure out some way to 21 do it, if that's GANE's request, I don't think I have an 22 objection. I have never been faced with this before. 23 If GANE wants it I suppose it could work. They 24 might require some help from the Board in actually getting 25 the direct testimony in, if any. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-3364M6
26115.0 BRT 706 1 JUDGE MARGULIES: That isn't the Board's 2 function. If Staff would do it that would be one thing, but 3 it isn't the function of the Board to put witnesses on. 4 MR. DEWEY: Yes. Staff will introduce the 5 testimony for GANE. 6 I would like to remind the Board that we did let 7 Mr. Lawless repre=ent GANE on the ora] argument on 4 admissibiljty of his testimony a few minutes ago, too. So we 9 have already allowed Mr. Lawless to represent GANE. 10 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Feig, are you saying that 11 you will permit Mr. Lawless to act in all capacities tomorrow 12 for GANE, in terms of examining witnesses such as Staff's 13 witness, and setting -- 14 MR. FEIG: Just on the groundwater issue. 15 JUDGE PARIS: Why don't you sign him up as a 16 member? 17 JUDGE MARGULIES: How about for setting dates for 18 filing pleadings? When I say setting dates for filing 19 pleadings I mean findings of fact and conclusions of law, the 20 briefs that will be due. 21 MR. DEWEY: We could perhaps do that on a 22 telephone conference call the first thing the following week 23 if we couldn't set that tomorrow. 24 MR. FEIG: That would be all right with us. 25 JUDGE MARGULIES: I would prefer in concluding the lh ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 C
26115.0 BRT 707 1 hearing, if it can be concluded tomorrow, to wrap up the 2 hearing and close the record, not to leave anything open. 3 Do you wish to say something, Mr. Churchill? 4 MR. CHURCHILL: Would it help if, based on the 5 assumption that the hearing ends tomorrow, we establish the 6 finding schedule right now? I haven't talked to the other 7 parties, but I would simply propose that we go according to 8 the timetable set out in the regulation. 9 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you have any objection to 10 that? 11 MR. FEIG: No objection. 12 MR. DEWEY: No objection by Staff. g 13 MR. CHURCHILL: If you'll bear with me, I'll count 14 the days. We might as well get them established now. Unless 15 you want to count the days tomorrow. 16 JUDGE MARGULIES: It's just a ministerial function 17 so we could do that tomorrow. You don't have any problem 18 with that, Mr. Feig, do you? 19 MR. FEIG: No. 20 MR. LAWLESS: They won't be here. What about the 21 NRC Staff's suggestion of a conference call? 22 JUDGE MARGULIES: If we conclude tomorrow I would 23 like to close the record tomorrow. 24 MR. FEIG: If you would allow Mr. Lawless to go 25 ahead and set those dates for us, it's a matter of formality ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Na:ionwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26115.0 BRT 708 1 just to set the dates, and that will be fine with us. 2 MR. CHURCHILL: Okay. While a representative of 3 GANE is here, may I ask the Board are you going to be 4 directing the parties to file proposed findings and 5 conclusions? 6 JUDGE MARGULIES: Yes, I will. 7 Are you fully authorized to take the steps you 8 have taken here, in terms of authorizing Mr. Lawless to 9 appear and to waiver your further participation tomorrow? 10 MR. FEIG: Right. My personal participation? 11 JUDGE MARGULIES: Or any other member of GANE to 12 appear with him tomorrow. g 13 MR. FEIG: We are going to try to get somebody 14 here if we can. But if we can't we would just have to say 15 that Mr. Lawless would have to appear on his own. 16 JUDGE MARGULIES: And you are willing to do that 17 and authorized to ao it? 18 MR. FEIG: Right. 19 JUDGE MARGULIES: We will then follow the 20 procedure and we will recess until tomorrow morning at 8:30. 21 MR. FEIG: I would like to thank the Staff and the 22 other parties involved, the Applicants as well. 23 (Whereupon, at 6:30 p.m., the hearing was 24 recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m., on Friday, March 14, 25 1986.) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
e
- +
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER e
\
7 V ! This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: .
~ ,
NAME OF PROCEEDING: GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. (Vogtle Generating Plant, f Units 1 and 2) i DOCKET NO.: 50-424 OL; 50-425 OL I PLACE: WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA G DATE: . T11URSDAY , MARCl! 13, 1986 I were held as herein appears, and that this is the original - transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. t
/ ,
(sigt) A0 (TYPED7 [ JOEL' REITNER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Reporter's Affiliation
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 444 Ncrth Crpitol Str$Ot TELEPHONE:
Wnchington, D. C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION rT (August 16, 1985 through August 15, 1986) () Contract No.: NRC-21-85-401 APPEARANCE FORM DATE FT o eck ik
/4f6 DOCKET NO. l IN THE MATTER OF 8ANE us d opi. So lo Welt do a l>l A N e Pradou l .'c cm f !
I YOUR NAME (Please print) Da~,'e ( C . F# .' o . J 1 YOUR FIRM NAME ADDRESS fido A / f- A A UE AllAvin $cm 3030'2 (Street and number) (City) (State) (Zip Code) APPEARING FOR [e e, n da A s AAedu d /VOClt~oA kW49i a a ORDER FOR OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT HEARINGS HELD OUTSIDE WASHINGTON, D.C. HEARING DATE MAAek t3 DOCKET NO. TITLE NAME OF PURCHASER DELIVER Tl 'TSCRIPT TO: SEND INVOICE TO: J stri et (Telephone Number) (Signat3ke) DO YOU WANT THIS TO BE A STANDING ORDER FOR ALL HEARINGS IN THIS PROCEEDING? YES NO PLEASE INDICATE NUMBER DESIRED TRANSCRIPT..........................Sl.25 PER PAGE, PER COPY 9-TRACK COMPUTER TAPE OR PC DISKETTE......................Sl.25 PER PAGE, PER COPY SURCHARGE FOR DELIVERY FASTER THAN NRC ORDER If your delivery requirements are faster than that of the NRC, the following per page surcharge will be added: 2-Day Daily Same Evening Del. Ir 5-day...............Sl.85 Sl.95 S4.75 NRC 2-day........................ 50.10 $2.90 Orders Daily...................................S2.80 !}}