ML20235B265
| ML20235B265 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235B228 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709240040 | |
| Download: ML20235B265 (108) | |
Text
1 1
JR 3 \\A_
i TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~~~
OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS In the Matter of:
)
)
SILICONE RUBBER CABLE TESTING
)
Docket Nos. 50-327
)
50-328
)
)
1
-l 1
l l
l M
ll Pages:
1 through 89 Place:
Knoxville, Tennessee Date:
September lQ, 1987 i
i Heritage Reporting Corporation Official Reponen l
kog9240040070915 1220 L Stmet. N.W.
~
l ADOCK 050 7
Wuhington. D.C. 20005 T
~
(202) 628-4888
+
1 l
b I
1 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS l
NLR50T&I 3
4 In the Matter of
)
)
5 SILICONE RUBBER CABLE TESTING
)
Docket Nos. 50-327
)
50-328 6
')
7 8
TVA West Tower j
9 Auditorium 400 W.
Summit Hill Drive 10 Knoxville, Tennessee 11
- Thursday, September 10, 1987 12 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 13 pursuant to notice, at 1:05 p.m.
14 15 16 APPEARANCES:
i 17 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
18 B.
D. LIAW
{
EVANGELOS C. MARINOS l
19 JANE A.
AXELRAD JAMES E.
KEPPLER 20 STEWART E. EBNETER JOHN A.
ZWOLINSKI 21 GARY ZECH 22 On behalf'of the Tennessee Vall.ey Authority:
23' JOHN HOSMER 24 HERBERT L.
ABERCPOM91E CHARLES C. MASOM 25 (Continued (n1 the next page.)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
2 1
APPEARANCES:
(Continued) 2 STEVEN A. WHITE CHARLES H. FOX 3
ROBERT W.
CANTRELL WILLIAM RAUGHLEY 4
RICHARD L. GRIDLEY 5
Consultants to NRC staff:
6 WILLIAM TOOHEY J.
B.
GARDNER 7
Consultant to TVA:
l 8
PAUL S. CARDELLO 9
10 11 12 13 14 1
15 l
l 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 l
25 l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l J
a 3
l 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
My name is John A.
Zwolinski.
I'm 3
the Assistant Director for Projects in the Office of Special 4
Projects.
j 5
The purpose of this meeting-is to afford TVA the 6
opportunity to present the status of their cable test program.
[
7 Prior to the presentation, it's my intention to forgo formal j
l 1
8 introductions.
]
l 9
I'm passing an attendance sheet about the room.
'It 10 will be appended to the meeting minutes..This meeting is'being j
i 11 transcribed.
It will be available in approximately.a week.
12 Should members of your staff contribute to the l
l 13 meeting, they should identify themselves cordially such that 14 the transcriber can hear that.
Thank you.
15 Mr. White?
16 MR. WHITE:
As I understand, the purpose of today's 17 meeting is to give you a status report of where we stand with l
18 regard to certain other cables at Sequoyah and 1(e) l 19 applications.
20 We'll present all the information that we have to 21 date.
We don't have all the answers yet.
We are, I think, 22 plowing some new ground for the industry.
23 The things that you'll hear today certainly'were new 24 to us; they were new to our consultants who've been involved 25 with silicon rubber insulation for as much as 19 years.
Heritage Reporting-Corporation i
(202) 628-4888 l
l 1
i
I J
l 4
1 As I say, I won't have all the answers yet.
I can 1
2 tell you where we are, and then where we're headed.
And Mr.
I 3
Raughley will do the presentation.
4 I should also mention, Mr. Keppler, that I, as you 5
know, am submitting a part 21; I should have that released and 6
finalized to you this afternoon.
I' 7
MR. RAUGHLEY:
Good af >rnoon, I'm Bill Raughley, the 8
Chief Electrical Engineer for TVA.
I would like to welcome you 9
to Knoxville.
The purpose of the meeting is threefold, as Mr.
10 White and Mr. Zwolinski pointed up.
11 One is we'd like to demonstrate the successful
)
1 12 completion of the test program as far as resolving the restart j
1 13 issues identified in the NRC's TER and our own Employees 1
l 14 Concerns Program.
15 Next we'd like to advise you the status of a test 16 that we have in progress and analyses relative to an issue that 17 we didn't anticipate, but we identified in the original test 18 program having to deal with silicon rubber.
)
i 19 And then we'd like to reinforce our commitment to you 20 that 6 months after restart, we will be presenting an on-going 21 program for your review.
22 I recall the TVA had many employee concerns and the l
I 23 NRC anfi their consultants have spent considerable time with us 24 since last May looking at these concerns.
1 25 In addition to those concerns, identified in our own l
l i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
i l
.]
i 5
1 program, the NRC identified three other issues that TVA should 2
address.
3 And they are associated with pullby's jamming in l
4 support of cable and vertical conduct.
The purpose of the 5
program -- so therefore, we undertook an extensive test program l
6 to resolve those concerns.
7 It was established that we couldn't identify, for 8
sure, the original program under which this was done.
And the 9
only way to provide positive assurances was to proceed in test.
10 The purpose of the program was to demonstrate that 11 the cables will perform their safety-related function.
And 12 also, to assess whether the work cable abuses at Sequoyah as 13 purported in the Employee Concerns Program and in the NRC's 14 TER.
15 I think it's important to note that relative to l
l 16 Sequoyah, there was only one slight specific employee concern 17 related to cable insulation.
18 The other concerns were all derived from the other 19 projects.
And they were assessed for their applicability to 20 Sequoyah.
21 Just to go through the basic elements of the program 22
-- the test voltage, we chose to test 240 volts per mil.
And 23 this was derived from I-Tripolee 383, 1974.
I 24 What we did was, we applied that voltage to the j
25 minimum qualified EQ thickness for a given type cable Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
6 1
insulation, and manufacture and voltage reg.
2 What we have are, we have several equipment 3
qualification reports for a given material and for a given 4
vendor.
5 Those insulation systems are qualified over a range 6
of thickness.
We picked the minimum qualified thickness 7
associated with each manufacture material type.
8 So, for example, if the nominal insulation thickness 9
of the table were 45 mils, and the minimum EQ thickness were 40 10 mils, we would multiply 240 times 40 to arrive at a test i
11 voltage of 9600 volts.
I 12 This testing provides us with a high degree of 1
13 confidence that we haven't effected the equipment qualification 14 of the cable.
i 15 It's a very stringent test that we've applied to 16 these, and it correlates with the original qualification.
It 17 exceeds all industry standards for deal testing of low voltage 18 power and control cables.
19 In addition, we're exceeding our FSAR commitments, 20 and what I mean by that, if you look at chapter 8 of the FSAR, 21 there's a two page listing of standards which are applicable to 22 the Sequoyah insulation.
23 We can now supplement that with additional standards 24 that were exceeding and make positive statements relative to 25 those.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
1
J 7
'l J
l 1
Also, we exceed --
2 MR. MARINOS:
Excuse me, Bill.
May I.ask a question?
,)
3 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes.
-l 4
MR. MARINOS:
By exceeding the standards stated in.
j 5
the FSAR, do those standards identify the voltage level for 6
testing cables, or --
.7 MR. PAUGHLEY:
Yes.
8-MR. MARINOS:
And they're-less thsn what you are-9 applying?
10 MR. RAUGHLEY:
We're applying more'than those 11 standards.
I-Tripolee 690 stipulates 500 volts;.I-Tripolee'141' 12 suggests to go as high as 2500 volts; and I-Tripolee 400, which 13 you can -- says test at 50% the BIL -- we would exceed that.
14 Also, that suggested we should test around 2000 volts just rough numbers.
The point is that our test voltage that 15 16 we're arriving at is in excess of those. voltages.
17 As far as regulatory guidance, reg gulde 1.68 applies 18 to the initial start up; initial test program for nuclear 19 facilities.
And we can see that the requirements there, and 20 that stipulates that you test to the actual system' design-21 brand.
22 There is a statistical basis to the samples we've 23 selected.
What we were looking for was on full-blas jamming -
l 24
- the issues of pullby's jamming.
25 There's a 95 percent competence that at least 95 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
3 a
]
e 8
percent of the conduits, or the tables and the conduits will.
l j
1 i
2 perform'their '1(e)' function..
We'11 get to more specific i
l 3
. example.
4 As far as the issue of the vertical cable; support 5
issue, there were six cases where we've exceeded the 6
recommended requirements.
7 And weLtested the worse of those six cases, and i
8 inspected the other five.
And that inspection showed that-
,j 1
1 9
those cables weren't under attention.
10 So there, we.have 100 percent competence level that.
11 the insulation is with the test, and that inspection we have 12 100% competence level.
13 The acceptance criteria was derived from a current 14 day standard, I-Tripolee 141 which stipulates that you utilize l
15 the polarization index, which is a' ratio of the one minute
)
i 16 leakage current to the five minute leakage' current.
17 And we've established one es a reading equal to or I
1 i
18 greater than one as being acceptable.
What we're looking for' 2
19 there is that a ratio of one would indicate a stable situation 20 with time.
21 That is that the current would not be increasing with'
.22 time.
A ratio less than one would indicate that the current is 23 increasing with time, and that it's a. worsening. condition.
And 24 that we'd want to evaluate that;. consider.that as.not being 25 acceptable.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3
9 1
Likewise, we've also assessed.that on the other end, j
2 and there are situations which we have identified as being a 3
potential concern, :hich we're going to be looking at in our 4
on-going program.
5 MR. KEPPLER:
Have you satisfied yourself that the 6
tests that you've conducted complied with your own internal 7
procedures on these cases?
1 l
8 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes.
Like, the Director's here --
i 9
MR. MARINOS:
I'd like to make an observation'on l
10 this.
When 1 observed the test, myself, a couple of weeks ago 11 with our consultant, William Toohey, we did observe that the 12 procedure to keep the conduit wet through the full contact of l
13 the test was not observed.
14 In fact, after the third conductor of something like l
l l
15 30 conductors of the conduit was not yet completed, the conduit j
l l
16 was drained of water.
j l
17 MR. WHITE:
Well, do we have somebody who witnessed 18 the test?
19 MR. McCOPPIN:
My name is Mr. McCoppin.
I'm with 20 United Enginecrs.
And I was the test director in charge of the 21 test in question.
Would you state your question again, please?
l 22 MR. MARINOS:
Yes.
While you were conducting the 1
23 test, at about the third conductor test, the conduit was 24 drained; the water was not retained for the full test 25 meaning for all the conducto: tests.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 a
I
i 10 1
MR. McCOPPIN:
By the procedure, it was not intended 2
or required that the water would remain in the conduit at that 3
time.
The conduit was filled with water.
l 4
I witnessed that, and I verified it, and signed it 5
off; had a second verification.
And some water was drained, 6
but that was for protection of the equipment because.the water f'l 7
was coming out at each end profusely.
8 The intent of the test by the procedure was met, and l
l I
9 had no effect on any of the test results.
j 10 MR. WHITE:
Was anyone from the NRC present when that l
l 11 test was conducted?
12 MR. MARINOS:
I was present, and --
(
13 MR. WHITE:
Were any objections noted by anyone as to l
14 the procedure, or the failure -- the allegation you weren't l
15 following the procedure?
l 16 MR. MARINOS:
We did say that.
We did observe this, j
l l
17 and discuss it with the gentleman.
18 MR. ABERCROMBIE:
Let me point out that in our 19 submittal, we clearly define the wetted condition of cable. We 20 stated that that condition would be satisfied when the cable l
21 conduit was initially submerged.
l 22 But it was not intended nor expected for the conduit l
23 to remain full of water during the test.
That's clear in our 24 submittal.
25 MR. FOX:
I have e copy of SDI 35 which describes l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
t
.11 1
this condition.
It does make the statement that Herb =just 2
alluded to.
3 MR. KEPPLER:
Well, look.
I asked the question with 4
the purpose of getting you to' address it.
Our people did i
5 observe the test.
They. raised a concern that you'didn't follow 6
the procedure.
L 7
And I-think we take that up as a separate issue then.
8 But I guess I'm looking more, from you, aside from this, 9
whether you satisfied yourceives at all plus conditions 10 applicable to this program were followed through.
11 MR. WHITE:
Let me answer that, Mr. Keppler, by 12 saying that I have personally asked the responsible people 1
13 whether the' procedures were, in. fact, met; and whether they 14 were witnessed properly and documented.
15 I've been informed that they have been.
16 MR. KEPPLER:
I guess I find it interesting that such 17 a fundamental question -- whether the thing was full of water 18 or not full of water is such a debatable' point in this.
19 MR. WHITE:
It is -- likewise, I am surprised because 20 during the discussions prior to the writing of the procedures 21 under which these tests were conducted, it's one of the issues 22 that have been brought to me and fully discussed.
23 And I was told was discussed with your staff before 24 writing the procedure thet it wasn't necessary to have.the 25 cablec completely submerged in water during the entire test.
Heritage Repo. ing. Corporation (202) 638-4888
_______i__
12 And therefore, the procedure was written so that 1
2 wasn't required.
So, if there is a misunderstanding, I regret 3
that there is such a mis --
4 MR. MARINOS:
Well, we'd like to reexamine the 5
procedure --
6 MR-WHITE:
-- understanding.
But we'd invite you to 7
reexamine it.
It was never our intent to do other than what i
1 l
8 you've just heard described.
9 MR. KEPPLER:
Okay.
l 10 MR. RAUGHLEY:
With regard to the margins that we 11 have obtained by imposing this test program, cable has a rating 12 at this system on which it operates -- has a nominal rate.
13 And typically, the cable rating is in excess of the system operating rating which is indicated by the first column.
14 15 Six hundred volt power cables applied to a 480 volt system; 600 l
16 volt control cables applied to a 125 volt pc and 120 volt ac 17 systems.
18 And 300 volt cables applied, typically, to a 50 volt 19 ac system, and sometimes as low as 20 millivolts.
In the next 20 column, what we did is took ratios of the system operating l
21 voltage to the test voltage.
22 And a typical test voltage for the power cable is 23 9600 volts, and that would provide you with a factor of 6 24 margin for the 125 volt pc system.
25 Typical test voltage for 7200 volts, and that would l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
13 1
give you a margin of 57.6.
And for the 300 volt instrument the typical test voltage is 4800 volts, and that would 2
- system, 3
give you a margin of approximately 32.
4 MR. WHITE:
This is really an important slide because 5
for the perspective, I think, of the questions asked by two of the Commissioners at the brief -- I think the Chairman asked l
6 7
the question of what voltage is carried.
l 8
And this is the answer to that, of course, which says 9
if you have a cable that's supposed to carry 120 volts, you l
install a cable with a capacity for a rating of 600 volts.
1 10 f
11 And we are testing it at almost 60 times.
And that 1
12 really is an answer.
I think two of the Commissioners asked 13 that question, and were surprised at the level of voltage we 14 were testing.
15 I think you recall that, Mr. Keppler.
16 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Certainly, if you look at these j
margins in view of other engineering discipline practices they 17 18 are much in excess of that using mechanical and civil 19 disciplines.
20 To summarize our program --
21 MR. KEPPLER:
What are they tested at, at the factory 22 beforehand, on those kind of cables?
23 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Typically, the 600 volt power cable 24 would be tested -- correct me if I'm wrong -- at approximately 25 15 kb.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
14 1
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Please identify yourself.
2 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Okay.
Why don't you stand up and --
3 (Party comes to microphone.)
4 MR. BROWN:
Kent Brown, electrical engineer in a 5
branch here at TVA.
Would the 600 volt power cable, and in particular, the AIW sold for rubber, which is of concern.
6 7
It was factory tested, at 5 to the ac or the 8
equivalent of 15 kbdc.
9 MR. WHITE:
That, of course, is an important point.
10 but equally important, as you'll see, is that testing is 11 apparently conducted prior to the completion of the l
12 manufacturing process.
13 From the time that cables are tested, that voltage, 14 one would expect for many causes, a subsequent degradation.
I 15 And I think the specifications in various places recognize 16 that.
17 What was a surprise to us -- what was a surprise to l
18 me was to determine that subsequent to the factory test other 19 parts of the manufacturing process continue.
20 I didn't realize that; I thought it was tested in its l
l 21 shipped condition.
But that is, apparently, not the case.
22 MR. RAUGHLEY:
More specifically answer your 23 question, Mr. Keppler?
24 MR. WHITE:
But the point being, Mr. Keppler, one 25 does not really know what, when that cable is shipped,.or when Heritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888
'l
\\
j
-I 15-H 1
it's received, one doesn't really know.what capacity it has1for l
2 voltage.
3
'They just know at certain times what'it went through.
J 4
MR. MARINOS. _This factory test.that you cited,'about; 1
5 15,000 volts for --
6 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes, I have.a backup' slide on the 7
manufacturing test voltages.
The. manufacturing test' voltages 8
are defined by standard; typically, by insulation type.
9 So, EPR would be tested at 350-to 400; 382 volts.per j
10-mil pc.
And similarly, with cross 11nk for rubber insulated 11 wires -- 269 to 300 volts per mil.
1 12 They'are put on a mil basis; they are the supplied 13 factory tests.
14 MR. WHITE:
Sir, we're not confusing the ECL 15 qualification test with factory tests.
Aren't those different-16 numbers?
17 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes.
The EQ' qualification test is the L
18 first test which is the type test; and that's done at'240 volts 19 per n;il.
20 MR. WHITE:
But that's not1done on all cable that's I
I 21 manufactured.
Is that correct?
22 MR. RAUGHLEY:
It's only done on-cables which.you're 23 going to utilize in a 1(e) application.
And it's a typeLtest 24 for a given insulation materiel and manufacturer.
25 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Bill, are you saying that every reel Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
l
. _ = _ - - _ -
16 1
that's shipped, that TVA receives, has been tested at 2
approximately 15,000' volts pc?
3 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Well, every reel that's received is 4
tested.to those voltages depending on which category you fall:
5 into.
6 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Is there---
]
7 MR. WHITE: ;Let mefjust be. precise -- and correct me
]
8 if I'm incorrect -- but the records indicate-that' they haveE 9
' been tested to those voltages.
10 When he says'"they haveLbeen"--
11 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes, we have --
12 MR. WHITE:
-- you know, I don't'think any one in' 13 this room can attest to it.
But certainly, the records would 14 indicate that they have been tested-to those voltages.
I 15 MR. MARINOS:
Is this the individual cable or a 16 prototype test of that cable?
17 MR. RAUGHLEY:
That's the individual cables.: After 18 manufacturing, each completed reel is taken and immersed in~a 19 tank; and these voltages are applied for the specified time.
20 And we have that documentation for each reel shipped.
21 MR.~MARINOS:
So, you have no reason to believe that 22 these cables come to the plant should not'be able to withstand 23 something close tof that, if not that volume?
24 MR. RAUGHLEY:
No,-that's with a brand new' cable.
25 Then once it's shipped, handled, et cetera, that ages the cable 11eritage Reporting Corporation (202)_628-4888-
---__.____._m.___.__m_
17 1
by electrically, so to speak, and you would expect that the 2
paths
- have less than those voltages.
3 MR. WHITE:
Do what again, Bill?
4 MR. RAUGHLEY:
After shipment of -- that's for brand f
5 new cable, basically.
You know, after it's tested, then it 6
gets --
7 MR. WHITE:
Maybe what I said earlier isn't clear.
8 So, let me repeat it.
But my understanding is that cables are 9
tested to the higher voltages in the factor.
10 But after that test, they go through a further l
11 manufacturing process, particularly. putting on the jacket 12 which might very well be the cause of some of the damage we're 13 seeing.
I 14 It's then, obviously, handled at the factory, which 15 also might cause the damage.
It's then shipped, presumably, by 1
16 rail or truck; that could also cause it.
1 17 MR. RAUGHLEY:
If I could --
18 MR. WHITE:
There are many possible causes --
19 MR. RAUGHLEY:
If I could add to what --
20 MR. WHITE:
-- that would degrade the cable.
21 MR. RAUGHLEY:
-- Mr. White is saying is -- he's 22 referring to specifically silicon rubber --
23 MR. WHITE:
Yes.
Silicon rubber, and that's all I'm l
24 discussing.
25 MR. RAUGHLEY:
-- which has an asbestos braided Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
t 18 l
t 1
jacket.
And because you,can't test that wet ---the asbestos-
{
l l
2 braid is a sponge, and you wouldn't be able to dry it out.
So, 3
you-wouldn't test it wet.
4 So, they test that cable.
They subject that cable to i
5 the test in the last line there prior'to jacketing.
6 MR. MARINOS:
To a high voltage -- is 260?
\\
7 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Two, two --
J 8
MR. MARINOS:
Where is that' slide -- is this-ing here?.
9 MR.'RAUGHLEY:
'No.
I can make you a copy of the 10 slide.
11 MR. MARINOS:
Oh, I just can't see it very well.
12 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
And Bill, TVA orders a number of 13 reels of a certain type of cable, does the manufacturer do any 14 testing to break down for a given number of reels of. cable that 15 you've received?
l l
16 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Not that I'm aware of.
They would 17 basically have that in their files as type. testing for that 18 given system.
19 Because an EPR system, they would have oodles of 20 bench data on what the capabilities of that system are.
We 21 would not be privy to that.information.
22 MS. AXELRAD:
Mr. White, I think that you were making 23 the point that this was a-particularly important slide because 1
24 two of-the commissioners et the Commission meeting raised the 25 question of whether the cables are being tested at unreasonably 1
' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
/
)
l I
i
)
19
]
1 high voltages.
2 MR. WHITE:
I don't remember the precise words, but 3
certainly the context was --
4 MS. AXELRAD:
Well, that was the suggestion.
I mean, i
5 you know, it wasn't exact words.
But I think the discussion, f
6 placed in context, might.have suggested that.
1 7
But clearly, since you've tested at thase voltage 8
levels, you're not suggesting that it was an unreasonably high 9
voltage at which to test on?
1 10 MR. WHITE:
We have not completed all of our 11 investigation.
Obviously, the decision I made on Friday, after l
12 hearing from our consultants was that we should test at that l
13 voltage.
l 14 If I didn't believe it was proper in this instance, I l
15 wouldn't have directed that it be done.
It dcas cause a lot of 16 questions because I, today, havd asked certain basic questions 17 and have yet received no answers:beca'uss I don'ts think they
'i sx' 18 exist.
\\
19 I, for example, have asked what is the' correlation
~
20 between the voltages these cables -- any cable -- is tested at 21 for EQ at the factory, and what it's intended function; what it
\\
22 munt carry.
23 And I can'tyget anyope to'tell me there's any q
24 correlation.
So, perhaps es a result of all of this, perhaps 25 the industry may -- the able industry or the utility industry Heritage Reporting Corpor$ tion (102) 625-4888 N
.x
- '6
- s. e n
y s..1 s..'"
(,*
1 31
i 20 in 1
-- may have to relook at the specification to determine if, i
2 fact, they're reasonable for the purpose their intended.
3 And that's the best way I can answer that.
But I'm 4
testing this voltage now because I'm convinced the requirements 5
require that now, based on the knowledge that I have.
6 But, you know, I have to say that whenever you say you have a cable that under some condition might have to carry 7
8 120 volts, intermittently, and you're testing it to 9600 volts, 9
one questions -- it's a logical question to say, " Gee, is that, 10 perhaps, excessive?"
11 In this case, I obviously wouldn't be doing it if I 12 thought it was.
13 MS. AXELRAD:
But isn't the only risk of testing them 14 at an excessive voltage is that you might have more failures 15 than you would otherwise have, and have to replace cable that 16 might not be actually damaged?
17 MR. WHITE:
Well, let me put it this way -- the only 18 risk that you take is that you will damage cable and have to 19 replace it that didn't have to be replaced.
20 That's the only risk that you take, it that's your l
21 question.
22 MS. AXELRAD:
I thought that we were -- we've 23 discussed it at several meetings and I thought we weren't i
24 suggesting the testing at this higher voltage would actually 25 have any effect on the cables; that it might just lead to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 Y
21 1
replacing.
2 MR. WHITE:
No, no.
You're misunderstand what I'm 3
saying, Ms. Axelrad, perhaps.
Let me try to make it clearer 4
that when we conduct the test, if, for example, the industry 5
some time from now determines that 9600 volts is excessive --
6 I'm not saying they will -- if they were, and they were to say, l
7
" Gee, 2000 volts was enough," then what we would have done was 8
destroyed some cable and replaced it that was adequate for its 9
intended function.
l 10 If the industry decides, as a result of this, that-l 11 what we're doing is correct, and it's 9600 -- which presently 12 it is correct -- then, you know, we're doing the right thing.
13 I have to resolve this issue.
We don't know why 14 these cables are failing.
We have cable that has failed --
15 conductors that have failed -- at least two that I know of --
16 where there's no known cause; where the insulation thickness 17 was correct; where the laboratory determined the material was l
18 correct.
l 19 We simply don't know all the answers.
And so the 20 conservative thing to do to assure the safety of this plant is 21 to test with those voltages.
And that's what I'm doing.
22 MR. RAUGHLEY:
We address this specifically, as it i
23 applies to silicon, later in the program.
1 l
24 MR. WHITE:
All we're talking about, now, is silicon i
25 rubber.
All I'm -- right now.
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
L____-_______
l 1
b 22 1
MR. RAUGHLEY:
To summary.up our summary of results 2
and conclusions from our program.
We've done 939 tests raised 3
by the restart concerns, as raised ~in the NRC's TER..
The number of tests that we've done -- these'were all j
4 5
based on the worst case insulation for each of the issues in 6
question.
l 7
There were no failures identified, attributable to j
8 the specific concerns identified in the TER.
And we would-i l
9 conclude that we' haven't degrade'd the equipment qualification l
10 of the equipment as a result of this testing.
We did have four test anomalies in the program _which-11 12 we're evaluating, and which will be the subject of-the second
-l 4
'I 13 part of our discussion today, 14 Those anomalies were isolated and the anomalies were 15 removed from the fan and replaced with appropriate cables.
We 1
16 have undertaken a separate program to-evaluate the anomalies 17 and to continue testing at Sequoyah for concerns other~than l
18 that identified in the TER Employees' Concerns Program.
19 And that's what I'd like to address now.
20 First I want to discuss the four anomalies which were 21 identified during the vertical cable test.
What we were 22 looking for was -- do you have a condulet?
j 23 (Pause) 24 This is'the cross-section of a condulet which would-l l
25 be at this point and this point, and the runt.
And the reason 1
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i i
i 23 1
1 i
1 we were doing this test was, we were looking for potential 2
problems at D and B.
{
.I 3
And the concern was that the cable once laid on this l
4 nub inside this condulet, with the vertical weight of the l
5 condulet, would exert a downward force; and with time, possibly 6
deteriorate or cause a dimple in the insulation -- reduction of f
f 7
insulation.
l l
l 8
The other concern was that with the change in ambient j
9 in the containment that the cable couldn't move horizontally 10 and go like this on this nub.
1 11 What we did find was, four feet away from this piece l
12
-- we found three problem here, and one problem approximately 13 12 feet away out there.
14 It was clearly not associated with the issue for
)
l 15 which we did the test.
As I said, what we did was cut the 16 cables approximately here, and put in a box.
17 And spliced in two sections here so that the 18 anomalies have been removed from the plant.
Sent those 19 anomalies -- there's four sections -- up to University of 20 Connecticut to provide us with some additional test 21 information.
22 That now would be 1, 2,
3 and 4, not necessarily to 23 correlate with the 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the slide before.
But to 24 summarize the Sequoyah field testing, and the findings at the 25 University of Connecticut -- number one held 10.8 kb per Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 24' 1
minute.-
2 The University of Connecticut found' minor surface 3
grazing; and the insulation moves at the conductor for 4
approximately an inch.
5 They also found that the>taking; cross-sections, 6
trying to go through the point failure, that it had an. excess 7
of the required insulation.
8 The manufacturing nominal insulation is'45' mils.
The 9
minimun insulations required by manufacturing's 40.5.
And thel 10 minimum' required EQ thickness is <40.
11 And they found 52 mils.
Mechanical tests which were 12 tinsel strength and elongation, compared very favorably with an 13
-uninstalled specimen.
14 The University of Connecticut also did infra-red'and 15 X-ray spectroscopy tests, which showed no contaminants or 16 alteration of the chemical structure.
17 Number two did not hold 7.5 kb --
18 MR. WHITE:
It might help, Bill, if each of these you 19 went through as a -- not on your slide -- but if you described 20 whether as a result of the findings, whether we have 21 determined, or anyone can tell what the cause of that 22 particular anomaly was -- in the first one, for example.
23 MR. RAUGHLEY:
These are the results, and then the 24 University of Connecticut did not provide --
25 MR. WHITE:
I understand that --
Heritage Reporting ' Corporation (202).628-4888
=____
]
25 1
MR. RAUGHLEY:
conclusions.
2 MR. WHITE:
-- but I.think while you have this --
3 MR. RAUGHLEY:
And:then the following three. slides 4
will answer your question.
5 MR. WHITE:
I understand that, but while you're going 6
over the slide, I think you ought to highlight as you go over 7
each-ones while all those words are up.there.
j 8
Would you do that?
9 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Okay.
Number 1 was really -- let me 10 go through all four and then come back up and~ answer that.
It 11 would be easier.
]
12 MR. WHITE:
No, do it like I told you.
1 13 (Laughter) l 14 MR. RAUGHLEY:
I had an expert come in and-look at i
15 the damage, and he immediately' identified it as impact damage.
16 Impact damage is characterized by surface grazing which where i
17 the impressions and the insulation as a result of pushing on 18 the braided asbestos jacket against the soft silicon and 19 pockets underneath.
20 Number.1, because it has a surface grazing, we've 21 attributed to impact damage.
Number 2, as I was saying, broke i
22 down at 7.5 kb; the insulation.was-found loose of.the 23 conductor.
24 It had in er. cess of the minimum required. insulation,.
25 and the University of Connecticut made the same observations as Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 26 1
in B and C.
2 That we were not able to attribute to anything.
3 Number 3 did not hold --
4 MR. WHITE:
In other words, we don't know, and we I
5 can't figure out why that one didn't pass -- even after the
]
6 autopsy done by the laboratory.
7 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Number 3 would not hold 10 kb, and the 1
8 University of Connecticut made the same observations as 1.
9 Also, as part of their analysis, they did a tesaquil test which
)
j 10 is a high voltage ac test that starts at 10 kbac, which to i
11 equate it to equivalent de voltage would be 30 kb.
12 And in doing that test, they found that one sixteenth 13 inch from the fault that there was a pocket where 23 mils of 14 insulation was remaining.
15 And then they made the same positive observations as 16 noted in B and C.
And that could be attributable to impact 17 damage.
18 It wasn't right at the point, but it was adjacent a 19 sixteenth of an inch from it.
But likewise, you had to go in
]
20 excess of 30 kbpc to find that problem.
21 Number 4 -- at the time we were doing this test, the 22 acceptance criteria was 10.8 kb for 5 minutes.
And we said 23 here where we revised that subsequently.
24 But that past the test -- but in analyzing the 25 results of the test, the leakage current was twice that of any Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1
.27' g
s 1
of the other conductors we were testing.
2 So, we chose to calltthat!anianomaly;and take'it out
~
1 3
of service and send'it to the: lab for analysis.. What we'found-J 4
there were the same surface phenomena.
1 i
5 And 'also, there were; spots identified over a 3 1nch:
7 6
section where there were reduced wall'th'icknesses.as listed i
- )
h l
7 there.
8' Similarly, the Uni'versity of Connecticut made the 9
same observations asuin B and C.
And that is what Mr. Cardello 10 immediately identified as impact damage, based on his past 11 experience.
1 l
12 MR. WHITE:
Would I be correct to add,-Mr.L Raughley, j
13 that in that fourth case, the cable didn't fail.the test; there 14 was an anomaly of higher leakage, but it would have met the 15 specifications --
16 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes..
17 MR. WHITE:
-- for leakage.
And'yet that one is thel 18 one of the four that should have failed.
So, when I say there 19 are some unknowns here, that one had the thinnest insulation of
'1 l
20 any, didn't it?
21 Wasn't it down to --
22 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes, there was a spot'-- 8-mils.
23 MR. WHITE:
-- 8 mil thickness where~a minimum is 40.
24 And so, of all of them, thet's the one I would have expected to 25 fail first.
And it didn't fail.
- l; Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
l 1
i
28 1
MR. LIAW:
Bill?
2 MR. RAUGHLEY:
- Yes, B.D.
Liaw.
3 MR. LIAW:
That's being interpreted as our agreement 4
with what you say.
I want the record to reflect that we, and 5
our consultant agree with what you say about impact damage.
6 In fact, our consultant, J.B. Garner spoke you about 7
it, and gave us a hypothesis that that kind of damage could 8
hcve occurred by pulling very hard through a sharp corner.
l t
9 And that was more likely the damage mechanism, rather l
10 than impact.
)
11 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Could have occurred any time between 12 the final factory test and the day we did this test.
No 4
13 argument.
j 14 MR. WHITE:
There are a lot of things that we don't 1
i 15 know and don't understand.
I don't think anyone does.
l l
l 16 MR. LIAW:
I know that.
But you keep saying. impact 17 test.
But in the impact, you can see a symmetry-type of damage 18 in the cable insulation, what we have seen so far on one slide.
i 19 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes.
I think the next slide will be 20 showing you that we were able to duplicate what was identified 21 as impact damage in the laboratory.
22 And I think that's important.
But there's no 23 argument with Mr. Gardner's observation.
It could have 24 happened any time between factory test and when we did this 25 test.
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
29 1
And that's part of the rational for going into this 2
- program, i
3 MR. LIAW:
Yes.
Ms. Axelrad just mentioned to me.
I 4
think more appropriate to capture this -- we don't do all the 5
possibility of damage being induced by other --
6 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Neither do we.
l 7
MR. WHITE:
Neither do we.
In fact, one of the 8
things that we aren't sure of -- those that fail with no 9
evidence of impurities or anything else, one of the consultants 10 has told me may, in fact, have been an impurity any how.
11 So there are a lot of things we don't know can be 12 about the cause.
We're saying that we found one way to 13 duplicate it.
14 MR. LIAW:
Yes. I think if you look at the d
l 15 Connecticut report, there was one sample that contained what j
i 16 appears to be a manufactory defect -- a void there.
i 17 okay.
That seems to be the location of where it F l
I 18 the break down.
19 MR. WHITE:
I don't know which one you're referring 20 to --
4 21 MR. LIAW:
I don't recall among four of them.
And 22 also, Bill, you talk about four of them -- I understand that in 23 full examination of your test result, our consultant also 24 discovered two additional cable among those 16 you tested that i
25 could not pass the leakage current test.
Okay?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
30 1
MR. RAUGHLEY:
No, they passed the test, but their the other tables.
And we've 2
leakage was ten times that 3
noted that, and that's part of the reason for why we're doing 1
4 what we're doing.
5 MR. WHITE:
Mr. Liaw, one of the things that you just 6
said which is very important is you have said that one of your 7
consultants feel it is a manufacturing defect at that spot.
8 And now, we're back to the previous question of 9
weren't these cables tested at 15,000 volts at the factory.
10 And I said that the evidence is that they were.
l 11 I can't explain if they were, how you could have a f
12 manufacturing defect not detected in that case.
I guess it can 13 happen.
)
14 That's why, I think, we're plowing some new ground, a
15 I don't think the industry understands this issue very well.
i 16 MR. LIAW:
That's because you said that the record i
l 17 indicated it.
18 MR. WHITE:
The what?
19 MR. LIAW:
The record indicated --
20 MR. WHITE:
Yes, yes.
I 21 MR. LIAW:
I agree, wholeheartedly, with you on that.
l 22 MR. WHITE:
You know, we understand that part of the 23 testing we did was, I directed and we'd take 100 feet off a new i
1 24 reel and test it.
And it failed the test.
25 MR. LIAW:
So, somebody --
I I
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
31 1
MR. WHITE:
And then we sent three reels, I'think,.
2 back to the factory and told them retest them.- And those 3
passed.the test.
4 And there are thousands of' feet of cable on the 5
street.
So, the fact that I can-take a hundred feet and it 6
fails, and then ship thousands back and it passes, there are 7
many things we don't-understand.
8 MR.~LIAW:
Is it the way you conduct the test?.
9 MR. WHITE:
I don't believe so.
I don't believe so.
10 You know, I've asked the question, are we-sure our equipment's 11 calibrated right?
Are we sure we're.ucing the right --
12 MR. LIAW:
Or have you sent your engineer to 13 manufacturer's shop to watch how they. test it?
14 MR. WHITE:
Yes.
That was one of'the things I 15 directed.
I said, I want my guy-there watching the test.
I-1 l
16 want to know what's happening.
17 There are many unknowns.
And you're going to have to 18 be patient as we work through these things.
You know, we've 1
19 been doing a lot of lab tests; we'll continue to do them -.to 20 determine, if we can, what's causing this.
l 21 Because we understand it effects a lot of plants.
It l
l 22 possibly could effect a lot of plants.
23 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Admiral, coming back to -- we had'the 24 4 out of 16 failures back in April-May time frame.
I do under i
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i 32 1
MR. WHITE:
May I correct you to say 3 out of 16.
2 The fourth one had higher leakage; we call that an anomaly, but 3
it passed the test.
4 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
And now I understand there's a couple more in that population.
Could I ask you to explain what you 6
found -- how the number went up to 67 7
MR. CANTRELL:
Cover it later in the presentation.
l 8
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Okay, fine.
9 MR. CANTRELL:
He'll go through all the Jaboratory 10 tests.
11 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Would like to clarify -- B.D.,
you I
12 made a comment about the symmetrical of the --
13 MR. LIAW:
I think we discussed that.
The failure of 14 one of the four cable you sent over to University of 1
15 Connecticut seems to have the break down of insulation near the l
l l
16 conductor on one side only.
4 1
17 My theory was if some kind of impact, you would see 1
18 some kind of symmetry --
l 19 MR. CANTRELL:
We can show that's not the case.
20 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes, our --
21 MR. WHITE:
I think what you're saying is our test 22 show that -- you'd expect that; I agree with you.
We're 23 finding out things we didn't expect.
l 24 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Our bench testing did not find that.
25 MR. LIAW:
Can you do e bench test in the one Mr.
1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-)
33 i
1 Gardner suggested?
2 MR. RAUGHLEY:
That's just like dropping a weight on 3
the cable.
4 MR. LIAW:
No, no.
Postulate whether or not you can 5
reproduce the mechanism postulated by Mr. Gardner.
l 6
MR. RAUGHLEY:
No, we do not pull through a --
7 MR. CANTRELL:
I think we're straining on the fact --
J 8
TVA is not here today saying that we have identified that 9
impact damage is the cause.
j 1
10 MR. LIAW:
I understand that.
Bob, I understand l
11 that.
I'm not saying that 1
I 12 MR. CANTRELL:
Okay.
I think what we do want to l
13 highlight, though, is everything that we're talking about in 14 failures is in silicon rubber.
l 15 And there is the correlation that we did a lot of i
l 16 testing on a lot of other insulation systems.
l l
17 MR. WHITE:
Let me answer your question more directly 18 because one of the things that I directed to be done was to 19 reproduce this configuration and see if we could duplicate it 20 in any fashion.
21 We have not yet run that test with all the other 22 things -- or do you know?
23 MR. RAUGHLEY:
No, we haven't pulled it through a 24 condulet.
25 MR. WHITE:
But that's one of the things I want to do Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
34 1
in this thing while we're off testing, replacing cable.
To 2
determine what I can, I want to try to duplicate it.
i 3
And we may be able to, and say that's another 4
possible cause.
5 MR. LIAW:
The only reason I bring that point now is 6
-- look at the cable installation process.
You know, for cable 1
to be hit by hammer or some heavy weight is less likely than 7
8 pulling very hard through a corner.
l 9
MR. WHITE:
I have to disagree, B.D., because when l
10 you say hitting the wire with a heavy weight is -- stepping on 11 the wire is more than enough damage -- stepping on it.
l 12 In fact, I think, probably a child stepping on it 13 would do it.
I don't know.
But it does not take very much, 14 which is the surprise to our consultants and to us.
15 The susceptibility from very min -- that's why I say, 16 in the shipment, you know, literally, if you bump into it --
17 MR. LIAW:
Mr. White, if you say so -- I have no 18 reason to disagree with what you say.
In that case, I think it 19 even more important that you ought to try to see whether or not 1
20 you can reproduce the type of damage that postulated by Mr.
21 Gardner.
l 22 MR. WHITE:
Let me assure you that I have directed 23 such a thing be done in terms of pulling.
And if you or your 24 consultants have any other idees of tests that I can run to 1
25 help determine the cause, I'll be more than happy to do those l
l I
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
I l
I 3s i
1 while I'm testing and replacing cable.
f 1
2 Because I think we're learning a lot about -- we're
]
3 in the leading edge of this thing, as someone said.
I 4
MR. LIAW:
Right.
5 MR. WHITE:
And we're learning just one hell of a lot 6
about it.
And if you have ideas, please let us know what they 7
are and we'll go do some other tests.
8 MR. LIAW:
Yes.
We appreciate that.
And I think --
9 MR. WHITE:
But I have said duplicate this l
10 configuration, and see if somehow, you know, you can attach a 11 mule to it and pull it or do something, and see if you can do i
12 that.
1 13 MR. LIAW:
And we appreciate that.
I think you 14 earned thanks from the industry.
i 15 MR. WHITE:
We'll tiee, f
16 (Laughter) 17 The finder of problems sometimes isn't rewarded with I
18 thanks, okay?
19 MR. RAUGHLEY:
As far as the problem specification 20 for the four anomalies that we're talking about, what it is is 21 that they were pulled from the same reel on the same day.
22 The anomalies occurred during a high potential 23 withstand test.
We're talking about single conductor number 14 24 wire.
25 Three of the anomalier were within a foot of one i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
Y 36 1
another.
The significance of this, if it'were pulling damage -
l 2
- that bears on that not being likely.
?
3
'The anomalies'were highly' localized.
That is, they_
)
1 t
4 were point impact.
And not over a length of cables you would l
5 expect from a pulling process.
6 As a minimum, I think you would expect to see damage 7
similar to that described in the TER Employee Concerns Program 8
where it's gross damage, or as a minimum, the jacket is j
9 damaged.
10 MR. WHITE: 'Let me emphasize that although that's 11 what we feel when we conduct that test, you know, the logical-12 thing is, could you, even though it didn't extend over a long 13 piece of cable, can you,' by giving it a sudden jerk cause'an
)
i 14 impact in a small area.
15 We'll try to determine that.
It doesn't appear 16 likely to us, but we're going to pursue it anyhow.-
1 17 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Okay.
An expert says it looks like 18 impact; we were able to duplicate that damage in the 19 laboratory.
20 We're talking silicon rubber; with these four we're
)
-21 talking cable made by AIW, and it's made with GE silicon 22 compound SE-725.
23 We're inside Unit 2 containment.
And'the point of 24 the last bullet there is it was not e vertical cable problem; i
25
'it was located four feet from where we had specified it.
i Heritag Reporting' Corporation' (202) 628-4888 l
~]
i i
L37 1
But what it isn't is, it's not damage caused prior
'2 to jacketing.
And we have test reports to show it okay up.to J
A 3
that point in time.
4 It didn't happen during operation; it happened during l
1 5
the trip down.
It.'s not jacket damage; it's not cut through i
6 tears in.the insulation over a length of cable, as you would 7
expect from the pulling process.
-)
S 8
And from original manufacturer test reports, it's not 9
reduced insulation at the time of manufacture.
It's not 10 contaminants as a result of the infra-red spectroscopy.
11 It's not a weakness in the mechanical property as 4
12 evidenced by the University of Connecticut test.
It's not j
13 associated with EPR or crosslink, which are predominantly the 14 types of cables we have at the plant.
15 And it's not pullby's jamming or lack of vertical 16 cable support as described in the TER.
So, now we're at the 17 point where we have the field data.
18 And we have four anomalies.
And we also have two 19 cables and the pullby test, which' happen to be silicon with a
]
20 leakage current was approximately 10 times that as the 21 remaining of all the other 937 tests.
22 So, we have a family of test results where the i
23 leakage currents are typically between 10 and 30 microrems.
24 And these are approximately 250 25 Again, so far the only question dealing with all the Heritage Reporting-Corporation-(202) 628-4888 l
I 38 1
1 anomalies and concerns associated with the silicon.
So what we' j
2 started to do was look at the intrinsic' properties of silicon.
l 3
And I've looked at those relative to the other types 4
of cable insulations used in the' plant.
And' realized we have 5
stuff on one end of it and things on the other.
6 What we looked at was the intrinsic dielectric-7 breakdown capability of. silicon is 600 volts per mil; while' l
1 8
that for EPR is approximately 1000 volts.
l 1
And crosslink pollies is 1500 volts.
We looked at 9-L I
10 the tinsel strength: silicon is approximately'800 p.s.'i.; EPR-j 11 Type 2 runs approximately 1250; and crosslink runs at 12 approximately 1800.
13 As far as hardness goes,.you can buy the variety --
14 no visual observation between them.
Silicon is a.very' soft 15 material and the others are very hard.
16 yae hardness measurements vary.from -- the others are 17 five to twr times more harder than silicon.
So, with that then 18 we decided to do some additional bench testing.
19 The first test we did --
l 20 MR.
AW:
Bill, excuse me.
Before you talk about 21 bench testing, tid you do some measurement of the strain at the 22 factory?
You know, strain, S-T-R --
23 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes.
They did tinsel --
I 24 MR. LIAW:
Tinsel-strength.
Not strength, strain.
25 MR. WHITE:
Strain.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
39 1
MR. LIAW:
S-T-R-A-I-N.
2 MR. RAUGHLEY:
No.
They --
3 MR. LIAW:
Elongation.
4 MR. RAUGHLEY:
-- did elongation for-retention of 5
elongation --
6 MR. LIAW:
Yes.
7 MR. RAUGHLEY:
-- and that was found to be 8
acceptable.
You want it compared to another cable?
1 9
MR. LIAW:
Except for, I mean, it doesn't tell me l
10 much.
What was it?
Do you recall the numbers?
11 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes, it was --
12 MR. LIAW:
Okay, you could give me later on, you 13 know?
14 (Pause) l l
l 15 I'll give you a copy of this because we'll be 16 receiving a copy in our submittal.
Typically, the measurements l
17 on an unistalled cable range, taking it through one millimeter 18 cross-sections range from 330 up to 540.
19 And on all the specimen 1 range from 440 to 580; 20 specimen 2 range from 370 to 500; specimen 3 range from 375 to 21 500; and specimen 4 range from 290 to 490.
22 MR. LIAW:
So, two of them have relatively high l
23 number, isn't it?
24 MR. RAUGHLEY:
High is good.
Yes, they compare 4
25 favorably with en uninstalled cable that we took our of the Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 1
i l
i l
40 i
-9 1
cable railyard as a bench measurement.
j i
2, MR. LIAW:
Since range'is pretty high, it might.not l
3 mean.anything.
4
'MR. GRIDLEY:. What was the range on your baseline 5
cable?
6 MR. RAUGHLEY:
The range on the baseline cable was 7
330 to 520.
8 MR. WHITE:
Ranges.are comparable.
9 MR. LIAW:
Range is comparable, yes, but the range is 10 pretty high.
Therefore, comparable may not indicate anything 11 of significance.
12 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Okay, so we started on bench testing.
13 The first test we did was-the relative dielectric strains.
We I
l 14 chose to repetitively hype up a 100 foot length and a'40' foot i
15 length of AIW silicon wire at 9600 volts.
4 16 MR. EBNETER:
How did you establish ground for that l
l 17 test?
l 18 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Water.
Okay.
And'see'if repetitive
-j l
l 19 high potting would either deteriorate it with time or cause it
-l J
l l
20 to be a high leaker.
21 And we were looking -- because the lower intrinsic l
22 value, does it behave as a high leaker? 'And that's what we i
23 have.
24 And like I said, on the hundred foot sample, we did 25 25 tests up to 9600 in the leekege at test 3 and test 25 were I
i
. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888-i
.41 1
the same.
2 We' repeated it on a 40 foot sample, and.likewise got.
3
.the same results.
The conclusion being that repetitive high:
pot testing at 9600 volts:would not age the cable's' dielectric-4 5
strain for silicon.
6 That should answer Jane's question.
7 MR.-ZWOLINSKI:-
Is that equivalent-to 240 volts per 8
mil, Bill?
9 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes, that's 240 volts per mil applied 10 to the minimum EQ thickness.
11 MR. LIAW:
Bill, I think -- just to remind Mr. White 12 j
13 MR. WHITE:
What's that?
1 14 MR. LIAW:
What intrinsic-dielectric strength of the 15 cable insulation.
He just told us it was, what -- 96,0007 16 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Hundred.
9 600 --- would not 17 deteriorate insulation.
18 MR. LIAW:
Oh, not deteriorate it.
19 MR. WHITE:
I understand.
And that's the reason,.in 20 fact, to be precise, they ran some tests on short links of
]
21 cable.
And I directed they run them on long lengths of cable 22 23 so we could -- cause I can't find any information that's been 24 done before.
25 So, again, we ran it 25 times.
I don't know Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-~
1 I
l 42 1
somebody else'll come along and probably want us to run it 100 1
2 times.
3 MR. LIAW:
So, we have resolved the question of 4
degradation of cable subjected to high voltage?
j 5
MR. WHITE:
Number 1, we resolved the question.
I 6
don't think I had that issue.
7 MR. MARINOS:
You may not have but your staf f did.
l 8
MR. WHITE:
Well they may.
But I want to emphasize 9
we know from 25 tests.
J t
1 10 MR. LIAW:
I understand.
j i
11 MR. WHITE:
That is all I can attest to.
You know, 12 the 26th we might have but I don't know.
I can just attest to 13 what we've done.
14 And so, I'm confident that at least on that cable I j
i 15 ran it 25 tinies and so I don't worry as much if I'm going to j
i 16 run it two or three times, certainly.
l 1
17 MR. LIAW:
We are happy that it confirms our feeling I
}
18 f rom the start that this test will not damage a good
]
l 19 insulation.
20 MR. WHITE:
But don't jump to any other conclusion 21 other than what we've said which is we've done very few tests.
i 22 You know, cause the next thing, statistically, somebody's going i
l 23 to come in and tell us w?'re all wet.
24 You haven't done enough tests.
And so, I ', trying to 25 increase my own confidence that I can high pot these things and i
I I
e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
t i
43 1
not do any damage which -- you know, I'd never though a high 2
pot, specifically, would damage unless something else was 3
there.
4 You have to have some other factor present.
So, I 5~
didn't realize this was a big issue.
6 MR. LIAW:
For your information, I was told by our 7
consultant that the inherent direct strength of this cable 8
insulation is somewhat like 15 to 1700 volt per mil.
9 MR. RAUGHLEY:
I can give you a data sheet from GE 10 showing that to be 600 volts per mil.
11 MR. WHITE:
Not 1600 volts per mil.
12 MR. LIAW:
Maybe he put in some lousy insulation 13 then.
14 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Could be.
l 15 MR. LIAW:
I don't know.
16 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Could be.
l 17 MR. TOOHEY:
One of the problems with intrinsic 18 strength discussion, it depends on how many mils you're testing l
l 19 and the number of barriers when you're working with very thin 20 walls; with the heavier walls.
21 So, it's a very complicated --
22 MR. WHITE:
I believe you're confirming what I said, l
23 which is we've tested this sample and we get these results.
24 And I'm not trying to make it mean more than that.
25 I think you're in agreement, if I understand what you l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
l l
44 1
-- thank you.
1 2
MR. RAUGHLEY:
The next test we took'--
3 MR. WHITE:
I like to have your consulta'nts agree-4 with me.
5 (Laughter) 6 MR. RAUGHLEY:
The next thing we did was, we wanted i
1 7
to find the minimum impact which would cause reduction 8
insulation on each of the three silicon types we have in the 9
plant.
10 And what you can conclude from that slide is the AIW 11 is most susceptible to impact.
12 MR. TOOHEY:
Bill, would you describe the impact in 13 the logs, if you have them?
14 MR. RAUGHLEY:
the 3.6 was arrived -- the ones in I
I 15 excess of that were around a weight that's done with a soil l
1 16 clip --the same fixture, but the weight in one case was a. rod 17 and the other cases were round discs.
18 And it's a soil compaction tester; it's what we're j
1 19 using in the lab we're following it at NASDM procedure before l
20
- that, i
21 MR. ZNOLINSKI:
This is a test, Bill, that is l
1 22 repeatable?
It doesn't have factors that come into play which 23 make the results vary, in other words?
i 24 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Next slide -- or two slides --
l 25 MR. WHITE:
Good goestion.
You can be a good l
1 l
i l
Heritage Reporting Corporation
)
(202)'628-4888 j
i
e
<d
}.
- 4 5 '
1 straight. man.here.
2
.MR.~ZWOLINSKIt-I'm not going'to ask any more
- )
3 questions.
'MR.
RAUGHLEY:
Also, what we've observed is from all 4
.)
5 the bench testings we've done -- if you: average the. breakdown.
1 6
capabilities of the 3 different manufacturers, AIW'is 7
approximately 59; anaconda approximately 35; and rock asbestos 8
approximately 90'.
9 And that bears on the next slide.
l 10 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Bill, excuse me again.
11 MR. GARDNER:
How many data points represent thoso:
12 averages -- J.B.
Gardner.
1 1
13 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Half a dozen?-
j 14 MR. LIAW:
Bill?
15 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes, B.D.?
16 MR. LIAW:
Are all those have the same thickness?
l 17 All different thicknesses?
No, rock asbestos-and anaconda'are 18 30 mil.
19 Same thickness.
All right, they're all 45 mil 20 cables.
l 21 MR. LIAW:
No, I'm sorry.
I had wrong view graph.
I 1
22 thought.the intact test.
I mean, I passed that; I'm sorry.
l 23 MR.,ZWOLINSKI:
Bil), I would like to follow up on 24 J.R.'s question on sample sir.e to determine ultimate break down if Kent has the answer or ycm have to provide it.
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 '
46 1
MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes.
Kent said that it ranged from 6 2
to 12.
3 MR. BROWN:
We can confirm that.
4 MR. RAUGHLEY:
We can give you the specifics, 5
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
This is 6 lengths of 40 feet, or --
6 can you walk me through how you got that?
7 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Some of them are 100 feet; then some l
1 l
8 of them are as small as 15 feet.
9 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
So, you'd average it out, and you 10 came out with these particular numbers?
11 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes.
I just thought it as an 12 interesting observation which comes to bare on the next slide 13 from all the data I was presenting.
14 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
The minimum sample for any of the 15 three is 6; and it may be as much as 12 for one of the ott.er 16 samples.
17 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes.
And this is all uninstalled 18 cable.
So, what we're saying here is you would expect AIWA to 19 break own a typically 59 anaconda 35, and rock asbestos at 90.
l 20 MR. LIAW:
Bill, in doing the impact test, had you 21 gone to calculate the kinetic energy per unit volume or unit t
22 service?
23 MR, RAUGHLEY:
No.
24 MR. LIAW:
You jv?t had put pound -- depend on I
i 1
25 material; also depend on tnichness.
Among a energy, on i
I l
Keritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
l 1
i
7r -
l
~
i 8
/
i
(
,1 f
?
47
)
1 1
1 average, that the material suf fered,or absorbed,' 6n hae.~to
{
1 2
absorb, would be different, wasn't it.
l i
it j
3
' flR. RAQGHLF,Y :
Yes, you would expect it to be.~-
J l
4 MR. LIAW:
Right.
So, by just having the put'upon:
5 dif ferent type of cables might giie misleading informatica.
J 6
MR. RAUGHLEY:
YeC.
Poing tina't; that's C&D lab type' j
7 work.
I don't know if we would have the capability to do the 8
9 MR. FOX:
The purpose of,this test was to try to i
'10 duplicate an irapact dema,ge: that looked like the thremhold 11 impact damage we saw from Comtecticu't.
' 12 MR. CANTRELL:
And then test that.
1 1
13 MR. FOX:
And thoEe were --
14 MR. LIAW:
I understand.
15 Mit. FOX:
And in that case, I think the diameter is 16 if we were trying to postulate an impact from something l
H 17 striking id, it I didn't know.
18 MR. RAUGHLEY:
So, then what we did is ud said let's 19 take the minimum constrictional dan. age fron AIW, and subject inducethat--inf[ictthatdamageon'each'of-20 that, you know, l-21 tne three manuf acturer's pipes and see how it behaves' 22 dielectrically.
- of cod:dse you have the l
23 And-what the3e represent 24 three manufacturers at each point in your test on.approximately 1
25 e.15 foot length of cable where this"3.6 pound was droppr.
I g
Neritage Rsporting ' Corporation
_ ( 5/2 ) 628-4888
~
p
\\
s t
.me m
mm.
Almm%.
h
L 48 1
And that's where the cabie broke down at.
So, what 2
you can see is from the rock asbestos, the dielectric impact 3
causes approximately a 10-15% reduction in dielectrics, as 4
opposed to the anaconda and AIW, where this relatively 5
insignificant impact damage causes a significant change in its 1
6 dielectric properties.
7 That's approximately 25 to 33% of the time.
So, what l
8 we're getting are reductions in dielectric strength you would 9
expect.
10 You know, these numbers, undamaged, and what is 11 causing is significant reductions in the dielectric strength as 12 a result of dropping this weight.
J.B.?
l 13 MR. GARDMER:
J.B.
Gardner.
Was a determination that 1
14 the damage, in terms of the percent compromise on the wall?
15 MR. RAUGHLEY:
No, it was done with the 3.6 pounds.
16 As far as the 3.6, that does five you reduction in the wall on 17 AIW.
But you can't use -- what I've learned in doing this 18 test, you can only talk about two variables at a time on cable.
19 Otherwise, you get yourself in trouble.
l 20 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
These are all 3.67-21 MR. RAUGHLEY' Yes.
That's important -- my last 22 statement's important, is if you try to talk about any more 23 than two things at a time on cable you're going to get results 24 that are meaningless, which i? e road we went down the first-25 week before we --
l l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i 49 3
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Excuse me, there's not a 2
typographical error -- that's really 11 on rock asbestos?
3 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes, 90.5.
Don't know if you can see 4
it from the back.
You double checked all those numbers, 5
correct?
Okay.
6 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
So, you're calling that an anomaly in 7
which you can throw it out and not worry about it, or you're 8
including it in your overall test program.
9 MR. RAUGHLEY:
This in the overall assessment of what l
10 we have, and building on our concern for silicon.
l 11 MR. WHITE:
You're talking about the 11 on rock asbes 12
-- which one is that?
13 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Yes.
The number 11 on the rock 14 asbestos, Admiral.
Such a strange result.
All the other f
i 15 numbers are very high.
16 MR. WHITE:
But we didn't throw it out.
In fact, do 17 you have a back up slide?
18 MR. RAUGHLEY:
That was a -- defy?
That was 73.5.
l 19 MR. WHITE:
No, no.
Eleven.
The question is that 20 eleven looks out of the ordinary, and so did we just kind of q
l 21 disregard it.
22 I believe the answer de no cause we've conducted 23 other tests, then at higher foot pounds, and as I recall, that I
24 only took 11 foot pounds, right?
Nine?
l
}
l 25 So, you're still talking about somebody stepping on 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
50 1
it.
And so, no, I didn't rule our rock asbestos at all.
2 That's the reason we've --
3 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Okay.
4 MR. WHITE:
-- gone ahead and tested it in a plant.
5 MR. CANTRELL:
I'd like to put the frame on this 6
again --
7 MR. WHITE:
We are too.
Let me make sure you 8
understand.
I'm taking a very conservative view on this issue, 9
okay?
10 MR. RAUGHLEY:
So, now we're at the point where we 11 can duplicate the damage, but we can't conclusively, you know, 12 understand the anomalies.
13 So, what we decided to do was additional testing in I
14 the field.
We mandated under the same program as that which we l
15 discussed in part 1.
l 16 We decided to test at least 15 more of the worst l
17 case, longest length, AIW-rock-asbestos-anacondas.
This was 18 done -- we initiated this action Saturday morning and it was 19 completed lat last night.
20 And these are the results of that test.
AIN we had 3-21 anomalius --
22 MR. WHITE:
Let me correct you -- night before last 23 we completed it -- at about midnight.
I 24 MR. tiARINOS :
The enomalies -- can you explain., or 25 you will later?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
51 1
MR. RAUGHLEY:
No, we didn't'take thtm out of the 2
plant yet.
3 MR. MARINOS:
No.
You said: anomalies -- what is the 4
anomaly?
5 MR. RAUGHLEY:
The anomaly is it did not-hold 9600 6
volts.
7 MR.-MARINOS:
Did you reach 9600 volts?
8 MR. RAUGHLEY: 'Only in one.
9 MR. WHITE:
Can you hear.-- stand up; get'up at the 10 microphone so everybody can hear you.
11 MR. BROWN:
Kent Brown.
The AIW category there where 12 we had three anomalies -- two of those broke down at 8000 volts 13 as we were coming up.
14 One broke down at 9600 volts after approximately 2 15 minutes.
16 MR. MARINOS:
Is this complete breakdown?
17 MR. BROWN:
Yes.
18 MR. MARINOS:
Shorten it.
19 MR. BROWN:
For asbestos category,.one of those was 20 at 5200 volts; as we were. increasing _it there we were going 21 set.
In fact, when we were at 5700 volts, and the third one, 22 it held the voltage for the entire period of time but its 23 leakage current increased; it's test showed.
24 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
S6, the polarization index then, was 25 less than 17 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_____._______________.___m___m._.
~ ~ - -. -. _
l i
l 52 1
MR. WHITE:
That's right.
I 2
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
And that's what you're really working 3
-- you're using polarization index throughout as far as 4
- acceptance criteria?
l 5
MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes.
The same program as --
6 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
The one minute,' five minute readings? -
7 Mr. Goodwin?
8 MR. GOODh1N:
Ted Goodwin, NRC stt The sixteen 9
tests represent 16 conductors in the same byv.
or -- just.how 10 were they --
11 MR. RAUGHLEY:
What we did was we ranked the cables 12 from 1 to whatever in terms of length.
And then, tested the 1
13 longest.
Of the 20 longest conductors, we teste 15.
]
14 And there was, was in how 'many conduits --
15 MR. WHITE:
Sixteen.
Sixteen.
16 MR. RAUGHLEY:
So, those 16 were in ten conduits?
17 Ten cables and -- yes.
We have, and as Mr. White stated i
18 earlier, we're matrixing the different permutations and 19 combinations.
20 As I said, this is relatively.new.
So, we can 21 provide you with-that sort of information early next week.
22 MR. CANTRELL:
All of these conductors are single i
23 conductor wires.
24 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Okey, so as a result of that testing, 25 we're taking additional ection.
Part 21 is being issued.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I-
___-_____.a.__m__
i i
l l
53, i
We've started pretest planning fo-the balance of the silicon 2
in the containment, in the eventuality that that becomes the q
3 case.
4 We're evaluating replacement cable alternatives..'And 5
we're proceeding to test.and replace as required in.the. order 6
of AIW\\ rock asbestos -- and we're still evaluating anaconda.
7 MR. KEPPLER:
Are you considering, at this' stage,.
8 that all'the silicon cable is suspect?
9 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes.
10 MR. WHITE:
What did you ask?
11 MR. KEPPLER:
I asked if TVA was considering whether 12 all the silicon cable was suspect at this stage.
13 MR. WHITE:
Certainly, the reason I directed that the 14 three manufacturers be teste was because of my suspicion of the i
15 thing.
.l 16 Now one of the three have statistically passed that.
17 I haven't yet gone into whether I'm still suspicious of..that 18 now having that sample passed, or what else I may want to do 19 with that particular vendor.
20 Certainly, as he'll tell you, and the other too, 21 we've got to do additional testing.
22 MR. KEPPLER:
So, it's fair to say the AIW.and the i
23 rock asbestos you consider ~ suspect?
24 MR. WHITE:
Yes, but 25 MR. KEPPLER:
The anaconda you haven't taken a 4
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 1
,1 54'
)
i 1
position-on yet?.
2 MR. WHITE:
That's correct.
3 MR. KEPPLER:
When, now --
4 MR. WHITE:
Because of the surprise that there are no 5
failures in the sample --'if I believe the sample and there'are:
'6 failures, then I. guess I have to believe it when there aren't.
J 7
8 So, that's just a problem question that I had 9
resolved.
q 10 MR. KEPPLER:
Now, you mentioned the Part 21 report.
1
.11 Has TVA reached a conclusion that this is a generic problem,.or
~
12 not?
13 MR. WHITE:
My opinion is that.it is, in fact, a 14 generic problem.
15 MR. KEPPLER:
So, that would assume you consider this 1
16 problem to be a manufacturing defect?'
17 MR. WHITE:
Not necessarily.
It could be 18 manufacturing; could be shipping.
I think the standards for 19 installation of cable doesn't have precautions that'say if you-1 20 take this ard pinch it you may have just ruined your wire.
21 I think that kind of damage that could be -.I don't 22 rule out that when it was laying on the floor somebody stepped-
]
23 on it.-
l 24 Now whether you consider that installation or'not, I 25 just think that generically, in the industry, people usually l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j
i 1
~55 1
don't think --'at least my consultants say that industry wide,
~
2 people usually don't think of.such minor things as being 3
possible cause of-damage.
4 And so, whether it was done in. manufacturing, 5
shipping, receipt, Tor prior to it's' actual' installation, I'm 6
not in the position to say.
7 But I think, generically,;it applies across the 8
board, yes.
9 MR. KEPPLER:
So, that's tied to the --
10 MR. WHITE:
That's my opinion.
11 MR. KEPPLER:
That's tied to then the test that gave 12 the low impact strength of the material involved.
l 13 MR. WHITE:
That's correct.
With silicon rubber.
14 Now, I can't personally attest to the fact that all plants use 15 silicon rubber in 1(e) application; you may find some that l'
16 don't.
l 17 But certainly the evidence we have from the vendors l
18 indicate that they've sold a lot of silicon rubber to various 1
19 utilities, so it's there somewhere.
20 And we, in fact, know in some cases -- I believe we i
21 know in some cases -- it's a 1(e) application.
.Now, whether 22 it's across the board, I don't know.
That's each utility's --
23 MR. LIAW:
No, I don't mean across the board.
I 24 think a vintage plan --
25 MR. WHITE:
Maybe so, as I say, but that'isn't up'to.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202)'628-4888
1 I
i 56 1
me.
The individuals will have to look at their own.
I just 2
don't know.
3 MR. LIAW:
Back to the question Mr. Keppler has about j
)
4 the generic implication.
I guess-if I interpret what you say j
i 5
correctly, is this: you have two way to get it to be generic l
j 6
problem.
i l
7 One is manufactured defects.
Second is because the l
~1 8
material inherently is " softer," quote, unquote --
I 9
MR. WHITE:
Than any one thought.
l 10 MR. LIAW:
That it's more susceptible to any 1
11 installation or shipping abuse.
And people will just have to l
l 12 take better care of that.
13 Is that what you're saying?
l 14 MR. WHITE:
That's correct.
That's correct.
- Cause, l
l 15 you know, we've all seen things shipped on railroad cars and 16 trucks.
17 And we're talking about wire and a big reel.
I don't 18 think anyone would even think that you could literally hit it 1
1 19 with your fist and cause damage to it.
20 But that's the kind of thing we're talking about.
1 21 So, I thing everyone needs my opinion -- others need to look at 22 the same thing.
I 23 cause even if they had perfect installation 24 practices, it doesn't make any difference because it might not l
25 be caused by that.
I 4
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l 1
3
.57 1-MR. LIAW:
.I know where'you get perfect material out 2
of a shop, and it's shipped to the side, and you screw up, and 3
installation you can have problem too.
4 MR. WHITE:
.That's exactly right.-
So,- that 's the y
5 reason I think it's generic.
6 MR. KEPPLER:
Is there anything'different about'TVA's 7
procurement of this cable than might be from some other 8
utility?
9 MR. WHITE:
I believe so in-the case of AIW only, but 10 I think not in'the case of rock asbestos and anaconda.
Correct 11 me if I'm wrong.
12 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Why would you say --
13 MR. WHITE:
Well, to be precise, in the case of AIW, 14 I think there's a particular compound.
I'm not sure how many l
l 15 people, when they mix the batch of this stuff -- of the GE l
16 something or other -- seventy?
l 17 MR. RAUGHLEY:
725.
18 MR. WHITE:
Seven twenty-five,.with, I'm not sure how 19 many of the utilities have GE compound 725 on their AIW cable.
20 Somebody else will have to determine that.
1 21 But we don't know -- in the case of rock-asbestos, i
1 22 there's nothing unique about our purchase of rock asbestos or -
23-24 MR. RAUGHLEY:
No. there's'nothing---
25 MR. WHITE:
-- or anaconda.
Heritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888 l
l
58 unique about our purchase of cable.
1 MR. RAUGHLEY:
2 MR. WHITE:
We don't know of anything that's unique.
3 MR. LIAW:
Excuse me, Bill, let me ask you.
Did he 4
specify on to the type of material -- the silicon rubber or 5
asbestos?
No, it would not be any different.
6 But if you purchased our specification -- goes to a 7
level of detail to specify the type of compound --
8 MR. RAUGHLEY:
No, we would not specify that.
1 9
MR. LIAW:
And the question is what --
10 MR. RAUGHLEY:
No one would specify that.
what was TVA's specification then --
11 MR. LIAW:
l 12 on silicon rubber?
To what level had you specified --
13 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Board number 14, gage silicon rubber -
14 15 MR. LIAW:
I'm talking material, I'm not talking If about 17 MR. RAUGHLEY:
-- with the past; I-Tripolee -- this, g
18 that and the other.
19 MR. CANTRELL:
Past what?
l 20 MR. RAUGHLEY:
The past of the appropriate standards.
21 MR. CANTRELL:
It would be a performance 22 specification.
23 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes, a performance specification --
24 MR. CANTRELL:
It wouldn't be a material j
1 25 specification --
j l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
-i
)
I
~59 1
MP-
,AUGHLEY:
-- ours would' reflect the standards in 2
effect at the time of the purchase agreement.
3 MR. LIAW:
Okay, but how much specification.'
Does.it l
4 include any. mechanical strength?
Elongation, the purity of the 1
5 content -- physical properties.
6 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes, we would specify it through ICEH 7
letters.
8 MR. LIAW:
Oh, I see.
9 MR. KEPPLER:
But wouldn't your standards be geared 10 towards ensuring that you met your E0 profile, and the vendor -
11 12 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Service voltage, EQ profile, fire 13 retardancy, et cetera.
14 MR. KEPPLER:
That's right.
You may not get to that 15 level that B.D.'s pointing to -- the actual. material itself.
16 MR. RAUGHLEY:
-No, we would not.
17 MR. KEPPLER:
You'd rely on the vendor to supply it.
l 18 MR. RAUGHLEY:
We could ask the two manufacturers 19 that we know, but have all of you ever seen anybody specify a 20 speci.fic compound?
21 MR. CARDELLO:
Paul Cardello.
Actually, there's 22 requirements to that, that it meet 383, and that you'use the i
23 same compound and you have to test and certify that you are 24 using the same compound in the same weys you say.
25 With regard to testifying to compounds, I don't ever o
Heritage Reporting ' Corporation (202) 628-4888
j I
l 60 1
recall that in a nuclear situation.
The most definitive is it
]
2 might get into a generic and chemical
{
l 3
MR. WHITE:
Pardon me, sir.
Repeat everything you l
f 4
just said.
5 MR. CARDELLO:
Paul Cardello.
The question was, on J
6 the specification, what did we see as the manufacturer of 7
wiring cable products for this industry, what did we see as 1
8 incoming specifications?
And the first thing to dispell is
)
{
9 that this thing might have been wide open and the vendor
)
I 10 supplied whatever he wanted.
And that's not the case.
The i
l 1
11 incoming document or specification that you bid to, I can't 12 remember a case where it specified a particular compound, such 13 as Dow number-such and such.
It may have happened.
I don't i
14 recall it.
It certainly wasn't common.
But once you made your 15 proposal and submitted your qualification data you had to 16 identify the compound one way or another.
And certify in'a I
17 test that you did indeed use those materials in the cable as 18 applied to that project and made the cables in essentially the 19 same way.
And if you changed anything, you had to notify them.
20 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
There had to be a certification that 21 had been qualified to certain E/Q profiles, harsh environment 22 and so forth?
Whether the vendor did it or the TVA did it, i
1 l
23 someone had to sponsor that qualification?
24 MR. WHITE:
But before he finishes, how many years 25 experience do you have with silicon rubber type insulation?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
L____-___-________-___________________________________________-______.
61 1
MR. CARDELLO:
Twenty-five years.
2 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
What company are you serving?
l
'3 MR. CARDELLO:
Anaconda.
4 MR. WHITE:
And would it be correct of me to say.
5 that, until last week some time, you were never aware of the 1
l 6
significance of the ease.of impact damage?
L 7
MR. CARDELLO:
Well, I'm -- you1ran a test with the 1
8 non-standard bench-type test, which was reasonable to do in the f
9 context in which you did it.
That translates to a much broader 10 statement of a non-acceptable product.
11 MR. WHITE:
I stopped short of'saying that.
I f
12 MR. CANTRELL. Were you surprised at the1 result?
13 MR.-CARDELLO:
I was -- we were confronted with those 14 numbers -- quite honestly, the answer to your question'is 15 "yes."
When I went back and looked at what those numbers were, 16 and quantified what that meant in terms of impact, as best I 17 could, I didn't feel quite so surprised.
18 MR. CANTRELL:
I would like to make a comment ri@ht 19 now.
This presentation was in particular.
TER came out gain 20 confidence in the insulation table 1.
21 MR. WHITE:
Let me mention two things.
Mr. Cadello, 1
22 who just spoke, you are no longer with Anaconda, right?
j 23 MR. CARDELLO:
Right.
24 MR. WHITE:
50 in answer to the question, he was 25 with Anaconda for many, many years but he's now a private i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
62 1
consultant with experience in silicon rubber.
2 The other thing, obviously, buried in this thing, is 3
in addition to those three manufacturers, Dow and G-E, who 4
furnish the silicon rubber, we haven't -- you know, there are a 5
lot of things we have yet to pursue.
So it isn't perhaps just 6
three vendors; perhaps it's five.
7 MR. RAUGHLY:
Mr. Gardner?
8 MR. GARDNER:
Relative to the properties of silicon, j
9 has there been any testing or data compared of the tear 10 strength of that material compared to other insulation i
11 material, do you know?
12 MR. CARDELLO:
No.
13 MR. GARDNER:
The small ruptures in the surface of l
l l
l 14 the insulation on the inside or outside that have been l
l 15 observed, make one think of tearing and I just therefore wonder 16 if Mr. Cardello or others can tell us in general terms what the 17 test method is and if that's something to pursue?
l 18 MR. CARDELLO:
The question is, "is that data 1
19 available?"
It is.
20 MR. EBNETER:
Stu Ebneter.
Just quickly, have you 21 ever considered doing an analysis of variance approach to this l
22 silicon rubber thing, that would put a little bit of world into 23 this chaos?
Yes, no, or maybe?
l 24 MR. WHITE:
Say thet agein?
25 MR. EBNETER:
Have you ever considered doing an Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 63 L
1 analysis of variance approach to the silicon rubber issue?
I l
2 just don't think you're going to get anything on this approach.
3 You know what an analysis of variance is, it's just a 4
statistical approach to separate variables in a test program.
5 I mean, it's standard approach.
Charlie?
6 MR. FOX:
We tried like the devil to isolate 7
parameters with this bench scale test program.
We have not 8
specifically applied the analysis of variance.
We've been 9
looking at very small non-statistical samples.
To answer your 10 question, we haven't looked at it.
11 MR. EBNETER:
Maybe you should?
I agree you can I
l 12 never intuitively separate all these huge amounts of variables, 13 but that's why you use some analysis of variance to do that.
I 14 don't think you're going to gain much by taking two or three 15 and then trying to figure something out.
16 MR. FOX:
Well, I think that what we need to do is 17 get on to either finish --
18 MR. WHITE:
I appreciate your comment.
As I said 19 earlier, we'll take any comments --- there are a lot of 20 unknowns.
We can use any fresh ideas that you have, we'll be 21 happy to use.
While we're getting on with the testing or 22 placement of cables, we still want to find out why, what causes l
23 this, because it will help the industry.
Because I think we're 24 far ahead of anyone else now and we should take advantage of 25 that.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l l
64 1
MR. RAUGHLEY:
In conclusion I want to emphasize that
(
2 when we posed the restart concern --
3 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Bill, I'm sorry to interrupt you.
4 Could you go back one graph?
Your fourth bullet.
Are we aware 5
of that test program?
6 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes -- the program is the same as part 7
one that I have described.
Same test voltage acceptance 8
criteria.
9 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Is this the same population of 10 silicon cable inside containment 11 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes.
12 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
AIW or rockbestos?
13 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Yes.
AIW --
14 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Well, wait a minute, let's be very 15 precise.
16 MR. RAUGHLEY:
My directive is that we start with AIW 17 and test all the 1-E applications inside containment in AIW.
18 And to follow that, and we're writing procedures for that --
19 and to follow that with the next sample, I think, 20 statistically, with the population of rockbestos, and I then I 21 have also directed that we walk down all the conduits so that I 22 am in a position for those that fail of knowing where and how 23 to place them.
And I brought in Mr. Mavroe, who headed a 24 similar effort at Davis Bessy with rehe and splice issue, and 25 I'm going to put him in charge so I have a single guy who is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
65 1
going to be orchestrating the entire show.
2 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
So you are implementing a test 3
program?
Are you -- have you laid'it'out in lots of sample 4
sizes of 20, 20fand 20 or --
5 MR. RAUGHLEY:
AIW doesn't make any difference.
- AIW, 6
we're just going to go in -- we'have identified that there are 7
80 cables in approximatelyJthree conductor per cable, and we'.ve 1
8 tested about 40 -- what, 30 or so, and we have 200 and'we're 9
going to_go in and start with those conductors by, you told.me?
10 MR. ABERCROMBIE:. We start Sunday.
11 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Sunday, but I'm trying to push him to 12 start a little sooner than that.
But --
13 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
So you're doing a 100 percent test on 14 the AIW7 15 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Of the AIWs, yes.
And we're taking-16 the next population for rockbestos, because we have the three i
17 that didn't meet the criteria..And I think that requires us 18 now to take the next 15 or the next 20 -- the whole next 20?
19 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
If you experience a failure during 20 the testing of AIW, what's the corrective action?
21 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Replace it.
Probably replace the --
22 and this is -- I make final decisions, but probably after we've 23 walked down the conduit, we'll find it easier to cut the entire 24 cable or maybe more than one conductor.
Say'there are four 25 conductors and one fails, probably~I will cut -- pull all those l
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 j
d
66 1
conductors.
If one fails, I'll pull all four out of the j
2.
conduit and replace them.
I haven't yet decided what to 3
replace them with.
We've got to find something that isn't 4
going to give me this problem and yet we'll meet the 5
requirements and yet will not give me some other problem I l
l 6
haven't thought of.
So I've got a lot of people off thinking 7
about what it is we need to replace this with and whether i
l 8
that's going to be satisfactory.
j 9
MR. MARINOS:
At what level of failure will you 1
10 decide to replace all the cables, even the ones that may have 11 passed?
Because there is an uncertainty even for the ones that'
{
12 pass, and that uncertainty will increase or decrease depending 13 on the success or failure of the continued test that you do.
I 14 MR. ROUGHLEY:
I can't -- right now, Mr. Marinos, I 15 haven't decided to, just based on failures to then 16 automatically replace all, because if they pass the test, then l
17 as long as you don't mishandle them they're in a conduit, for l
18 goodness sakes, they aren't very susceptible to damage inside 19 of a conduit.
That's one of the reasons why I say, if there is 20 one in a conduit that fails, I'm not going to try to pull out 21 one and leave four because I might damage one of the other 22 three.
So I'm just, it's just, you know, it's just as easy to 23 pull them all out and probably more --
24 MR. MARINOS:
I'm eddressing an uncertainty even for 25 the test.
The test has a certain level of confidence and even i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
1
l 67 1
in the. success of the test, there is a finite level of 2
confidence which can deteriorate as the failures occur in
~3
. subsequent cables.
4 MR. RAUGHLEY:
I haven't even considered that issue, 5
very frankly.
Based on what we've seen to date, the confidence 6
in those.high plot tests is pretty high.
7 MR. GARDNER:
J.B. Gardner.
Perhaps. Admiral White 8
did address the confidence when he said in reaction to the 9
eight or ten mills of raw left on some. cables-that passed the 10 test.
I th',nk you right there address the1 confidence level.
11 that may be in there and the cable will pass the test.
~
12 MR. MARINOS:
So will you be happy-to accept eight 13 mills of insulation on a cable that has passed the test?
14 MR. RAUGHLEY:
I haven't made all of the decisions i
15 yet, Mr. Marinos.
16 MR. WHITE:
I can tell you the things that fail we're
)
17 going to replace.
That's as far as I've gone right now.
And 18 there's a lot of other things to do, for example, one of the i
19 impacts might be what we find on the.ones we pull out.
j 20 MR. KEPPLER:
Steve, I think what's. prompting the
.j 21 questioning, though, is right now, what's happened --
i 22 MR. WHITE:
Do you agree with me?
23 MR. GARDNER:
Absolutely.
24 MR. WHITE:
Thank you.
I like it when you consult l
2S_
me.
Heritage ' Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l J
68
]
l 1
MR. GARDNER:
Well', I'd want to be careful now.
~
2 MR. KEPPLER:
What I see - 'let me'give you-a-3 reaction to this:
as I see this, we started.out to investigate 4
a concern that came up some time ago, and.you've investigated I
5 that concern and from what I'm hearing, you're satisfied with' j
l 6
it.
.I think we'll talk a little bit about-this today.
I've
]
.7 got a couple of questions about that.
That-issue is 'pparently a
8 one that we see solvable.
9 The -- as you explored this problem, the concern for 10 installation damage, you found some cable failures that has. led 11 you into a test program and you're finding more failures and f
12 you're not understanding the reasons for all the failures.
I 1
13 think what this says, though, is that you're also expressing
)
.I 14 the view that this.has a high potential to be a generic 1
15 problem.
I think that what I'm hearing is we want to get a 16 closer working relationship with you in the resolution of this
)
17 problem.
I don't want to. hear by phone that you've completed ~
18 something that's been done already.
I think we need to have 19 our people, our staff, our consultants, more in touch with 20 what's going on with your testing, because this problem is 1
21 taking on broader dimensions.
l 22 MR. WHITE:
I agree with it.
I welcome it.
I can 23 assure you.
j 24 MR. KEPPLER:
So I think thet's what's prompting the 25 type of questions you're-getting right now, and we hear you are Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
'l i
i I
69 1
continuing a program that you have embarked on.
I just think 2
it's time for us to get closer involved right now.
3 MR. RAUGHLEY:
You almost took the words right out of 4
my mouth.
As we started before, as far as the restart concerns 5
identified by the TVR, we feel we've adequately addressed 6
those.
And we are saying, you know, silicon is not passing the l
7 test, and we don't know specifically why.
We can duplicate the 8
damage that we've seen to date, but we can't conclusively i
9 understand the failure.
10 We're going to continue with test and analysis until 11 the silicon rubber problem is solved and we're going to 12 reiterate our commitment to provide you with a long-term on-13 going program of six months.
After restart we will do that.
14 MR. LIAW:
Bill, your first statement implied that 15 the second rubber issue -- restart-restart issue --
16 MR. RAUGHLEY:
How are you defining restart?
17 MR. LIAW:
Restart concerns data and TER.
18 MR. RAUGHLEY:
We are testing silicon rubber, but as 19 far as full ply-jamming we didn't see any.
i 20 MR. LAIW:
I hope you did not imply that silicon 21 rubber thing is not a start-restart issue?
22 MR. RAUGHLEY:
RIght.
23 MR. WHITE:
Come on.
24 MR. LIAW:
I don't think so.
25 MR. WHITE:
The silicon rubber issue is a restart Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
5 I
i l-70 y
1 issue.
2 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Is there any questions from anyone?.
3 MR. WHITE:
Yes.
Let's talk about this-first item.
l 4
What are we prepared to say about'that?
What are.we prepared 5
to say about that.first item?
6 MR. MARINOS:
All the information that we need we can 7
put on the Record or we can'-- I have a list of requests.
8 MR. KEPPLER:
Well,.let -- do we agree with that 9
position or no?
10 MR. MARINOS:
We have a question'that we raised 11 earlier about the wet test, yes.
The result.
So -
yes sir.
12 We need the information formally to review this.
13 MR.
WHITE:
We will furnish'that to you.
I am a 14 little bit puzzled that we have observed all the tests.
We 15 observed --
i I
16 MR. RAUGHLEY:
We observed only one test.
17 MR. KEPPLER:
Oh, all right, then.
We got to work l
]
18 more closely.
I would have been a Int -- would have felt a : t 19 better if we didn't know where the tests were.
20 MR. MARINOS:
And.the test was only part of the ones.
l 4
21 MR. WHITE:
I'm glad we're going to work more 22 closely.
May I suggest, Mr. Keppler, in the interests of 23 following up on your comment of working more closely.together, i
24 that you kind of semi-prominently station someone down here?.
l i
25 And I'm quite serious.
Because we're pushing very hard..This 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l l
1 1
71 1
']
1 is obviously'a restart' issue:; it's a schedule. issue.
I wan:
I 2
- we will have people here to have -- I would appreciate it.
1 3
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
I want to make sure, so there's no 4
misunderstanding,.that Admiral White has exactly what we need 1
5 so that we can either accept or reject that,first statement.:
j 6
MR. MARINOS:
We have not formally received the 7
results of your test, so those test -- so those test 8
infractions that we alluded to earlier,_also -- so we need to 9
review those for the Record.
l
)
10 MR. RAUGHLEY:
So when can -- let's not leave this 1
I 11 thing.
When are you going to have them to him?
12 MR. KEPPLER:
Do we have all the test results?
Can 13 we have them today?
j 14 MR. WHAT:
Do you know exactly what -- do they know 15 exactly what we need?
Is there any question, you know, I would 16 like you to break your neck or I'll break it for you, to give 17 them everything they want today before any of them leave.
l 18 MR. MARINOS:
I'll read them to you for the Record.
l 19 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Admiral, for a perspective.
20 MR. WHITE:
Yes?
21 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Our resident inspectors have 22 witnessed much of this testing.
So NRC tested on-site.
- Now, 23 these particular individuals are probably not qualified to do 24 the evaluation of'the date.
25 MR. WHITE:
I understand that, yes.
l l
l>
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
+
l
i 72 i
1 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
And I understand from our consultants 2
we'd like the opportunity to look at your data in an evaluation 3
mode to accept or reject that first bullet.
l 4
MR. WHITE:
And we will furnish that -- he will break 5
his neck to get that to your commission today.
l 6
MR. KEPPLER:
Let him read what it is so that that 1
1 7
way we're not going back and forth a half a dozen times.
8 MR. MARINOS:
We want the results of the April test l
l 9
on silicon rubber cable, including the road data and 10 procedures.
That was number one.
Number two,the results of
]
11 the fifteen full-ply and fifteen jamming conduit tests 12 performed in the July and August time, including the raw data l
l 13 and procedures; number three, for the cable testing done 14 recently in September which he just described, provide the 15 purpose, procedure and results of this test both in-plant and 16 in the lab.
Number four, describe any deviations from the 17 stated test procedures that have occurred during in-plant and 18 lab testing -- an example of deviation was the observed 19 drainage of the conduit.
I'm not going to go into that.
20 Number five, a comprehensive root cause analysis of cable 21 failure needs to be provided.
Number six --
22 MR. FOX:
Hold it, " comprehensive root cause," you're 23 talking about on silicon rubber and we don't have that yet.
24 We're still searching.
25 MR. MARINOS:
Number six, for cables listed, t
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
73 1
isometrics of the conduits needs to be provided.
2 MR. FOX:
Okay, can we split this into two 3
categories?
ONe, we're going to supply you the information 4
that allows you to close the TER-related aspects of the 5
program.
6 MR. WHITE:
We just shifted subjects here, I think, 7
MR. FOX:
Yes, we're talking about two things.
We 8
want to get you to bless item one, so that doesn't involve root 9
cost of the silicon.
10 MR. WHITE:
We agree with you.
Many of the things --
l l
11 not just that one -- many of the things apply to what's on-12 going in --
1 1
13 MR. KEPPLER:
Right.
l 14 MR. FOX:
You can give me a friendly aside too.
All
}
15 of our failures, essentially all of our failures, affect the l
l 16 dry confidence, so --
17 MR. MARINOS:
Well, you have attempted no wet tests 1
18 of the rubber cable anyway, so --
j t
l 19 MR. FOX:
That's right.
20 MR. MARINOS:
Well, the statement is not necessarily I
21 22 MR. WHITE:
No, he's raising the issue because there 23 was so much to-do ebout wetting versus not-wetting and he's 24 saying --
25 MR. POX:
Will there be'any confidence in our ability l
l
{
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 5
74 j
i 1
to see the dry cable -.within the isolated' ground planes?
j 2
MR. LIAW:
Well, Bob, look at it'the other way, j
3 though.
You might detect an entirely lower voltage level.
1 4
MR. FOX:
B.D., when'we described to you the 5
laboratory tests that we've done on this population of silicon'
-j 6
rubber, we've done a lot of-wet testing'and you'd be surprised' l
7 at how inconclusive the wet tests were.
1 8
MR. LIAW:
In what respect?
o 9
MR. FOX:-
In that we had cables'in which we induedd 10 minor damage, we could wrap those cables in aluminum foil and 11' very quickly find faults.
We could take that aluminum' foil off i
12 and immerse those cables in water and not be able to find the ll 13 faults.
14 MR. MARINOS:
Well, you got to provide us our data.
15 MR. FOX:
We'll provide your data all right.
We've i
l 16 come to some of our own conclusions about wet versus dry.
)
17 MR. KEPPLER:
Let me also suggest that, in the I
18 interests of future work that they're going to do, that we set 19 up points of contacts so there can be no miscommunication i
20 problems so we can be getting feedback from.them directly on 21 any of this.
22 MR. WHITE:
Well, I think that's a good idea.
- Again, 23 I'd like the point'of contact down here to be on temporary u
24 active duty down here while we.'re going through thic.
j
~l 25 MR. KEPPLER:
We'll get him o Lear Jet.
Heritage Reporting Corporation i
(202) 628-4888 l
- - _ ~ - _ -
r
(
x
'l p i
1 Mu. EBNETER:
We'll get y('>u
- t. hat poir t of cortac t.
e<
2 MR WhI?E:
yru didn(t atsswar the ros t of it, thougip 3
MR. EDNETER:.'We wl.ll:be availad!.e though,
'l 1
4 MR. WHITE:
Thair you.
5 MR. Tt 2.U'JH1.,5Y : -i>.ny. ot$ter questictis f reat anyone?
e 6
MR. Kli1TE:
IV there ary more stuff uf th9re f or.
i t
7 iW. TDX:
Just one.
Wo arc going to: package-#.0 8
respons to Ipcolo !N7;inos.
That liet' thnt a, w&' re going.h i
9 package'it so that we clearly provide as pronptlyJas we can, l
I 10 what 's recessa ty to F: lose thhse is%s raised it tbo TE5/.
W9'll pachage :tiiat ir. that menu r.
11 12 MR. LIAW:
You.are goi.n; to respond to.each s!de.
13 coning in from TER ?tnd ---
l l
(
14 MR. FOX: -COE m.ccosti that we submittc.d ' iri Jd i.'y
.ran j
s
.1 15 in the, program that' sch side' psistdd on.
16 MR. LIAWi But there ;wvre st;me r. art;rsiar ib urns that 1
17 had not been -.
' e s, buf.- that'.2 why it seys *.he 18 MR. RAUGHLF.Y:
l
. i l
l 'i restart concerne ar<..-
" ether long-tern, ise.t.;s thdt are not l
l 20 Adentified" in there.
Uu r post-restart y tiw r ogr. le tter -
3 2.1 specifically Stats thC.. we --
j 22 e MR. FOX:
Th?L we're wsbling vith the
.t c ate rt inruca.
1 s
l 23 MR. TA'?GELEY.'Yes.
l i
(
24 MF. I. T Ah ; For enev 31<. one verh impert et issue was l
l 25 your future cable maintenance pd? gram.. r?@ y., I thfuk.in fact 1
1 Her ! f.dge Repor t.i ';o Cor pot'ation (202) 62iM4088-e
/
e L i b
e__-__mt
ggr j gf.4(;
c i
v.
~
c.,
4
- 76
'i
.o/
s n' -
1 2
MR. RAUGHLEY:
Okay, that's' advised as the long-term, J
.3 ongoing program 1that's been submitted.
4 MR. LIAW:
No, I think that.the long-term on-going j
5 program that you are talking about' is a. test program in
.i i
i.
response to a R-E bulletin,'some number?-
9 MR ' FOX:
R-E 8649.
I'
.MR.
RAUGHLEY:
Right..
9 MR. LIAW: -What I'm saying is, your long-term cable L
1) maintenance program, I mean, how in future you going to condudt i
1 11 cufficient tests of the' maintenance, outage,and how you intend 12 to replace-cable, if necessary?
That was'not discussed.
l 13 MR. RAUGHLEY:
I kind'of.fthink they are'one and the 14 same.
15 MR. LIAW:
Okay, I don't care what you think.
I just 16 want'to. remind you that there are two' things there.
One-is 17 more or less a research' type "how you do it" at the plant.
18 MR. KEPPL2R:
Steve, if the decision is reached that t
l 19' the silicon cable in site containment has to be replaced, how 20 many cables are we talking about?
21 MR. WHITE:
I wish I could tell you.
I can't ---
22 cable I can tel] you -- conductors, I can't.
252 in 1-E 23 application.
I' don't know the number of' conductors'.
I asked I
24 that-question yesterday, we're going to have to walk all these i
L.
25 things down to determine,but it's roughly three per cable.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation L,.
(202) 628-4888 i
l.
i
~}
or L'
' i _._
_____________1______._______.______________.__.______
.77 1
MR. LIAW:
You have some 1-E applications outside i
2 containment, too, don't you?
3 MR. RAUGHLEY:
We don't have~any on AIW on 4
Rockbestos. and Anaconda.
So far on the Anaconda we do not 5
have any AIW outside the containment and we do have limited 6
application of Anaconda and Rockbestos outside the containment.
j 7
But they aren't necessarily in a harsh environment either.
8 MR. LIAW:
I understand that.
But 252, the number 9
252, include all that?
10 MR. RAUGHLEY:
That's the number of silicon cables in 11 Unit II containment.
l 12 MR. LIAW:
Inside containment?
13 MR. RAUGHLEY:
50-49 silicon rubber in Unit II 14 containment cables.
Any other questions from anyone?
I f
15 MR. KEPPLER:
And I take it that's one option that's l
16 being considered?
17 MR. WHITE:
What's that?
18 MR. KEPPLER:
By TVA?
19 MR. KEPPLER:
To replace all?
I can't honestly say l
l 20 I'm looking for that kind of option right now.
You know, we 21 don't have all the answers.
We need to get in and test and see 22 what we get.
If we go in and we test and all the rest of the 23 AIW fails that Legion one, or if 99 percent of them fail and j
1 24 leads you in one direction end if no other ones fail, it leads 25 you in a different direction.
You know, I just need more Heritage Reporting Corporation j
(202) 628-4888 I
j 4
I 1
E78 1
1 information.
l 2
MR. WHITE:
And I'm right now.in the test,' walk-I 1
3 down, see what we have.and get ready to. replace, as I said, we 4
don't know what we're going to replace it with yet.
I'm sure 5
there's something, don't misunderstand me, but that's a l
1 6
decision that has to'be, and we just -- I don't have the
)
7 information that I need to make that decision.
.)
8 MR. KEPPLER:
- Well,
.I just make th'e point with you q
9 that the more that you base whatever decision you reach, the-1 10 more that leans toward continued testing +and evaluation of-j 11 results, it becomes all the more-reason to have.NRC very close 1
12 to you on that aspect because as more and more variables.open:
.1 l
O 13 up on this problem --
i
-i 14 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Well, that's why I agree that it's 1
15 very important, and I know I'm being facetious when I talk j
16 about the " temporary, permanent guide," but if we're going tc I
17 start into testing and if you've heard tat in a matter of about 18 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />, we tested essentially 50 conductors, didn't we?
So',
19 you know, once we get the procedures done right and so forth, 20 the testing goes very fast.
And so we will need those i
21 couplings.
22 MR. WHITE:
I guess my point.is, though, it's true 23 that if you start down that one path, and if you don't find any 24 more problems, that's one thino. But the information obviously 25 suggests you probably will.
And some very.hard decisions are Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
79 1
going to have to be made onlthat and --
2' MR. CANTRELL: 'Well, I would expect thatfout-of every
'3 16 Anaconda -.I mean every 16 AIN conductors that we test, I 4
'would suspect that three of them aren't' going to meet the-5 specification.
That's been. precisely what's.been the past.
6 I"m hearing from our own people, and I'm not saying l
L 7
this is the NRC position at this time, but from'what I'm 8
hearing, if you continue to find failures at the rate you're 9
finding them, we may not be able to support just replacing 10 failed cables.
11 MR. FOX:
Well, I'd have to understand more-fully 12 what the rationale behind that specifically.when the tests were 13 conducted.
14 MR. LIAW: 'This test you're conducting,.it'only 15
. determines gross failures.
I mean that --
1 16 MR. FOX:
That's not correct.
In fact.that's j
17 absolutely incorrect.
18 Well, if you are now saying that'it meets the E/O 1
l 19 criteria, as you all know, the rest of the~1ndustry' generally 20 uses 500 volts and we're testing at 9600 -.if you are now i
21 saying to me that 9600 doesn't prove anything --
22 MR. LIAW:
That's not quite true'because the E/Q test 23 requires degradation of that inrulation through these other 24 derating factors, meaning temperature, radiation, non-i 25 environment ageing -- a whole list l
?
Heritage Reporting Corporation a
(202) 628-4888 f
0l 1
80 1
MR. FOX:
That was already done on this case.
j i
2 MR. KEPPLER:
Hold on.a minute.
We. raised aLflag.
j 3
with you because I'm hearing people talk.
We haven't 4-formulated a position on this, but I'm telling you'I'm hearing i
5 that kind'of concern with this, and we need to be very close.to-6 you on what happens if the path to:a solution'is more testing.
7 MR. FOX:
If it. takes out the silicon,.I think --
h 8-MR. WHITE: ' Well, you've got to be careful.here.
l 9
You've got to be careful:
I agree there may be a potential
.)
10 generic problem.
I think that has to be looked at.
But I q
11 think that the people on this side of.the. table feel that you 12 haven't ruled out a cable installation problem for the silicon 13 damage that you're seeing.
You may feel you've got more 14 information to say it's a manufacturing problem, or it's 15
- soit,: as L.D.
calls it, and just the handling of that kind of l
16 material can cause problems.
But I think without further j
17 testing, which we don't have at this stage, I don't think we're 18 prepared to say that you've totally ruled out a cable 19 installation problem.
Okay?
Yeah?
l 20 MR. MARINOS:
I think one --
21 MR. WHITE:
Well, wait a minute, let me try to answer 22 it this way:
whatever, if it were to be an installation
'j 23 problem, it's my opinion that that problem is generic.
I 24 Certainly all the experts thet I have, and that I have talked j
25 to, tell me it wasn't something they have ever seen considered l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f
j
81 1
before, and in that respect, it's. generic.
If, I think what 2
Cantrell's trying to say is, if we are suddenly trying to.say 3
that silicon rubber insulation itself must be removed because 4
it's silicon rubber, because my feeling is generic, and we're 5
talking about removing it in all plants in the country, 6
certainly we'd do it.
Certainly we'd do it.
But I think that 7
has'to be looked at very carefully before you condemn silicon-8 rubber that's satisfactorily passed the highest test.
9 MR. CANTRELL:
Well, I guess maybe.I'm trying carve a 10 subtle point here with you.
The problems th'at led to this 11 testing program came before you came here and before I came 12 here.
That's why we're in for all this.
And I think that at 13 least I'm not prepared to say that those kind of concerns were 14 prevalent at every other plant that you sold them rubber.
They 15 may or may not have.
I don't know.
16 MR. RAUGHLEY:
They won't know until'they've tested 17 this voltage.
18 MR. WHITE:
That's exactly the point.
Until they've l
19 tested this voltage, they won't know.
And so we have to be 20 very careful because it is not -- at least I am informed --
21 that it is an industry-wide knowledge that, if you squeeze this 22 stuff and then install it, it's going to fail.
And that's 23 literally -- almost literally what we're saying.
And so it's 24 not a question of whether eny -- I suspect you'll start getting 25 concerns from other utilities now of whether or not somebody l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i 82 1
1 stepped on a cable somewhere, but until they test them in 9600-2 volts, I don't think any utility can tell you.
3
'So that leads us to the second question, after it 4
passes that test -- this is.the question I have -- after it 1
5 passes that test, which is the established test and far in j
6 excess certainly of the utilities that we have polled -- far in j
7 excess of what other people use, and it passes thatLtest, then-I l
8 suggest that, since it is silicon rubber, that it's no good, I I
i 9
have to learn a lot more about the rationale for that, and what l
10 the industry -- I think we're at the point where I have to go l
11 to the owner's group and say, " Hey, guys, we're talking about-1 12 taking out silicon rubber.
What do you think about that?
l l
l l
13 MR. MARINOS:
A gross example is, if 99 percent of l
14 the cable you taking fails, and one of the percent does not 15 fail, what recommendation will you make?
16 MP.. WHITE:
Well, the example I gave, Angelo.
That's 17 exactly the example I gave.
Obviously I'm going to take out-18 the last one.
But if, you know, and I'm not going to now start U
l 1
l 19 drawing hairs, what if all but two fail, or all but three fail 20
-- I'm just saying I'm not prepared right now -- there are a 21 lot of other answers we need.
It's a generic to the industry -
l 22
-I think it's premature for anyone to decide that on some I
23 specific number of failures that you can remove all silicon 1
l 24 rubber from all of our plants in the country.
I'm not prepared 25 to say that.
And I don't understand anyone that is prepared Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
y
.l i
83
]
1 right now to say that.
2 I would understand it if you said, " people ought to I
3 test to find out if they have the problem."
I understan.d that 4
thoroughly, based on what I know today.
5 MR. KEPPLER:
Well, look.
We appreciate your sharing j
6 the information with us.
The conservative approach that TVA 1
4 7
has taken on this thing, we recognize and we've got a long way 8
to go with this problem.
1 9
MR. TOOHEY:
Jim, just let me say one thing for the
{
10 Record.
Bill Toohey.
I do want to be sure that we have sajd 11 loudly and strongly today, that it is a not-common, but 12 certainly not an uncommon practice, to test cables immediately 13 after installation at a voltage this 240 volts per minutes.
]
14 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Where?
l 15 MR. TOOHEY:
We've called Turkey Point and --
j 16 MR. WHITE:
We've canvassed -- correct me, but about i
i 17 19 utilities and there's only one that we know of that's ever j
i 18 tested these voltages on low-voltage cables.
j 19 MR. FOX:
And they had allegations of damage, also.
20 MR. WHITE:
And I went with the owners' group and 21 discussed with them that fact, and the answer I got from them 22 was, "why are you doing that?
Everybody else does it to 500 23 volts with a megger."
24 MR. TOOHEY:
I'm talkina abnut testing after 25 installation looking for installation damage, which is not an Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 u-___
L]
84:
1 uncommon. practice.
. ould you please provide us with the W
2
-MR. WHITE:
3 utilities involved because somebody's -- that's'not what we're 4-getting.
We're getting the followup requirements,.which is a 5
megger tape.
6 MR..RAUGHLEY:
We've contacted Palisades, Trojan, 7
Calvert Cliffs, Susquehanna, TMI, Beaver Valley, Zion; Turkey i
8 Point, St. Lucie, Grand Gulch, River Bend, Nine Mile, Oak 9
- Ridge, 10'
'MR. WHITE:
We've done a heck -- you can see -- I'm 11 not saying you're wrong but I would appreciate the input, Mr.
f 12 Toohey --
13 MR. TOOHEY:
Has Stone & Webster ever done that?
I 14 mean, or Bechtel?
We have cable experts in both companies.
15 MR. FITZPATRICK:
They've got -- Arthur Fitzpatrick.
16 MR. WHITE:
Will you go to the microphone?
17 MR. FITZPATRICK:
Arthur Fitzpatrick, Stone &
18 Webster. It's not common practice, at least in our sites, to 19 test low-voltage cables with a high-potential test after 20 installation.
It's more recognized in medium voltage to do 21 this kind of thing, but certainly not in low-voltage control in 22 installation initially.
23 MR. WHITE:
Is Kitchen -- yes, Joel Kitchen is here 24 from Bechtel.
25 MR. KITCHEN:
Joel Kitchen ~from Bechtel.
It is not Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
1
85 our practice to test after installation of nu.'-shielded cables.
)
1 2
Only shielded power cables do we do testing, unled, it is 3
required by the owner.
The ' client will sometimes specify it,
)
4 but I can't really quote a specific incident of that..
5 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Is it all right if I ask the two 6
manufacturers here if they ever recommended testing at plant 7
level?
I 8
MR. LIAW:
Mr. Kitchen, you say, "unless it was 9
requested by owner."
Has Bechtel ever received that kind of I
10 request from anybody?
11 MR. KITCHEN:
No, I said I can't recall any specific l
12 incident.
13 MR. LIAW:
You don't recall any particular instances, 14 but the impression I get by what you are saying is, there are 15 some.
16 MR. WHITE:
No, he's saying he can't recall any.
l 17 He'll probably change what he said, but --
18 MR. LIAW: FIrst, he did not recall instances --
l 19 MR. WHITE:
He did not recall any specific instances 20 '
of that --
21 MR. LIAW:
That's right.
What of any?
22 MR. WHITE:
None of us can.
1 23 MR. LIAW:
There was in some instances, wasn't it?
24 Isn't that what he tried te sey?
25 MR. EBNETER:
He said they didn't "unless the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
fd
'l i?
a D
86 1
1 customer requested-it" which implies that a customer has and.at:
f
.2 some time requested it.
3 MR. EBNETER:
I'm Stu Ebneter and I've been at a lot 1'j 4
of these sites and I don't know of-any except the medium 5
voltage shielded cables either --.
6 MR. RAUGHLEY:
We're talking low-voltage.
7 MR. EBNETER:
Low-voltage?
I agree megger tests is.
1 8
the standard construction site test.
f d
9 MR. WHITE:
We have canvassed a lot of the industry 10 including the owners' group people, and it's not the 1
11 information we're getting.
So I.look forward to hearing from-L 12 Mr. Toohey.
Can you tell us, Mr. Toohey,.who'these are, and --
13 can you give us the exact ones, please?
14 MR. TOOHEY:
I do know that Florida Power & Light q
15 plants have done this, both fossil and nuclear -- it was, 16 required by Florida Power & Light'.
So I'd like for them to j
17 answer the question.
18 MR. WHITE:
Can you tell us what plant or what time 19 frame?
1 6
20 MR. TOOHEY:
Same time frame. One'and Two.
21 MR. RAUGHLEY:
We've contacted St. Lucie.
22 MR. TOOHEY:
I don't know what'your question was, j
23 Bill, and so -- if you ask St. Lucie, do they periodically 24 test, the answer.is "no."
If you esh the guestion,."did they 25 test after every installation," the answer is "yes."
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
87 i
1 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Excuse me, let me interrupt one 2
minute.
St. Lucie II was built by ABASCO.
Why don't you check 3
ABASCO?
l i
4 MR. WHITE:
We will.
-5 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
They did the construction test and i
6 the installation.
7 MR. TOOHEY:
Let me at least read you the question-8 that we've asked so that we can be comfortable with that?
9 MR. RAUGHLEY:
The high-power tests used routinely on 10 600 volt circuits.
11 MR. WHITE:
Wait a minute -- just listen.-
(
12 MR. TOOHEY:
You're asking a-different' question than 1
13 I'm trying to address.
One, is the test after it is installed q
J l
14 before it's placed in' service.
You're talking there about a l
15 routine Agency --
16 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Excuse me,.I will get you the a
i 17 installation spec on St. Lucie.
I'll have it for you tomorrow.
I 18 MR. TOOHEY:
St. Lucie answered the right question 19 because I went before NRC to say let's say "let's stop St.
]
20 Lucie," so I know the answer to that.
21 MR. RAUGHLEY:
You did what?- Can you repeat that?
22 MR. TOOHEY:
We were periodically testing a certain 23 group of cables at St. Lucie II with a high potential test on
'l 24 medium-voltage cables --
25 MR. RAUGHLEY:
Wait e minute, let him finish.
~ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 88-1 MR. TOOHEY:
Yes.
But what'I'm trying to say is.
.2 that the routine test ~and the installation test are two
'I 1
3 different things.
4 MR. RAUGHLEY:
No, you said something.about something 5
" stopped."
6 MR. TOOHEY:
The high-voltage, DC-repetitive,. routine 7
testing, the medium voltage cables at St. Lucie, too.
J 8
MR. RAUGHELY:
Why did you have'it stopped?
9 MR. WHITE:
I'm trying-to get all the'information I j
i
)
\\
.10 can.
You're their consultant, but-I'd be interested -- why did.
i 11 you have it stopped?
12 MR. MARINOS:
"We do not offer any more information."
13 MR. TOOHEY:
Once it is the conduit or in the ground, 14 there is a possibility of another mechanism of failure, that' 15 manifests itself generally in the ten-year span, is totally' 16 different than the discussions that we.are having hereltoday.
17 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
I think we're drifting from the 18 original intent of the meeting.
I think you've summarized.
If 19' there are no further comments, I'd like to bring the meeting to 20 a close.
Admiral?
21 MR. WHITE:
No, I have no further comments?
22 MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Jim?
Thank you very much.
23
.(Whereupon at 3:07 p.m. the hearing'was concluded.)
24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
89-1 CERTIFICATE 2
3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the' 4
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
5 Name Silicone Rubber Cable Testing.
6 7
Docket Number:
NRC-342-34A i
8 Place:
Knoxville, Tennessee 9
Date:
September 10, 1987 10 were held as herein appears, and that'this is the original
-l 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United-States Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the' direction 14 of the court reporting company, and that'the transcript isa 15 true and accurate record of the foregoing' proceedings.
16
/S/
ha 17 (Signature typed):
Dan Neunuebel r
18 Official Reporter 1
19 Heritage Reporting Corporation 20
)
'l 21 i
l 22 23 I
24 25 l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202)'628-4888 i
____._._.-_____.m_
)
1 1
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.
1 l
8 l'
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT'(SON) UNITS 1 AND 2 1
)
i
SUMMARY
j 1
CABLE PULLING CONCERNS PiROGRAM 1
i
)
I i
- {.
i j
l-
{
1 PRESENTED TO THE U.S. NUCLEAR RE.GULA10RY COMMISION KN0XVILLE, TENNESSEE j
SEPTEMBER 10, 1987 i
l l
l
__.___._._-m_._____
q i
)
MEFTING OBJECTIVE o
DEMONSTRATE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE TEST PROGRAM FOR 9:
]
ISSUES RAISED IN THE TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS PROGRAM AND THE co RESTART CONCERNS IN THE NRC TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT
)
v (TER).
3
0 ADVISE OF PROGRAM TO CONTINUE TESTING ON SILICONE RUBBER n-v) 0 COMM TO AN ONGOING TEST PROGRAM TO MONITO'R CONDITION OF 5 \\ce j
Sk *'
l f
us,c o.
n,,....
'\\
1 PROGRAM
SUMMARY
l l
OBJECTIVE 0F TVA'S CABIE PULLING PROGRAM DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ELECTRICAL CABLES AT SON ARE CAPABLE-o 0F PERFORMING THEIR SAFETY-RELATED FUNCTION.
]
CONFIRM THE ADE0VAC) 0F SON'S INSTALLATION PRACTICES.
i 1
ADDRESS CONCERNS EXPRESSED IN THE NRC'S TECHNICAL i
EVALUATION REPORT (TER) AND TVA'S EMPLOYEE CONCERNS PROGRAM.
ONE EMPLOYEE CONCERN RELATES TO SONP SPECIFIC CABLE INSTALLATION PRACTICES.
THE REMAINDER OF THE CONCERNS ARE I
FROM OTHER PLANTS.
-)
i 1
]
\\
l l
I I
r i
< DNE4 - 0259W
,x l
).
I
._.______.____________._.___m
'1 f
1
- u.,
PROGRAM
SUMMARY
,I
+,
TEST VOLTAGE I
p TEST PERFORMED AT 240V/ MIL 0F INST,LATION Af j
VOLTAGE BASED ON THE MINIMUM SQN ENVIRONMENTALLY OUALIFIED A
NU CTUR I
TEST CONFIRMS LEVEL OF INTEGRITY PREVIOUSLY DEMONSTRATED FOR Co '
l THE EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION.
ly>
I
- /
l l
EXCEEDS ALL INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR FIELD TESTING OFiLOW l
VOLTAGE POWER AND CONTROL CABLES.
l EXCEEDS FSAR AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE l
i 1
1 i
\\.
D s-i
)
J l
.1 PROGRAM SUMMAR1
'l l
STATISTICAL BASIS 1
95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE THAT AT LEAST 95 PERCENT 0F THE I
CONDUITS.WILL PERFORM-THEIR FUNCTION i
,l i
.i 1
1 i
1
'l J
'l i
I l
1 1
l l
i t
?
^l l
l 1
1' l -
DNE4 - 0259W l
.l
.J
i PROGRAM St)MMARY
-]
1 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA i
THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERI A FOR-THIS TEST IS TI:AT 9PECIFIED.IN ANSI /IEEE 141-1986, SECTION 11.11.4.
ANY 00NDUCTOR WITH A POLARIZATION INDEX LESS THAN 1.0 WILL FAILURE UNLESS IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED,'BE '00WSHDERED A BY ENGINEERING EVALUATION OR BY RETEST, THAT THE CONDUCTOR HS ACCEPTABLE.
l i
L I
l I
I i
o
)
{
l
\\
.)
DNE4 - 0259W I
i MARGINS V01TAGE' RATIO 0F RATIO 0F
' RATED /
TEST VOLTAGE CABLE OPERATING T0.0PERATING l
RATING VOLTAGE VOLTAGE 600 V POWER 1.25.
'fi.11 600 V CONTROL 4.8 57.6 300 V. INSTRUMENT 6.0 32.0 i-w I-l
1
- (
l.
EBOGRAM
SUMMARY
1 CONCLUS10N'
)
0 TVA HAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED 939 TESTS FOR THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE NRC'S TER.
/.
I TOTAL k
NUMBERS OF j
IESI CONDUCTORS i
f CABLE PULLBYS 878 CABLE JAMMING 45 VERTICAL SUPPORT 16 i
t O
THERE WERE NO FAILURES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE POSTULATED CABLE i
[
INSTALLATION CONCERNS.
t l:
0 SON'S INSTALLATION PRACTICES HAVE NOT DEGRADED THE EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION OF THE ELECTRICAL CABLES.
O THE TEST PROGRAM DEMONSTRATED THAT CABLE ABUSES DID NOT OCCUR AT SON.
O DURING THE VERTICAL SUPPORT TESTING FOUR ANOMALIES WERE DISCOVERED.
T H E S E A N O M A L I'E S M E R E 'N O T T H E R E S U L T O F, W D R RELATED 10, THE ISSUE OF VERTICAL SUPPORT.
T'HESE CABLES g,
i SUBSEQUEN1LY WERE RETESTED AFTER ISOLATING THE AN0MALIES.AND I
DEMONSTRATED ACCEPTABLE POLARIZATION IWDICES.
APPROPRIATE M,
i SECTIONS OF CABLES WERE REPLACED.
- s..
j 0
A SEPARATE PROGRAM HAS BEEN DEVELOPED TO ADDRESS THE FOUR-
{*>
l AN0MAllES NOTED DURING THE VERTICAL SUPPORT TESilNG WHICH DEAL WITH SILICONE RUBBER CABLES.
/ /,
s o&*
k nalfa natuu yd 96
1
-1 0a0
[1 CABLE #2
{'
l TAULT LOCATION
{
J j
CA3LES 1 AND 3
.g FAULT LOCATION p
s AND AREA 0F
)
C HIGH LEAKAGE f /
O'# '
FOR CABLE 4 c'
N i
' gt,-
1
't l
i B--
t i
j 1
9 l
l 1
f
/
46 gt. 7 1
E i
l P
i 11 1
22 0%
0 f
I I
's i
f
)
SUMMARY
OF FIELD AND UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT TESTS fO S.QW P DAMAGE AS NOTED OTHER UNIVERSITY FIELD BY UNIVERSITY OF
' CONNECTICUT f
SPFCI' MEN TEST CONNECTICUT F~NDING
'g 1
10.8KV 0
MINOR SURFACE (A)
INSULATION-I FOR 1 CRAZING THICKNESS e(c i
MINUTE O
INSULATION 52 MILS LOOSE AT (B)
MECHANICAL CONDUCTOR TESTS COMPARE U'
OVER 1" FAVORABLY WITH 1
l UNINSTALLED SPECIMEN (C)
NO CONTAMINANTS i
2 7.5Kt 0
INSULATION LOOSE -
INSULATION AT CONDUCTOR THICKKESS OVER 1" 50' MILS SAME AS (B)
AND (C) 1 3
10KV 0
UNIVERSITY AND (C)-
TESIING AT 10-50KV AC LOCATED P0CKET 1/16" FROM FAULT WHICH HAP 23 MILS OF l'NSUL AT I ON REMAINING L4 10.8KV 0
MINOR SURFACE SAME AS (B)
FOR 5 DAMAGE AND (C) i MINUlES 0
P0CKETS ADJACENT TO CONDUCTOR WHICH
'l LEF1 12, 10, 8.
j 10, 10, 20, MILS j
O F l'N S U L A T I O N
q PROBLFM SPFCIFICATf0N iS I
IS NOT I
I I
o EIGHT YEARS AFTER I
O PRIOR TO JACKETING INSTALLATION - CABLES I
WERE INSTALLED ON THE I
o DURING WGRNAL ORERATION SAME DAY FROM T.HE SAME I
REEL l-0 JACKET DAMAGE d
I I
o CUTS ORE TEARS (WSULATION g
I OVER A LEWGTH OF THE CABLE O
DURING A HIGH POTENTIAL I
WITHSTAND TEST l
l l
l i
0 FOUR SINGLE CONDUCTOR I
O REDUCED INSULATION l
3 NO. 14 AWG l
THICKNESS AT TIME OF l
MANUFACTURE O
THREE AN0MAllES WITHIN I
1 FOOT OF EACH OTHER I
O CONTAMINANTS IN THE i
INSULATION.
O HIGHLY LOCAllZED ON EACH l
CABLE I
O REDUCED TENSILE OR I
ELONGATION' PROPERTIES 0
EXPERT SAYS IT LOOKS l
LIKE IMPACT I
0 ETHYLENE > PROPYLENE RUBBER l
i POLYETHYLENE, CROSS-LINKED 0
DUPLICAlED DAMAGE BY I
POLYETHYLENE INSULATION I'
LABORATORY IMPACT TESTING l 1
0 PULLBY, JAMMING, OR LACK 0
SILICONE RUBBER I
'0F VERTICAL SUPPORT i
l DAMAGE AS DESCRIBED IN TER O
MANUFACTURED BY AMERICAN 1
,j INSULATED WlRE I
I l
0 GENERAL ELECTRIC i
t COMPOUND SE-725 I
i I
I 0
INSIDE SON UNIT 2 1
CONTAINMENT I
i 1
0 INSTALLED IN CONDUlT IN A I HORIZONTAL CONDUli i
SECTION LOCATED 4 FEET I
AWAY FROM A CONDULET I
l WHICH IS AT THE TOP OF l
i A 25 FOOT VERTICAL RUN i
l
- l I
(
1 l
1
st.
I I
l' EVALUATION PROCESS
,i EVALUATE INSITU TEST DATA.
' MANDATE " BENCH" TESTING.
s
.LDOKED AT INTRINSIC PROPERTIES OF SILICONE VS 0THER CABLE
'.T Y P, E S.
REVISITED. STANDARDS, REGULATORY GUIDES, FSAR I
CONSULTANTS MANDATE ADDITIONAL FIELD TES11NG.
l EVALUATE TEST RESULTS.
v 3
s MANDATED ADDil10NAL ACTIONS.
1 1
L, l
{
l l
[
c' l i 1>
x l
l<
t i
j' s
- l. p
,) '
f 9 EA' - 0261W
~
.(
.s i
YI i
{
{
,J i T) [ hl l>p
[ {'
/*
~1 l,
w.
' f.
/.
\\'
.l1 SUPPLEMENTAL'DAhA
SUMMARY
TEST 1 MINIMUM THRESHOLD MANUFACTURER FOR IMPACT # - FT
.s
.c i.-.
k ROCKBESTOS 9
- [
ANACONDA 4.9 AlW.
3.6 3
li i
-j a-o t
1'I l
l I
l' L
.l
.i i
.)
DNE4 - 0259W s,
l 1
- p't
)
.C
' './ :
t
[i
'n'-
y' y-
-m A;.
- n.
/,
'3
,4lfg.,.
I 9
r.
s ti' r,
j" '
j, j,
' i. / a fs.:
s
[
i-
'r i
'r.
4
- 1 y! y.
4/.
1 i
'l 4
w f,}
y ;,
.l j.
t.>
e
'r r,.
+
'l/
,f '
' f y
p g
h h.
~"
f.
I
)
t ',.
g y
k,
-I 3.
{ +n.
-1 i
s.
4 1
e DATA,1lJ.MMARY '. P,
iz, j. e j
3 SUPPLEMENTAL
~ ' "
./:
3
- m. <.
o o
s..
.I.
s c,
P 1,.
1 i
1' 4 f *;.
'{5 4
J,} ' i. '.
/i y
'f DIELECTRIC < PRE AKDOWN T11/i l.,
.. l ',
E, I
, k
,p 5
(
t
-i'. ye
/
AIW'.
59KV 0
ANACONDA 35KV'
,f':+
J ROCKBESTOS 90KV A
it i
/
.g a
Tf
/4
' g,
, - t
?
/.
i j
.c-(
,. ; y t
6
+
R
.J y
j/
i
(
f
. /
,f [
'j '
i
].)
p.
,3 I
t h.
. u!,
- )
il t
,tv
.Ii y
~
I
- g.
j t,
- l<
l ).
+
ya I
.I
't.
.('
t l
t x
t
.f
'f
\\
J,i '
q
\\, )>
l 's l
f-e
^$
}
e i
i e
i J
t
}*
7 i
4 i
I
,{
}
r 1
)'
s s
-l i
4 r
e en a y >
t a<
Ub
[)Q i
j
-f sJ i
)
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA'
SUMMARY
l-l' l9 TEST 2 KV BREAKDOWN MANUFACTURER AT 3.6 #
FT
/
75, 85, 94, 88, 38, 60, 73 "(
ROCKBESTOS
- 80. 100. 11. 75. 85. 90.5 I
ANACONDA 5.5, 5.0, 22, 9.0, 29,.13, 4.5, i
18.5. 34. 11.5 20, 7.2. 6 AIW-12, 18, 27, 29.5, 9.5, 40, 16,.
I 26, 6.5. 19.5. 6.5. 18 i
j 1
y l
b f
i 1
.u l
I 1
t L
p x.
' /(
}
l
\\.8
-l j
1
- )
l.
j J
i SILICONE TEST PROGRAM i
SAME A$' EXISTING PROGRAM i
TEST AlW, ANACONDA AND ROCKBESTOS SETIL ACCEPTABLE LEVEL' 4
0F CONFIDENCE ESTABLISHED 1
STATUS:
TESTS CONDUCTED AN0MALIEf AlW 16 3
ANAC0kDA 18 0
1 I
ROCKBESTOS 16 3
i i
i i
i
.Y
\\ L3 DNE4 - 0260W
\\
'C I
O
[
h l
ACTIONS i.
. 10CFR21 1
. PRETEST PLANNING FOR SILICONE 1
. EVALUATING REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVES i
. PROCEEDING TO TEST AND REPLACE AS REQUIRED i
l l
1 i
i 1
i i
i i
i
'(
DNE4 - 0259W
- X
[.
t I
CONCLUSION ~
CLOSED RESTART. CONCERNS RAISED BY TER SILICONE NOT PASSING THE. TEST CAN DUPLICATE DAMAGE BUT CANNOT CONCLUSIVELY UNDERSTAND THE FAILURES
' CONTINUE WITH TEST AND ANALYSIS UNTIL SILICONE PROBLEM RESOLVED ADVISE OF LONG-TERM ONGOING PROGRAM AS COMMITTED l
i
]
DNE4
.0259W i
e