ML20147J233
| ML20147J233 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/14/1978 |
| From: | Mccollom K, Mark Miller, Paxton H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812280004 | |
| Download: ML20147J233 (113) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:H_wlk }&f.w$my E R_L QMg q_& m,vEMBER_M_ - xygwn@, gs4 Q.qf &gQ;g ;y%g,m_a m%WQ,M%y,dQhy&y 3&;p n 3 . ggp
- fw A
Y Y^ hhN YN lh': b Y ;py -, , p.mp q v,, Q:y sqq;Y? xl it v. V Ja.B 6% WiQn, ngy by an ( w pysm Wi DM W.g 3:Q n! h W Q;a e < y:ww 9-g gw ;.p%pn m. w?h, h $h??; Q@MO%N.w m'.,lO @n$$ ? Mn "w?@ pM.p MMp,',
- W n. w.up6w;w- +MW NM +
- a' @..m gunn,n,W mmme.'
w h~ day mngs <g n n a ~C m, n, h nw e M e nn v c c ~ %; ? $$hb?$NbkhN$.Wh?. M ENch Igi YMhdM , Wsyff .? 5N;hl thfhhkW j u _%9 ? W_yh ?f l,QM 3 '+ M_' M &;@%_',[2:;M % _ep%VQ_ f
- S w n.
t lNT[b[h k @. ' ~[, / h$ 3 [\\MN/h d[t \\.h@h h.., %+k M.hg[Lg, y.N 4 h[($MV[. N 12 %:9 M; k $A j$Mkb + hhf9@M%N f Mr
- h. b h
- m. M m e m$ y@h[
I, w m ~4 4 ro ms, m m o -
- . ;g m.~.;,., &J h..i
\\ N d @ C 'g'c kh'% %. %;i. t ,p %y m$ 7 , s ' w# -m Q;p,i?.'/.a, w ?w w*6 . a, T .c. g 3, M.m. m,,,, g) n L '. w;pw h g 4.g w -i 3f-dg 2 Q Q j,Q Q
- iii y
%, ' ' ' Wy 4...f! 3: ^
- q. 'h
,y,.c m s 'g 3 ,m.AngY p Y, Q ' ffh'l m, R M,@gy Q Q %,,'Q Q :@4,, Q: r Cg y pf ,.t i,t7 s p l lcy m; umgek m,Qf.fy w:.,w01 i -y,j sy m c., -g f ff% m, ; m a
- p y 'n-M
- o.,,, ' 2 d, w:' : 4;pe 2:,. m w'
gg m V < <4 ','y 4%mb %: w . x; m' v z w^ + ~- y, 'c.D ' W a%u s k.?
- ..,\\
. !p av e s s- , om y ' _'L ';;L 2 s ' - c.f 'i@ A ' 8 Moi- ?, 5 ' f ' ':. 7 .k, _.g, ,,$ ( k ? t. M. i m y' w,W ; hq f Wl( m me ..v g 4 g' { hh. l 5' ?S k p w wum lq @4 A.2 ggr > ' < w g@ JINiTHEAATTEt oF6 ~RF O, M,. WuGaMAL n s.M GW % a >< ;+ 4 t m m. m w ~~yy v,- w w ~ m,. e~,,,. ' t. - 2. h. fffl( -ff h ^ q c
- . %,. #r u..m. La gs x
g,w n, ' m a a , ~ ar,
- e. c
, x. ..y,..Jw mk < ', e ,w.. sw ..: t i N ~- y, -/ i.;, .L Mk c. ' 8 m no dp ,.'y
- ... t-
,2r u. h ' f. ".,4_ _ _ 4, -.s,b al.l-~ ,b v r w h.,t. m t4 1 - a 'i
- k. =, k [
,,g
- ',.,\\
,4g, } [ fp I j;'* b., w ",N' I I j',,3 M q; r e 3 i +,, o 8.. [ i_; > q&%@ I j WW c; m:&< ' S '., ae 4 ,.j g o <. p 4 ', s, m -ad,v L.&q s. .4-1 .e 3 my,,, y ?.], ssu ,a ( - j+ei n.m v gyp m, g,,p 8 y p ~ 1 c-i yg .+ ,,ya j .4f.- e t r -o x,e 44 5 {)e -4 Nbh,,' N,,d : N.,d.,.b. \\3.hh...' ' hh. b'I,, I g - - 1 r i 9 + p,$, J ' l ' yl-e ? ) y + d N;o. S, f h.J'f.I,[N y 7 u' a.e, d-i * 'f.: S h .h h.,, N>,,f[.,k[.
- -[e k, II t
f; . 1#O' T I.}I,' r,;g_h.) :.@ /4' 3' A l-
- p;wy: m['
6 e. / , v,., tm-i, 1 ,g .,,p i J. ti., i, 49 3 n >$>.,,> n<.... y,
- p.. < w 1
t y.- ] f' g 3 .i >m a i
- ' N 1
.Q '.? ) .5 t (
- g w fm, mt,;f, 'c
.,,? ,Y p r %q v W ip. t}
- 3. + i
- f.,
f.V ' f/h .y w\\ i , -nl_f, c
- l t
%:p( .b f 'b.;.j a T p ^ c.. y; u 4, w ; &, ,o .. gat y wgi il' 'W ,,c' +t l,
- q.
+ ' @,i,: ; a t :O,Y p* p J A ,.')' 4 $ k'U-3, U j.~.4 'Q Aq ~4 s t s ,e I Y j., c. %, g ,t ....,r
- ,;![# -JQ J
.g'- c ,4-f.7 N.3 )'
- y. y,
, ' A f..' 'l< 'r<- w,, / 7 -)t 5. t A.)l-c - (' . fl ' l' e ., [:Y,'l ] N^ &I(^g;'1 Wb g 9_ ?, 'w' ' '[ s M.ga.,f'. Q.,,N'M.e!M,,' ..,,d. .,'t 4", ',c' t V ? + ,y> v f + j ? :n s 2m i t '1.M \\ li-4 '"c a r. 9 v~. 4-T b. , d ^^ d L. 4, i g ,.p [pl9 [ $V \\ f[P (d - 3 'M ,['k_ -, ft i [ 'r '5 9 s' t p a wr..m' h@gk) y r. .m (. . O f ",:,y f, 4 ' h t.K n s p,h _<'4 , G Cg ',o'; 1 1 y y; / j u 4
- s-o 4
w y> f C. bi- - 3 h ( 2' gesg jv P,n'? &% D a"te;-y, 3 y pa. .g, 3 9}f q w:, + e$) + ,d +w n 'N,. -j [. i .~3s, i w. i ^^ )., ,,f;m,, tt j9 E f h I 7 ;; i e m. w.. 7 gt._ qvW@: - dM l rIl t i ru i '0.,,_ht .4 . ] L^ 1 + _gbg m y,.g i &w,5. m t" i y "6 * "p y , - e )b k. a ts s
- g-
[/, > h' @d@k e' .g hs%*',, + My h,;n ( d M e', y 4~ ~Q, ni
- s..
3 , 1 ~ M O $.* ( c' i. 4 1 80. i a oG 7 ' ; Q' -N.g".., cp; sk d..q. .B m w'6giw. ', ,( y ,e.., .&n. 4 0;- i n ~
- , @a W;p)&lM %N pra
.N m m. 0^l h.f # M. $ ^i, l D4: J ,y. ..lifli 1 h: 4'."t,', ..,_.[t',' 1 - H '... .. N > u%;,, A - --Wi.". y, f W y @y,-ty r.y v
- r. v%.
i i y W u;: w, r v+- p .v. :. ,ij p e. wy 4-i 7.v t '=4- ' 1 \\ _ N.; < am(, wn..P o t lly,'- k,'* 4 L {3 r-t 4,. , ;J ^' ? 5't ) M.,n;. ? }'- );*_= ,, - { q l-? . i 5 1' ; U y i <i_'R' f,f. s '/9 'WDS, < 4[': c p,' 'g'/5 J;) U -o 2.39 q, ,d. %] l 5 JPl d lG5-g' ] Mi&w er' ti R s ~ d% %y..,' Y4p M! y j w-g- t ert g, ', i ,'. i i 4 g %yme@byW [ q %.l c'.., + i i t e tt ' ,g 5 2 i 2 \\f.;' y.b,@ "'[7 $ k hs ' YY dM k,Ni/[cmt! -di / ;nin 3 M i 1 s .? 8,, a [v s d :g?l c-. qra N9 h~ ~ m w.[, f. n <4" A,t" > N 9 pe7 w. ' " ~. W.. I i a . ~ r%J. 1< % # %.P or W< r @e., 6,Q;&/ t %W IG. f h b. f kl m-e s, o >1-wu .~.Ym &Ju t,- 3 p q.n h ica JN M, se9fh$l Y! x k' MN,hM7 M \\ t, M S %J M,e.., d., $M$$hid!,I D@w@mw %w,w.A,n as @n +, b <Wm:w i,% wp W "e y L i W;W d a s m z gry )~v m ts c, ,:a- ~Tw, w yn ma mene. g 3 Wa~Q,wg,t k.w pw w u w ra w 9~ ~- e. mmy i a% N,y p. a u-en n M 3 I a',n_ n.an-n n-n n.
3:[:X3, ~~ "4 .3 c 28835 -i m E - CRl1382-i: -.LANDON-UliITL'D STNPES OF AMERICA a ~ 1 ) VdLTZE,R - - yJ.DLOJ, M - ,2 UUCLEAR REGUIJtTORY COMMISSION-i.
- 31-l' 3
~~-------_-----,-----._:
.g i 4 In the matter of: 5-PORTLTJiD GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPAIG, Docket No. 50-344SP et al. ? G j. (Trojan Unclear Plant) 4 7 ) .i o l. .--_-------..._,--t 3 Hearing Room A 9' State Capitol Salott, Oregon J. 10I L Thuroday, 14 December'1978 t1 e .t 1 12 Tha hearing in the above-entitled matter uca j; h g3);.' DEFORE: &aconvened, purauhnt ' to adjounnunt, at 9:00 a.m. ~ [' i he = 4 8 s j 73 MARSHALL E. MILLER, Esq.,. Chair m, j litomic Safety and Licensing Board. i TG l f DR. IU',13NETH A
- C COLLON, Itmbar.
y Is i I DR HUGH C. PAETON, ibahar. 4 ID e JtPPEhPX:CE S : - {, 10 On Lohalf of Licensce: L EO l .i l MAUPlCE AXELFAD, Esg,, Lawonateing Nemaan, Rain,. ~ l.. holrad c:. Toll, 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W. 21 [ j. - Suite 1214, Washington, D.C. 20036. j l-22 . 1 ROLAMD F.-BANES, Jr,, Eng.,. Southor, Spaulding, g 23 j. Hincey, Willimmen E Ecira be, 1100 S.E [ [l l 6th twenue Portland, Oregon-97204. r zA. 121 Southwest Saltton St., RONALD JOHNSON,.Eng., jg. Portland's. Oregon.- i ,f., 5 ~.. a L e' L :~
- A
....a.. .. 2. --->c ~~ ~ a
- i f..
-.. -. -. ~.. -.. -. -. - -,... ~... f., a 2884-i l: l I- --
- jl 2 1
Oll. -l APPEhEANCES:. (Continued) l !5 im-i;. 2: ' On behalf' of -Donnovillo Power Adininistration: V. s i- -WILLIAli KINSEY, Eng., P.O. Box 3621s Portland, Oregon 97203. lJ 4 ]- un behalf.of the State of' Oregon: 3 ~ JOHN SOCOLOFSKY, Esq. [ .G t O.ti behalf-of. NRC Regulatory S taf f : i 7 i j JOfNrH Gray, Esq., and laRJORIE IEMAN, Egg., I O U.S. Nuclear negulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. i G b[ h N On behalf of Coalition for Gafo Power and pro se: l' .10. '! [ l EUGEILE R020 LIE 215 S'd 9 th Street, Portland, 4 11 . Oregon. ,.l 1;t.j On behalf of Connolidated Intervanorc and pro so: 'll z. a' [ . g i.JINA BELL, 6 32 SW 10th STrea t, Pcrtland, Oregon.
- e
l u On bshulf of Columbia 9nvironimatal Council: 1. j f; t r3 ELT.iiADETU DCOTT. lb s' e ( 16 ' f.. i 1 $Y p' - r i :- 2! h gg e A$ e I 2s.- T + ? -,. ~ ~.. -... m ......,,,w --.w.
h [ k' .I' 7 f -2885 l
- c F'
mrnli
- 1 C. 0 N T - E ' N - T S..
~ l .2 c WITNESSUS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS BOARD [ ': t. A ) j .Kennath IIorring 'f' g -l Charles Trammell ) 2887 2930 T Vincent Noonan ) 2949 [ 3 - l Daniel Mcdonald, Jr.) -IIenry George. )? i-. 6 n i 3 1 7' 1 8 i-9 EXIIIBITS ; IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE Staff Exhibit No., 11 10~ (SER on Fire Protection) 2969 2969. 11 3 1 1 ?, [ 13 e u 4 1 s d 3, 16 1 j.' )7 n 4,- 1 j: 10 E-1h Y' 70 (' ~ 2}- 4 .2?. j-.g j--
- 23-x
- 2w l
25. r a v 4 a r - t , i N ' t + Wy ,1-k'c w-y v,,.ww r-
- .m-y
,,r-r,,__wws-.--..; <m,y,.m.,-,..m.m., ...,,m. ..,. 1 ,,,,,_.4,4 .g-,_,
, = - ti! ~ 2886 e i, ' CR13 3 'i MELT' ER.- P R O C-E E D I'N'G S 1 4 L 3' 1-1 u 2 C11 AIRMAN MILLER: Are we ready? ' -o~ 3 'The evidentiary hearing will resume;- I think the g i .v-4 "Staf f hae tho' floor. s 5 MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, at this time the Staff 6 will call c panel of Staff witnessec, consist {ng of I 7 j. Mr. Kenneth IIerring, !!r. Charles Tramtaoll - both of whom have' T. k appoared before in ' this proceeding, and Mr. ' Vincent Noonan, - s 9 Mr. Daniel Mcdonald, _ and Mr. IIenry George. 10 CHAIRMAN MILIER:' Come forward, please. jg Whereupon, p 12 KENNETII IIERRING 1 13 and 4 14 CIIARLES TRM4MELL I gg. resumed the stand as witnesses on behalf of the NRC Staff, and, I 3g - having been previoualy duly sworn, were examined and testified r further na follows: ) 37 39 and i 1 i jg M1ereupon, 'i 73 VINCENT NOONAN, i gj DANIEL MC DONALD, JR., i l '22 and O)- ITENRT GEORGE o 23-j-le . ere ' called to the stand as witnesses on behalf of the NRC w g ,,a
- -jStaff, and, having beca first duly nuorn, :were examined and -
i testified las: fallows:- 3 O. } } ': I y a v j .-_... ::, ~: o r. ,:.a.: -
- ,a.
2887.. [A gjl.L 2 ' .J.- f4 ? T MR. GPAY: Tho Staff is procenting thoce' witnences. l ~ L l !) ' ?- '. pursuant to'our responsibilities with regard to the public l . n an attempt -to address the Board ques-hl 3' health and safety and'i. i I-4 l tions which were propounded' yectorday. !.L . i. i* 5.- i I. should point' out that this should not again be i i C [p taken any sort of.a waivar of our. legal position,.whatever
- ?
i '/ thnt ntight be. 4 $. a L-D ~t. CHAIRMM! MIIJan: Yes. Let the record show that as .g ] to the witnesses-produced by the Licensees yesterdey and the O e. n. g. 3 10 ' Staff vitticasse today tiwt those witnecces are called' at the j. 1-l 11 l Board's request. Uhe Donrd accapts the. responsibility there-4 p 1 'Ii j 12 l
- for, 1
1 l 73 This is not to bo coactrued no a waiver of the 3 . position by any of the parties, nor-is counsel, in'the legal p; q i i. 15 ',, im t !* r vouching for the relevance or gernumenesc of the teati-j v i 1-1 l 16j mny. The Board accepta that responuibility I b 4 1 97 ; You may proceed. 1 gg { DIRI:CT EX E NATCH i I - 1Dl BY MR G3AY: i x l 9 2n; j 0-For purpocca of tim reporter' n' information, could' L i [
- 21. [
each of you gentlemen state your nm.e, etarting with I' 4 ' eg-. Mr. Herring. l: N . (Witnesa ~ Herring) Etnnath IIorring [ g- . g A I ji .d 1-(Witness Trnrnall)' Charles Tramm211. m ).. 4 i - pt g[ L (Witt)U GG. McDon Eld) Daniel MCDOnnld-n 4 H U V 4 I l ~ +
2888' 1 A.. (Witness Noonan) Vincent Noongn'. 2 A. (Uitness Georgo) -Henry George. .A 3 MR. GRAYr As I indicated Mr. Herring a'nd fii. Trammel.1l O) have previously testified, that statements of profeccional s 4 5 qualification bave been presented and admitted into the record. 6 BY MR'.-GRAY: 7 G Mr. Hoonan, would you, for the record, state your e business address, your job title, and your job description. A. (Witness Moonan) My business address is' Washington, 9 10 D.g. 20555. My job title in Branch Chief in charge of 11 Engineering Branch Division of Op
- ing Reactors; and the in charge of the structural J
12 j b description, basically, is I c.uu ongineering, mschanical engineering, and material engineering 13 tions for the Division of Operating Reactors. s 14 0 Mr. H on m, can you give un a aunr.ery of your 15 educational, professional, and employment background? 16 A Basically, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in 37 Aer n utical Engineering, a Master of Science degree in 10 Engineering Mechanics. I have completed about n year and a )g half towards my law degree. 20 I have been in the industry from -- ctarting with 21 1955 -- 1959, excuso ra. Upon graduation from collage, I 22 ""f"Dhavebeeninthefieldofstructuraldynamics. I 23 .have been involved in the areas of vibration, aconutics, shock, .g t a21cmic areas, involving both analysis and tosts. 20 y '. I
a', '2889' a l l5 f' J [ lI'have been.--Ein my career, witnessed, or have set c . I- [ 2 f up approximatak 300 vibration l tests, 'scismic. teetc, Of l f [~ ,a all:the clectfical and mechanical. equipment, and published _
- l. pacers on. many of. the - tests that' appear in. the Shock and -
L 4
- i 5 [ Vibration-Bulletins,. published annually - in 1966, for two fi,
~ L". '6 papers involving vibration tests conducted on npace crafts; L' y 'and inl1973, on one' involving electrical-mochanical: equipment. s y!. On the : Navy Minsile Brogram, + 9 f, ; 9 Hr. McDcnald, could you state your buciness address, { r m 1 -your job title, and a deceription of your employment-dutiec7 + .p L (Witness Mcdonald) My address is Wasnington, - D.C. n. { i: 4 m' [20555. I an a Reactor Engineer, Instrumentation, and Division l 93 of Operating' Reactorc, Plant Systematic Evaluntion Program i y Branch. V . g: .I have an A.7t.. Cogree from Solano College, Fairfield; j ,,.. I - lf 16 California. Prior to coming to work at the Conutission, I was D 37 employed for 17 years -- University of California, Lawrence t Livemoro Laboratoryr Livernora, California. y j i ju During my carcer ect the laboratory, I was ! involved _. l 'pg in' nuclear effects..tosts at the Navn.de test site,;' involved in
- )
'the design of instru entation control systems for I:.ite f m g i-I Livarmore pool ~ type reactor,~promot burst reactors. i y. g W CHAIRMAN MILLER: Spell'that, please.- ,u w. 2: WITNESS IC DONALD: P-r-o-m p-t b-u -r-s-t reactors. l 2A 'Jhese are rescarch reactors, looking at the offects on l ~ ,L. ?3 : a I .h t e b 1 ,t L,L. _. ,i--.:,...,.-,-,_.....-~.-,..u.,+-,b ='
2890 jl 5 1 materials, electronic conpoaento. 2 I joined the lab -- I went to work for the 3 Commincion on a lean program from the National Laba, to assist ) 4 in the licensing of nuclear power plants. I wax in the 5 Instrumentation Control Systema Branch, involved in licensing 6 for cps, construction perm its, and OLs -- operating license -- 7 in the Electrical Instrumentation Control System portionc of the technical review. 8 During ray review in that branch, I une involved on g a generic review for the equipment qualification of.Westinghouso 10 topicala and involving the ceicmic qualification of equipnent. Currently, I am in a cystematic evaluation prograra g in which we are looking at 11 of the cldest reactors and their o 13 '-) design in rolation to our current criteria. 14 BY 11R. GIULY: , o,, 0 Wero you ver involved in the reviou of Trojan 16 safety-relabed equipment? 7 A. (Witnecc Mcdonald) Uhen I was in tha Electrical g Ina brumentation Contro.L SyStGmS Br0nch, I Uas thG primary g revie'.r2r en a Westinghouse verification program, which includes' 0 S'entingh61mo ' Topical WCAP 78-21, which was the basis for g ! qualification of electrical Claso lE equipment for the Trojan ,,r.c gy ) 23 4 facility. G Mr. George, will you state your business addrecn, 2,4 r] your job title, and give un a deccription of your employment ca
.s y 4 c .2891' i J j k 6'~ 1 duties? r '2 A (Witness George).' My business address is b'ashington, ~ [ L -3' D'.C., ZIP 20555. 4 My past experience - or education, first - I have 5 Da Bachelor of ECgineering Science degree in Mech'anical Engineer- ~ .G - ing from John's Hopkins University.- 'I received that, in 1971. 7 I also have a Masters Degree from the University ofSAlabama, .a 'and it'is in Administrativa Science. 9 I hav6: worked for the' Army Miscile Command,. Rodstone 10 Arsenal', Huntsville,- Alabama. My responsibi)itiesIthere y involved evaluation and tost prograns for various hydraulic i g3 systems in missile control.
- 3 -
.I have been working for the Nuclear Regulatory ). ' g Comatission for the past five yearci and in my present position = I is as Engineering Systems An ly t, and have been involved in evaluation of quality assurance programo, test programs, and,
- g i
g - most recently, in evaluation of fire protection prcigrams at n operating plants. I gg Q. ' Were you involved in fire protection review for g h thel Trojan Nuclear Plant? 20- ,l : [ A,- Yes, I was. Over the pact three years, I.have been g y . involved ~1n the review of the fire protection programs at a 3 number-of operating planta, which included Trojan. 43 g We pretty well completed approximately 12 reviews [ (this time. - Fire protection 'at-Trojan was one - of them. g I e J B en. _.,-,. _. ;.. n 2 :. ..u..... 4
_ _ _ __,. - - ~. _ _ _ _ _ _ -- ~ _ I .28921 . 7 I' CIIAIR!mN MILLER: Fire protection'and what? 7 WITNESS GEORGE: Fira protection'at Trojan was one 2 16 ji' of the progreans there. .3 'tl p 'w a 4 4,. G ^7 0 i 9 1 10 3. .l 11 12' e 23 u IS-16 17 1 ib 4e 4 N 20 21 l. i P2-9 '2A I L25-k n ..-W Y -. a{ ' '., _.... -. _. - -., -...... _....... _ .n.. ..;...... _. ~ - _.. 4 ,..,..._.-..-4
._;.._.7
- g.,..,,.,..,,
,y- ---y e; %Fi t I' 2893 r iT2 mml- :1 lny-kg, anny: ~ ~ IMILT SED,/ - 'l 2 Q Thone next ceries of questions will bo< directed.to 3 Mr.Noonan and Mr. Mcdonald. O i 4i Do you' gentlemen have before you a 'doctunent which 1 ~. 5 is-titled, " Report on Seismic Audit of Westinghouse Electrical 6 Equipment" which has been previously ideritified as Staff 7 Exhibit 107 8 Do you have that? I A (Witnast> Noonan) Yoq, we do. 9 l 10 Q Are.you' familiar with that~ document? 11 A Yea, we are very 'Eamiliar with the document. 12 My entry into the NRC back in 1974, I was made a i 13, member'af this t,iamic review team that was started by the 14l Engineering Branch and involved the Electrical Branch with 1,g. Mr. Dan 14cDonald who is sitting next to me. 10 As.a result of the audibs that were performed on 17 -a number of planta, this. doctunent ic the net results of those 73 au ch ts. 19 0 Could you briefly explain what the audit l20 .whic6 reculted'in this document, involved? ] gg - 11 The audit conuicted of, number one, we started i L 33 j. out,with the Wootinghouse:ognipment, looking at the qualifica-L Y l 23; l tion type tooting-that they did, their Icethodsj methodology, e 1-1- 24 j ~ ithe typeu of tests, whether it was done under sine testing- . 25 ;.1 or~ multi-frequency testing. p "ji .-m 1 a..,, , w,., e - ;. ;,,-,. ; c.. ,.-a..._-___...-. .a c.c ....-u. .._...__-u_-..-;_.a~
,rh l .'2894: O i y lt F
- ISIO 1[.
2 ~ CIfAIRMMi MILLI:T1-. Multi what? 2 MITNESS N00 NAM: itulti--frequency testing. .O. .3-CHAIRMAN' MIIutit: Gentleman, it would be helpful ~~ 4 . I<know'it is naturnl'to look at the. interrogator. Dut 5 remember:that the Board has to hear what you;are saying. You 6 have to speak clearly, you have to locate the microphones 7: . because you:are; projecting' orally now. If you will' keep that '8' ' in mind, it will' help us. ] 9 WITNESS NOONAti: Okay, sir. j 10 We looked at - as I said, looked at the Westinghousa 11 equipment. First we', looked at it from the standpoint of 12 the rnethodology and then, Ifr. Mcdonald can address the =
- .1 13 operability part of that question.
j 14 He banically visit a nu% er of plants, looking at a 15 the equipment itself to deterrtine in our own minds whether or
- ~
16 not the applicability of the 1971 criteria ac used in a lot 1 h 17 of' thin equipmont was-indeed the right type of testing to .tg be.done for this equipment. gg If not, we' requested those changes be made, or j E 20 maybo como noti testing. In'any event, maybe some changes in a i equipment.inside these cabinets. ,3 .{. h2-S sie looked at it from -bo th the construction 4 .i 33 ' standpoint and from.the operation standpoint. [24L E M* N i jg' .Q -Doth.of.you gentlemen, then, did participate in the' q c i c d i. - s ,.a 1
~ 1 e m 2895
- < '.j
- rd3)
'1
- audit which resulted in thic. report,.in that correct?
l m , l' A-(ditnesc Mcdonald) Yas; thct is correct.
- )
"h l' '3 'A '(Witness Noonan), Yes, that is correct. i t. 4 .MR. GRAY:'Mr. Chairman, at this point I'ask that U thisidocument which has been~ identified as Staff Exhibit No. 10 0
- be admitted into avidence.
[ 7 C11 AIRMAN. MILLER: -Is there any objection? 8 (do response) s Staff Exhibit 10 Uill be. admitted into evidence. to (The'documenb heretofore l 11 mark'ed Staff Enhibit 10 for l: 12 identification, was received-r. 'y3 'in evidence.) y DY MR. GRhY: H jg O I am not totally cure of whether you may have .16 already mentioned thic,~but would you gentlemen explain the l 77 results of this audit which are embodied here in Staff 1 i . Exhibit 10? 10 q A-(Witness Mcdonald) Ac we have indicated, 4 3 gg ; 20 Mr.Uoonan has indicated,the evaluation in n' seismic area is clivided into tuo technical arecs; one being the methodology, of .I 21
- i which mechanical. engineering has the responsibility, and the
~ !, ' 22 n igi ~~ functional operabilitp performanco requirements, of which the ,.3 g i =clectrical instrumentation control' systema' branch nas g I responsibility. y E a l .[ t .. ;~ ..i. E.
g 7 f 28961 mm4 1' The topical reports nystem was devised as a means 2 of doing a single evaluation providing a generic envelop 3-that could oncompass many applications. -O 4 As a result when it is assigned for review and i 5 evaluation it.is. looked at in.a very thorough manner. 6' As a result of the seismic area there were three Westinghouse 7 topicals, 78-17, 78-21 and-80-21, of whichthe Trojan facility 8 ' falls ~into'the envelop of 78-21. 9 In the initial evaluation of the report it was 10 found in'looking at the test renults as identified in the '11 topical,'that there were some questions even though it did 12 appear as the result of the tests, that the equipment would 13 function. Id As a result of this we did our evaluation and I IS asked for additional information on the concerns related to 1 16 the .particular type of equipment, its sensitivity to the 17 different methodologies and whether or not the performance j i m required met the design specifications for the application I 19 in the plant. 20 As a result of this there is much documentation, 21 'and an additional report to the one that has been presented 22 in evidence will be completed, I believe, in approximately ]' 23 two weeks, which is a' summation of what we term the 24 Westinghouse verification program, which in the reports that ~ 7, n:entioned, = with an additional '20 topical reports to support 33- \\ l
-.._.7... ~.. e ,.. 3, b y{.
- 2397,
!) r; ' g. + l J. () (. 3 g' .it. J 9 mms: I i i p . CliAIPJ4AN MILLER: Pardon'me. l F r lf J -Are you familiar with theLeontents of that report a p 4, which you indicate will bo issued in about two wecha, at f u ]- . j. least riufficiently ;to enlighten the Doard as to the mattern C I 1 I 0 bhat were contained there-that might be applicable in this )' 3 7-l proceeding? q. 8' t WITESS MC DONALD: Yes, sir. I was one of the i ? 9-primary authors.for the input on tha report. There were L .l i e -10l coveral people = --- but, ycc. i 1 l 11 1. In relation to 78-21 ue have found the topical it e t l v j, 12l report acceptable an a banen for licensing plant, and'the t
- 13
. seinmic qualification for the equipment identified in it. -l e; j id ] Ac I indicated, there.were 20 capporting topicals. 3-f I f( 15 ji Many of them were es a result of additional verification i L testing thatsaa done, which, in fact, confirmed the initial 16 - i j;* 17 testing even though we nacd some of the different methodologies i e 18 ] tdopending on the mechanical engineering assessment of the type. i} 14 .13 4 of equipment' and its senuitivities to the methodology used, ,l.' d ,a n. iii 20 f In those reporta, as I indicated, tho irdlial - i j. s 214 tosta, - for..exnmplo, design requirements are that they ' function -i M ,,1 h j!.. before, i during and subocquant to the -design event. - For - 1 h
- t. ! -
23 y ~ examp,le,.the carthquake. 4 g. l9[ In some cases maybo the equipment was not; tested 23 . during,the seismicKshaking, bur. d'id function befora and after. w tp e;; 4}a, ( i s s., . ~.=,. .a.a.s.'.L;L:,. =e:..... ,a. a=
- =..-
~ a. L
.7 r y '2'898 i, 5-mm6l b' ':And when weLdid the1 verification tests they.did confirm that i 2'- .;it would conform during, as-vell.as before and after, as an. l f F 3 example.. h N I 4 I-believe that that kind of,'briefly,. summarizes f 5 what will be In the' report. l 6 In. addition.to the report.itself there are, I c .7 .believe, 100 and come document references of'all the 8 information that was the-bases for our conclusions. I i. If I could add tothat a little +. 9-WITNESS NOONAN: p 10 bit, Mr. Gray. l v <\\ ,13 Part-cf this report also includes the paper that . e have.just submitted into evidence as Exhibit No. 10. 12 w 13 I' would like to expand slightly;on that paper and the way g 14 that it is written. 15 The paper itself end6rsoc the latest IEEE 16 document 344, 1975 as being the appropriate document to 1 17 proceed.with now from this point in time for testing of. l 18 new equipment. This paper is not intended to indicato that we-I 20 = invalidate.any testing done prior to issuance of 344,-1975. L21. In fact, in our audits vc found that under certain cases, 22 teeting.that.was done under the 1971 version of 344, and 4 the testing.'is -- l 'i '23
- particularly some of the sine-boat testing, 24 the?aingle-axis' type sine-bsat.tecting as prescribed.in the 1
.25 1971.doctmient ---is by f ar the more concervative test 'in - a M 4 3 _p; i
s ,li' 2899' mu7t I~ certain.cssess It has -to be lo'oked at from "the standpoint of. i 9 the type ~of. equipment'you are talking about, the judgment ~ F d,.~i made as toithe appropriateness of which test is the more l(h 4 -conservativo or.the botter test'for that type.of equipment.. ~ l 5 So I would just like to make that point that this 6 document,.you know, doesn't say that testing done under the h 7 oldE1971" document han been invalidated. l 8 BY MR. GRAY: l. I believe page 12 -9 0 With regard to Staff Exhibit 10, 10 of'that document, thero were five' items or conditions, c 11 Can you explain .do you have that document? 12 A (Witness Mcdonald) Yes. i [- g 13-Q Can you explain the significance of those i 14 conditions and in addition indicate if you can, direct that t 15 toward. Trojan and toward the significance of those conditions 1 16, with regard to the qualification of Trojan equipment and the 1 q 17 results as to this audit. 18 A (Uitncsc Noonan) Okay. I will address a few i i 19 of the items'and Mr. Mcdonald will address the other'ones. j 1 1 A 20 I will basically talk about - all five items i lr 21- .have been resolved, particularly for the Trojan-plant, all 4 22 -. .fivo items are resolvod.'And it would say that the testing 23' 'done'for Trojan it -- has both been' approved.for the' type of ~ - 24 . testing.they did - has~ boon approved as the adequate q 45-
- saismicfqualification of that equipment from h safety standpoin
-l W i .l 4 s - :-nu m ,.,-e..__,.- ,.,~ ~ ~ _u.._-,. ....-_...;_---,.----...-.L.-.,
. C 2999; l mr8 I ] JThe one.of substance, I think,~is Item No. 3L i i '2 where wo italk about the performance of it, and I think I '3 would-like to have bir. Mcdonald talk about that particular hh I [- 4 paragraph, because I think that is the one that should bc I ' l. 5 discussed', probably. 6 A (Witness Mcdonald) Item 3 is the electrical-7 ' performance. ~And as'I have indicated, we expect within about ) O' two uceks to have the entire report that addresses all 9-areas, and its: supporting documentation. I 10 ,As far as Trojan facility and the requirements of .11 78-21, they have met all requirements the test results 12 indicato. .c g 13 One thing I might mention in-addition, the 14 confirmatory testing done in most cares was done at a higher 1 i . i i level than required by the' generic topical report which did le !, provido even the additional margin in the assurance of the l F l I 37 jj aafety requiremonta and operability. ] i je ] CIIAIRMNF MILLER: At what level were you speaking? t i 19 WITNESS MC DOMALD: Do you know?' The-level of 807 l l '0 WITNESS NOONAN: I don't recall the exact level. 2 1 21 .Ib-in_what they call the high neicmic area that would.be ( L 22 ' appropriate to the Diablo. Canyon area. [- i3' ' WITS 4SS MC' DONALD: The PCuE they refer.to as 1 i-j. l i. T4.7 Pacific". Gas s. Electric, I'n not sure of the exact number, but [ 2 ~.(: t .i s M I.*.,b NN #. b' ,bve 9 - r i i l :' !-) {;. !a.2, _. _,i - - ~"
l :. [ l j 2901" c i' ~.. 1 BY. MR. Gi?.AY : [ t3rsn1 i }! /f ZER/. 2 - Q' 'Would you gentlemen explain what,itandards the j j.: ? a 7l Ntaff considers to be appropriate, and what standards were l {h I I 4.{ .used to assure the scismic capability of the electrical y a 5 and mechanical equipment at 'Projen? i i' ~G A (Nitness Noonan) He considerede as inentioned -i t 'l previously,.the IEEE 344-19?1 document as the hani.c t 10 i document. i 0 We' looked at it fron that $tandpoint,'No considered'
- i. s 10 j what the updated version, the 1975 version has, as far as 1
r 11 ' the effect on the previous qualification testa, whether there l ~ i l 12.l was anything we wanted to have redone because of the new I 13 cpacs s 1 14 We looked at the' Westinghouse topicals WCAP 78-21 t a' iS primarily, its it relatestto the Trojan equi s.ent. And we t i j V6 h, looked at the test levels and hou the spectrwns were _ shaped, d s-a [ n We talked about the amplitudo levela based-upon 1 4 ja j[ ujtat lovels in the building the floorsresponce-spcotrum was a L -Il i. M to it devaloped. 4 i .6 'd -r j. 20 f -So all.that critoria was co7sidered in this t n ep Et.4 hvaination. 3 :,t-' .b 4 3: m i En -1 '" In addition to that, Mr. Mcdonald han soms other j h. k. O 23 - y ; criterion. 'it s [ ' 21 0 'I.'m on two S-2 A (Nitness Mcdonald)-- g lelectrichl'GlGCtronic engineering VIOrking roups developing daught au m i c dl fld? 1 (L Eg. $ h.' .,,.. ~ -.,. - . ;:w,,; :,a :- .+ ; .a n.....;:... _ ..a. z... - w.. . w w.=:. -.
- -..... -.. - - -. ~. _ -. . -. ~... - -. l '[ ,._-4 1 l- - 2902 l l-2 i'
- ]eLTgen.
1 atandards for qualification of equipment.for Class IE electrical. { l 31 1 . 1 2 fimctions. hbcontd- ,1 L L 3 ~ As we are. all' avare, as we learn more, tand-technologr ; -O 4 increases, we find more waya to demonstrate by tests and e 5, ' analysis whether or not wa have assurance that equipment can 16 ' function and perform its desired safety-related requirement. 7] As Mr. Noonan indicated, in this case, the verifica-0 tion tests done,-in fact, confirm that the initial were adequate [ D dnd for certain types of equipment probably were more covero 10 than the newer requirement. t1 From.the functional point of viou, I might nention 12 - and this was applicable to Trojan - the output relays for.
- .g 13 solid state protection cystem were all replaced with rotary-1 14
. type relay, the basis we had on the initial tests -- there were i: !5 some spurious operations. 4-(; 16 It did not indicate that' all of the relays would i
- j operate' spuriously, but there waa b chance.
In most cases, the a s T gg spurious. operation would lead in a cafe direction and provide i [ <;9 the. safety function. j i i 20 But, under a certain set of conditions, there could 21 . poccibility of' getting an adverse function that might be ~ be ) 1 22 .dotrimental, co we.did, in fact, replaec all the output relays. 1: - 23 .V7 ell, I do know that Trojan has replaced theirs. j g,4
- at'tL generally' speaking,. for the! functional requirements, wo 9have
- confirmed that the initial tests were adocfuate and' did.
.25-e [ m o 4 w m ...;,..m-.~...1.-. m n-.- ~.
- ,,.-....~..*---e.-
.,.---.',-rr- -. E *w ~re,ve-i
i; -,.-._7- .r., e .I 2903J + ', i 2- .i U a Y.17' dariionstrnte.the operability. 0 1 o 6 -f [ CHAIR!stN ' MILLER: For the record,-'could you 2- .i 3' describe the way that you used the tam " spurious"?
- f i.o -
jt', [; 4 WITNESS MC DONALD: Spurious - IEEE 279 gives un [' It 's lt S. guidance in designing the, electrical protection system. i i [ 0 indicates that it chould be decihned to function, as. desicpled, p , and provido.the safety-initiating signals, cafety requirements. i b If,.in fact, riven a seismic event and a safety. t e i-9 } L 9 'l signal is not required by' the variables !nonitored by come a 30 )' coincident logic, indicating that a safety function should l: y 1; occur, but an arbitrary boence -- or I use the term "cpurious f 12 operation", which. initiates a cafety function when it was not l 93 required,.would be in the nature of spuricuc. g i Most desigue are buced on if c. spurious occurs, a 14 15 } failsafe denign, 'it would ;;rovide the rmfety function, but it I ) uould depend on-other conditions. It may not be desired under 15 a cerhain set of conditions. 17 l l CEAIM1AN MILLBn Thank you. gg and.MM:jl LP11 DON 19 fis i e i e t3 ' i L - 21 m y 23-b 'I I j, .y i o i :. x= =.. - -..... = = -
'4WEL. 2904 f wel 1 s l BY MR. GRAY: ) 2 0' To your knouledge, is there any electrical safety-l Il i V 3 related equipment in the Trojan Control / Auxiliary / Fuel j O { d 4 building complex that has not been tested or qualified accord-1 i 5 ing to the standards required for Trojan? I g A (Witness Mcdonald) To my knowledge, there are none. ~7 O Mr. Trammell, the Licensing Board inquired yesterday ) g into engineered safety feature cuitchgear, and a matter with --g regard to concerns thct may have been raised as to that 10_ equipment, and how those matters were resolved at the operating 1' i' licence stage, j ) 12 Can you explain how those matters were resolved? A (Witness Trammell) 'Ie s. The branch input from Mr. g a y Pollard's branch, Electrical Instrumentation and Control i yg Systems Branch, dated April 19, 1974, and enclosure 5 to his g limited appearance statemcut, did indicate an open item under j Section 8.3.2c saying that the entire resolution of the l
- 7
- g ccismic qualification of the EEP nuitchgear uould have to take 1
4 place later. gg 20 Suliscqur.atly, PGE amended their application in May 1974 with Amendment 13 wherein they state that they had made 7,3 some changes which are more or less suggested in this Branch <w O'd 23 -input. And as a final resolution, the Safety Evaluation Report i i of October 1974 ntates that there is no open items in this rA area. g
,p E f 2905. WElf2-1 CHAIRMLIP MILLER: Did-it cover this particular T raatter, or was it just a general statement? .3 HITNESS 'PNECLI;: No, it covered these concerns 4' - apecifically. I wasn't. involved at the timo, but very i . typically what happens, and it's understandable, is when a o 1 Y ' project nianager geto: an input like that which basically ] T says later. that'a not a colu' lon-oriented type of input, c 0 actions are noually taken ene way-or another to get the thing 9 moved.off dead center. And apparently that's what happened-l 10 in May of74'when PGE volunteered on amendment to their 13 ^ FSAR. . i 12 CHAIRMnli HILIIR: Are you referring to page 10 4 I g' 13 of Mr. Pollard'c written limited appearance statement, 14 paragraph 8.3.2? 15 UITtTESS TRnRi4 ELL: 8.3.2, page 10, yea, cir. 5 IU' CHAIPl!AN' MILLER: Of Enclosure 5 thercof? ,i 17 UITNESS TRAIDiELL: Yes. 1 10 CliAIRMAM MILLER: I think there are several matters 19 that I'd like to be sure you are addreasing specifically. 20 One of them relaten to the types of relays which l 21 will be replaced that may have been addressed, but I'm not 22 ' cdre. 4 l 23 -Gecondly,:the consideration of. automatically ~ 24 , blocking the tripping functions-of.obber relays, and-so forth.. - i 13 Next is the additional information on the seismic qualificatio:- f j', I d a '.{ .'E i +ve r;+$. w ;,. e ua ..w.c. (ow.., -ww,..r 4.,--w . w ra.- r ,.,--tr ,.w* e,.e -esc +9 m ---..-=me...-....,+. m eee-=~.-*s*+u~e.+."-e=---e..ee-sur e- .ww -d
);.. s' ,,.._m_._.. [ 2906 wc1T3 )' lI L program, and the;results of tho. evaluation of the inadequacies i ~ '2 of the testing will be reported in'a supplement to this. / j-
- s b You may have covered it, but I'd like~you to cover
-] 4 UPUC.ifically'and concretely those nattera ' if you would,. r 3 I { g.j.please. 1 ). WITNESS. TRNGIELL: I'll road from the original' ]- G t 7j Safeby-Evaluation Report,;as published by the Commission, j. F . taking those: items in. turn:
- 3 3
D "The Applicant cubsequently stated that those I types of relcyn that do not have adequate capability 39 y to withstand seismic events will be replaced with g [ relays of a different manufacturer for which test l-data indicate a capability of 5g, a greater capabil-g ity.than in required." .g. so I believe that takes care of one of the items. g i [ 16 j . CHAI1GIAN MILLER: I think va've had testimony, i' l have uo not, that that wac in fact done, that the replacement g actually did occur. In that correct, Mr. Axelrad? 1g i j.
- 9 MR. AXELRAD
Yas. CHA12MTdi MILLER: I sc understood from the 20 .t i i ll -witnesses yesterCay, but I wanted to underutand we wero g l l _g j -talking'about the same thing. l l. - F MR.'AXELRAD: q . Yes. p e i MITNESS TRN!MELL: .The other item is: ,.c4 " Relays that are nounted:for locations at-uhich g- [3 L N ew w e, ,--4s w+wm e r-e +g we-e -+ > w t w 4 =f w w, 'e,e -r f r ea+**r' a vwher-r ve
===-e-----e--ame ++- -r--,-+ -=---*-e--dw-----'- w e---=*-n**w'---~-wr-
_.~...-..___m _,h + l .. V, e. l. 4. L 2907J R 4 3 Ltho' amplification factor of the energency diesel- ~ Ii 1 i g'enerator switchy' car has not been determined will- '3 [. be autenatically disconnected from breaker tripping .'g' l 4 circ &its when the diocol. generator has received an c U-outomdtic' start signal." p ' i' .i E 0: The third iton, I. belie +7e,.'is: 1 7 "Other relaya.which could mia-operat6 during i 4, 1 8 h( .a ocismic occurrence.are used for alarms only so that o i D l at worce their mic-opera':. ion vould only. cauce an .I 10 J nlarm in.the event of an GEE." ia
- 11. j, In the conclucion we find that:
) f "The nodifications proposed by the Applicant 'n. 1 lg a vill provide reaconabic nacurance that the occurrence U V of an SSE will not result in the loss of capability 't ~ ] to perform the safety functions provided by safety-15 ? K } related electric cystema..Therefore, we conslude j 4 l' 11 that tha scienic qualification of the engineered -{ Mi [ s'.ifcty fantere switchgear meets the requirements of-I e,, 19 the commisnion'a regulations and in ecceptable." l t j ' q 20O MR. RODOLIE: 15:cune me, Mr. Chairman. n &. l3I' Maybe Mr. Tracnell can cite the pauas.and acetions f 4 l a c.: ' E ;h no's' reading from ' ) ..f '?F li - Camo!MJ MIHan: Could you, pleaso? p I .n U as 1l HITNHHS THM2 FELL: This;in Section~U.3.2 of ' tr .g3 khO GEiginC1 Safety: Evaluation. ECPOrt. for Trojan, PagS ~ 8-6 7 .Os V.,,: . + / - k- - E' J zJ ' a 4 a
r i. f- 2908 , wel d ^ L f.x and:8-7.. m ll._ 2 BY MR. GRAY: 3 0 Mr. George, you indicated that you wore-involved 4 in the fire protection review for the Trojan Nuclear Plant, 1 + [ 5 icLthat' correct?
- j t
i 6 A. (Witnens Goorge) That's correct. l 'I p 7 Q Based on your involvcment and your review therein 't j. 8 did you identify'any fire control or protection equipment-1- 1 9 that is classed as safety-related in the Control / Auxiliary / 10 Fuc1 building complox? [ 11 A Based on our. review we cre not aware of any i [ 12 systems in those areas, any fire protection systems, which .*g 13' are' seismic-1, l 114 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Are you giving some term of: art .) i f.< 15 in seismic-l? In other words, we want the whole picture. l i 10 You're not limiting it, are you? j; 17 BY MR. GRAY: 16-0 What are you referring to? t IS-A (Witness George) I'm not sure I understand. r P0 Whether there was any acicmic design criteria for the systems, =j s j t 1 [ 21f is that what your question is? 2?. O' 'Well, uhat we're really acking is, the! firo e e'- 23-protection and control equipment in the building complex,.is I 24 that classed as or considered to be safety-related equipment ,h bs as ne refor to safety-related equipment, such as the c [e I '.i.... - ',-u .._..._._..u_...._,_._,,__._.._.._..___._._______.__._._..__,-
.r.. ce i 2a' .2909 b I [' Lwelf6 c l L12 cimergency core cooling system?; i-$- 2 A-No, it's not cl~ssified'as safety-related.- { a i. i 3' 10 i.g Will you identify and lict, to the best of your [ 4 ability, any ' fire protection cyctem, components and oquipment J L i 'in the Control /Atmiliary/ Fuel building complex? 6 . Ji Chay. At the timo of our review, these building bu 7 j, included a ntuaber,of various protectivo. featurco. '8 They included some firo actection devices in.a 9 number of arene, including cable cpreading roca and some ~ ' 10 additional' rooms, t e j-11 .They itteluded hors standpipes and nmnual hose i: 12 stations. I .j 13 It alac included portable fire extinguichers, 14 C0 hose cart.- i y l ~ I 15 There are also fire barriero, which are separating i 16-the-varicus'arcan into smaller rooms, so that the fire c 17 offects would,.be confined to thoce rooms. 4 19 1 I think that essentially covern - excuse me ~~ 19 'there is also an automatic cprinkler coverago in a couple of - c L S.O locations, The cable spreading room has an automatic sprinkler 1:. 21 i , cys tem.. Thero's a redwaste and bailer area which also ) 22 . included ~a aprinkler syctein and uater spray systema on a 3;h' h3 - number of charcoal filter units located in the Auxiliary. l h I / .i e n;, 24 -building. l ts o-3as thero been any evaluation made of the l h 4,- i t ..F4 i i d q
- -..'.uia.::
--......L.C ...i -, :, : -.. ...~,.-~..i-,---.a.+a.-
'g
- s n
1 t 2910 D t, i L wel17 ,.1 .posnibility of a fire being initiated by a seismic.. event?. f I. 'g ix t .Al Wo.have not performed any~such evaluation at 1 . - 9. u i;;.
- Trojan, i-j.
O Can you indicate why? l 1 D j. A-TheiStaff criteria which wore developed' subsequent a to the Browns Ferry' fire are contained in Appendix A to the i' 'O E '. Branch-Technical Position 9.5-1, and that document does not s 0 establich any' requirements for fire protection systems to i l G be, operable following a'neismic event, i ip i to The basis for not having this requiremont in .j. j 11 [ Appendix-A of the Branch position stems from a number of I U ~ reasons, a combination of reasons., i-f $. 13 Eccentially, the Staff does not believe that a
- [
l'I ' seismically-induced fire is a likely event. The types of b d j 15 failuren of equipment which could result from a seismic e 16 event and subsequently lead to a fire, generally are not a j 17 located'in safety-related areas, thinga like turbine lube oil' l' 10'. piping, some hydrogen linea, that sort of thing. i ID You generally hava the fire barriers separating ++ t 20l nafety-related areas from the non' safety areas, = 21-Additionally, there is reasonable assurance that l fire protectionLsystems would be operable following a seismic EP fh e 23-lcvent.- This includen'a numbarsof-things. The manual fire I -24 y, fighting capability, _ portable extinguishers would stillLbe
- l y
n.. , Personnel would be available. All plants, Trojan j PI, -availablo. e5 e i l-i i x _i F
s_ .l ~ .i wel~S / 2911: 1 lx 1 includad, are required' to have a fire brigado on' cite at al.1 I 2 times, and-thene individenlc are trained'to fight firca l' 'O-3l manually using portable extinguinhers or uhntever equipment I O is availabic. l-j' 5-Laditionally, historical data uhich the Staff l 6 has, which provides information on the capability of fire 4 7 protection cyctema to withstand carthquaken that havo J i C occurrcd in the past, indicate that ac far ao fire detection i 9! nysteau, failurea which wara identified uhcro carthquakes 1 1 10 I have occurred., ubero one nuitch did not ';endor the systens J. 11 I inoperable 4* m.ight hevo been rcounting brackets ~ 12 CH. h!MIAN MILLER: Might have been what? Q 13 MnNESS GEORGE: Farden me? 14 CIIAIRIiFdi MILLEP.: Miciht have been what? ift WITNESS GE0DGE: They included things unch as t l i 10 mounting bracheta, but the donector remained in place and 17 the deberter romeined oporable. 18 ' nn far na suppression cystems atui aprinkler e 1 19 Gyntems, in those creas uhere they are designed to the Code f' EO requirewm be the EFPA Code requirements, which catablishes g r i 91' requ.tremanta on slae or piping and nounting technu,tuen end e i 1 4 M l neerinic, the hiutory has shoun that in noncly all casos ri O. 1 3ri theac remained in placa nnd remained functional. 26 Again, most of those frilures have been failurca I 20 j of perhapa.a mounting support. Ths piping utnya in place. 4 l l [ v (!. ..... - - -.., ~. -.. ~.,
m /bI 2912- '. wel19 ' >i 1-iones:where the' equipment wanlfound to fail was one where 2 =( f. ~the b~uilding' collapsed. But the suppression system.didn't ~ 3-fail'in'thosaicanes where the building. remained. intact. ^pL What' magnitude of earthquakes 4 M 4 CIIAIPMAN MILLER: li were involved in those that you mentioned? 4 WITNESScGEORGE: Ohny. I-couldn't specify exactly i l
- 7 what it 10 The - San Fernando carthquake of
'*/1. won.,here a 'O 'large part oflthe data comen from. I'm not familiar with-o the magnitude there.: T1ui area involved wac, of course, 10 basically San Fernendo radinc, looking at those buildings. 11 -I. don't know if anyone~else on the panel could 12-offer anything on:that. 13- .DR. PAXTON: ~You were, then, referring to general 14 experience,'not experience in nuclear planto, I gather? 15 WITNESS GEORGE:.That's correct, relating to IG general experienceLon fire protection systems installed-to i 17 NFPA Codo requirements. la I will add that.in our review we looked very 19-closely at the design of the fire protection systems at ~ 20 -Trojan,-and they are in'conformance with the Codes. -21 .DR. MC COLLOM:.The NFPA Codes? 22- . WITNESS: GEORGE:. The NFPA Coden, that"s correct. ~ 23. 'BY MR. GRAY ' 2f Q For th's record,'can you tall us what NFPA is? [I i l25-L. A I Diitness' George) National Fire Protection i '5 -)' = 2 _"______-__- - -
Q .p; .s c- " ~ - ' " - - - - - } .w pn m 1uel 10L J2913 L ' 1 p!: 1 o s o j -q 1 Associat:lon code.s. 2 [:-7 2. I might also add that they include the'Mational. 'l y bt', -3 Electric Codes,-;so that it's a combination of the two that 4'. l h.) N' apply ' to tihe detection ' cystems. l' 5 So what this.meane.:is that the Staff' criteria d. doe.s notirequiro.a seismic evaluation,-an.dvaluation of'the n. 7. effects or the potential for esismically-induced fire.. '8 - However, in the course of our review we.are taking-9 a :look-at hazards in the-plants. and where they. are located, 10' and'of cource we did thic at Trojan, in taking a look at l' 4 11 things which, if they failed and resulted in a fire, what 4 12. is'the effect on.the cafety systems. Y 13 l DR. MC COLLOM: You started off, "In our review." -!4' What review is this? t i b "P This is in cur 19 WITNESS GEORGE: -I'm sorry. [ If! fire protection review of Trojan. I'll go back and explain 17 that. J. 14 'After Appendix A to the Branch position was b 19 isoned, we~ initiated, then, the review of all the operating ii, 10 Plants-in' terms.cf fire protection programs. [. 21 -At Trojan-this began -- I believe it was like 'f: i A?., February,!Iarch,.of 1977 - 1 somewhere in that time. period b i 123' we. initiated it.- 4 in ?) We visited the plant site a couple of times and O!$ ' :ohtainaa incormation.from ehe.Licensco hacea on:an analycis ay J b i L:.. .-__,._-__._-_~-..-...L.-.-.--., .-c L.. Ln n .-~ + - - - - - - -.~,.. - n n -.~ - w~~.nn~ ~ m ~ ~ ~~, + v n.m r ~ ~c ~t w *-
Rhc T Wi ! adH 2914! Lwd 1111 l Lwhich he h'ad:' performed, along with. fire protection consultants, L 2' An'd the Staff (evaluated that'with'the assistance of fire. O n,' .3 , protection consultantn also. 4' - CHAIRMAN MILLER: Do you have any reports or 5' -documentation an a' result of that in relation to Trojan?- 6 - WITNESS GEORGE: Yes. We have a Safety. Evaluation 7 'which was: issued:incMarch of '78 uhich addresses our review 6 of Trojan. ? CHAIRMAN MILLER: Is that in evidence, or has I 10 that been marked? 1 ll
- MR. GRAY:
No, that han not been marked, Mr. 12 Chairman. ^T 13 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Do you plan to do ao? -(O 14 MR. GRAY: If the Board wishes wo can offer that 15 into evidence. I 16 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Nell, since it's been referred j l 17 to in. the testiraony and it appears there is documentation, 18 'I thinit the Board would. prefer. If you don't want to vouch f 19 co:: it, wc'll mark it. 20 - MR. GRAY:. I probably don't have.quite the number l .1 21 of.copice -- ri; 22,.. CHAIRMAN 11 ILLER: All right, we'll relieve you. ttemporarily of that imposition, but if we.can get our hands i J23~ ' mi at' leasti one ' copy, and th'eti you can supply copies 1to the l fei ' i .h L29 . parties when'you are:able.
- c l
I 1 t? r p
E y s i' j '2915 ~
- vol(.12l0 i.-
f i t l: 'p1 ,l!ITNESS GEORGE; wignt c4d that so.r of the ) c I }j 1 t, o a, + M Jintormat w.n 'ntan you know nign
- r
- percinect to wha.t we. re e
b . f 4' .L ?, 8 discucsing here, I don't belia:.vn m discussed in det: nil in - )
- -h'
,. b '
- h. the DER bocause m + uwan' t iwking at the potenti:0 for 1
r 9 M .I]h noinmically-induced i: ires. a .e q-O ji Hovever, as I 'indichted, we did look at a nu:rber i I' c:f h:2crda'Vnich if the.v. failer.t potentially could affect t I n 8p Jnfsty-related Gm. dfanent. And in WnnV CaCC0 bhat includes g .5So h ) nh br ) Nhj 3 ((N Eb O b b $. Y Cb N., b e 9 l:{ ' OH We looV 6 nt thirge 1.'ce hydrogen linor ilnd hcw 1 1 i. e a 1
- i fhGyb;C COutocl. hhrough the pinelt propane lined fual Oil j
7 7 4 i P j 1.4 nes, ana those types cf thinga, not considering'uhat the j 0 ,b J cao.m was or fa!, ling but just 00hnidaring frxilurc3 as a 1 o I. !, USUlt Cf firG. s M & P, T r o..i a n n l a n t <, i n a n w. m r. m2. ecsentially'what ' i ht the i I, I ' $iU is ? EOUhO UdS'thD.t in.thO CrOit C PhOr0 d 1IEi piping in located I' il 'I e t .b Od O b l ., I h,hn nhb b[, J. d Yh .1 C)[l,[h. ", b.C. O hhh d t4 1 20 ' d' Ehd ObhCT URS lin$$ runni*ig intO O lab, and GlEO fuel Oil i a s !f ep lineu ror.he aiccel generator and diesel driven aur feenwater J i i) to h ' pmp. Thace a c linor, now that cre running-through or. r 1 n) t). im j (( N?lDD Gi b/ty*"*' BlP,DO. bMk1dd T.g 3,, / a. l 3 es f t-v- 210 Mhtit we.fcund is that the arean uhere they're [ , "h. ic ]h . ey would het affect safety-related equipient if .tontod'th. ~ a n IC e,, - 2 s.j H ihr+y. f ailec :na rt.euulted in r fire, erith the czedption of s a- .I t[.., Q Q~']f Q&. Q Q';Q ? f[ !Qy y; fQh .j{>jf . Qf Q qs tj. i -p 3
- i. ~
->end' v5b ]L ^ i 1 "'.. %1 f,W 3W tm i,. h.. e s n .t,
- y
l I+.,'i g -,-,,-n n. ,.:-,,,,,e- -r-~x~ -v.,
>1 i :( 2916' Liis' ws12 ] ca. . $1 1:. 1 1: diesel lgeneratorf rooms. A 41 cont'd, 2 But, that ' piping, the piping in these areas is j
- i 3
seismically qualified. I O-4 SY MR. GRAY: t l 5 0. You mean if the piping t'or the fire protection .0 sys tem?; i 7 ' A. (Witness George) No, excuse me, Let me clarify j a that.- j 9-The piping that I am referring to is the.. fuel oil 10 h linos for that equipment which, if it failed, resulted in a ] 11 ] fire that could effect the cafety-related equipment. It is u }[}.that piping which I referred to. U 13 ! ' To add a little bit more to that, the. hydrogen f g' . p, d lines to' the voluma control tank comc into the auxiliary l l building. Those linea, rather than directl: 'o t31e volume 15 16 ' control tank, they go through one other area prior to going t g.f ]intothevolumecontroltankroom. 'i i 7g j There is a single linn, e.ncuse me. i 39 And we looked at that area, and the fire in that 20 area would not offect any equipment which vould bo tr6 quired.to- )
- e. i.
safely Shut doWn'the plant. r, g Additionally, that hydrogan line included, in an e y3- - e:cccca flow check. valve, located at the tank, such that if you had a break in.the line, the valva's sensitive cuts off the .A... A-
- flow, i
W ' 2.5 i i i L. ~ ,.i
_ _. ~. _ _ D' q f' ~29171 p j g [ il 2. Thw line that is going 'to the ich from propane 'and j
- t t
i 2': other tanks '- the tank.c are located outside the auxiliary .l L jl - building, and that. lino runs directly into the lab. It does = 3 l 4 not go-through any cafety-related arcac. 'So,:I guoss,.in summaryr from what we found, even j [ g-I. ' I though we were not <looking specifically at Trojan for 'N: l g caicnics.l'ly-induced failure of thic ' equipment, or thic piping, ') L if it waro to fail, we do not believe that there u.ould be any - g y ] advarse offects on safety-related equipment or the capability { ' O y of defoty -- chutdcon the plant. y WI' MESS ICRRING: Chainr.an Miller, in 'ragard to
- 1.. l' 4
3 L l your qwmtion about the magnitude of the San Fernando event, I,r.. l it was magnitude 6 M. l' 1 And, for the nonrd'c information, if. they would liko y 4. 1 l to get a feer -for.the accolerations which were meauvred :at i (3k .h t -.
- l. w:,rious placon, you can refer to an article entitled, j
.16 t i a,. I' " Accelerations in Rock of Earthquake in the Uc nern. United-l t 17 [ r i l i States," by Schnabel, S-c-h-n-n-b-o-1, and Alton Sond. c m l-It was published in the bulletin of thel Geismologica'. ~5 W i, ~p l Society of Arrorica, Volumo 63, Enubor 2, pagoa 501 to 516, ,0 c L ~ April 1973, p< El-E, CHECR?mN KCLLER: Thank you. 9p i
- lk l
T tm. GPaY: 'Mr. Chairman, at the manant, 7. don' t i: p i: . ~ 1- . Knum quito how to handle the fire protection safoty. evaluation s ,,b. /. . ?.4 l QX 1 incue by Staff. Possibly., at, the next rocoes I cea - l 0 y pW.. ? g3 .,t n + 4 { ' \\., I f (( i (~ ~ p .m
- };
-4 E
l l. h ,29181 i i :: i h- 'ji.3 -Uhatever is convenient to you. 1 .1. CHAIRMAN MILLER: L ? MR.~ GRAY: I could obtain' copics of that, and we 1 hO: 3 could offer: that prior to the tima 'these gentlemen are excused. 1 i-O 1 4' . CHAIRMAN MILLER: Very uell.
- p. -
l~ S DY HR. GRAY: ) i c 0 Mr. Georgo, what assurances do we hava that if a 7 safe shutdown earthquake occurs at the same.tima there is a_ s ' fire in the control, auxiliary or fuel building on plaques, g that adequate fire protection will be available, that adequate t q. .t 10 fire protection measures can be' taken. l' A. (Uitness George) As I indicated earlier, the Staff 33 n. .dcas not believe that seismically-induced fire, which could-13 affect safety equipm2nt, in a credible event, but nonetheless, l if one were tc occur, it appears thece. it would not affect g cafety-related equipment. [ 33 g: If we then talk about a randotely-occurring fire, in i [. a' safety-rclated araa, I believe we would still have the pro- ,;.y tection availabic. ta-As I noted before, the supprension systems -- and, n of' course, even if they are not. available, you have: manual g[. systems. You have fire; brigade available, on sita., ' Manual t:- 2e.,.- systems would include use of' portable extinguishers.. 1 . O. Additionally, the technica1' specifications on the : .23 facility., khich are inplemented at Trojan, require that if ( a, .syntoms, fire protection systems, in the safety-related areas 3 p e ,l - o+ f s
i ..e 2919-o.. o l; . ')1? 4 ~ i n. I' I-ibecome' inoperable.- Tha sprinkler' system in theicable' spreading I o .i '2- ~ room, for example, is inoperabic. ' It requires that a fire - !; lg_ i -3 l :tmtch be aconstantly' in. that area until the opetets is restored, L 4 ], which would mean that if any. fire dituatican were to develop, i. i l 5 "sonscno is there to ihmediately; respond.. 1 8: f 0: I might also ada.-that a' firo in that area is pv 7 crtremely= remote. There are no ignition sources and nothing p 3 i 0 bhat in easily ignitible.- e:' 9. Thero would'havo to be sono trancient-type. load 't o brought into the aren and allovod to burn for a period of time i? 11 to got cables going. hnd it is not very likely thGrc'c nomaone l 12 in the room. ai
- -g.
'g3 .CHAImmu MILun: In that regard, you said someone l, j jg 2.n tliero to Respond. YOU hypol-hssiNd an 06rthquake a h~ I i j . gg seismic eventy. of not inconsiderable magnitude; peoplo might I-L _ py noc be'.recponding as precisely as though. they warendea.1.9.ng g with a fire brigaGa only,. would they? b Haveyoutakenthatinto'consi'katior? E' 39 . c. 19 MESG mea That W very well be.- lHa didn"t, g ..in one ;xcisw, te3:e a look at how mmy operatore wo61d be I l g raggired to shut doim 'the plant follwing a larga seismic i. ,c,, m, event. u, - 33 i The technical ' specification requirements-require i. m k4 .,,4 that a minimum fire brigade of five perschnel be available on l , -.r k g. . site at all.ziicca, not to include the operators required to I. '}l,, n
- s 1
lj ,,,4 J t i + .-#m ,--......,~.,,.... ,.i.c.~m ...-...~.-,,,,e---.-..-..--_.-+.-. >....,..__m....L-........- +
2920 il 5 1 shut down the plant. And that would be, of courne, the 2 normal operating crew, and perhaps some of those five must be / \\ ~ ' ' 3 used for shutdown. You still have sufficient people, I believe. i 4 CIIAIIWJI MILLEn: Have you really ceriously consid-5 ered the relationship that would crist if you had both earth-G quake of substantial magnitude and a fire, whether or not 7 caused by that earthquake, wha t the situation would be, what 0 the scenario vould be like in tenns of, in yorr case, fire o control? 10 WITNESS GEORGE: Ue didn't look at that 11 specifically in our review, but - In CIIAIRMhN MILLER: b! a, I am not gatting in your eq 13 review now. You are tes Lifyin j before the Daard, and wa would C/ 14 like to have the benefit of your to:partice, and I might say j rj that I am anking now about the posaibilities, whether you 10 regard then an - are they credible, or not? )j I am asking you now to cdilross, as though that ja were happening, even though that io highly hypothetical. 39 la I understand the area, the control auxiliary fuel no building, where this could potenti. ally have the.groabsst 23 ef fect on, say, shutdown capability, would be the cable g2 apreading room; and in that aren what we found, in our review, i' 23 is that redundant cables are fairly well separated, y, There are Marinite-type fira barriern which are m ) also located in this area bett; eon redunant division 9. e.a I L
e. 4 m -2921-- p i jlf 'p Separating redundant. divisions? l L j_ ,il- ' CHAIRMAN MILLER: J i t. l<t 11ITNESS GEORGE: Yes. 1 {- ,2 ']l E I' 3 CHAIRMAN MILLER:. In all canes where such redundancy [. g' ]g has a safety factor, or safe shutdown factor? [ - 4 I . I I [ 5 j: WITNESS GEORGE: That's correct, wherever. f [ 6 It is ever coming in' proximity; if it is clear on g .c h i y J opposite sides of the ' rooms, there is no barrier, but an 1 ~ 3 1 '{ i 5 intervenir}g. space. And that was somsthing 'which.we looked < vary closely at in our review, looked at drawinge which traced ; a s s i e. F .i out' the location of theso cables and looked at it when we wore 30 i' y F g i at thes site. t I i n - i, CHAIRMAli MILLERi So you are aatisfied that the 1 l 73, aH-built, an reflected in the drawing, are accurate enough m.for this purpose, at leact? 4;. p j g g jli UITHESS GEORGE: Yes. 1 c g Now, to postulate a fire which could affect both' l j divisions, I think it would have to be one whero nobody p. responded,- cnd it would ha comething on the ordar of perhaps j g ! ovar an hour and a half, comathing in that tino period. 19 Tecta have been performed on the Marinite barriGrs g d' j,,; i-l. that Rancho Soco and at other plenta, by Rancho Seco facility, j 21 1 l J which indicate that you can expect coa.ething on that tima order . Jt. r + ; [' : g ~ fire resistance for.that type o'f barrier, .g. t" DY IIR. GRhY: M 4 1 .G' Mr. Mcdonald and Mr. Trantrell -- Mr. Mcdonald, are fa.
- 3 i
,_q q T l
2922 jl 7 1 you familiar with the event that occurred at the Zion facility, a involving a bypassing of certain signaling instrumentation that ) r' > 3 resulted irt the draining of a pres 9urizer? ,wn 'u, .g A. (Witness Mcdonald) Yes, I am. 3 G Could you briefly describe what that incident was? 6 A. The Zion plant was a hot shutdown condition, at 7 zero power. The plant manager requested they do some surveil-a lance testing while they ran this data. The normal procedure 9 does not allow for putting dumc.y test signals into instrumenta-tion channels simultaneously for extended period. 10 33 If I recall, there were som thing like 31 signals g simulated into the instru1T.antation system, or: which four were m 1 s,, pressurized, or pressure, and three were pressurized, or level. 1 .) g These simulated cignals masked if you made the actua: condition of the level and prescure in the pressurizer. And g
- .n the particular Westinghouue design they used the same instru-g, monts to provide the signal for the safety function, and througl.
- 7.,
qualified isolation device, a y, is ur:ed also for control func-g tion. g If I recall, I believe these dtuuy nignala were in g for a period of 40 minutes, and the Zion operator noticed that ,g there were come strange readinga as a result of the control ,.j nignals being fed to the operator. 73 So ha requested that they remove the signals, and, Q in f ac t, the pressuricer precours and level was low, and the , a, I
i. 22923 l"
- jl 18 '
4
- finjection pumps came on about
- and brought the_ system back up.
y l 4 ^ l2 .2- .There wac'an' abnormal occurrence report to Congress.
- l I
ILbelievo.a.t was 77-7. It's a new reg report, 0090-10. It .) 3: 4 indicated that thia-was a procedural error,'and it was improper rov.ew and approval of th'c proceduros to'do the tests. S 1 g ji And I belicve that corrective action' in lthe case was they ' modified their test, their procedural requirements, 7 and instructions to.the management people to adhere, to the g i end WEL:jl ctandard procedurca,. as applies.to their plant. 1 g l end t4- - 10 MB fla 11 1:: s& 15-16 L 17 0 . 78 a 19 1 20 i' 21-o 5: hk s = &. 1 L . 2d 3 i .. l a n. --.-em---e,..,4w., ~ ;,,. L _',,,,. d'y .s.. m
7- _..~ q 1 r 2924 w;l .Mr. Trananall,- are you anarc of measures that yi [}5L-MADELON[ d-lQ( i mpbli 2
- have been taken to ascure that Zion-typa incidents during;
[i = t.- 3..[ reactor operation will not occur at Trojan?- n ' 4.l - A f(Witnoce Tramscall) Yeso j' I [ 8 I U , JFollowing tno Zion event a circular from the i p t: h C' Offic. of-Inspaction and Enforamnent was issued. It was .1i-t .E L. 7 Circular 77-13, dated SepteM>or 22, 1977. It uent'.to all I' i. t. j, cperators of nuclear power p) ante cautioning them of the. O I 3 h 9 ovent that occurrad at Zione which naa quito a otrong ] j i
- 10. '
function of management controls at the plant. f~ 11 TheOfficaofInapcationandEnforcementfollow-f'4 I i l 12 ed up on PGE's actions in respo.nne to the circular. They 5, t j -13 have resolved that no action was required, that the proco - [ 14 dures wara-in place at Trojan and ware acceptable as they i [ 1S ctood. ,4. [{ ' 1G This ic doctxacnted in Inspection Report -- on ~ l-17 Trojan, 11mpaction Report 77-22 in 1977. j l' 1' s A-(Witness Mcdonald) I might add one thing that ')o j-19 I noglected to stateu
- l. j 1
h. 'E0 In the Zion ovant in cpite of having the 31 I j. 21 chnnnela byptened there was utill protection for the, plants t !_e-2r the high containment nig 121 and the steam generator ' differ-
- i 1
+ .na entini would have still provided a protective signal if in 24 fact nceded. 'l .as 0 I addrede 'this cent qucwtion. to each mentbor of-E t. ---.- _ _. ~.... _ - -. -, _. _ ~. -. - -. -...
g j.. l l' i. 2925 i 4 -[ }. e, 4 mpb2 -' 1 I' th e.' paucl. And I enk ycu'to respond to the best.of your I i 1 t 2I knowledge, O 3; Are there any unresolved cafety issues with j-l F .} 4 !' regard to the u=imuic capability of safoty-relate.d equip-I i r. SO n.ent in t!m contrOJ,s MUU. nary, and fu21 building CO!ap1CJC 4 s r 1 L t ,e G ~l nt Trojan that uculd b :ing into uuaction the ability to \\\\ 4 a I ?" chutdown ;he renator in caso of a asicInic event up to and .j G i.ncludirq imo,,25g 80 3? j s t D A Diitnaco Harring) Mona to rav knowlc. doc. I f I 10 A 07itnate Trcuanall) Mona to my knowledge. i 1 11 A GTicuar Mcdonald) Nono to my kccule.dge. Th a (Mittacc Hoatan) Mone to rty haculedge. J 1a Q l'a not aura 12 !Jr., Georgs is cchually genlified I g te racpon0 to t'!at since, ha no Daun involved culy in the g; fire protc.ctica portion. I, H,, CEUERi'IM MILABR: Let :La ingtira: Not to your knowledgc, Have von ge.ntlemen pt. { e i i I g nede any chcch of tha co-called lict of unrecolved cafety I i 1 gy iaauce, unresolved ganarjm irsuas? Do you have them firmly .I a ,u)" N and clearly enough :ir, raind ?,o De able to categoriZn 2ch as l P . I, .l 4 ~ tO I tf: POESID10 rt :lO.biOI 'd'.19 bL a J.GiSmic !'.VCht.3GCh Cd that 1 gj, e h Mt.'3 hidnOG by CO V,2f '31 ? C Ch3 TTC ~id.n Plant? P n k h 92 WR. 1RYU Mr. C!.1..* ir;nzn i P.h ques bicn was direct-I n., s f in }s ed not to gewmal generic innusa, but rcally to unrecolved
- 4 Le re
'e. + Y4,. se "o 1 e th fb p, ( p s .) d .t .,' q' : > - 4 'I n !
..,.y. 49 t, '2926L E 1[ 'n: , j p mpb3l [ CHAIRMA14 MIELER:- Wellr the~so-called unresolved 1 L. 2 safety' issues are of various kinds.. What'.I want to know is {; f. - : - ) 1 -3 Lwhether-o'1r not'the witnesson have or will specifically con, l &- ~ ' sidar tho.so-called unrosolved~ safety issues such as those [ 4 i O l. -5 mentioned 'irJ River Bend, but not limited to that because I. 6 know thoro'has been:some evolution in the Staff's analysis. i. -l l 7 But I want - to. be s ure that the answer so. f ar as I know is' a 0' meaningful answar which cca only ba -- I'm not going to 'come 2 ip i 9 into the record by going to uuny' unrelated kinds of anfety l l L 10 issues, but we would lika spa.aific accurance that they have j t-l- l3. addressed it in a concrete fashion. 12 Now you may rSphrase.yoter question however you j3 -_deciro to,-laying that faandation, and we would appreciate s ja . it. 15 In thia' som cthing. -- tell me when you want' a. f-i Wo don t cara. But11f it would aid you in some of gg rccena. : 4 'l .g the ' things that you montioned, you 'tell ua. when. I _ e l MR. GRFl: Okay, Mr, Chairman. I think possibly' l zg 13 a recess at Mia point would De helpful. i . CHAIPlmW MILLER: All right. l 20 -(Recess.) 0u1 + CHAIPRAN MILLER: Are we ready? .,.3 MR., GBAY: Mr Chairman, in the' time frame ' [' g i; 'availabla these witnesses have not gone through each.of the [ ,,.A.. gener c. ssuw lb e O m,.which happens to be the 25 Q..' ,} e 9 y .y e 4 ,g,., - _-,w..
f -... ~ - ......_f. H s i c - f 2927.. C J p. . {g 9 m .[ -l b [. mpbMTq1 rdocument which;does identify all generic isshes Meiore the' 'j L t' e HRC, and specificallyia part of Trojan-and the resolution
- i c
L_ I i '3 and no on,'although Mr.-Trcenall can indicate what the~ Staff 1 ! h' { t l 4: -has done'in thic regard,,- 3-l o o ai c 5 CHAIRMAN MILLER:- Very well. ~! i' 6: WITNESS..TRANMELLi I'm familiar with.the Y N 'l River Band lAppaala Board decision,'at least as far as-the i I, I G cxtent that it Affccted ate an a task manager. At the time o I 9 i that thin decision was rencered'I was the Trojan Project l i 10 Managor, as well as manager of Task A2, uhich is asymmetric )* l Il blowdown loads on tha reactor vanscl. e < ( . 12 In response to that.it waa my job to ~ add to 1 a ,.g 13 the Task Plan on the basis - to formaliza the Staff's ' basis 14 'on why it was a11~ right for; operating plants to ' continue = f i t1 1g oparating while this problem was being pursuad-and resolved. ] i 16 This was-dona for all the taska. AF ao avjun J 17 Project Manager 'I am in a position to know w:. tether or not I .\\ c 16 Trojan wec.. unique in'any respect and should be singled out 1 19-for particular or different action. And I can tell.you that j F 20-there is no cacc wherc Trojan han been cited as an unusual ls l 31 pli.utt, and that a particular unique action abould be taken j L b.., 2g-for Trojan. l ! !? And therefore I'r.: comfortable in telling y 7u Vh' ?i [ ~
- g3
- that - Trojan is covsrod by these bacis statements for each li . i y ~ 24-onc of the Task Actica Plans., t g CHAIRMAM MILLER: All' rig'ht. - ). ell
- t:
- g g
-e er ea w-wta w e6 mime ww w' e.---ww ww s,w-s e. y +.ipe,s.-wv=es3e -u.ir-w-w Mutt +-
- +=+tv.a.
g q,*g-yM'yp1 -Y r-r-use-tur--'v3u'T=44$fy-r**-Tut-9-
- p u
2928 l mpb5 1 That's aoout half the problem, incofar as the i J ) 2 relationship between Trojan en6 othar plants on the unresolv- ; ,m c ) 3 ed issuen themselvene } ) 4
- Socord, no'.,
in the quent4 on of the seismic S capability in rela. tion to the auf e..hutdown earthquake and I G the like at Trojan. In othur: uords, the issues that are 3 t 'l preacnt in thic are in Phase 2 Lodifications. l 0 So in that cespect 1100 can you tell us whether 9 thera are any unresolved saJety inaue which would be appli-10 cabla to any plant with i suisi situation, or to Trojan in i 11 view of the preccat issuus. Nc're looking now at the, seis-i 1 i 12 mic aspects of unresolvesd safeby is.;uca. O 13 WITJESS TRL ELL: En applied to Trojtn? I .v 14 CEMPlildi MILLER: Well,, beginning on the ground is where you' d better c:'.plein._ E voa think there's como seismic 16 aspecho of unt:cealved catety irmues which are applicable to 17 una ple:<ts,, but.not to Troj n, You would then have to l e differentiate,. s q. WITNESS TR7dMLL: I t'ia e. ware of none,, O ,o,n Cil?tIRMNM Ml:%ER: Very well. v t at Mk. G Ra'.? : i !r., Ob uiram my original question r was reall^v c!irected notza :d equip ant qualification. We have oo I s tua witnausas here who ar<f ' ntim tely involved and have been y... with qualifying n ;ionictJ1y satety - :eleted equipment. We I l ,~ nico have Mr. Herrir.g, uno hr baan the principal reviewer I w 2
7.-- =., if gj
- 1
~ '2929-o c n t mpb6.: 1 d--Staff' witness for,the.avaluation that hac taken place .an l i- ..2 - with regard to ta Trojan control building and sciamic l ' <O i 3 . kl responco cpactra and the likea And Mr., Trammoll, tiho is r s. I: 'I tho' Project Managsr, and'whose overall responsibility within b r, i. F U the Staff io for coordinating all of the efforts with regard l f.. l. n u j! G to the Staff's-offorts in this proccoding. .,i
- -i.
I L-7 And my question was directed to those witnesses j_.; i - t ' j,. t'[ 0 based on what they know and their experience and the D specific review of the situation hero for Trojan. Do they t to-feel that the safety-related equipment within the control y t
- l building, the ' fual building, and the auxiliary building 11 I
l 12-cc:aplex ic properly and adequately nainmically qualified l i. 'g l 13 such that it will safely withstand earthqr' ken up to and i I i 14 including the sc.fo shutdown earthquake for. Trojan. j.. j. J 15 And I would now direct..that quantion to thace.
- 3 16' gentlemon.
I f 17 WITNESS HERRIMG: I'm cuarc of none. [ j 1 l 1 E BY MR. GRAY:. 1 i 1' l in G Well,-the question waa: 1 j-20 Do you feel that the safety-related equipment-21 infadequath?. [:O.' A-(Wptnesa Trarenell) Yes. 22L A- - (Witnesa Harring)' Yes, it's adequate. [ - a. -s - 24 A (Witness Mcdonald) Yes, I.do. (NIitness ;Hoonan)- .Yes,-I'do. 2E TA - r le l-5 n, a ?! l -l fi !1 1 \\g s r / f, 5 1 y i, yfsin pye w>v 3--e.- -s met e-e4 r e,,*deta=>' re-s-w w.ruanen em-hem
+ + " " '
-~**e"**-
l7 _r.__.- m._ g' .2930 .V' p mC L t s c .q (' lMRr GSM: The. Staff'hno.no further' questions' t-J ; F mpb721 i -i i/ -2 andLthesolwitnesses are'available foe questions of the Board' i ~ind the' parties. 3- { r [g ~ ] l 4' -CRAIRMAN MILLER: Just.one'gancral' question that t o S I have, cnd then I think my colle.cgues will have soma ques-i. F 61:
- tionn, l
I' 1, f 7 EXAMINATION BY Tun BOARD l i [ 8 BY CHAIRMAN MILLER: F 9 0 I.would like to ask all of you gentlemen au j. to members of the NRC technical Staff, and mindful of your + i duties, 'just as the Board, another sogn.cnt of the NRC, has n i ta its dutiec,,do;you knou of any safety-related or other -[ L g. g mattera which would have a bearing upon the seinmic capabil-p; ity of tha Trojan. Plant in ita-prosent condition,:the build-b l-1- 15 ings, equipment, and anything also, which would have any g; 'bsaring, even remots as you might view it, or even less than .g. credible, which would impact upon the cafoty of interim j( 9p j. operation of~that plant? E ): 10 ; In other words, I8m asking you now to maka I L i full disclosure of any mattara, whether they've. been covered-l 3 .y, g g by your official parformanca of duties or quections been 7 s %.i acked by Staff Counsel or.by the coard, I'm asking each of [{ g. - ^j-p g q you to.tell the Daard uhother tnere.are any matters that p p p .m,..o would have'n bearing, even though remoto, on the cafoty of l 4 7 .inber32a operation? t ) i I/ l i k.' u.r ,m
g p, g{ T l 79 37_ L l-mpb8 1 A (Nitness lierring)' None to my.knowledgo, l' 1 + J !]'- 2-Q': 'You understaid I*t.t' going beyond,'neu,'the l ! I. j b. 3~ questions that are.normally asked. I'm'nou-asking you i j 4 { professionally and in your own obligations to the.liRC and t l 5 to the public to make full diaclosure if there be any il-4 t G !) _ Natters, Sven though_ you may have considered rejecting it ( y u 7i ac too remoto or whatever, I'm now asking for full dicclosure. i 13 Gentlataan?- [ D-A '.(Witnano Tra* sell) Honc that I can think of. i ) mj If in the remaining few minuten sotcathing comes to mind, I i ) i i nj will bring it.to your attt.nhion. Obviously there's already g avidenca that.they have complated adding supports, and oc on, i 2- - g 13 to the piping. i t j g. 'If anything comen to mind in the ne::t prior '{ d g. g to the cloca'of tha hearing 2: will bring it to your ;.ttention.< j 1 L g. Q ' Fair enough, 3, p [ pj - A (Witness Mcdonald) In the area of my know-a I knew ol' nonc. g ledgcr I h l i g g- (hl A (Witness Nconnn) I guess I would like to slight-i 1 d l yp ly erpand on that,.if I may, a little bit, d e (.. g {! O All gight. GC right chcad. i ji . m.n. i -A-Just taking-ova: as Branch Cb.ief of the f [ s c-y e [ Engine.ering Cranch in August ot? this year, whcnover a safety 3 )} } I y issue was raiacdr whether it be generic or plcit-specific, . r,4 -h dvDldokCd'Mk it.frOM.~thO Standpoint Of all the hearing g {. V
- 3) -
7: &y). _I; - l.
- l l'
4 I _ _ _ _ _,... _ ____._.,,,l_i,yhf_.m'_ u_,,,,,m_____ ..,._,_,_,,_,mwmm.,..,..,,_,m.,.,,,,,,...n,,.,ry,.,
p 4 2932 }j s p 2 l 5 )- 5h f . mpb9h1
- boards-that' ara'bacicallv'.ansembled, whether.they should~be
[ 'l ~ ..i s ...2 1 notified orinot. E ' Li f... '3 Q
- Yes6, j
IY 4 A 'At'this' point in time we have. discussed every fi l '.
- f..
F 5 iceuo:-that has..come across my desh'as related to Trojan, G and I know-of nothing. that we have not already covered, that- [ 4 I il ~ 7 -has-baan covered in'this hearinge I know of nothing from an ll l ~ : [. 8 . engineering standpoint. 4 I j
- 9 Q
- All right., l L .] L 10 A (Witussa Georga) I % not aware of any matters ij ' j- ) i 11 beyond what we've. ciready discusacd today. + 12 0 Thank you. r. ?. i Ig 13 - CHAIR!GR MILLER: Dr. Mcdonald, Dr. Paxton? l 14 (Laughtcr. ) j i 15 I want to correct the'reacrd. Dr. Mcdonald is' 16 a witnoss and Dr McCollam is on the board. e si-t f7 (Laughter )' 4. I 1 j; j I gg DR 'MC COLLOM: It's bcon a long week. j. 19 BY DR MC COLLOM: l L j 20 0 I believe. that I'd like to ash just a little bit more about ths IEEE 344-1971 versus -1975.
- And, i
2t 22 .Mr. Noonan,'you caid that the aina baat kind of test was l' h E3 conservative for coma kinda of equipment. 3f" Mould you elaberrte on'that soma and tsll me r.. 'What kinds might ba and what kinds might not ba? 7 . ii g_ l 1 s '.q,
- w..,e w, E ee, h h w w w #t v -v rew c-w me
- -,, -,.==v --wwrwe--e+---ea,vw w ve~e-+-*e. =#w-*.
- -veee-r-*-=u
~ ,a w i-29330 -i ; E l :.; 4 t [.'.. 1 ~ npbl0.-
- A' (Witness Noonan}
Yes, I!11 elaborate on-that: '[ l; ) I '2 1q'ite'a'biti u h 3 - g. One other point: 1: 'I . Tell me whe.t is better about the 1975-. group, l l 4 5 - particularly in terms of this more random chaking of the e 6' -units. I 7 A1 Okay, I'll address that, I 8 First of all, when I bacically started out-at 3 tho' acrospace industry - this was back in the 1961 562 10 version -- we were in the process of building our first 1 3- '11 spacecrafts, At that point in time we were looking.for u i la data to qual-test all of our equipment aboard those space-I 13 crafts. We had none because ua'd never performed spacecrafts L 14 before, so we were involved in setting the criteria for a i l ~15' new industry, basically, i -1 16 We went back and we did-a lot of research into I j. ~ } 17; the type of testing done, sine testing basically at that i l 13 .timo. We started to look at this, what we call the new ~ random' vibration of multi-frequency type vibration, and I 19 26 believe at. Mcdonald Aircraft we were the first one in the 4 1 1 i i 21 - industry to propose such a test. And this was around 1961. 22 So we had basically taken that type of test, !'4 23 admitted it ' internally into the company, and then eventually i f~ J21 shad'it admitted into the military specifications for test-l h 73 -iD9 of,clG trical equipmGnt.and' Mechanical equipment as far r i i i--w. rw--o-, evw twww e",**-.-e-e, -w h vv.se m-4 + w w e.m.--.<eaw.r-e-,-----e----4a--..r-n--....-cc-,-.w. - ~ ~. - -.. . -..r----mu -=-*==-=~~~-==i.----e w ww - r
-_ _ _.~ t.s).m... -. 1;t I." - 2934~ v s. F 1- .. 1 1 mpbll l: nircraft and spacecraft. b l -2 So wo did that for a -long tine-1 I;h I, 3-When I ccm to the NRC, which was then the t
- ih
.4 AEC in 1974, based on this background it became part of the i l 5 seismic' review team and I became involved with 344-1971 and 6' - -1975 versions. At that time the 1975 vercion was in draft 7 form, but-we wera-looking et it. The 344-1975 version is 1 ( 1 I 8 really an update and.an expansion of the 1971. It docon't 1 [ 9 do anything to the previota tocting, in that theyprovious 10 testing is set forth in 1971 with the c.tception maybo of i L i editorial changes and stuff like that, i i 11 i i e l u Eut the basic concepto are the name; they ,pg 13 haven't changed., 14: We set the~ sine beat tests -- we talked about ) l i 16 the sine beat t'est in the 1971 version. The 1975' version t g-identicclly te.lks about the caraz test in that respect. The i l 37 '75 version expandad the '71 version on two bases: I tg One, it added the random vibration or the multi-J l I [ jg frequency test vibration, an it is called in the document. I i 20 ( ' hnd it also added the concept of multi-a:<ic Ecsting. i g Now this multi-axis testing in the --' multi-j 1- ,l " p2 frequency-type testing is raally a more mechanistic approach j h 3 to the test, but is - mot necessarily a batter test. It's { . pg a more representative type test,'19 n more mechanistic. In 47 some cases the test is less sevors-bocause you don't build'up ] 1 .l: ";.. mw w n+..ame, ..,e.w...-m,1wem..,re.,ee.-e...re.--.-.., .~ -.,,.,,: e .--ere+-. .e-e=.--.e -e vw,.
..--,--.---....u-ww--
=-
a =.y4L i 2935 if; 4 i mpb12 I structural resonancos within the equipment because you're ' j not dwelling' on-frequancies and so forth, and particularly a A U(3 ~ { + 3 in the seismic-type time histories where they becoma what
- I 1
l we call non-stationary type f tmotions. The test is'even 5-less severe sometimes-because of the variation in amplitudes j 6 throughcut the time history., d b t 7' The mean amplitude in varying all over the 0 , place.. IM s not constant with time. But it is more i 9 mechanistic, so it's like it would be more realistiic. We ) to wanted to represent more of the a.ctual case, the actual i q.> 11 environment. [- 12 V! hen we looked at thin testing and wo did 13 the review of the Westinghouse equipment, particularly -- s 14 and I kind of dwell on Westinghouse because un did the . l' 1 15' testing when I was involved at that time. I might add, we i tG. looked at all the NSSS vendors, Cij and D&W, and they looked 15 at a number of the balanco of plant type architect-engineers,!- 4 18 Bechtel being included. 1 1 19 When they went back to this type of thing, we I. i 20l looked at which test is the best test based on uhat we saw. }, i 21 Well, now all of this equipment was already qualified. It I i I 22 had been qualified under the sine tnsto So we went back and l .sh' 3 j 23-looked at the equipment. l t 2 11 And by looking, I mean phycically locked at it. W i ij. 3:; We opened the doors and pulled out the drawers. We looked i l, il i i, g f., t
,y._._,-__7m....---,------------------ .j + v a
- a i
,t p B -2936; ]J n il d !.R i: ',d - ) i C y [ ' mpb1311 jj ' for; types of hhinga, based on;my experienos frontaerospace a. 1 - )' l- _. ' il 1-F - ;> P - work, where I. felt the vibration'was a better test. For I_k' .h [.
- 3]d~
l.- -example, on the relayc relayr being ono-traa where at J.'. e !' g. '[ ! l ' 4lj derocpece.it uan a big headache to us. Uc w6re Always hav- -} n .i i-Dj ( gy -ing uhat wa' called'xelay dailuros, relay shntter problems, g
- l 1..
4 { r q 4 -L GhS contact chattor,, i 4 r-n + q 7h Undcx aine,cating nomatimsa you have to go to L 'i '.4 i Ej ontremely high 1cvola to get thic relay to chatter beenuse. l: I n ,3 - x9 d of the different naturcl frequancica incide the relays, l{ i r.i g [ ja j! depending on the cine of the contacts and so forth.
- k.,{
l 4 4 i - l l-gk Multifrequoncy tost bacically; bring about that i I.* -i. 1 uj function at a much louar h. vel, E much more 7:calistic type di, 1: H g g Ic1 val in the environment. And so that ic one case where { g i; tha multi-frequency. type testing might be noro cppropriate. ] a m , ; [ But again, you have to look ut tho type of relay you're talk- ' kI g; b f Q ing about, y i o; ij If you're looking at the vary single type of 1 r i f i I h g{ relay uhcro it'n basically a ningle degree of freedom relay, I b [. thcu ro, tha multifrequc=cy docan't really offer you any r i.- [ .g b advantagen. The nine probably does c better job, because o l y -you will ducIl at reacnance; c.ven though you might not be I w 1. ll. ll ablo'to determina the resonancs'within the inside of the }- [ .i - a,, , ',a y l L y4 relay, you uet up your tests so that you hit every frequency ll 4., J
- 4 1J
,,!j l-p ~g<y or cvory octavo, say, Etarting at ona hertz, two hartz, four k ] hertz, and you pretty well conura yourself based on that ,n, q (i. q$ 4 -l I' d. i i 4 i. n o ,1 l1-l l s i ... _,,,,,, ~ _ _ _... _. _.........., _., _, _..,, _.. _.. _ _ _ _..... .,-r._
9; #
- y e
c i U i2937' i "mphl& O ? hind: of i testing that.-you' re : going: to test the resonance-r 1 2-within that relay.even though you wilU not phynically.be c.~'j
- 3 able toldotannine. ithat that resonance is from the test..
? 4 You can monitorithe outside,'but you can't.get in the inside 5 in a lot cf" cases. I-I s 'Again, to get back to the random vibration -- ji 'c 7 you see, that's kind of the concepts When I speak:of !v f 8' certain equipment,.it's a judgment factor You have to look. l' {. 3 at the oquipment and'se.y will this test be sevoro. NON,'. .r r i ^ p ,o .for c2: ample, in cabinets -Tha type of -nuclear instrumenta- ] o q l tion cabinets ~ After a while when you deal with certain 1; g designors, they have a vny of designing: cabinets, thay.have 33 .4 uay'ot designing thinge. And you can almost predict,- j g l: f. y 'tfter watching the first fed tasts, no matter what that l.. cabinet in going to hold, how its invented use ici ~it 1, 1 u-q [ g protty much has a common denominator of natural fre.quency 1 j' not baced upoxi a design, heced upon that particular vendor y, 7 who.does things a certmin way within his organization, and j g g n it just comes ottt that way. { g i. i' I think in the Westinghotwo caso probchly
- i. R sg
+-- b-l' o.lght, nine, tan herte is pretty mu 'h the councn modo for g. p t i f most of those cabinetse You look at the internal boxes,1the ; g ih way ' that they'ra packaged, col.id-stata type of equipment. p y,+3 p l Af tar you've got through the cabinot reconances l 24 -j '! bdaically'none-of the systede is acting-like an attenuator f g. 'f +,, }i l t 'W __g s , ~,,, - -,,,. ..--.;...-......;:a--....._..... J. . _ _ _ _ _ _.. _. _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _. -_ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ -.
m _ _ _ ,,~ 7,, y y j [ .29'38 ,A .p 4t -t .k 2' fmpbl51,, . and you cce ' the rigid body? vibrata.cao :tnside tha-cabinets at 1 l
- H Jr 1.
J 2. p tiio' higher zalovati,cnsy basically the first node vibrations.. Ih 4 .Conanything. yon hava:highnr than a natural fraquency, cay; ten { 3O
- E g
4 y , he.rtz, would baaically bs a rigid type motion.. h si So a sinn-vava tent for a cabinet would be a
- u S
p G j} very good. test for a cabinnt. 1 a yq- - If.-I became. involved in a piece of equipment . k, eaj that !nternel.ly had a lot of hoving parts, small equipment, a t .i 9 there I en conearned of whether or not I can find reconances ) to l'i very well becs.uco it might hc.vc many, many resonances in-1 J J1
- j cido a small. piece of equipment that might be within a 'frc-p gy quancy rango of.intarust that I'm talking about,
- Thero, il l
e I j3 'bocauce I m not smart enough to determine resonance, I fall u back on thn.multifrequancy typa testing and say Well, what .j g j I'll do, I'll uao the statistical approach, which is really-t! gg.] what thic.'ic, and apply thau across the board to tne equip- .l \\ MODt. g. l g In that way, I -don't reall:/ cara if I know I' i j gg whether the resonanco is ten hartz, or if it's a 15 hortz -) i. -o q-o H.,y.. t or if it5's at 30 hartu. I2va broad-banded it end I've l 14
- p.. '!l anstred myself that at some point in time I vill hit those l
j l )a. 1 1 vA resonanoca. n p r, 1; 7 4-y fij M e non-conservirhive'part comc0 in dhere I l W., t l -[., Y ican't;ncopschrily dwell on the reacnances. How a lot of 3,a.y, x.,.. r m f 3 s- -~.!,, (:[,'f e _I-L(,. N L L, 0. - -..:. - - =,: L.=~=- -~
a--
- a\\
q'I t i >>l,~.-,,, ma- ---ww
7 4 'F 1 v ..29.39-
- m. d yo i'
4 4 ' t! 'impbl61 .vendofa~are a.non-stationary functions ThereJare'no real d j.
- 2 duellLfrequencico in time hletorica.
It"a a peak-on, poak-- l-j' '! l. 3 .off' type situation whera you hit a very high peak ctress, .{' ig .j 4 maybe for an instant, and then it's back-down to'nothing. }. 5
- again, llv G'
Bo that*c uhy the multifrequency test is applied!. i 7 Q' '
- Okay, 5
i O' Now kncaing'that, and knowing that the Trojan. I l 9 i facilities initially - the safety-rclated equipment was I -to evaluated by the 1971.vercion, uhat is your best judgment J. i fg g) on the hinde of equipment, the safety-related grout.4 that- . 1 12 should have bean or would have been more adoquately qualified g l 13 if they had been qualified under the 1975? y A Okay. l.. t. 15: Basically it wac, like I cay, the rolays, that i hj . a ' 16 _ was the first thing. And that resulted in thin one change i
- 7 -
that we have already mentioned about where we found a relay 18 problem, liko I was sure uc would. And we can run those-1 +. 19 rolays'through rotor relays, where you don't have those s O problems; we don't have contact problems,, I t
- 4 g.
I have to recall from memory now. We want . ~, through all-of the Wentinghoune equipment and in general-- y ' generally speaking, -I believo we said that all of the [ . 23. ,m g Westinghouw equipment.- may I rofrech my memory for just.a [ 'I + t s 1 4s. ,i i l\\ /
- 'p f
- ,/
-y .,qn .'I' ,_7 '".'1 Mf, n
- s. N,.,.... :..
16 ' ' _,_.n,,,,,
- 0):
'F .[ 2940' '.l h i 1 y mpb171J Q '- . Yen, .t i 2)[hl 1 [1 'A Excuse no. Ql. 3 .3 I (Pause. ) i f 4 -- I'll quote here from the thing that'we basically < h .n s ;'l found a typo of equipment that, we said Okay, should be ]~ 14 s(l qualified by the latar spac, ande again, the relaya. I y J.j 'The nuclear instrumentation systen by ctable il s l: amplifier,'which we felt vere rather complex and very diffi - p\\ yh cult to detsrmina from thd ra<Jular atandpoint, Westinghouse ) u 'j! j m [' CID 700.serica procaacing analog instrumenta. tion, cystem 1 p, I' jpf ,by stables, - again by stableis. t C i We had a h~estinghouse ISD 7300 carics procoas-p b. p f ing inotrurer,tation by stabbas. g. And the Foxborough process g instrumentation by stables. and thcaa warn the items that i 1 g; .webasicallysaidwefelttherandomorthemultiplefrequency[q i i g tests would be the better tests. 97 0 Now the nuciaar instrumentation and the process gg, . instrumentation by stables, A By stables., pj Q That's the probic.m, right? gg A Righh. c1 - ,s. . _7,q Q Have those now been tasbed by the multiple' f##quen y test?- 23 _cA.l A. Mas,.' sir. L$1 .(.f Q. And.they are adequately qualified. based on the 4 l i 1 x. i,: L. ) ^ .! L
',. f ' h f l 2941l ."n
- 4-1 mpb181)
-1975? version? I' ' A. Yes, sir;- - i - ! 2 i- ..3.' Q And'these are the. sama units that are located,j j -i h 4 .within the Trojan nuclear instrumentation and the nuclear g. a S proccas?. ( r p 1 l 6 A: Yes, sir. 1', i j j i 7' If I could coment on one more point, now, on . 3'1 F i . I< j. 8 this, the 1975 version also added this multi-axis type tent.. li L {: 9 And I'd like to offer a personal opinion based r ,r 8 to on my prior experience: I see no real advantage in the multi' y3 cxis testing. ja O Excuse me, Mrn Noonano f 13 Would you describe to us two different multi-I
- !O 9
anca? 15 A Nornully when we have the ningle-axie vibration 16 type test it maana the vibration input is in one direction 97 at a-time. It"s put in either horizontally or vertically, gg but independently,'not combined. When we talk about the f .-jg multi-nxis_typa test it sayo we are putting the' input in 1.- 0 simultaneously 'in all thres directions, the two horizontal 2 directions and the one vertical direction. 21 1: This results in complexity. It's very diffi-L 22 ult to run this typa of test. It results in the complexity 23 2' _g of maintaining the' proper levels because nod you have a very. Er s. liirgo tablG. You haVG a lot of hydraulic gear to^do' thia., + J b J,' ,). w. -~.-.2-.-----,e.- =*----*--e-
- - - - - - - +- - - - - - ' " - - * ' * ' - * * * "
"E'"
c _ __ _ __. _ y. r 1 A .2942 1: ? 't i -l mpbl91 It's n'hard tact >te-conduct. 4
- w 2-Both the acrospace and aircraft industrios-have' 4I.h.
3- .not adopted-this,. And yet'uu havo tha same problems. Tho' ! g 4 . vibration inputs are multi-axis inputo on aircraft and aero-j. 5-cpace. (I j G From the standpoint of cafety wo found no_real .i 7 value in going into that-typa pf teat. It is mora realistic,. l. 0 I'll agree with that. It does reprencnt the actual case. i [ 9 The.only thing you would require'that bypa of r i to testing on -- and I think id;wo look in our document:, Exhibit i 11 10, it'c - addressed in there - it's where yoQ expect a lot i, j ta of coupling bottmen, cay, the vertical axic and the hori:::ontalj 3
- g 13-anis.- -And that can be datermined quite readily by looking at l l
l M the design of the equipment, based on knowledge of ~~ if I 4 is-can uso the term ~ chcar centers. t 10 h"non the shear canter is off place from the 4 s 37 pivotal-axis of the equipmsnt you would expect to ace j!
- 3 coupling develop.
Depending on how far that shear ccator 4 j ig is off the primary axis, the more coupling will be-involved, i: -20 say, from horizontal to vertical. b p g; So that can be detencined, and it can usually j 'I p "be datermined by looking at the particular design f g e [p g _ j. p g -Q Okay. -[ r 1 .3 I think it's good to get carried away with l your-technical ~ work. g m r a -73 r,e c. ,.,,em > 4 w me m = y t s, e ', $ E, v w W-e-s a-* v~w's+*ememv="*w+-swi-*-*"****
- -**"-'**r*+=
~ ~ = ~ ~~ ~ -- - ~ ey -e,y-+
' i [. .i. f j'- ,,.t U 2943' 1 - [; .1 ] mpb201 (Laughter.) T }. '[ 2' f New we've been talking about.IEEE 344-1975. i-M. 'Now that'a.primarilyielectrical equipment. 'h l' 4,F A Yes, ciro j l 5I Q Now what about the other categorios of equipmenti 6 that we havs in the cafety-related group, consisting of.the i '7 componente,. mechanical equipment, ccble' trays, and the like? l 'O I? hat in the differenca if you wcro going to have those J. G-designed today to coma code'or critoria vercus the way that .I t 110 the Trojan Plants are now conatructed? P ) 11 A There in basically no difference. If we were i ). 12 to ~~ let's get away from the electrical equipment. jl-l L$ 13 Tha IEEE spse in so designated ac electrical 1 14 becauco that was its origin. In reality, that spec would i i- \\ 15 bc pplied to both electrical and mechanical equipme'.2t. f 16 The procedures thore arc ror.11y basically no different. 17 There might be some.; light differences. I'd have to look i ic at' the doctuacnt to refresh myself, but in general there is - j J ) ; in I~ -- the document uould hold for both typca of equipment, { f, I t,i 20 ) Q I'd liko to ask Mr,, George one thing about~ j 4 h 21 something that he-said,
- v. think there may or may not hrive 22j j
been an implication there,. l l 23. You indicated that no study on seismic-induced ] I i. 31 potentially~ceismic-induced firo had been done at Trojan. m9 ; '1 Han.it been done'anyuAere?- I_ i 23 ~ k -f. 4 O. im .-.=a.
.---i....
k .k. i. . [J 2944 i-i I ith i a. 'l a 4 j e
- n. oz. u. 1 t
o g w.;.-., ~.a
- c. n s.,~.)
o fu .e.o .t4.,,.u,, ~,p~ v:. ,4 a s, m no -va -a. w,~ f) 3 o l 0 olmy. l-l0 1, -l } 7 c .,ncn you addoci at irojan., It relceo, a _34..tle v. I.
- 1 6
4:1 t :: u,. ri.ag. a 1: 3 k .., si I wculd ash - and I gucca nguin it'n Mr. s i l D i G 1, George - vould you describd the ub.atun of the implerontr.- (
- 1 8
y. u...a: o f. .s at a ~ t,, p.;,, r. u., -.,.,.;
- c. a.
- T.. c 'm..u.
4 e. t.te r".4, vy o * " ~ - p w vo u
- w..
s a .a ; il 1,. e l 3l} 'cion system not ych iuple:runted? e 90 A I'n Ifraid I couldn't con m nb on that. I know i o I ?, ,i !O which modificationc arc required, and that they are to bo t. 11 1 .um cman et d prior to atartup of cycit. threa operation. I I? p cTua m idr;t 2 9 t".,o attaide data, but I'n not nuro uhere imp 12-i i 4 d-ta ,n.. L. /-. -} G3,. 1 -,.f r .w. .s a L.. %.n. e p.3. g, g.,,,, s vi.
- r. a w
. w.s.w w {ia ODO 9 I4 i; ' t. l i. \\ j .. c) 'l (. 7 ,k l u-o,- 5 g2 8 gtt! 15 ll / I, h .n i f.f 80 I is N o N ,,, - u ff es i J I b 23 f, q i o +,4'. t' i I ,f I g l 1 9 )I 'e l !l D SF l .o g i u I 't 4 l i-i 41o e I e i 1 r
p I 2945' pp '76 mm1 I -Q. Mr. Tratemell, you are leaning forward. l MELTZER/' ~ (Laurdter. ) 2 i 3 A '(Witness 'Trammell) I can comment briefly. I. L c'OL 4 f hava investigated this just in ny normal course of duties as 5 ' project manager, and I can say this: 1-6 That the interim operation and the' studios.and so 7 forth that have gona on for this. case have impacted to.some 0 3 extant on the progress of netting in place some of the v 9 modifications, and in particular the Staff's desire'or -- i j 10 embodied in the order, end we will make'no modifications i i-11 which would in any way alter the strength of the shear walls. l l, 12 And there are come fire-protection re1~ated items 13 in this, particularly when extrapolated to other walls which l 14 are now being relied on in the auxiliary building. 15 Go I think it is fair to say that PGE has been 10 Pretty busy with this particular action, in particular the 17 . modificatic'm which we're now -- or they're now f aced with. 13 They have sub:r.itted on schedule as required by 19 tiia. Staff's amenduont'to their license,th'e additional p j 20 -information that we requested. So that part seems to be on i 11 schedule. 22 -And we have initiated review of that additional O information, so that the intent was to get all the loose ends 23 y 24 i.-tied-in so thct the implementation date would be met not [OT on1r for the 1eeme which we =gerove, uue for the onee which 23 r c g; 0 1-1 y. ,+ 1,
~. 1 2946' i. [ 2ren2r -.I -we didn't hdve enough;information on. L f I think that in all I know about it. Q 'e 'Thank you. L 4-l Mr. Mcdonald, do you think that at this time the 4. 1-i verification of the Westinghouse instrumentation and' control O components that, are safety related, is that.now what you lc 7 would call complete? 0 And,. has the S taf f now reviewed all of the ' kinds I 9' .of tests and confirmed to their own knowledge that it is [1-10. satisfactory at:this. point? ll 11 Or, are there panding yet things to be done? i 12 'A (Witness Mcdonald) The verification program-g i' 13 encompascos many reports, an I indicated. A total of 23. 14 Those reports applicable to Trojan and was referenced in 15 the Safety Analysis Report for the basis'of qualification 15 for theic component seismic,, if that's a true statement. l 4 17 There are a feu arean that, for e>: ample,' I was la going : to put on the record, the Exhibit 10, I believe it was, i 1 19 where'I indicated the electrical performance characteristics. m l 20. There tvas one other item, Item 5 was related to L .;3i Da71e timers..To our knowledge, Zion is the only station i> p-22 that is being handled on design case specific. Trojan has U I. ,-[ -23 i no Eagle timoro. 1:i i ~ ThEre was a ouestion about the seismic qualifica-
- j
-24 . ;g 9 j 'tionito that. Butr 'in zolation~to Trojan and the equipment l a i w; q j ?, f 'I y s k oj: w
2947 mm3 I . supplied by Westinghouse as referenced in the topical.and 2 the tests done to support that, it has all been satisfactory. 7-3 Q I'm not sure whether I am as sure about this (") 4 Eagle timer, because no have talked about a design, a DPA 5 device in Trojan. That isn't what you would call an Eaglo 6 timer? 7 A (Witness Trammell) Dr. McCollom, I think I can 0 clarify that one. 9 Mr. Mcdonald w:4.x mentiening these Eagle timers, 10 he was mentioning Zion as having the only Eagle timers. That 11 is true with respect to Westinghouna-supplied equipment under 12 these WCAPs that he is mentioning. (~)T 13 Trojan, nevertholoss, does have Eagle signal 14 timers, which are the DDA sequencors. And they are qualified 15 by the -- under Bechtcl's program, or PGE's program. 10 A (Witness Mcdonald) There again I would point out 17 when I was talking on the verification, it is that equipment to supplied under their Ecopo of supply. 19 Q I understand. 20 A I was aware of the Eagle timero in the sequencers. gj Q I understand. 22 (Board confarring) - <Og 23 BY DR. pAXTCM: 24 0 I would like to ask whether Staff Exhibit 10 han O k/ 25 been available to the public? L l
~ ,i 2948 'I i 1 l (Witncas Tranme.11). An innpection on the document j 4 3 A-i 2 on the bac!t, indicaten it han not been available.to the s [ h,. { [ 3-public, and this.han the character _stic transmittal of one t I h-
- 4
-technical group to another. It appears to be uhut you j 5 might clacsify'as branch input or division input to someone .i 5 clse. \\ a It does not appear to be available to the public. 7 DR.JPAXTOM: Thank you. t. WITNESS NOONAN: Can we make one point on that g. again. 10 1 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yoa? g; WITNESS MOONAN: Okay, go ahead. g WITNESS MC DOMALD: I uanted to nention, as I g3 f indicated, the report on the verification program which 34 j i ' also encompacsca E:hibit 10, no cnpoct the report to be out g t l in approximately two uceks, and that will include - I 19 indicated, I believo, 100 references, vhich Exhibit 10 is one l g of them. All these referencec will be available, i 18 l DR. PAXTOM: That report will be placed in the -]
- g 20
- E ' U **
- U
- l WITNESS MC DONALD:
Yes, it wil.l. f. 22 . Okay. i DR. PAXSON: si j
- l-CHAIRMAN MILLER
- Wall, since Exhibit 10.has been
- 23 ' 4 admitted into evidence, it is now a public document -I think L an a matter'of form. .,,3 ; --m L _____D., .k. ,4
2949 .i .I nmt5 I' MR. GRAY: I'believe it is. S (Laughter.) F CHAIRMAN' MILLER: All right, we will ask counsel -l 4 for. Licensees, do you wish to inquire? 5-MR. AXELEAD:- May.we go last as is usual? 6 CHAIRMPJ4 MILLER: All right. 7 Mr. Socolofaky? '8 MR. SOCOLOFSIN:- I can't think.of anything that 9 hasn't been covered, so-I don't have any questions. 10 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Intervenors? 11 MR. ROSOLIE: I have some questions, J i-1 ?. CIIAIRMAN MILLER: All right. Mr. Rosolic? h 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION l 14 ~ BY MR. ROSOLIE: 4 I 15 Q I guess getting back to the status of the WCAPs, 16 when was-the last report filed by the Staff on the status of .17 the: WCAPa? 10 A (Witness Mcdonald) The last report -- there is a i i 19 -MUREG document, -I don't recall the number, that gives -.-+ I t t 20 believe, in fact, it!might be referred to in Mr. Pollard's- 's i 21 input that gives the othtus of topical reports ao being t 2 t 22.I acceptabic. unacceptable or under review. j O. 23 As I' indicated, therotre, like 23 topicals 7 3 24 referonced -in this report that will come out. And of thoca, [ -25 some of those will bc found.to be acceptable. Others there Nc i t i j m = .a . = .u .. _ a_. ;. m._ -...-
_ _ _ _. _. _ _. ~... .' 4 4 l l 2950-r y F 1 run6 raay be scrae pending thinga,,- But in relhtion tothe 78-21 the 1 4 U Y conclusion is that that is an acceptable repor,t. g-i 4 .v f:.. a But I. don't reon.ll the number of the NUREG. .i Q Lookir.g ct Mr. Pollard's testimony - limited j 4 i' f appearance ~~ cn pago'10 I believe he ctates NUREG 0390. l o 6 I- 'A 'That.was the number I couldn't recall', ycr. 1 t 2 [ 7/ Q Dated October:15, 1970. -[ 8 'i. 1 Was that.the dato it uau issued?- l l C Is that correct? -[ i 4 10 'A Yes, that's the dato i: hat is indicated in his I l t j 11 tantimony. I'm just not familiar with how cfton that report j f !Z ecman-out. I think it may be monthly, quarterly. I couldn't. { h i h- .3 Lholl you that. .l 1 ( l\\. i O And if we look under WCAU 70-21, it that dn } M j iS / wecorage reflection of what 'is in IiUREG 0390? 9 'i N; [ A -That would be the atace 4, of the time o.that E 1 t 4 1-17 coport,and cc I indicate our report whe.cc 5 tva concluded i-i p + r [ R y 'il acceptable won't be out for a coeple of wec :s.1 An'd the j 1 l 4 > m us report will be upastea to raflect that whenever its i.: I
- (
26 ntut lacuance i s,- 1 f i l f' if y-O Can you tell me-why it won't he out for a couple. I .l. -a ii~.of uneks? l lh l
- 22 -1 Is it still being ravisuad?
4 4 i a @. A-There arc.many people uho provide input,cnd it I ).i g: .[.. within the Commicsion.- 1 25 p; ia reviewed.by-many people, you know, If .j. 4 1 - ) ' j[ e
.,h' '] 2951' s l -mm7: Like I say,-I believe it will be a couple of weeks. 2 It may be sooner, but it in just a question of getting 19-IL everybody who had input or any questions or concerns related to 3 4 4 t.- I- -5 A (Witness floonan) Could I also respond to that' -6 . question f'or you? 7 0 Suro. yesterday afternoon when I 'O A Yesterda'y when 9 realized I was coming out hero I looked up the status of-r 10 that report and I found out that it-had not been published' ] r 11 yet. I 12 I know that about 18 months ago from a technical g ' 13 - standpoint the concurrences were made and I couldn't understand 3 14 why it uasn't published. 15 So I called the appropriate people in ny offica 16-and we had a meeting. And I wanted to' see whether there was 17 -- some. technical issue that I was not aucre of that was holding i 18 ' up the publication of this document. 19 It turned out there was not one,and it was. basically 20' one based on prioritica of work. The branch that was next in. 21-line basically-felt'that it was a low-priority item to get ( !" e-22' -this thing on the street and so they did not do the 23 concurrence on it. i J24 It turned out they haddbno the work on it; they
- 23 had'gone through and did the review. They just hadn't put theih 2
i .} - i l 4 ,j ^ .. -. a
i 2952 y nta8 1-signatilre to the.. package. t 2 So.as~of yesterday they concurred on it, 'O .-l -3 and'this is why tho document now.will be published in two weeks 'g 4 0. And that;is what.cortain people within the 5-Commission told ~you?. l 6-A That's what the people that revicued the document 7 told me. i end TG G G Dio they'tell you why they considered the O qualification'of seicmic. capability'of cafety equipment.not 10 important? ) [ 11-A- Could you repeat that, please? 12 C Can you tell' me why - can you tell me if. they ' told g 13 you why they considered the qualification of -.the seismic .l 14 qualification of safety equipment and-its resolution not 15 important? 3 .i ) Mr. Chairman, I am going to objec t to
- G MR.-GRAY
1/
- that, i
iS CHAIRMAN MILLER: Sustain the tajection as to 19 form. i-20 That was not the testimony and you are misquoting 21 the' testimony'in tho' form of'your' question, Mr Rosolie. You may restata it,'however, if you wish to; }; O - e i 23 pursue-the point. b 24 MRs ROSOLIE: I'n sorry. 25 n 5 f-i i
. g. - ~. -. --n-, l ej. r
- J.
' i.h 2953.- p s s L . g gf h
- )
L M. -BT'MR 'ROSOLIF,i p. e 4 i ![. 10 Q Well, I would like ' tc,punnio the point, f [ h-3_ ( - In:Mr. Pollard's limited ctatement which I ~~ on '1G.- 4fpage:10r q under UCAP 78-21, I anked carlier if that was a ii h 3 f -correct reflection of what was in NOREG, and I believe it l' d l l 6hLuasstatedbyMr.'McDonaldthatthatwas. i.j y i Can you tell me why there 'it' sayo - I-wich I = 7l 'I g had'tiURNG 0390 so we'can tell,'but'we don't -~ "The' Staff received additional information 9 9 m by letter dated Septeraber 29, 19'78. The review J. .n. is scheduled to be completed by January 1, 197fL" 4' y.;. I believe that wac suppocod to be 1979. 4 - t 4.e, There ceems to me to be conflict betwee,n what s j
- g you wara told and what is thoro.
Can you help resolve that? l A (Witncas Mcdonald) I'm sorry, I can't find the a 33 i g [ timeframa you are referring.to hera.- 1 i CHAIRME MILLER: I thi.nk the 1:more. should reflect 17 i l gg ! Mr. Rosalie ic probably correct, the lhat - the sentence t which 'in on page 10 at the quoted materiala cayc:
- J' 39 s
i Eg "The roview is scheduled to be completed by L-I Jcnuary 1, 1978." g e f In vicht of'the 'arlier reference to 1970 the l e - 22 , O.~ gr at. probability is that that should be January 1, 1979, ~ 'Y 23 i-4,g - and considering that those are the dateo and the timeframe,. y ) =can you give Mr. P.osolie-an explanation? 3,, a<, 1 -l L, e 'l c 1n 17 ~ . $f. e s ~z.- ,-. -_....- a.- =.~.x--.-......
.1 2954 mml0 I WITIIES5 MC DOELD: Yes, I can. 2 You know,.being idvolved ar a primary reviewer n- .N) 3 involving a lot of people, when you project a schedule it la U 4 a projection and based on the availability of the people to 5 dothe task, the time to concur and review it. 1 6 As I pointed out, this verification program has 4 7 been from a period I believe in late '73, from '74-where O we have been looking at a composite of topical reports. 9 There are 100 and some reference documents in that 10 material and ovaluation has been going on, including the 11 audit teams' review at the various sites as ue have indicated i 13 in earlier testimony. O 13 When the projected schedule for completion comes V 14 out. o f ten it is a question of estimating the availability 15 of other people, other branches that have to concur and 16 look and provide their technical input in a particular area, 17 its bout outimate. And as al] cohedules, it has to be 10 adjunted based on prioritias and other tasks that need to be 19 done. 29 I uculd like to emohasize though, the technical 2; conccrus:about the acacptability of the equipment performance na function, we felt had been resolved earlier. It is juct ( 23 getting the report together, all the people to concur. And 24 if thern are any questiona relative to the evaluation as j /' \\ 73l such. 1
(. 'l ,e 2955J ~ mmll I BY MR'. ROSOLIE: 7 I-2 10' Can vou tell me what was in the' letter that was' g4 i.~. L 3 received Septetaber 19th,19.70 in regards to CAP 78-217 . h. 0 - 4 A: (Witness Mcdonald) I don't recall that letter j bl 5, i offhand. I-don't know. t j 6 Q You would - concur with Mr. Noonan that basically ) h p 7 . this'whole thing wan i<done 18 months ago? ( i i-U ' il A Pardon? 9 Q Would you concur with Mr. Noonan, who hac reflected F E< . 10 it'has haen told him that baaically thic whole thing was'done 11 . 10. months.ago? t - j 12 A There again the verification program covered more
- g 13 than just the unismic, and mora than just 73-21.
From the i-p; otandpoint of the methodology and the capability of the [, n; - cquipnent ao it reintuc to Trojan in 78-21, that'a probably -- J 16 that in.a trua.ctatement. I agrec vich Mr. Noonan. l- - 17 Q Hou cacily could I get a copy of-that L i ' letter dated September 29, 1978? ys 19 Do yJu haVG a CQpy With yOU? ) i. )= l 20 A. Nor.I don't. L 21 ML. ROSOLIC: Could Staff parhaps ceo if they could i, i [. h. - 22 furnish:a copy? i . 23 MR. GRAY: When do you want th0 copy? I pj; . I cuspcot.that'the'only available copics arc back o 25 - -in Washington, nunber one. i iI geg. me. 2,9 y -4,e, -m b -
- y
+ ,c- ',y y, q ., a .seTT+" t'
- f 7 m
-v= -w e- + '-'-======e-- -=-e=
[
- 2956'
,= V + li nm12 1 lSecondiy,'I do not know that it contains. That'is-o i;.. - 2 not to say that'it contains propridtary'information or.anything 3 [' .of that nature,. bdt I just don't know the status of that letter 7 .4 at all. U 1 S~ - If you can indicate.what you need it for, we can j !( 'O . attempt to try to get a copy for you. le e b 7 MR. ROSOLIE: Well the witnesses here are testifying L I 8 that as farLao WCAP 78-21 goes, work was completed'on that D. saidctimo ago. But'yet in HUREG 0390 it has also been testified 10. that a letier wan insued by tha Staff,to the Staff, dated 11 September 29, 1970, which evidently seems to hva brought into { 12-come question the-atatus of WCAP 70-21. V Lggp 13 MR. GRAYr 'I don't see how it quite brings into 14~ question.tha statue of WChP.76-21.. But we can check and see 15 if.we can get a copy of that letter for you. i 16 .I don't know when we can get it or whether it .'i 17 'might be available. e ta WITHESS NOONAN: If I understand your question l 19-rc.garding -- you feel'that there is a discrepancy-becween l 2a what we are caying bare and1UREG 0390, I guess it is, b 21 l. If you understand the process, that NUREG' covered l f'llI ~ 23 until such'tima-asEthis other document appears saying'that 22 all topicals, and=it will show UCAP 78-2'1 as not conplete .i l i V I - 24 .we have dode'everything we are supposed to do and we have - I j. found 78-21" as an acceptable. doctnnent. Only.then will'NUREG [ L25 I 1 t e t =-m er ww w-e i, + r w w
- gn-ate
- w,- w-e n #
,ww.-me m =-.f.+.,e.
,.. ~ i: w n. t- +. a' ? 2957-i f b f ..[Jht: brought up to date tio reflect that infornation. 1-Jsall 1.~. i l., k So.if the' process woro tomorrow the NUREG was y f. p 3 1 released again -- I'm giving you a hypothetical thing here -- f [ M4 p: ..N,} it vould Ltill show 21. as not catapleto, even though we L' l 5 } are standing here trilling you today that it is complete. It ] 'S i is. just that the paperwork process has not caught up to inake f l 7' )-the Reg be. changed. Thst's all it is. I - DR. MC COLLOM: Let rae ask a qtiestion or two here, 9h{l At this stage of such a verification prograta uhoro t 't 10 ! you are' nearing complecion of it, even in the paperwork,.if l .11 you were to receive 'a letter at that point frota the vendor 12 which I acsunte in uhat we arc talking about here - I'm -13 guessing - that thin is a lettor from the vnndor, what kind 14 d of information would you' expect to have in that at that m a y i !c ?jk point'in the proccas? 15 i 1. l 10 UITNESS NCONNT: I ucula at this point in time e a ' 17 -. expect that inforna@icnto - treat plants under license, under. frj .tho-CP/0L chago. - 1 L I i 19 l 1 nm confident that all operating plants, that j:. 20 , risuua hao, been covered and has.bten outir f:.M for all !+. . operating plants. 4 F-l 21-2r -DR. NC'COLLCM: What kind of._informatich would L. 23}hp this be? ?- i gy; It uould'be considering'special nituations.at the- ,, e. g - [. plant?T ( W-25.. l -li i _ yl:, ly'4 a p2 (. si c
2958 - nntl4 I-WITIESS NOO!?AN: I would be making a guess it 2 would be something like that. t i 3 I guess the only people that maybe could tell us, .( 4 are the originatora of that n'.cmo. .5 WITNESS MC DONALD: Maybe I could addreso this a 6- -little bit. 7 Dn. MC COLLOM: Mr. 6:cDonald? 8 WITNESS MC DONS.LD: I think one has to understand 9 the total review process, I think as Mr. Pollard brought 10 out in hic testimony. And as a technical reviewer, the 11 procaan in not just writing off and accepting a report. There 12 are many meetings, exchanges of information via phone, o 13 meetings, documentation requirements. j tO 14 There again, this letter, without knowing the 13 ' exact content, could have been confirmatory information 1c needed to cupport the documentation.
- f My point, 18 months ago, or as Mr. Noonan said, 10 from a technical point of view, va had a feeling that there 1
19 were no saiety concerno and that the equipment in fact was 20 qualified. l 21 But to have all the documentation,- get overything to-22 gother -- this particular report we. chose.to give these 23 ~(3 ) .23 in one pnckage, which'ia assinilating a considerable amount of 24 material, so that wao the rationale. MR. ROSALIE: At come point I would still 3
2959' c s nm15 1; ? appreciate receiving that lotter. i. p ha I' indicated, we'will see what we 2 MR. GEArt 3 -can do for.you.- l '~ ~ 4 CHAIRMAN MILLElh.Nell that' point is not going to i 5' happen unless it happons by 1 o' clock or a quarter'of'one [ 1 c l 6 today, because 'us have to catch an airplano, and there-7 are engagements which won't permit any extension, and the G' Board very much wishes to complete the examination of the i 3 . panel and the conclusion of this . phase of the evidence. l a. 10 MD. AXBLRAD: Mr. Chairman, if I may clarify one i1~ point? 3. 12 CHAI1WAN MILLER: Yer.? .g-13 MR.1 ANELRAD : It is my understanding that ).- 14 Ucatinghouse adopts the procedure of supp]ying additional
- 3 information to the Staff from tina to tima, and this J-16
-particular letter of. September _29, 1970 relates to'new 17 qualification for a new deuign of some equipment which in l
- 7 jg not involved at the Trojan plant.
+ 19 It in, I believe, a Barton prescure transmitter, 1 20 and the information was being pr4Nided to thc NRC Staff in y t t g;- sconnection with-that equipment, which is not equipment '22 involved with the Trojan plant. . ; g-73 MR..ROSALIE:- Is Mr. Axelrad tactifying? I g CILRIRMAN MILLER: No., Counsel and parties, unlesa i g. tliey ' are. under cath, ' never tentify. 1 i, i-i: s J,.2 ....e.......y .,n
2960' rial 6 I BY MR. ROSALIE: 1 2 Q Okay. 3 Dr. McCollum mentioned, or you have heard mentioned 4 also the DBA sequencers, or Eagle signals. And I belive you 5 said they were qualified under Bechtel. 6 Is that correct? 7 A (Mitness Noonan) That's my underntanding as to the s 9 balance of the plant. O Q Can you turn to Table 5 of PGE Exhibit, or Licensee 10 Exhibit 23? 11 A (Witness Mcdonald) Page number, please? 12 Q It is cheet 2 of 9, or K16. It is towards the 13 back. 14 A Yes. You are referring to.the qualification 15 document reference. And it is not Bechtel? Is that what I 16 understand your qucation? 17 0 Yes. I guess that in one of the qu<2stions. ta A Okay. 19 If an architect-engineer, or whever cupplies equipment, 20 any tent lab, whether it be Wylie, in this case Anamet -- if I 21 am pronouncing it correct -- Franklin Inetitute may do the 22 actual test. But the responsible individual is a person that 23 supplies the equipment. 2<1 As far as we are concerned, the qualification, it-( ) 25 under the NSS supplier Westinghouse supplied. They may
.3-l- 2961 1 ns.17.. 'I' I contract anybcdy to do the actual tect. But they are 32 . responsible.for the test, the.contant=and the result, and O 3 having the documentation to support it. e .t v t, Q-Do you know uho cupplied the DBA acquencera? 5 l' ' A It is.my underabanding it uns.under the Ecchtel 3 ,h i n F;j neopa of su;. ply. C i b. 7 fl - Q Who war the manufacturer? s .A (Mitness Tranumil) Eagla Signal Tiraer Company. l O P,} - $ jll-A (Witnran Mcdonald) They were-l'agle timers in the - l } 10 ' uhole thing. l i i 11 ' You are talking a daaign and I don't knou. I s IR H don't kncu. I L ',g 4 0 Io it poccible that Wautinghou:se subcontracts ~ M {;- their aquipment to huva other compe.niec' manufacture it and I p n 75 ] iccue it under their name' ac Uactinghouco e' uipn:ent? q o it 10 fj of, 'do they manufacture all thcir equipment i 17 !; themselves? h 10 [1 n I do not believe they nanufacture all their d 79. equipment. "iO Uhen I am referring.to the topical report or n a l equipment ~cupplie>l by Uastingbouba, there again all that D 22 - C equipunnt that they Engply ana in identifice inthat report, ..h !h 1 - a9 cthey are responsibic for tho qualification. .33 l Who manufacturcs the equipment.is imanterial, as S i~ long as the documentatior* is cupr:orted, that it is qualified. .m n. .g ,i l-11:I: JU; .l m
E 2962 rmilB 1 Las identified'in ita specifications. 2: In light of problems with Wsstinghouse-supplied O
- i. ~
3 equipment,did the NRC review equipment supplied by other j-4 vendors? 5 HR. Gl?AY: Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to ask 6-that Mr. Rosalic identify.what' problems with Weatinghouse i.- 7 ' equipment he in referring to. 0 - ClihIRMAN MILLER: Yea, ths.t is true. ~0 If you wish to refer to that you ahould-identify 10 it, Mr. Rosalie. 11-EY MR. ROSALIE: 12 Q In view of the problems with the Eagle timers-13 supplied by Westinghouse, did-the NRC look into the same . g 4 .14 products supplied by other vendors? 15 A (Witncan Mcdonald) I am trying to understand the 16 question. Excuse me., l' 17' The Eaglo~timero and the modelo supplied for the a 18 DUA sequencers, there-is documentation to cupport the [- w 19 qualification forithe particular application, the design i 20 application. l, I' 21-If Ucstinghouse chose'to have an Eagle timer for a 22 particular application -- and I .bolieve in Zion station is j: 23 Lthe only ano where they supplind that, that has been qualified i.. .2.t, for that application in that plant. I "g3.- There again 1-point out the generic qualification in L g- -:.u .i..
g.g..--.-,-.._.-- . _ _ -.. - _ _ _ - _ _ _. _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t E, ,j j,i I' '2963 .l \\ jn rcm19 1 a topical report is qualified to an envelope, and if..a plant ] c. r
- 2. -
design f alls into that envelope, -it ' can be used for the i j. l t-3 application; identified, the functional requirements and the [.g i [L 4 design basic envelope. l k 5 0 okay. f f G Moving to, I guosc, the seismic qualification of 3 t 1 7 engineered safety features ' witch gear. l c i i 1 l8 Hero all the relays tested? 9 A (Witness Noonan) Yes, all the relays were tested. !~ 10 Q And the reason they were tested.,was it because i i' 11 there was no documerfation that they were seismically qualified? i i 12 A Again, according to Table 5 - I just want to [ 13 refresh my memory. Table S shows method of qualification, l 14 number 3, which is a test. t [ l: 15 All the relays on that page are listed as being i a i 16 tested. And the purpose of the test was to show that they 17 withstand the seismic environment. I s I to Q Okay. i. 19 Right now I am referring to the engineered- } 20 safety features'awitch gear, which was mentioned by ( l l i 21-Mr. Tranmell earlier, which ia in the Safety Evaluation t i' I 22 Report 8.3.2. .i 1 N lh^' ,i 23 And I was wondering if those relays mentioned i r i l h,. 24 thero, the reason.they were' tented was because there was no I 25 documentation as to the qualification. That's the reason c .i ,s I .-.-.-..l.-~,~.u.-.-,-...L.,_ ..d.~.-.~...-.+,-...i,_....:-.,.,~~,.- .,,.~,n.
2964' l mm20 I they were' tested?. i .2- -A (Witnesa Trammell) I'm not 100 percent up with L:_O (' 3 you. It sounds like the answer to that question is they i 'e 4 were tested to qualify'them, c. i i L 5 What.-item are you speaking of? Something in this i 0 TableL57 i 7 'Q~ .No,-I am speaking in the Safety Evaluation Report F j.. 8 8-6, page' - that you referred to earlier. Section 8.3.2, .I O seismic qualification of engineered safety features switch I [ 10 gear. 11 A And what is your question? j j i 12 l 0 My question is, were thone relays tested becauso a ] 13 there was no docuaientation as to-their coishtic qualification? j' 14 ' Is that tbo reason they were tostod, or was it a h 15 [ opot check? I } l 16 J A. (Witnesa Noonan) I'm not sure I understand what 17 ; you are saying, but I would like to try to respond if I can. I ja{ The relays weren't tested because of lack'of IL 19-[ documentation. The relayu were tested or not tested because 20 I; they are required to be soir.nically qualified. 3 F [- 21 4 You em do a number of things to coismically qualify ~ it - ..g .g; f certain items. You can do it.by analysist. you can do it on ! h. I 22 l. a generic basis where tho equipment is.done generically and-l q. 24d.say this is the same piece of equipment; you can do:it by what u [
- 25 ( they call a quasi-atatic type analycis, whlch'ic really-s
,k L Nji l w ih m u o .. _...; _ a _..._ _ _ _..u_ __s a: ;_.. _.... _... ~.. _ _.
y R g o.
- \\
l s . 2965 1 iy: nmal~
- 1 basically a' static'? analysis'or test.
'l
- 1 2
~So there.is a number of methods, right? ^; '3 O' Right. - QL 4 What I am trying to get at, it saya in the. opening. 5 here:- o 6 '"Doing scicmic tecting of protective rGlaya i 7 associated with the ehgineered cafety feature 4 8 breakers, some relays wero.fourd to misoperate." 9 Not?, I'am referring to, it says "during seismic 10 ' -tenting." 11 ~ .Now is that testing that the NRC'did, or is that t" J12 testing PGE did to' qualify them? 13 A (Witness Mcdonald) It.was not testing NRC-did, y 14 it was testing.thatwas performed to verify their functional 1 13 requirement in the design. 16 As I read on further it says: 17 "The conclusion was that since the relays were 70 not damaged, this.was acceptable." 19 And it f urther states: 2tj - - We informed the Applicant of our position that I 21 all cafety-related electrical equipment is required 22-to be designed to withstand the' effects of the '.-g-I.- 93, SSE.trithout either malfunction or. locs ' of ' capability - t 24; to perform:the. intended: function'without operator-action."
- 25 m
4 'h 7 g ~
k,' 4:ir ' <j' /' W 1 O 'M [99 h ': [. f. 2966 i
- y
.h mm22 'l Itlfurther states: j t .2 - "They, subsequently stated that those types of p ; f: I relays that do not have adequate capability-to -.g 4 withstand the seismic events will be replaced with J [ ~ [ 5 relays of.'a different manufacturer for which: test F l-6 data in'dicate a capability of Sg's:or greater." l 3 'And which infore and? indicates, as we read on-F. i ~ l-8 down, that that was an inadequate relay for that application 1I '9 ' and it was replaced. 1 s [ '10 MR. ROSALIE: May I' approach-the witnescos?. l: l 11 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes. n ~? [ .J2 (Mr. Rosalie handing document. to witneno panel) 13. MR.-GRRY:. May'I see that? l 14 ~ , (Mr. Rosalie handing document to Counsel Gray) i. i i 15 DY Mit. ROSALIE:' F V j 16 0 If you could, for the reporter and the rec'crd, I._. 17 identify the document I have just handed you? b l' to A (Witness Noonan) The document handed t~o me uct j I, i..- ~19 now in dated September 28,.1978. I 20 It'is a' memorandum for Milton ~J. Grocoman, IIcaring j l p-- [ 21r - Division DirectorLand Chief-Counsel, OSLD, from Victor Stollo, t I: ~ 22 Jr.,.'D1 rector, Division of Operating Reactors, NRR. .g3 And the subject is "Dourd Notification Pipe Support i, g4 Dase.' Plate'Denign."- . 23 Q Could..you possibly read'the bottom sentence there ( e +- .-.c -...,.+ie-..,www.,....n." ao.-wA.---+rd.-- e ., - ~ -,. v.-., .r-m..-- .. + - ~ - + - + - .., + - = .+-0-s
= - - + * - * <
- am-
= - - - - -
.z, q r - 2967- ,s mm23 'I and.over to the next page? A .The bottom sentence.says: D. "We have concluded that the more detailed 4 information required must be obtained from each 5 operating facility. We are preparing a generic 13 letter to each operating facility requesting -l 7-detailed design installation and testing information O. of concrete embedded anchor bolted pipe supports of p 9 safety-related equipment." i 10 Q Can you tell me what the status of that is?. 11 A Yos, I can. Y-t 12 After issuance of this letter and after talking I 13 with our management, we decided to' change directions slightly 14 on this. 1 l 15 What we are issuing is a bulletin. The title is to anfNRR bulletin, stating that we have found in certain plants 17 a deficiency in these types of supports. We state to the to utility that what he must do in examination cf his supports, 19 there are a number of. items stated. And it is stated that 20' if he can meet the criteria wo eat out in this bulletin, then 21 we no longer- . have to hear from him and that the I&E people, 22 the Inspection and Enforcement office will follow up and ' Z3 make sure that he has'done what the bulletin sayo he has done. 24 If he can't moet what is in the criteria, or if J )* 25 he identifies the problem to us, then wo will review it on a case by case. basis as to exactly what the problem is. enil T8'
,( .i-g: l ~
- gagL.
29ris q ajel El' L l'L Q: LHao that'been cent out yet, that. bulletin? t i- . 2 I) -1 b A The bulletin has left my offico. I cantt verify ! h-I juct. don't have i' E@ that it has been cent to the utilities. t-'-~. o T lIql ~ i that information. \\ h I nI O 'I'll addrean this' question to Mr. Georgo. U9 In-the firc protection... or is the HRC i l I requiring an alternate or dedicated shutdown aafety ayatem, p 4 J jl in that considered backfitting by the NRC? S. 9] A' (Nitnoco George) I Siness'I might have to ask for i' 10 j some help on thic. I'm not' cure whether it falls within.the 'o.. sL1 l 1T-9 criteria or the clause of the regulations on backfitting. I 11 l-I f, Dj-really couldn't say. .p 1 if It's a modification that, in the case of Trojan, Mh,!. is proposed by tht: Licensee. Ne did not require it otherwise. i o i5 [ And it's nonething that, unan installed, will reco1ve come i + s <. L 1F l Chaff concerna baced on curront standardc that the Staff hac .c i, l14. catablished for fire protection. ?! y e' Ff i. Q-Mr. Tramne11? d t H j l, ?ff]f A (Witneco Transtell) I wouldn't call it backfitting, 1 W [ 'in that the perticular itam here involves suitches which can' g i ifb, trancfer control of a pump front the control room to the in 2f j! local. patoic.tmcoca for hot chutuown. 1 Nh. l-2p4 ; There's more than one way.to achieve this i. 3 t fyi l l. obj ecti've. PCS proposed, and.wo accepted thic method, and I ,n ) - 5 4 -4' 4 31[' p r n a d m. -. l...'s.e, 4e.- w s. r 4v.<. ,--....w.,_,.,_,..,, .,_~r.,.-- i.1. i--- i.. m-oa+e
'e 4' L '2969.. G wel '2 -1' for.Ja modification or: a chango which in required, and offers [ O. -2 substantial ~ additional protection necessary for the public r; 3 health and safety.. It doesn't fall-into that category. VQ I 4 Q I.'bclieve it was'atated that there would have to-5 be installed by the third cycle -- there was some mention G about the third' cycle? j 7 A Yes.- It's.a condition of their license, that 0 these fire protection modifications will be completed prior 9, to the startup for operation inycycle 3. 10 MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, excuce me, we do now 11-have the copies-of the Dafety Evaluation Report on.the fire 12 protection matter which the Doard requested the Staff offer
- 5 in evidence. To wrap up a loone end and make sure we don't 14 forget that, I might propoca that uo do that now.
15 CHAIRMAN MILLER: All right. What is the 1G identification?- If ' MR. GRAY: This would be Staff Exhibit 11. i' Staff-Exhibit 11 uill bc i is CHAIRMAN MILLER: E k .. received in evidence, and copies are now being tendered by ) 19 ' l-
- .~
20 Mr. Gray. I-l= =2f (The document referred to was .2 marked for identification as ['h j
- j..
'23-Otaff Exhibit 11 and.was 4 r' ' 24 received in evidence.) f25 MR. ROSOLIE: I believe that's all the' questions If s c X 4
k { '970: 1 wal~3 l l I' 1t ILhave. { l i 1, .h j !j CHAIIGWF MILLER: Tnunk you, Mr. Rosolie. E hl-l MR. GPAY: I should point.out that the notations I 4 on i. ' cover.Of Staff Exhibit 11 obviously ~~ the handwritten i t j $j notations -- have'no evidentiary value and should be' ignored. ) j' l Sf. CHAIRMAU MILLER: A", far as the record is concerned, ] l f I ) 7 h the handuritten notationa vill be considered deleted. 4 5[ is. BULL:. Mr. Chairman, can you give'un an idea j l i 3 'of what our schoc'ule is nt this point? 10 CHAIrD17S MILLER: Yns. Our schedule is that we 11 will concludp the evidentiary hearing and close the record j Q at a quarter to'l:00, or cooner, if we're finished. But that-i~ , g 13 is the timo at which Dr. McCollom has to leave to catch his i a 14 airplane. 15: The Board is reluctant to proceed by quorum, al-i 1G though wa nny do'so.in an amergency. We alco feel that sinco (.- i: 17 we have called thesa witnenses we want you to have the right l. 4 [ 1d ; to cross-examina them, but ws do believe that you as Mr. r J l 19l Rocolic did, can cover it within reasonable proportions and ~ l 20.l not ccek to expand it, as you might be tempted to do.uare b 21 - l
- theco witnconcc of a different ahnracter.
L.. 22T Now, how much tiro da you need? Do you or do you hL, -23 not'went a recess? Ne don't cars. E.<.u< K FS. DELL: A very short recans will prchably haip 24l s .25- . ICG. C,i,, 11 - l' ~. <O L. ..-.--i..-. --.- a ......-..-.-...:-.-u
F-7 ..,.c L \\;g 9 'a !? . wel;L4:< '29711 'l ^1' CliAIRMAN, MILLER: Very.well, i.
- f...O
? 2 (Rscess.) 3 CHAIRMW MILLUR: All right, Ms. Bell, you may l \\- ,4 proceed. I 15 MR. GRAY: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. During the 6 receas Mr. Moonon was able to call back to Nachington and to o 7 orally-hear the contents of that September 29, 1978-letter -.8 that Mr. Ronolio referred to. l 9 CIIAIRMAN MILLER: Good. Let's have'the record, i ~10 then, reflect what information you've been uble to receive by telephone. I-11' l 12 V NESS "^ONAll: Yes, sir. I just called Dr. j 13' Chin from-the Mechanical Engineering Branch of the Division [ 14 of Gyatoms safety. He informed me that the letter referred 15 to here on paga 10 of Mr. Pollard's limited appearance 16 ctatement, the letter dated 29 September 1978, involved new 17 tent data on ecme Earten trancmitters for the Diablo Canyon a i .e 1B application. i. 19 Ho further infomed ree that he has checked with 1; l] 20 the Electrical Branch, and that does not' involve Trojan whatsoever., i-21 l. 22 CHAIRMAN MILLUH: Thank you. 23 DY MS.~ BELL: i iS . 24'. _ Q- 'Would you say there were any significant .i LOJ a duf-n=e eetween the mE repe=e 323, ies auferene
- 4. -
4 4, li b b i y i s.)'. r, - i.,,. ' J,;;,._ w...:. c ~... ac. ~. -.. _, _.. _ ~. - _ _ _ _... _ _. _ - - - -
7-. v ,j L' -- ~ 2972- .i ; ve'l.5:-. n q i. 1, "I O Yersi'ons,.thht--in, 1971 and 197d? 'I ~ ~ [ Q a f E -Z. ) A (Witness M Donald) In relation to ceinmic ..) e 1 qualification? .in relation-to what?. j i O 4 l~ il [. 1, O In relation to seismic qualification.. ll T k J !c_ 1 mA To sciemic, it references the daughter cupporting "i 1 i:_ e i ( G I standards, which are 344, the.carlier version being 871 and ) l I F p 7 I then Inter, 275. 1 e-V C -g I belien Mr. Noonan has given complete detail 3 I 6l o I 8 9l[-entherelationehlpof!thosecoinmicstandards~.. ) (- l q L 10 [O Q So would you cay there narc significant differences' t j [. W hstween the two versions? -{ t [ 12 >i A Of uhat', the 34 4-71 and ' 757 - r i-l W h isf 0 That was my no::t quection, but you may address h t t. M' d'. - { that now. ? t-8- 4~;L 15. l A Mr.'Noonan? y: ~ Is (Mitnans Noonan) I think I addrocced that for you,' 2. i b-ni. 1 but I'll respond again. I 1 i t- ) 16-l MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, I guess I teould object to - t [1 g -going into that again. I think it's ropetitive. If was 1 l{ 1'
- ?O +} covered in some great ' detail, as far an 344 is concerned.
f' i-m j(. ' CHAIRMAN MILLER: Welle I think the-question ic i. [: i r [ probably limited to a nummary type question. I. don't think -d i ~a f : Mc. Bolliwas trying to go bacn and get -- a 1 1 d'," MS. BELL: 'No, I'm'not. pJ Lj- ,.f1 1 l-f ' 2S j. WITP.ESS NOONAN: I'll respond to that, becauco it. a i. i a e i'; y 1 0 q i e ,a t- ! 'A .~ a e f! .h t "W a. =~..--.-:.---.-------.--a.'----2.-- z-:---~------'- ~~b-
2973 4 4 wel 6- / 1 basically, liko I said, I see no real significant differences, 4 2 other than an update, as ue would normally expect as specs n ~3 change and ncw technology developc, and the state of the art n U 4 is developed. n 5 DY MS. DELL: 4 ( G Q In that you were t:1hing about scicmic qualifica- ' s 7 tion? t e 8 A (Mitness Moonan) Yes. ,i 9 0 Hote about general environmental qualifications? 10 A (Uitneac Mcdonald) The difference between 323-74 11 and '717 l 12 0 tio, the difference between 344 of '71 and '75. 13 A They're related to acicmic. The environmental is j 14 323, which is ~~ we use the term " mother" document, which i l ,a 15 has many supporting documents of which seismic is only a 3 {i ] 16 portion of uhat is addressed in 323. And I believe Mr. 1 I 17 Koonan just indicated the difference between the two 344 I 18 versions. l 19 0 I'm carry. I did mean the difference between 20 the 323 versions, in terms of environmental qualifications. 21 A You're relating to the overall environmental 22 q'ualification, then. ] 23 323-71 gave some general guidelines. 323-74 I I 24 e:.panded, tnd defined, for enampic, actual numbers. It also 'O V 2s included actual requirements to connider aging as one of the 1 ,{, i' i
i' '. .,_.__c.,.__.._.--.-.___._~..-.._- em
- f r g
8 f. fj,}. ', 4 vc. uk1:7qh-4 - ], F^ '2974 L
- I
', 3 '1-I;> environmsntal pnrnmeters 1 C 7 % i;t 1 1.believe those would be tha two najor differences. c~-h: j q. f 3{ between tho' document 6, %t was more explicit and detailed.- { < ; h' . I! I' 44 !!owevet, the consideration for: margin.and other u 3 M tha.ngs 'was included. iri; the '71 veraion, h. 1 .0 60) ] 0 Could you briefly explain'hou aging might come' i .la 7 I into plby in _ a piecs of etp2ipment? l,g .. l -0 { A-Aging; depending on the types of material and the 1
- l 0 d considerations, the environment, the normal environment, the
]~' v' d }. If ): 10 p numbcr of operational cyclec, the application ~~ there are i,, 4 1 11.] nany variables that could be considered for.a period of time l '! 12 fl that could affect, over a long pe.dod of tima, the capability ', a .h j dif of cartain'compondnts, 1l t ,! : ( l 14 i O If, for'examplo,. we were taking metal platec tnd ?( ,.'( s j ' w }. batteriec, would those be subjcat to aging, show aging? j i t L te d A Mahal platen and batteries? i e .g i r 1,, Q Yec. J. i Isj A. You'ra talking the internela of c battery? n i 5' U: y Q Ten. W !t M U. A They oculd ba subject to aging normally from their l, ap "? %).h:uro,andtheyhs.vearequiremantforbLtteriesfortecting, .p 3 7:n d( periodic tbsting, dischtrgo tocting, to ba. a taacure to /; m 1 -determine when a battery in nearing its end of. life, l y 'If - f 6i 0 j Does ractal in equipment 'cVer become brittle -~ T g 4 si 2 's Lgiveu age r:becdmaEnore brittle? 1 .. i. .-3. {'. ' pc _ -( s t 1-4 p;r t ,. l u t
- y sh'
.h
gy i l [ wel 8..- }f 2975l ll l-t s l e, 1 Is .(Hitness t!oonan) I'll cay no, but I would like to r p p l h-2 qualify that, if I can. ( [ 3 In general, matal does not becone-brittle due to
- h_
I 4 age.. It does not change its material properties, with one i 6 t j 5 e::ception. With the metals acacciated with the reactor i-D G vessel, duc'to radiation effec's, there could be, depending e q o r 7 on the type of metal,'it could becomo brittle, yes. ) i I' B Q How about any cort of small electrical components, .I 9 such ao wiren, very thin piccon that might be usad? I i i e' i i 10' A Based ou Iny personal knowledge of materialo -- I'm j t 11 not a natorials raan, and I'd have to refer back to my s taff-- 12 -I' know of no tental that beco:neo ochrittled, like electrical (.Q 13; equipment type metalu uced in noriaal applications, unlesc t-l 14 they're subjact to c:ctrcmoly high radiation values, ( il I'd really have to refer back to the staff to i ~ nnauer that quection, because I not a materials man. 16' 4 j _ ty Q Okay. Thank you. Ia How many yearn would you any it'c taken for the O NRC to find UCAP-7821 acceptabla, given that 10 uonths ago B 20 you found it technically acceptable? l 1 I [ 21 A (Uitness Mcdonald) Au 1 indicated earlier, I l D 3 22 believe that au far as the starting of the ovaluation, it h 23 was sometite in the frama of late '73 to early '74 when we l,l' g i. 24 utarted.tbc evaluntion. )5 'As I pointed out, it does not infer that the l l .......u,.____.....
. ~ _ _. _ _ _... _ _ _ _ o t 2976-welE9' 11 Ltopical was ur, acceptable. Thero;seemed to be certain' concerns 7 - and' considerations that we needed to answer, but it did not O 4 IT ~ }. ~ mean that"it wen.comoletelv..unaccentnble., 4 I, Me.had some concerns, and in none casos required 3
- nothing more than additional documentatior.
In other cases-6 p\\. we did foal it naceacary to go ahead and do sone confirmatory ? IJ testing.. tc 5y 0 okay. Now, Trojun relica on UCAP-7821? ?{' A Yet.. 1 1 i IU j Q Did you require adhiitional' documentation? l1 t 11 A Is that in relation to the topical report, or to 4 l 17 - ! Troj m specifienlly, or, I. don't quite undaratand your ih 13 quesMon. 14 0 Lot
- a cay ua. he.ve - - in various tabico i;c have I
e t. 19 qualification referenco document ~~ or docunent reference, RT L rather, 3.nd the doeuraent there is UCAP-7021. Hou uould we -l. m2 i 1T U know if a?,ditio",al subaittala or documentation were required i a p .1 te{ for the-qualific'. tion of that piece of equipuent~that 1 j. tp ' ! referenced that c' >cunint? I 20 .A Theievaluation report, as I indiented,.the ono' tt that will be published within a couple of weeks, will include 1 1, I. 22 tho' Staff's evaluation, will identify the referencoc upon I j which the staff cvaluated and based their conclusion on. r/a .j .v I 24 ThaE information uill'bo. included in the Public l g ( 2ti, l--Document Room as part of the overall report. j { j 6 ' jf
- L Jjj1
'f., L i; ' q,, -- m,
7.
- g.....
.p q i - vel 10 1 2977 i + .J O skay. j 'f - 3 d .e-_ Now,'getting back to Trojan, if they referenced
- )
3 _a report that at that time was not considered acceptable by l: j'j. i. 4' the NRC-Staff,'hou do we know if they provided additional h 5 documentation, or if they were rc2erencing actually a part l 0 of 7821 that was found acceptable? 7. A In the-Final safety Analysis Ecport for the 2 - 0 operating license,. Trojan indicated who supplied the 9 equipment and. identified these particular pieces of equipment u } iO in that generic topical that is'in their plant daeign. Mot i 11- 'all equipment qualified in there was part of their plant 12 design. t '13 In the Electrical Instrumentation Control' Systems 'I la ' Branch we looked at the functional operability. We had I> 15 concerns, but un found nowhere where we considered that it iG' was unacceptable, but renconable assurance that the equipment-17-would still' function. i
- m. )
We did have soma concerns and required some I.li 1 10 additional information and document & tion, as I indicated, ].' ~ 20 ' some confirmatory toets. j, t i 21 It is n judgment factor of im individual-that does .\\ 22-the evaluation for.the particular plant, those people r 9-23 involved.in,a_-generic ovaluation. It's not absolute. Any
- l. l
'\\ \\ ,. ' test is designed to provide, in addition to other'information,]4 1 r 24 E. a ! 25 :.. a reanonabic accurance. h; 2 L it' L I f,
- b yet
~ 2 3 L,-,.
y; t <i f 4 f: ; 2978 !? 'wol 11 ' 4 'We concluded;in<the Branch, bscausciof the extent; j'3 .l' .i i '6f information:available on:the report and.our degree of. j 2- ' h-3 iLj .31 confidence'in'it, that.ve would, con the-Heatinghouss-supplied : J ). 4 equipment, rely on our genaric evalusti.on, and we vonld not 5 require the Licentec in a'particular. case.to independently t 4-G supply.aomething, unlenc:they.no. chose to. j 10HEL 7 0 In terms of ceiunic qualification of safety-related,.'( i, ll 8 cquipmant, uaro the'UCAP reports on page 11 of Mr. Pollard's l fI, i [ 9 limited. appearance statement used.in reference to the Trojan t \\ L P ant? [ 10 l l i 11 It None'of thoco reports.on page ll'are related to l l 12:- ;. seismic. The only.one ia:the one on page 10, the 7821. I .j 13 QL And were any.of those related'to environmental i L l' 14 qualification? 1S -A 7744 and 7410-L woro related to environmental' f.
- 10. j qualifications.
I \\ I l' 17 0 And at the time, I presmaa, the time that Trojan I n) was referencing thene,they were in the category of not i i 1Ei acceptsd by the NRC? 20-A They were being revicued. t. j-2i. f 0 on topical reporte 7921,.7744 and 7510, how-many 22 'lj 'branchos of.the NRC do the review on these? l I I' h ft I i 23 .'A In the area of '7317-21, the seismic, it's j l; h pr.unarily the' Meche.nical' Engineering Branch and-.-the Electrical. ~9. '. Na may also consult. systems branches. It. depends. If there's g5 L [ m g: aa
wel 12 1 a concern of the application in a design, we may contact 2 other branchon. But those are the two primary reviewers. I believe the Standard nevicu Plon, which in 4 section 310, 311, which identified the seisnic and environ-r" montal, list the primary branchea or ranponsible reviewer j G and supporting branchen. 1 7 It would depend en the particular cituation. But l 1 0 the two primary are the enca I've indicated. In the area of environnental qualification, it's the E2cctrical Branch. It's the Containment Syctems for the 11 prescure profile in the contairmnt. p~ It's the Accident Analyain Eranch, related to the O '3 recieeice-I4 It enecmpasses almout all branches, depending on IU I the qucntions'. It can be unterials questions - whatavar. W D And the staturi that he's referring to here is U the otatus by tha Electrical Dranch, is that right? l M A Au primary reviewe: on thia, yen. Ac I indicated, U thers'c a lot of work, and I h:.va like 100-some documents "3 referenced, and, bcivy the prirary reviewer have to request 2! ac.uictanca from hba cther brancho, if thoro'c a question in o> '" ' t their perhicular area. 23 0 nnd the Staff document number 10 is basically the g 24 ficchanical Engineering Eranch? l 25' A Re:letise to suiamic, tint's true. t
...g---..
- ~.. - - -. ~ -. - -
- c j
+ wel' 13 A L-H '. 2980 ;. 1., p a ; -R ] i. 'l j QL I think you'vn already antworcd thic' question', but 7 ' 81 o - leb me ask it in a ' difforent 'say r ^ i Lh Clt j jf ~ Did you require nite-specific information for i M t / Trojan to qualify Ucat'inghouse equip ant? f ~ r, F d p
- 'y
- A Therc'are tuo wayn.
Tha-accident analysis, and l p J J il in the FSAR the Licensea or tpplicant provides the profile W e 7' h that is the design for his particula.c olant. The canipment i j ', j 0 0 providad can be, no long as that profile is under a gencric 'l n le i type profile, if I may, and there is adaquate margin in it i i ,l I 10 h still encompicsod within those bounds, can une a generic d 0 j.
- ? 9g report. to support the qualificalz. ion, j
k l 1? " It can be done either wey, as accustomed to the i 4 L - (. 10{ not.ual profile for this plant, or fall under a generic i h p f
- envelope, i
1 1 1 13 j .O In the caso of Trojan was there any site-specific b 10 ( information? f l i: 3 [
- 7 A
Tharo ic coismic-spei fic infermation on the i I I docket, yes. d 4 s ii G Q I said site-spacific. i P u /-L A Site? a H - t b 0 Yes. 4-1 l &-[. CHI 11RETG MILLUR: Aren' t vc getting beyon d the o. n! point now of the iceues that un anted - h. n
- h[.
Well, I was cimply trying to find out MS. BELL: L n if t-here's ~any documentation that at this point the record k 4
- g-
,) ' s ..i --2
- =m+,i...
ww' s er y.a www+.- h e-' r-+p-v' M -wb + eu '----------*'-------m.----- -= m um 9-M 9-%-r. -emer
i jy: U, _.___.r._,,.. ~. _.,.,.,___._m I ;.h
- 2 f1 m
%) : 14 l f' ' l ggy - j . )[v 1 .- l.," : 1cakG 1cn : " 3-h 1-4 j> . <. g. =CIMIPLITGi 11ILLERi that?- Documentation that what? . i. - -d i: e ~f b y ij : .MI.13 ELL: "that the record -lacks on Uostinghotiso l 4 e i. ( + h, equipm nt that'was qualifiad generically.- And if tha answer e ~ i: .I g z u - in no, than.there.isa' t'. any ciocumentation that we Me missinct.- l;8 s. l.' e i o CHAIRMMI IIILL5R: Ucil, I'in not clear. I don't ti
- 0. -
l 1. we.nt to: tnho :up your; time < but I'ri not clear that you're
- ,j r-1
) pursuingLan~icane that vac covered by the witnOCE103. i [ } [' l
- n.. d, MITNEGS HOO:GN:
I could respond. ' f' 3 CiMI.MGi IHLI4:R: All right. 9 i 10 ti d ,t i '."here arc responsa anactra that j i l u WITN.ESS M00 MAN: p i- .l,i a r n ./ a n 9 cre supplied in'the FSTnt. That ico urad as a basis to compare,l ,.y
- u. A i
it , h arid thut n tho'accum ntation that we uced to lock to. i If j i 1 thoro a referonee topical 1.nnoim d we would take that data ,, I e t ' b> i s i5 ly u.nd compara it to the topical to see whethar the topical t' would encompass those apectra. ..n - 17l m.'. bis. EETJa w ;n,- O And thin enr:;in ycu referred to as a method that ...u i O van uccd bafora, ha'i that chnngad substantially botueca. ,, u. 1: i o
- l I;
h (Uitncas IIcDonald) natroen uhat? ,,r.a,. m s .\\ L ll u ,., fi Q ' Well,. Ma sore talking nbcut tun:t: gin:t in the IEEE...[.] 1: l t .u s,. a..,
- n 323?
i [ -- 'i' (- _i 0-323,.right.' !: 3 i i ! g T_.. P[ f' A
- 747- - As -I indicat.ed it always has been implied-
] 7 n w, .s. j in tho l?L vorcian that yee go have me.rginc for uncertainties q 8 M. ' g0 i I-p i 4 i a1 1 I ~ q 8 j
_.,...__..._,.r w i, ' A '. [ ~ , 2 9 8 2. 4. ll 1& 1 l f." - $ [E)-" 'l 1 .1 t ' Uhenever vcu perfora'a' test, because in a test.you attempt j?! [ it; 3'} ~ } -2. ta simulate an close as practical the actual enditions. o i 1 3 323-74 did put come nuruers - for example, 1 ; a ~ 4 10 percent on prescuro, if I recall. I'm not sure of the . - But it alco indicated these are suggested y ' actual values +. I -g 6 ' values of margin, ,. 4 7 nara again, it.gota to'he technical judgmant to 'j ) O determine if the. margin, in~ fact,'is adequato and it's going jj I b j to'be based also.on the calculations by which you've a I i l' 10- ' developed the particular environinent that you're trying to 4 !~ tt ' qualify. i, ~ a l l 13 There are nany variables considarod there. Aud J 4 I 13' - those are nuggested values.in 323 -74, 'i 'h= gg O On the balance of plant equipment, was there any J } I < h 13 sito-opecific documentation for seismic qualification of 7.. <;p safety -related equipment? i g74 A' (Uitnasc Noonan) Again, the response spectra as f . pj provide'd in the FSAR uculd. be that doeuraentation. 3 I 19 O Are you familiar with page 12 of tir. Pollard's. i i i 20 limited appearan:3.statemant - rnther, page 13? It's after cl Lthe discusaicn of the way he fouria out that thare were some U 8 +g o ,r 22 l.j.problema with relays,-uhich was banically that he requested l' lg 33 information from pGE cnd they' supplied him uith nomething on f. . And at thnt paint they fcnnd out that they qu the relays. o. could not itetermine shether they ucro eeiccically qualified,. F j.Ih i. -!r 1 n s _g. E m e ..-e-s.,- 4 /.----. --o,,e- -,e,-em-,E p-.9-y.eq.+ .w py7 ht' N-f M WV
-7, r _- _._____m._ k '} y pm um 2983 q i-en. I wel.-Ll6 P and that led to the operating 1licenca'having a condition + ,7 p i l f'q lthnt thoso: unqualified:relayn be replaced or removed. l x (l
- )-
~ t, r ~' 17 E Now, he goes on'in the second paragraph'on page. i n t b 4 13 ' 'a nd ' says :. ,E "I.perforned no civilar spot checks to datermine p. 4 1 l T ..whether the balance of plant safety-related equipment f 7 has undbrgone. adequate environmental qualification." l L p t i i ~0 Is it trhe that this in still not a normal 7., i' I {' L 9 practico, or that thic in atill normal practice not to do 1 1 10 that kind of check? l 4 't I. i 11 . A- .(Witness Mcdonald) I'm afraid I can't address how ?. - i i I t i. t?. Mr.' Pollard did.his review, but let me explain how I've done j' l p 'n review when I uns in the technical review area doing 0 g 14 licensing ro*7ioun. M R do do an audit function, and by definition in an e I' 16 audit function va do nob look at overy detail. l. 17-For example, if there are'100 nafety-related I I -) l' Di drawinga, wa do 'icoh at nelected drawings, 'm try to confirm \\ l-l 19 and verify that in fact the denign criteria has been mot as i. JU implemented. i- [ ai The qualification acpect ic just ona of the i I ll
- 2
' additional areas that-we lock at, and that, in itself, is 13_ alsoyan. audit function. p L 2rr The things cuch as generic evaluations and g reviwas cone;cro.ractored'in.- ev {. i fi. i. ~- ' 'I j;" y .f3 x
_. _..,... -. _ _. _... ~. _ _. _.. _. -.,, _.,.. _. 1 ,. ^ y, ue1 ?-17 'j i 4 l 1 If.'I understand the way'Mr. Pollard wrote his i. t ?2 testimony,:the relays ho referred to were the on~s we o ,1 p' ; l 'S identified under th'e solid-ctate protection cyctem, and Mr. 4 Pollard wan aware of the review, an I indicatedh.in the 5 Branch at-that time'. .[, 1 S We knete there were so.nc concerns, and wa were { 1 t. 7 continuing-it and daiting on the basis of the information l t 4 lI B provided for the entire topicnlo
- !1 i
9 The extent of hin evaluation and review of the 1' i .i 13 ' balance of. plant equipment, I'm not sure. I do feel that. I k Il the infornation provided in the FSAR, the conclucions drawn l.; 12 in the Safety Evaluation Report, he did do the sufficient i I .13 evaluation to rnaho a determination that in fact there was-O 14 reasonable accurance that the equipment was qualified. ) lb CHAlPRhN MILLEn: Lat the record shou that the 15. witnessac referred to the "tectinieny" of Mr. Pollard. This 17 is not testimony. It's a uritten limited appearance ) 4 18 atatement, and we don't want there to bc any micconcophion j I-i 19 by anyonc. It is not testimony. i 29 WITNESS MC DONALD: I apologico. i l 2! CHAIRMAN f.IILLEP: IToi no, I junt want it straight ,+ 22 in the record. .l n BY MS. BELL: 24 O Do you know if any audits included cite visits to J, 25 the' Trojan cit'c? 9 A '/, i-I t. r.
- u...
t,. '! ! ( ' '., pJ. y . ~ , 0 t '.. .a n " l{ _' u LS y - 2 r t -,, l 1 72985l J.- y m m Is i - 1 I( '.N ' t g.. q- 'p i we' ' 18 ' i b. A, (Hitnesa McDonals) Iccan*t. cay, categorically they : g 1 11, g A 2 did, 'butIJ.C am ananroct. during any lic6saing review that the -L ' Pi J 3 T; [Y N' reViOWar) dC U.! go'to-thG CitO. E0 MakD,D.t.1GaCU One, and t a y a-se a 7) a e ' {.' b $C need ' to cat the insinfication and justify to our cun ninds I 'I -4 9, n [ be klh) N b d ) U b. + -
- e. b
= ad = a-l .+' 7N. "Judhuont. I n
- s
- It k CE.N DYOlYC. O.n[ N C 2.'.O CI r b' t 4 0.rb b e . O n ard Rav av Pl<n identifier.hoir. b.nf rCEM I.*v ' k ' ' hC1.l r,re.hc 5 Ao { UU tha Electrical Instenudantatich control system dia their D, O h site vise.a. It identifim those thingc they Iceb a at, and i o ff a u O d e E e6 ee r .p. g ufb '1 t G J t C lj MM S, QMd. ROYMlly it# D-MOZO t h !'.E CHO. ,. I -y i ',I E h' IlbNdd 1 nNN/b OCbn DC83.10.bC 3.Dr 90 JCO $Y *CC dO e ge >1 4 q g eq pa . T , e 4, d i l is p mil, ao tbmn citt vinita. luqqx n like, nay befora or o.fter d = F Ph d bi h th .)$ e s i b gi y eN 8 9 d Y~ 1.1 N 3. O '89,O[ IN h[Um s v.5 UE. HOD b-f,Ul [_N [ N[Chbt[Ihh 9 P
- e J. E 4
- Of CO'C510 hidn in thO CODStTOChiCn. KG UGO lith 0335 th'O ~ a I aNpg bw. k y., gi.,4 .my wWy,i., a...m,a.,q g ..)x,., u s.,.. .~f g },7 g w**6u. a.9 y, p w nyq ], m , a.l ~ ru. ~yg gg. -9 t ag e-i , a tg .~. I. .N' 2! t.UYUp dOd illd.' bl w hb@Z hi,92C'[O b a $[t3 1.T.i f Q t'i Nr{WikDg ^ x1 revieum % an mau w m1 m m mce. m m v _ the sue Y. l . M j,:. Vi G ih. - 'I t i 3 O DOU.i..$ hC WrkUC Mi b5$,DrkOr tQ A, fifCC VkSIb + a WQ.will iridichta tha.t UO U.i?,1 confird dur inG., the site visit b, 5. r 1. .g['that.in:dachthecriteriahavebeencimpleanted,youknw,in.! [ s
- +
m .p Jt 'e'.' f-1 l .'k, 4 i( l' 3x )' j.. ? 9 i i
- i f,...
I[
i ; ~ L2986 wel 19 1 accordance. e-1 0-Are records kept of that kind of audit, -the site visit'audid?- l h 4 A Yes,.Just as meetings with Licensecs. After we l j E writo up a trip report wc identify those creats uc looked t 1 6 at, the detail no uont into: 7 A typical site visit would involve three or more 8 dayc. You know. An indcorrination of the area, cit down. I S And often we even have a pre-agenda: " Hero's what we want 10 to look at and confirm." 11 0 Arc you familiar with any site visits done that 12 would have had infornation on the seismic qualification of;
- t cafety-related cquipment at. Trojan?-
13 14 A Perconally I can't answer that. I'm not cure. 1 13 0 Acide from the DDR where would we bo able to find 15 a copy of that? I 17 A If there una c'cito vicit, and there was a report 13f i. j -written, a trip report, it'a part of the record in the docket + 14 1 fila. 'le that n fair statenont? I t 20 l A (ifitneac Nocnan) Yes, that's true end 10' 1H ) I 23 g '. - by ' I'r m.. ). .--,,.------,,,-,---+.....,-.,.,,-.-_._,,,,,.,w.- ~ww ~,
y.y g .p. 1 1 '2987 i til-I i - p .t. 1-GL could you tell 102 -- I ara referring now to Staff -2L Exhibit No. "10 -- why, on pcge 13, there id a condition. number j + 3 1,- that the listed topics of rc. porta are only applicable for n 4 planto having co*struction parmit application.docketad' prior g. t - i. g. to.0cother 1972?' e l l 1 ' A (Uitnasa Noonan) I vill rocpond to the bent of my l 6 I e y ]~ knowledge on that.. i e When it is a requironent being applied by the i D, DiviGion of Syatom Snfoty on n:c' placitn,. and pinnts in tha to CD and OL titago,, it is a typical requirenant that would be p cpplica to use the latoat crite_in cu your plants. g. That trould ba their requirenante. I ascuna that is g3 whit.t. you mean. i h i,- j y ' G Uculd you.accapt refer::ncing thoee above reports on 4 4 t 15 a constmetion parait today? I )~ 16 A I m not part of the Divicion of Sycten Safety, so i. ] 97 I 'ua not qualified to cnwar that. I can speah in terus of .] i g the aparating plantb. I gg. G Now, IEZ:D 323,. 1971, wes not ondorned by regulatory +. guides. ic that correct? ~9 l (- j A (Witness McDoaald) I lv21iSvt that 10 a correct g i i .;v enatunnt, yac.- l + - ~ h I'd3h NI. ,b g Wi.5 $ 33$ G.Qho7CCd 1],Y [C }M),QhQ1"f y p r. .g E j fYah0D$ 1 ? .A. Regulatory Guide 1.09. i &f-r 4I l o. I i q, 't v.,,,,,,'.,.,., -,,.3 3-.mm---- ,,,e...
.n 2.988-1 C1fhIIUGN MILLER: Misc' Boll....let me point out, firs t 2 we are not involved in~the onvironmental aupactc.. t 3 You havo : got about fivo minutes, and you might want 4 to concentrate in the tima renaining on those items most -5 significant to you. 6 MS. BELL: All right. 7 BY MS. BELL: 6 0 When you are considering the effect of a fire on g the nuclear power plant, do you take ~~ and you are talking 10 about the single failure criterion, do you take into considera-1I tion the probability of a firo occurring? 12 A (Witner.s George) In our firo protection reviews, 13 we do not apply the vingle failuro criterion. The regulations 'O u that pertain to fire protection are laid out 17 General l}esign 15 Criterion 3, which, in caccenen call for a.lovel of fire detec-pj tion suppression.capcbility tcs limit the ef fectr, of} fires on i 17 safety systems, so that there is application of fire protection t i I L 10 carosc the board in the plant. 19 We don't, in thi.9 casa, postulate seismic event, I qf; sama fire occurring, as wc11 as a single failure. g G Are you fcmilier with the Underur3ter Laboratories' 22 test -- fire protection tost -- that ucs done recently -- I ~ 73 think in the fall of this year? A There.were a number of than; but I. am faniliar with 24 thoso tester.yes. g u
7, $ l-f.,. ' -!?- n,.,' r, '2909-I N9 ' 3 i l! 0 Could you telipe what 'the nain - let's see, how s .u P(. a r 'f alhGil 1 PMD, th1G.~.'. .j a[ Could ~ you ' tell im what kindo of things they used in n i . orchr to prevaat fire spreading in.their tect? 3.9[ NUfdt $1OYO dOb CCID O bblO y ' inDulation, tilingG ' ' 'G t b' as n 4 { "/. II - IL I,C t 1r.3 firOD try. tO SU" li",0 th00$ tOCD3. v$f- .f; huEh T,70.YC 70.WI i. a C-Oh3 tral /G I [. h [ f 5 I ij It t Olet Gl d With CablOSy t0 G i;icla i 000l,0 trayG from.radunddnt l 1 t 10 y div.,tnlons. F F in .o, The "cre:dcal cabic tra.ve 'ure separato5 *y only r n .s Ug j.'/.. b Elb rb. C LOO bO b [OC . ' N bb.2 C Nb! M[e e IN ,.L -1 i j) Of D., O $ NiLC 77drO U E.'8(d '83UO h.b."* e.vf: r-e:9.21esI witzah are bl. na. ' i/
- w,
9 .,a '4 F l'
- q e
[ _a e,
- h. e s,
8 U It is nob at all aird.lar' to the cablo inntallation md n f( j i l1 [ t 4 .h 4.J 9 . k 4 g a m l. . V-4 l q r. .EN 9 rEi'll p,.I.QU b1C GOCl hCMt Ln {,* 4 lt UtRTtU })fGilklBG dOlCl CUlw ~. 4 l p. 3 / ndl';iny - t.he Wno GO'.d at Trcjka. End there darc Clnw) tosta j.
- 1. 0 r
a -[ g 3rIOfNed to qu'11i1Y th2 P CablG.G r EN Ones which are i y ' tharmal--acttin'jr to that at high0: tcuperatures tho cablo d insr.ullation actunlly beccms huder -- hardar, it doasn' t y.4 qt. d..,. e h ~h U G.-, g%, g.d 00, it ia chen less likely to fail in a fire ,.c l ey o_ +a e b d)b + - m.. ' N . 9I [ 3dditionally, in the IE tects, this cituatica . a.,.. .m i. h4 .' M l! '{ t a- . N.. h j i y ] s
v 2990. L jl14- .The cable I. finvolves sprinkler heads located ' at the ceiling.
- 2
_ h; j trays sero enclosed in the KAO-wool-type blanket, which is'a mincy;al wool blanket that 'you might think of'- comewhat of 'a. h fiborglas._ blanket, although it 10 a different material. 4 And the ignitlen source. was a 'two-gallon can of 5 O ] heptune fuel. i 7 Uhat wco -found in the test is that this small fire 9 sourco did not generato enough heat to set off the sprinkler {.heado raid then put cut tha fire. 9-10 And, additionally, i he fuel chipped up through the 11 KAO-wool blanke r, burning within the blanket, and damaged the F R cab 3.e s. 1-13 l So, I guecs the obvioua qacation is dcas this mean 14 you could have such a problem at Trojan? 15 Pirat of all, Trojan doesn't have the KAO-type 10, blankets, with the contustible up-through. 4 17 Additionally, when uo looked at the cable separation 10 at Trojan, va found' no nituations where we had something to 1 4 19 the figuration uced in the UT, tests, where you had vertical 20 cable. trays that werc adjacent to each other and could both l .Ei ha expoced by como small fire. ' end WHLijl end'til 22 '23 e 24 j i . p 25-s <~ 'I' I (Ei a ' ^ ' ' m. _ i,.,,... _.. ..i....../.1 m
_. _ y ,m._._. n - t d ( .jf 1 .if .2991-D ' d. .p I s . 3,t e s ?!ADELON/fLp n Are there any'physicttl reparation problems at-I 4: mpbl. g [. R0 Trc inn with, let' c am.. re.dundant!aafet" avstema that could I! a
- i. -
): I n i i. 2 .1 ' 3, be affected by ' fira? 1... 3, ,~ 4 ; t' ) { ' 4c A, w cur revic?? vo luentirr,ed-c num,oer o.p; areas j l g ,I. 'i 2 a. I' . Arc 10 hug CO2 Cerci./ Uharc Gdundant Cables Wora .t r Oh in yrc::inity. h at warn tr.alyned by tha'.Licenaces and in f'i n 4,. 4 9./ - m> nt of these it'uas found that xhe separation - or the L ~ 1 ( 5, -; e 4 4 e.. systra that cotGd ba.af fected wcr.: not redundant to each 1 o ti o!i ottor, or tbc onec that T.:3re affcated vere not rnquired for )l 4n 4. 1 [ p3. _ unfa shutdoun. Thay might hava b.y.cn remote indicating lights, i: a 8 T .e a. / em S' i - n 3 \\' j ' I f e a p tr. i b } ! t. G proponcd to in Go.C cases pr07ido G be.r.:~icr, in Other sy e em _, m e m es c u e. I, a i Let no add one thinc..t: r yc 6 h 9 .e 'M U I O.b M w sn bYd e, p e S, 2.hn 51$ D_T. I.15C NC,Y1b) bOr hp i g , do want to emphacico that it'n a very concorvacive approach : ' i i i
- k. Ohp1[ ' O. dCfDUSC dM bCpbi IpprCCCd'l YniCb CU.11U kOr kiitkM
{ A t Y s a 'e 4 4 e. a 4f. ep e .t ) ( h f,, .s e 4 e
- l 4
) s) ' .4 _3 + g-5 4*. a er be a j i
- I g
g e (lj
- ma Eb ty
< er q 1 ,li-
- I gunca acna people might cozzianr sat renconabla, concida.r-
,m,., m 4 L W 4 'L. = (se 7 .a.,,g .... + hk. t N .O[019ZCDt iD 03 L. . 9. s: .. PEO 1r M d CS C. arc 00 E.CtiOLD M U3n to put ) j y.. OQD.thO f1NOp.Elld. it COntiOUCS l' -fGr I; pariOd Qf tim &r pcrhapM ,,,ar. , d' f -1; H I H x 'q.' ? ? . u.,, e-t ?- '.f. <g ..'q g g L' 5 ' w h+.
- i.-,ia u#
b J. ..1..'..Z..d... ...m.._.,,_ _.--.,._m._......._._rw
l -y . 2992LI }. T-npb2: T Jcomathing cimilar to Browns Ferry. o-l ' And -in thoac cituchions at Trojan we took -~ d. P pcaitiona uhere un thought'inprovaments should be made, le 4 Dut, again, un're talking aboutla situation which is very .I 5. .unlikely. It's -sn entra level of margin, an extra level of G defonne, acsuming that'ayates fail, assuming that perconnel l f 7 taho no action, the fire continues for a long period of time. 'I 8 I might add,.the areas where we required these L i D additional' modifications are identified in the SER. ') L 10 MR. GRAY: Excuse me, that is Staff Exhibit ~~ 11 TiITNESS GEORGE: Yes, that's Staff Exhibit 11. n L 12 BY MS, BELL:
- g 13 Q
Could you explain to me what a non-detectable j 14 failure in and hurt that works into your assumotions about i 1; how a. fire would affect systems? j-S i 16 _A (Wid:can Georgc) Could you explain this non-1 S 17 dotectable failure?.Is that referenced? 1a F gg Q I don't hava the referencu. I believe it is -- K 19 I believa that according to thc-lragulations e system -- that [ 20 thoro arc two thingc that you csn work with. One is that 4 21-you must.assem thet a cyatem has sufficient equipment, i 1 3' r h. 22 i qualified equipmunt.to take care of a failure caused by 1g the result of-en accident, right? And that it alco must be l I i 23; 1 [. l, 2g able to deal with what would baleclica the non-dotectable ; s O h M N h M r gi 4 + 1 m,., ,l. 2.? y< , m, .F, W, r 1 _j
_ - _ _ - _ _ _~..__ + ( pr 1;j ~. n -2993 8. 5 'y l .npb31I bo'able to assumo is going to hhppen because'it'c in a' system} t I-2~ that'you can't test-for it. l L 3 Could you giva me any clarification on that? } y e lI A CIIAIR.*iAN MILLER: I think you've got about two . 1- [ 5 more questions. -And I doubt that thiu is really relevant to !- 1 L 6 the.. interim operation, Ms. Ball, but'it's your tima. -(l i 7 MS. DELL: 'I hava no.further questions. I O CHAIRMAN MILLER:- Thank you. l j. 9 Dosa the Staff have any questions? 10 MR. GRAY: I believe tho Licensee, I guesa,'has [ c. 11-not had a chance. 1 19 '4R. AXELnAD: The Licencoa has no questions. f fg 13 CUAIlUMN MILLER: I assuma the Licenses would j: 14-lika to go last, i. i 15 The Licenaea has no questions? ? i 16 MR. AXELRAD: Right. [ 17-MR. - GRAM: The Staff has nono. WITNESS TRAMMELLi Mr. Chairman? 18;, 19 CHAIPJ1AN MILLER: Ess. 20 WITNESS TRMelELL: I would like to make just a 21 brief stahamant rogarding the question you asked about an 22 hour and a half ago,.whathar I had any personal reservations 23 - about interim operation.o 1 24 I've had noma tima to think about it, and lay T25 ansucr is I do net. Howavar I would'like to add tha.t this v q'.
- [
g .E ' b . I _..,,_..,__,,_,,mo,m-, ._,4,.,,, y.gg,% ,,-9p.p.,,,p,-y--
2994 l upb4 I doce not acan that if licenoing doca not continue there ( 2 will not be letters to the Licenroes on vericus subjecta f ) 3 and there may ha some licensing action during this period i ~' i 8 4 of interim operation, ~- 5 CHAIRMhN MILLER: And ycu would continue, O of courac, the normal dutics of the Staff in regard to ) 7 safety and the like during the pcriod of interim operation j t 0 if inte. rim opcration be perica.t' ed, or during any period of I c i 1 9 operction, in that correct? 10 WITNESS TRhlellLL: Yec. t i 11 CUAIu wt MILLER: If this Eoard chould still be 12 coined with jurisdictica I'm sure that you and Staff Councel ' N, 13 will keep the Board, and, hence, the parties advised, is + 14 that correct? 15 WITiiESS TIUIWi.LL: That'c correcto i 16 CHA11Bild MILLER: Thank you, sir. 17 Anytl.ing further? I 19 (Ho responu% ) 19 The witreso pc.ucl in excused. 4 20 ('Eno pe.nel excuted., ) 21 CHRIhriAli MILLER: The Boe.rd will close the l y.. evidcctiary record --- clore the record ox this evidentiary .l E_J hearing, the Phacc I, or interir. ops. ration. Its we've indi-l 2y i 4 g catad, we vill receive and conuider proposed findings of j fact cnd conclusionc of inw, or rupplements thereto, if it j 29 e
.-.n.-.. c ~. z 2995 ) j mpb5.1 .is in~-the. hands of.the Board by: Tuesday, December 419,!1978. ]ll ) m
- 2
-We expect to. issue a' partial initial decision: Li', j. -[ I L' 3 next week, 'as indicated.- We -have covered tha.. timing upon [ d the Phase II or so.bsequent matter of modification of.the-a I U-contentions and the-discovery relating thereto. is F c' We. stand adjourned. k 7 -MR. AXELRAD Mr. Chairman, excuse me.- j 4 l 8 'CHAIRMRN MILLER:
- Yes, l
g MR. AXELRAD: One last item: q ]. go In this r'espect I would like to do whatever i; would suit the Board's' convenience. We have a few additional l p, transcript corrections uhich we found in reading the tran-' 1 i ~. j3 acript of the last couple of dayo. g g4 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Sand us a letter and be sure. wa got it by Tuesday. He'll have it incorporated into the r tun h 16 m oord --.or.anyone else who has'corre.ctionGr-just get it to us and'we'll have the record corrected. _g 4 'MR. AJWLRAD: Fine. gg. l' And we also have some additional findings and gg l j. g conclusionc which we have now baced upon what happened in. the'last day or two. Are we to send those to you? l' ] g [' E 32 CIIAIRMAN - MILLER: By Tuesday. 4 f 2% AXELRAD: Yoa don't want then read directly 3 a
- right now?
~ j g. t 9 l g CllAllGIAN-MILLER: Send them to Washington. Wo i . a. ..' k l j I _0. 1 u._ i ,,,f i . sl u 4 3d .l-y
2996 n 4 q I I mpb6 have arrangements with other members of tne Board -- i e n A HR, AXELRAD: I just thought it would be con-( ) 3 I venient for the members of the Board to have anything read ) a into the record new. If you prefer to receive it in writing i
- l 5
by Tuceday, I caul do that. Vihatever suits the Board's con ~ I 6 venience as of right now o i 7 CHAIRMiw MILLER: Well, do you have theta in f 8 writing nou? l l I 9 MR, AXELRAD: I have my handwritten noteso I 1 10 have about throc rugoc -- or typewritten pages that I could 11 road into the record right nov if the Doard wished it. 12 Wilacover the Board prrafera. (~~ ) 13 CIIAIRIMN IIILLER: I think the Board prefers to w/ l -1 get to the airplane o 15 (Laughtero) 16 CHJtIRMAN MILLER: Thank you., And if you'll have 17 it in our henda, ua'll appreciate it,. 10 Ho stand adjourced. 19 (Whorcupon: et 12:35 p.m, the hearing in the o 20 above-entitled I:.-.htar uc.s adjourned ) 21 9 -m. <J l 23 P.1 ) ./ C; e 1 la le}}