ML20235X117
| ML20235X117 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1987 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235X094 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8707240054 | |
| Download: ML20235X117 (184) | |
Text
- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ . .
CR31663.0 BRT/sjg 1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
) 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. . - l MEETING - NRC/TVA 1
CABLE TESTING i 4
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT 5
DOCKET NUMBERS 50-327 AND 50-328 6
7 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Highway 8 Room 550 Bethesda, Maryland 9 ,
h 10 Monday, July 13, 1987 j i
11 l Th g eeting convened at 1:00 p.m.
, 12 i I
c.
C ?). 13 I l
14 l 15 16 17 '
18 l
19 20 21 22 23
.) 24 25 8707240054 87071$
PDR ADOCK 05000J27 I P PDR ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
31663.0 ~
brt 2 1 PROCEEDINGS I rg
%2/ 2 MS. MC KENNA: We would'like to get started this 3 afternoon. I'm Eileen McKenna in the NRC office of special 4 ' projects. The purpose of this meeting this afternoon is to 5 discuss the cable testing program today for the Sequoyah-6 ' plant. We have had some previour meetings and discussions.on 7 this subject. We would like to come up to date as to where 8 we are now. I think John Zwolinski had some introductory l
l 9 remarks he would like to make. As you know, the meeting is 1
10 being transcribed, so we would appreciate it if you would 11 give your name before launching into your presentations.
. 12 There is also an attendance list circulating. Please make
(?he' 13 sure you sign. Thank you.
14 MR. ZWOLINSKI: If I could, I would like to have l
15 us all go around the table and around the room and identify 16 ourselves and get started.
17 I am John Zwolinski, a director for projects.
18 MR. EBNETER: I am Stew Ebneter.
19 MR. LIAW: B.D. Liaw.
20 MR. MARINOS: I'm Angelo Marinos.
21 MS. MC KENNA: Eileen McKenna, project manager.
22 MR. LOVELESS: David Loveless, consultant.
23 MR. GARDNER: J.B. Gardner, consultant.
k-s(y 24 MR. TOMAN: Gary Toman, Franklin Research Center.
25 MR. GOODWIN: Ed Goodwin,'OSP.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
31663.0 brt , 3 1 MR. BUSTARD: Larry Bustard, Sandia National.
en (j) 2 MR. SINGH: B.K. Singh with NRSOCB, NRC. )
3 MR. FIELDS: Mel Fields, OSP. :
4 MR. GEARS: Gerry Gears, OSP, Browns Ferry project 5 manager.
l 6 MR. STANG: John Stang, OSP, Browns Ferry project 7 manager.
8 MR. BURZYNSKI: Mark Burzynski. I 9 MR. RAUGHLEY: W.S. Raughley, TVA.
10 MR. FOX: C.H. Fox, deputy manager.
11 MR. CANTRELL: R.W. Cantrell, deputy director, 12 nuclear.
() 13 MR. FITZPATRICK: Art Fitzpatrick, assistant chief l 14 electrical engineering, Stone & Webster.
15 MR. SHEA: Tim Shea representing TVA's directing l 16 engineering branch.
17 MR. BROWN: Kent Brown, TVA.
18 MR. ZALEMAN: Barry Zaleman, NRC.
19 MS. AYERS: Carol Ayers, TVA. '
20 MR. IPPOLITO: T.A. Ippolito, TVA Licensing.
21 MR. PETTY: Keith Petty.
22 MR. REDGATE: Howard Redgate, consultant.
l 23 MR. STAKUTIS: A.P. Stakutis, Stone & Webster.
o, if) 24 MR. DONEGAN: F.P. DJnegan, consultant.
25 MR. CARDELLO: Paul Cardello, consultant.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6616 I
31663.0 '
brt 4 1 MR. GILL: Paul Gill, NRR.
e
~ kij 2 MR. ZWOLINSKI: The staff has been working with 3 TVA for a substantial amount of time to establish a test 4 program which provides the staff assurance that cables at 5 Sequoyah were not damaged by alleged malpractice and 6 installation and will perform their intended safety 7- function. As we.are all aware, numerous meetings have taken 8 place in an attempt to bring closure to this' issue. On March 9 11, 1987, the OSP staff mot with representatives of TVA. At l 10 this meeting a compromise test voltage of 240 volts per mil 11 DC was established in IEEE-383 standards. This voltage had
. 12 been proposed by TVA.
l w f1 13 The staff determined that sample size could be 14 more meaningful than the original proposed 320 volts per mil 15 versus the 240 volts per mil in terms of the intended purpose '
16 of the test. Thus the staff requested the TVA provide a 17 statistically defensible sample size, and that was the only 18 issue remaining to resolve. It is the staff's position that 19 a large sample size will provide both NRC and TVA with more i 20 assurance that the cable is sound. Further, at the March 11, 21 1987 meeting TVA committed to provide a cable test program 22 that documents the agreements reached in March 11, 1987 23 meeting, except the sample size, for staff review and c.
(@ ,
24 approval.
25 The program was transmitted to staff on April 8, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. '
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 L________ _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ . . .______.__._____.____._m. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
31663.0-brt .5 1 1987. In general, the program reflects the resolution of the l
q23 2 March 11, 1987 meeting.
]
3 However, the staff has a few concerns regarding ,
l i'
l 4 the sampling scheme, that is, the number of conduits to be -
5 tested.
l 6 In May the staff learned that TVA was reevaluating-
]
l 7 their cable test program for a variety of reasons, and 8 recuested the staff discontinue the technical review. We are j i
9 aware that one test was where the vertical drop was conducted 10 with a conduit containing 16 cables -- 4 cables apparently l i l
11 failed. Having conducted one test we sought assi$tance from i
T.-
, 12 the University of Connecticut. Telephone conversations and 6D !
l ' s' 13 site visits in our meeting of May 21, 1987 reinforced our l
14 understanding that significant concerns were raised by TVA i 15 regarding the test voltage of 240 volts pez mil.
16 The staff is willing to listen to your statements 17 today. We have looked at the Grand Gulf testing program in 18 which 8000 volts was applied to the cable with varying 19 insulation thickness. Also we recognized that IEEE-383-1974
~
20 was for type testing cable. We note the voltage test follows 21 exposure to radiation, response and aging design basis 22 accidents. Also, paragraph 2.3.3.4 of the standard specifies 1
1 23 wet testing.
kh) 24 Mr. Fox, we look forward to your p, presentation.
25 MR. FOX: We regret we have yet to come back for ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 4c brt 6 1 1 another discussion of cable testing. As you mentioned we did !
Q)
l 13 statement, that we in fact have had a failure as a result.of 14 how it was used.
15 However, we can set up a large task force of 1
16 people that are representative of the industry,.both cable 17 manufacturers, people that are very active in a number of the l l l 18 IEEE and EPCA committees and these individuals came back to 19 us and you will hear hear today what their recommendations 20 were.
21 We will make a proposal to you which we feel like ;
- t. 22 is technically sufficient to find installation damage caused 23 either by pullbys or by jamming -- further, we feel it has
{mg? 24 regulatory precedent. In fact, our program that we are l 25 proposing today is consistent with an I&E information notice 1
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
31663~0 "
brt 7 l' f which -- where we will discuss during this meeting and it is f
.m
, %cp 2. Jciso consistent with what a number of other utilities are. i i
3 ,'doing and have d6ne, to look for cable degradation.
4 We have the results of the industry survey which 5 we will also discuss with you today, so we are going to make 6 a revised proposal to the NRC. We ask for you to pleane i 7 review it on its technical merits and we will see if you l
8 might be willing to consider backing away from our previous 9 proposal of 240 vclts per mil for cable test.
10 MR. ZWOLINSKI: Do you envision putting the 11 presentation that you are going to give today on the docket?
12 MR. FOX: Yes, we will.
h) 13 I'm going to turn it over to Bill Raughley and 14 Mark Burzynski. Mark is managing deputy manager at 15 Sequoyah.
16 MR. BURZYNSKI: What I would like to do is briefly 17 discuss the agenda for today's meetings and introduce the 18 players that are going to make the technical presentations.
19 First, Mr. Bill Raughley, who is our chief 20 electrical engineer, will discuss the meeting objectives, the '
1 21 reasons why TVA is reconsidering its commitment of last March !
l 22 for cable testing.
23 I would like to have Art Fitzpatrick talk about Q3y 24 the Sequoyah task force that was set up to investigate this !
25 issue. He was the chairman of it. He is with Stone &
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 ;
brt 8 1- Webster. He will go through the task force itself, the !
Q Qf 2 formulation of it and the qualification of the members; the 3 background' investigations that they did and associated 4 ' information, t. heir program document and then their 5 :: recommendations. When he is through with his presentation, I 6 will have Mr. Raughley co5e back up to talk about what TVA is 7 doing with their recommendations, the formulation of TVA's 8 revised program and some discussions about how we plan to 9 supplement our submittal of last March and how'se'p.1An to 4
10 rev!.se it. With than I will turn the meeting over-to 11 Mr. Raughley.
12 MR. RAUGHLEY: I ar _11 Raughley, chief 4
/A iy 13 electrical engineer' .
14 (Slide.) I 15 The objectivo of the meeting today is,, one, we 16 want to explain to you the need te reevaluate the cable 17 testing program that we'had originally submitted. We wanted 18 to review the results of the University of Connecticut ,
i
,y 19 testing and our task fogee on conclusions about those i o ,
20 results; then we wanted to.,present to',you a test program to '
3 21 test approximately 380 cable 5 and this program is an
, i22 1, integrated test program thatJ ensures cable integrity, avoids E
23 inducing damage, will detect the type of damage p'ostulated in
{,h 24 theTERandwillsubstantiatetheequihment. qualification, p
25 h6u adequate margin, represents the recommendations of rs ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8 @ 336- % 46 T r
,a..au,..,-.. . - - , - - - - - - - ~ . - - ~ . - - ~ - - - - - - - - -
l 3166'3.0 brt 9 1 several industry experts and has a technical basis dcrived e
l$m8 2 from standards for high potential field testing. ,
l 3 I will be discussing this a little'later, it is 4 consistent with guidance in IEEE notice 86-49.
l 5 We will also previously provide you with the 1 6 status of statistical issue and answer any questions that you 7 have as we proceed.
8 (Slide.) ,
9 We don't like to b= here to have to ask you to 10 reconsider that which we have already submitted, but as an 11 engineer, as a manager, if you issue something anu you became
, 12 aware of new information or something is put in front of you,
'?
tr) 13 you have to evaluate it and you have to react to it.
I 14 We are all engineers. We issue standards. We 15 issue information notices. We issue regulatory guides, 16 drawings, and specifications; and that is not to say that 17 once we issue one of those that new information could come in 18 front of you and you should reconsider it.
I 19 If it is an employee concern or a difference of 20 technical opinion, we would do it, and it is better that we 21 do it out of my office or our offices better than any other 22 vehicle. l 23 MR. LIAW: Let me take issue with you on what you O
<gg 24 say about regulatory guidance standards. Yes, if there is 25 new information presented to the staff, staff will evaluate ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 brt 10 ;
- I 1 .and modify if recessary. But I think for you to say that we l rr '
DSM 2 will look at it right way, it seems to preempt the process by l 3 which we changed the regulatory guide or standard review I' 4 plan. I i
5 MR. RAUGHLEY: No, if you want to get into j l
l 5 specific instances, there have been instances where you might l
l~
l 7 issue somethinq on day 1 and on day 3 you get new information l
8 and it is pertinent to consider it.
9 MR. LIAW: I appreciate, say, your problem. But ;
j 10 we have certain processes to modify a regulatory guide or 1
1 s
11 staff position. It is not something that I want to chango it j 12 based on what I perceive to be new information; I can go MG- 13
~
ahead and change it. Okay?
14 MR. RAUGHLEY: Okay. I think things that we were 15 looking at -- one is, all right, the first thing we were 16 looking at is back in May, we started the walkdowns to look j 17 at the worst case conduits.
18 (Slide.)
( 19 This is one of the worst case conduit runs. It is 20 in the control bay. This was a test involving 28 cables with 21 76 conductors and it is a conduit running over all the ESF l I
22 cabinets and entering the LPS cabinet. This contains all 23 four logic channels in the plant. If we were to fill to
-.n Q:j 24 conduit with water, we would have a hard time controlling it l
25 and could possibly reduce the safety of the plant. So this ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC-202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 I
31663.0 brt 11 1 was one consideration: Do we really have to fill this with 6%
O 2 water to do an adequate test?
3 Another consideration was, as a result of the 4 vertical cable test, we had a CAQR written and internally, 5 one of the questions I have to answer in dispositioning that 6 CAQR is will further testing cause damage?
l 7 MR. GARDNER: May I ask a point of information?
8 What does CAQR mean?
9 MR. RAUGHLEY: Corrective action report, the 10 nonconformance process in TVA.
11 If you have a known problem you must identify and' 12 disposition, and this is the process we go through to assess h 13 that. As part of that process, you have to do a generic root 14 cause evaluation of a failure that you have had.
15 Considerations -- was the test voltage higher than 16 necessary to verify the cable integrity? And the fact of the 17 matter was we did do testing without water and we were able 18 to detect damage which was insignificant when compared to the 19 failure modes that we were looking for. This will be 20 discussed in detail later. We have the cable samples here 21 and the fallures, and relative to pullby and jamming l
22 failures, this was relatively insignificant.
23 As we discussed before, items C and D, the
?hi 24 original test voltage was based on the design requirements of 25 the cable, not the requirements of the system in which it was ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwidt Coveiage 800-336-6646
31663.0 brt 12 1 installed. This is inconsistent with practices in other (LFS- 2 disciplines.
3 If you look at ASME or any other codes, Art'has 4 some specific examples later. We test to operating 5 pressures, not original. design requirements. The basis of 6 the original test voltage is not consistent with the 7 standards and we have discussed that before and we will be 8 doing that again.
9 In the process of analyzing the cause for the 10 breakdowns in the field, we started to get other people 11 involved. We had people from the University of Connecticut; e 12 we started using other people to come in and look at the (hS e 13 problem and these people challenged our basis -- really 14 challenged us and said, are you sure you are not doing more 15 than you have to do to den.onstrate the adequacy of the 16 cable?
17 So, now we have our original recommendation and we l 18 have some other people whom I regard as experts in industry 19 telling me I should reconsider what I am doing. Our 1
20 conclusion --
21 MR. LIAW: Bill, before you go to the conclusion, I 22 may I ask a question here? Item B, you were saying " generic 23 and root cause evaluation of vertical cable test CAQR"; are
.= i
!S$h 24 you saying that the failures were caused by the test-25 voltage -- j ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
31663.0 '
brt 13 1 MR. RAUGHLEY: If you wouldn't mind, there is a e5 -
($P 2 detailed discussion on this by the task force and we are 3 drawing-conclusions from that.
4 MR. LIAW: You start with the information 5 indicating you may have been incorrect. That's your first 6 statement. You have yet to show the so-called new 7 information here; is that correct?
8 MR. RAUGHLEY: That is correct.
9 MR. ZWOLINSKI: And I would interpret B-1 and B-2 10 as a challenge to IEEE-383. Isn't it?
11 MR. RAUGHLEY: Yes. We will clarify that, also.
12 There is a lot of questions.
(b . 13 MR. LIAW: I guess, Bill, your answer to John's 14 question was: Yes, you are challenging IEEE-383.
15 MR. RAUGHLEY: 'Our basis is 383 is not an 16 appropriate standard to apply to field testing of cables.
17 MR. LIAW: You are not talking about inadequacy in 18 the 383?
19 MR. RAUGHLEY: 383 is a type test. Art 20 Fitzpatrick will discuss it in detail and it is not a test to 21 be applied to aged cables, l 22 MR. LIAW: So you are not talking about the IEEEs 23 per se, but its applicability.
hf) 24 MR. FOX: Specifically, its applicability to these 25 tests.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
_= _ ___
v 31663.0 d brt 14 l
1 MR. RAUGHLEY: Now, on licensing considerations --
AN IO) 2 MR -. CANTRELL: You didn't make your conclusion.
3 You got stopped right before your conclusions.
4 MR. RAUGHLEY: Information notice 86-49, practices 5 at other plants.
6 (Slide.)
7 For the record, Sequoyah is not a 383 plant. As 8 you recall, 383 was issued back in the '74 time frame and-l l 9 Sequoyah cables were purchased before that.
10 While we have qualified the_ cables in part to that i
11 standard, for the record, we were not committed to that
. 12 standard.
(Eh a' 13 MR. LIAW: Excuse me, are you saying you cannot 14 commit to the standard. What standard did you commit to?
15 MR. RAUGHLEY: We are following NUTsEG-0588, which 16 for the vintage of the plant gets you into the degree for <
17 which you have to qualify, but as far as reading the FSAR or 18 licensing commitments and saying we are a 383 plant, we are 3 19 not.
20 MR. FOX: It was not a code of' record plant.
1 21 MR. LIAW: I understand that. ^
22 MR. RAUGHLEY: Like I say, we, in the EQ program, I
filed it and that was used as the basis for qualifying it.
23
,*t.
Qf,p 24 But that is not a commitment of record. i 25 MR. BUSTARD: Larry Bustard from Sandia. Is your ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33 6 6646 !
N____-_______-______-- -
31663.0 l brt. 15 i 1 . commitment. category 1 or category 2 in NUREG-0588? ii O
- ((? 2 MR. RAUGHLEY: We are category 2, I believe. We 3 are committed to. qualify all the harsh environment ,,
i 4 equipment.
5 MR. FOX: Category 2 is 50-49 only?
6 MR. RAUGHLEY: Yes, I believe so. The category 1 7 is --
8 MR. CANTRELL: Question were 383 --
9 MR. BUSTARD: That's category 2.
10 MR. CANTRELL: We applied the parameters 54 --
11 9 --
12 MR. RAUGHLEY: Just as a reminder, everyone, Ch O' 13 before you speak, give.your name -- was an information 14 notice, 86-49, which was a recent information notice and I 15 want to --
16 (Slide.)
17 This was written as a result of an experience at 18 San Onofre plant in which they had problems with their medium 19 notice cables. This information was put out as guidance to 20 applicants that had suggested that the applicant look at a 21 program to take'a look at the integrity of his cables. I 22 will cite a few operating sentences from here: "Although 23 these practices vary, the information'obtained from such h 24 periodic testing is used to identify degraded cables and the 25 need for corrective action."'
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
a 31663.0 brt 16 1 It goes on to list -- elicit the different O
V69 2 ' organizations which publish standards and acknowledges the 3 fact.that you do do DC-controlled over voltage, "high 4 potential" tests.
5 "It is suggested that the applicable industry 6 standards be consulted prior to-performing these tests."
7 MR. ZWOLINSKI: This is in-the context of power 8 cables versus control cables?
9 MR. RAUGHLEY: Yes, medium voltage cables, but 10 it's in the context. If you get the whole thing, it's in the 11 context of a program $o look at possible degradation of Tt:
12 cables with time as a result of the cables near hot pipes, Kh set 13 water running on them and trays, et cetera.
14 MR. ZWOLINSKI: The November-21st event is the 15 water hammer event?
l 16 MR. RAUGHLEY: Yes.
l 17 MR. LIAW: I guess, Bill, you would have to help I 18 me here. As I understand it, that refers to the testing of 19 power cable 5 kV or above?
l 20 MR. RAUGHLEY: The medium voltage, 5 kV-up cables; 21 and it also talks about the specific problem -- there was the l 22 600 volt power cables. If you get the cover sheet, there is 1
23 another page, there is three pag'es. I have copied pages 2 c.
Q 24 and 3.
25 MR. LIAW: You have to help -- explain to me, what l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 c__________-._ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _
m 31663.0 brt 17 1 is the relevancy of that?
E M6>) 2 MR. RAUGHLEY: The relevance is, I was trying to 3 show you that it has been suggested that the applicable l
4 industry standards be consulted for performing these tests.
5 MR. LIAW: So?
6 MR. RAUGHLEY: That is part of the thrust of a 7 portion of our presentation, is it is being derived from th'e 8 industry standards. The applicable industry standerds.
9 MR. FOX: A test voltage using a number'of these.
10 MR. LIAW: In your case, what industry standard 11 are we talking about here?
. 12 ,
MR. RAUGHLEY: There are six or seven of them that 4N\
hY 13 7 we have derived our position from. IEEE422-690; IEEE 400; 14 and three ANSI standards, which I forget the numbers of.
l 15 The other thing I wanted to point out was in 16 Regulatory Guide 1.68, as far as this describes the 17 preoperational testing that you do.
18 (Slide.)
19 This is prior to going critical. It is talking 20 about -- if you go to the section on electrical systems, Reg l
21 l
Guide 1.68, page 8. It talks about testing in the normal AC 22 power system, the emergency AC power system. If you turn to 23 page 9, it has the standby AC and DC power system and the khh 24 battery system.
25 ,
In all four cases, it refers to testing of the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
. 31663.0 brt 18
-1 components and it says that the testing should simulate as o
%) 2 close as practicable actual service conditions.
3 The point I am trying to make here is.normally 4 testing is done based on service conditions and not initial 5 design parameters. This is what you do before you start a 6 plant up. There should be no reason to continue to practice 7 after you start up.
8 MR. LIAW: As I understand it, that sort of thing 9 addresses when you have a " normal" installation. I guess 10 there are number --
11 MR. RAUGHLEY: You do testing to detect when you 12 deviate from doing normal installation.
Q
(> 13 MR. ESRINOS: This is preoperational testing we 14 are talking about?
15 MR. RAUGHLEY: Yes.
l 16 MR. MARINOS: Chambers have a different category. .
17 You have to consider the aging process on the cables, so this l 18 is functional systems, not pass systems as a cable is, so you j l
19 are sort of stretching by using that. {
1 i
l 20 MR. RAUGHLEY: We are not proposing that we do j l
l 21 anything different than the rest of the world has done; that j 22 the significant majority of the industry -- these are the 1
23 practices that they follow. )
)
1 (e4p 24 As far as what is the industry doing, this is a l
25 copy of an LAR notice we had in the plant and we asked the l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
.31663.0 .i brt 19 1 utility does your utility use direct current high potential
' "d ID 2
. dielectric testings on new thermal generation? 'If yes, what 3 percent of cable fault --
4 (Slide.)
5 Basically, all the plants.say they used 6 high-potential testing on the med.4um voltage, 5 kV and up, 7 and they used a particular megger test on other cables, and 8 that'if you go through here, they do have cable failure rates 9 which does indicate that these tests do find problems.
10 We have another request out to get the specific 11 cases. It is just taking a lot of time because a lot of 12 people have to go through their files and find these.
Q'!cs 13 The point is, as people do the testing per the 14 standards and find problems, these are all licensed plants.
15 (Slide.)
16 Perry has a program in place, when they did 17 deviate from their installation requirements -- that the 18 cable was put in a test program which consisted of 19 high-potential testing of 5 kV and up and 500,000 volt megger 20 testing of other cables, 600 volt power cables and instrument 21 and control cables, respectively.
22 What we are going to conclude today is that 23 testing, if continued at the original parameters, could
- ~.
Sg; 24 potentially impact plant safety and furthermore, could result 25 in replacement of acceptable. cables with no increase in plant ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 bre 20 1 . safety. ,
j c3
- 1U 2 (Slide.) {
3 MR. MARINOS: This conclusion is contrary to what 4 Charlie said earlier. You were uncertain about the effects 5 on the cable. As he pointed out, it is a very complex 6 issue. You seem to be concluding that and on that basis, 7 which is in contract to what he says, you go on to establis'h 8 a new test level that would be less damaging to the cable.
9 So we have two things now, one that he is 10 uncertain about, and yet on that basis you_go on to propose 1
11 your new statement.
12 MR. FOX: No, I think we are consistent. He may f%
GJ7 13 have said it a little differently. He said, "could 14 potentially impact plant safety.'"
15 What we are trying to do is show that the method 16 that we are going to propose to you today will, in fact, find 17 the kind of damage.
18 I told you that I didn't want to speculate. I 19 didn't feel like we could prove whether or not the higher 20 voltage would or would not damage the cable. Certainly the 21 higher the voltage the less good it does the cable.
22 MR. MARINOS: But we have to accept that as a 23 basis, Charlie, before we have to accept something else from
.m hg; 24 you. ,
25 MR. FOX: Question?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ;
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 j
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . -_ ._ ._ .]
31663.0 )
brt 21 1 MR. RAUGHLEY: I was going to introduce Art
\
A'Td; 2 Fitzpatrick.
3 MR. CANTRELL: My name is Bob Cantrell with 4 engineering in Knoxville. What I think I have heard you try 5 to tell us is the fact that cable testing, and the cable l 6 testing that we are committed to, was based on us trying to 7 get a good test that would meet the needs that we worked out 8 in an iteration with you, with ourselves and the staff. It 9 was based off of qualification testing, type testing and some 10 manufacturing testing.
11 As we got into it, we decided we needed to look
. 12 deeper at the issue because of things that came out in the 6S T
'/s 13 first part of the testing, one of which was where to put 14 water, which was very significant to us because if you put 15 water in, you have got to get it out and you have also got J 1
l 16 the hazard -- we have gone to great-lengths to protect l
17 equipment from water and water damage.
18 We are concerned -- I think we are concerned from 19 a safety point of view of flooding large areas of our conduit 20 system with the idea -- not to prove the test -- but of its l
21 impact on safety if it should migrate into equipment that it 22 shouldn't be in. So it made us question whether that was 23 fruitful. I think you will hear our conclusions on that
.m.
ygJ 24 issue. I think it is a real issue for us.
25 The other part was, as a result of the testing --
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 I
31663.0 l brt 22 1 I am an electrical engineer, but I am not a cable en 17 2 specialist. But I know whether we start out with cable and i
3 we type-test it in a manufacturer; we go and get large levels i
4 of margin in that cable design and the way it is built.
5 To my way of thinking, nothing we do from that ,
l 1 6 point on until it gets finally installed improved it. We '
7 degrade it by rolling it on a spool, by carrying it in 8 trucks, by pulling it out on the floor and pulling it through l
9 conduit.
10 The end result, we end up with a cable that has 11 adequate margin for its installed service and that is the t
. 12 version that it will be tested against.
- 2\
\JJ' 13 I think what we would like to do is to take those 14 premises, one of how essential is water to this issue and I
15 spring back the industry standards against its intended 16 service and use, l l
17 We know if we put a high enough voltage on it, we l l
18 can fail cable. We are concerned that we get a good test and 19 end up with a valid installation that both of us can stand 20 behind. !
21 We are also concerned that we may have introduced 22 other-damage in the plant. That is the basis on which we are l
23 asking you to listen to this technical argument, k[h 24 MR. ZWOLINSKI: Mr. Cantrell, it is our intention 1
25 to listen to your presentation. We are also mindful of what j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. )
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-66 6 i
31663.0 brt- 23 1 you have already provided us and we are aware of industry i%
(2) '2 standards that talk about testing cable wet and talk about 3 the voltage of 240 volts per mil.
4 If you folks are going to make a presentation 5 which talks to those issues, that is fine. The record 6 contains -- other facilities have done this test,- they have 7 done it wet. We want to listen to you. I remain unconvinced 8 that this level of voltage would in any way affect the cable 3 in the plant.
10 MR. EBNETER: This is Stew Ebneter. Let's not be 11 premature before hearing all the facts. Let's hear the 12 entire TVA presentation -- that we are not convinced at this ,
4%
(;.0 13 po' int. TVA has the burden of showing this ' t est is 14 equivalent, will provide the same results as the previous 15 equipment and as Mr. Cantrell said, to provide a good cable i 16 installation; so let us hear the whole story first.
17 MR. RAUGHLEY: As I said, we had concerns. We had 18 differences of opinion. We had opinions that suggested we 19 were doing the wrong thing and the way we close to resolve 20 these differences of opinion was by forming a task force.
21 (Slide.)
22 We had asked Art Fitzpatrick to put together that i 23 task force and look into the overall problem. With that, I
.(S h 24 would like to introduce Art Fitzpatrick.
25 MR. FOX: Mr. Shea is passing out copies of the )
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 i
)
- w. .
. - _ - - _ - _ _ - - - - _ _ - A
31663.0 .
brt- 24 )
- 1. task force material at this time. ,
i TS/ 2 MR. FITZPATRICK: Good afternoon. I am Arthur 1
3 Fitzpatrick with Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation.
4 (Slide.)
5 As Bill mentioned a while ago, he ca'me to me and 6 asked me some questions about testing and talked a little bit.
1 7 to the voltage breakdowns that he had during testing at I 8 Sequoyah. The immediate reaction was: What voltage levels 9 are you using and are the voltage levels appropriate?
J 10 In my conversations with a number of other people, i
11 the same questions came up, so with.that, Bill asked us to l
. 12 put together a task force to take a look at the Sequoyah rs
'? 13 nuclear plant and the test voltages and test programs that 14 were being used.
15 The task force consisted of myself as a chairman, l
16 and an assistant chief electrical engineer with Stone &
J 17 Webster; Ted Balaska with Insulated Power Cable Services; !
18 Paul Cardello with Newtown Associates; Howard Redgate, 19 independent consultant; Al Stakutis, a Stone & Webster j 20 consulting engineer; Ronnie Luther; Dr. Ling with Cablec; Ed 21 Donegan, independent consultant; and Keith Petty, Stone & l 22 Webster cable specialist.
23 We have also Dr. Mashikian acting as a consultant Ch[] 24 in the area of the University of Connecticut testing 25 program.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 E___._________._____________________________________
j
3-31663.0 brt 25 1 ,
As you can see, with this group we have tried to O
'G9 2 come up with a group of experts in the area of nuclear cable 3 manufacturing with broad representation from the industry, 4 the applicable industry standard groups, and also to bring in 5 expertise in the area of installation and design of cables in 6 current nuclear plants.
7 (Slide.)
8 With that, Ted Ealaska, who has 40 years of 9 experience in the business, presently chairman of the 10 Insulated Conductors Committee of Power Engineering Society 11 of IEEE and author of numerous papers on high-petential' 12 testing. Ronnie Luther comes to the task force with 35 years (fh 13 of experience; he was a member of the original IEEE-383-1974 l
14 working group, the equipment qualification standard and also 15 a member of the revision committee of the IEEE-383 group; 16 presently the vice chairman of the insulated conductors 17 industry. He has a number of years of hands-on experience at ;
18 Millstone 3 and also through that plant from design to l 19 installation area. l l
20 Paul Cardello is a former director of 21 manufacturing with a cable manufacturer. He has 26 years 22 experience. He is our expert on the silicone rubber 23 installations.
.sw Qg) 24 (Slide.)
25 Dr. Ling; 35 years experience. He was a. member of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 brt 26 !
l 1 the original IEEE-383-1974 working group.and also a member of
/"S LW 2 the revision committee. He has authored numerous papers on 3 cable and a member of numerous insulated cable society group's .
J 4 and ICEA groups.
]
5 Howard Redgate has 28 years of experience. He-is 4
6 a former Stone & Webster corporate consulting engineer. He l
l 7 was Stone & Webster's former corporate equipment l
l 8 qualification consultant and has been,a member of NPEC in the l
9 area of equipment qualifications.
10 Ed Donegan has 38 years experience including cable i 11 specialist, project engineer, manager, and chief electrical 'l 12 engineer for Stone & Webster. 3
- f3
') 13 Ed was also a member of the original 383-19734 1
14 working group and has been involved in the cable area and 15 I equipment qualification area.
I 16 (Slide).
17 Al Stakutis has 40 years of experience, including I l \
l 18 chief electrical engineer for Stone & Webster. He is !
1 19 presently a corporate consulting engineer and a member of 20 NPEC SSC-2 subcommittee. l 21 Keith Petty is senior electrical engineer and 22 presently cable specialist. Keith was on the PGC working 23 group for IEEE-690 and IEEE-422; one is for nuclear stations q) 24 and one is for fcssil stations. He's presently the chairman l
l 25 of an insulated conductors working committee on cables which l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 E______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ -. _
j
m -
31663.0 L brt 27 'I 1 is addressing issues such as pullbys, jamming and so'forth, ex i S$'
^
2 He has authored a number of papers in the cable-area. He is t
3 an author of the wire and cable reference book, the 4 soon-to-be-published EPRI book. He has been involved in 5- plant life extension during his 14 years at Stone & Webster. l1 I
6 I've got 24 years experience with Stone & q l
7 Webster. I'm presently the chairman of subcommittee 14 of j i
i 8 the insulated conductors committee on station cables. I have i 9 been involved with the 383 revision committee and provided 10 input to the original document.
l 11 T._
(Slide.) ,
l
. 12 With that-as a background qualification of our --
(Ch* ,
13 we would like to develop our purpose and so forth from now I 14 on. In the purpose of our task force, it was to review the 15 NRC's technical evaluation report and the proposed test i
16 plans. In this area we would be reviewing the testing 17 requirements at Sequoyah nuclear plant to ensure the cable I 18 integrity in the following areas.
19 This is cable pullbys, and cable pullbys in 20 discussion is adding a cable into a conduit where there are 21 existing cables. There's existing cables in a conduit. We 22 are pulling another one in the conduit where there are l
l 23 already cables; cable jamming is the phenomena that occurs (h) 24 where three cables are being pulled into a conduit at about 25 the same diameter of the conduit; the support of cables in l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
m 31663.0 brt 28 1 vertical conduit is an issue whera it comes through a fitting
?
NJ; 2 in a conduit or condulet and drops down a distance. Ahd the 3 concern is the possible crushing or damage of the cable at 4 the top of the run.
5 (Slide.)
6 The next couple of slides are kind of elementary, 7 but just for the sake of getting everybody here on the same 8 basis so that we can see where this is going, we have down 9 here as the cable operating characteristics, and the first 1
10 one up here is the medium voltage power cable. In the case 11 of Sequoyah, that is 6.9 kV, These cables operate at or near
. 12 their temperature rating. They operate at or near their b" 13 voltage rating. And they also operate at the highest voltage 14 stress in volts per mil.
15 They are usually the highest quality insulation 16 and the highest dielectric values. When you come down.this 17 thing on the low voltage power cables -- and at sequoyah, the 18 low voltage power cables are tae 600 volt cables they also 19 operate at or near their temperature rating and also at or i 20 near their voltege rating. They operate at lower stress in l
21 volts per inch than the 8 kV cables, and now we get into an 22 area in the standards where the insulation thickness is more 23 for mechanical performance than it is for electrical vm
($$ 24 performance.
25 When we come down to the lower voltage control ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
y.
-31663.0 '
brt 29 l
.1 instrumentation cables, they also operate at a lower stress 1 O
+fy, 2 than the power cables and, again, the insulation thickness in 3 these cables are based more on mechanical performance than 4 they are on electrical performance.
5 MR. LIAW: Excuse me, just for clarification, you l l
6 say at Sequoyah the medium voltage power cable is 6.9 kV or 7 above? l J
8 MR. FITZPATRICK: If I did, I meant to say 6.9 9' kV. I'm sorry.
10 MR. LIAW: Is that a definition or a standard that<
11 came out from the IEEE?
12 MR. FITZPATRICK: Medium voltage cable, there's a fh
%s 13 controversy exactly whether there's 15 kV or lower -- for the 14 sake of our discussion we are defining medium voltage as 15 67.9. We would also say 5 if they had it, but they don't, t Ii 16 Then we have the low voltage power which would be 600 volt 17 and the low voltage control, 600 volt and the instrumentation 18 cable, 300 volt.
I 19 MR. LIAW: So what can 600 volt have to do with 5 1 20 kV?
21 MR. FITZPATRICK: At Sequoyah the system voltages 22 are 500 volts and 8 kV, so he have a 480 and a 6.9 system and 23 there isn't anything in between. I don't know if I'm l y@gy 24 answering your question.
25 MR. LIAW: I guess I'm asking for the definition i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage ' 800-335-6646
y..
-31663.0 brt 30 1 of IEEE? What does that define? The standard, as I recall, 29 4Es 2 said 1000 volt was th'e cutoff point when you have low voltage 3 or medium voltage.
4 MR. FITZPATRICK: I don't think there J a specific 5 definition. I am not 100 percent positive on that.
6 For our purposes, I don't think it has a bearing 7 on our discussions. If it does, we can talk about it --
8 MR. LIAW: The reason I ask that is later on you 9 talk about the use of IEEE-400 or 383. There is a e
10 distinction there, whether or not IEEE-400 is applicable.
11 MR. FITZPATRICK: We will be consistent with those 12 standards as we go on. Okay?-
() 13 (Slide.)
14 Again, if you will just bear with me, I know some 15 people here already are jumping ahead and know where we are 16 going. If you just bear with me again: If in the industry 17 the tes voltages that are used for occasional design and 18 insulation and so forth, they, first of all -- we have what 19 we are calling a development test voltage here. These are 20 voltages that are way high. These are used by the 21 manufacturers in developing the product.
22 Then there is an industry consensus group, usually 23 we call it ICEA, insulated cable engineers installation.
(y&') 24 They establish factory test voltages to show. compliance with 25 the standards and, also, to show manufacturing quality. That ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
c--
31663.0 -
brt' 31 1 is what -- what this axis is, this is 100 percent of the i 3l/
'ca 2 factory test voltage. We are saying whatever the: factory l 3 test voltage is, that's the base and these are percentages'of 4 that number.
5 In the indication of medium voltage cable and 6 certainly 6.9 kV cables, there's a field acceptance test
-7 voltage defined in these standards and that's usually defined 8 as 80 percent of that number. For 600 volt power cables and j,
9 below, there is no number defined in there.in the standards.
10 When you come down again and you can see this is 11 l field acceptance test voltage, this is defined by a test that 12 is normally performed after the cables are installed but
() '13 before they are energized.
14 The next step down is another voltage that is 15 specified in the industry and that is usually specified to be 16 50 to 60 percent of the enactor retest voltage. That, again, 17 is defined in the area of medium voltage cables but is-not 18 defined in the area of low voltage cables and that is used 19 for maintenance testing.
20 Now, before I go to this last one, I think it is 21 interesting to note here that the industry standards for 22 medium voltage cables, which are the cables that operate at !
23 the highest stress and are the most likely to fail under n (hh 24 voltage phenomenon, voltage breakdown because of the stress, 25 the industry standards recognized a certain amount of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 .
31663.0 brt 32 1 degradation in these cables. At the factory when you design vs 2 the cable, it is way up here. To show compliance with the i
3 standards, it is here. After you install it, it is here, and I l
4 it goes down and down. '2his shows it is not unusual to say i 5 that the numbers start to come down as the cable gets 6 manufactured, shipped and installed. I 7 The one more entry we put i here -- and you will 8 have to excuse this one entry because it is really out of 1 1
1 9 context in terms of the percentage, but we put it on here 10 just for illustration purposes -- this is that the 11 industry-recommended field' acceptance test voltage for low
. 12 voltage cables for 600 volts and below is a 500 volt megger ,
Q'Z- 13 and this is outlined in IEEE-690. This is intended to show 14 what the things out there in the industry right now in terms 15 of test voltages and show how these voltages gradually come 16 down in acceptability limits.
17 Again, this is an outline of IEEE-383, the cable 18 qualification standard and I'm going to just hit a few 19 highlights on these things, but if you come down to the l 20 bottom for a second you'll see IEEE allows qualification of 21 cables by test analysis and a combination.
22 (Slide.)
23 We all know that these approaches are done mp
@yj 24 routinely in the industry. I mean, the qualification test is 25 a type test for a particular cable size; for a particular ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 I brt 33 1 configuration. That is extrapolated via analysis and so j
,C%
40! 2 forth to show that we have qualification. This is a routine 3 thing that is done.
1 4 If you look up at the top where we talk about what 5 IEEE-383 really is, it is a type test and it is not intended 6 as a field acceptance or approved test standard and its is 7 not performed on the other hand-installed cables. Okay?
8 So this IEEE-383, if you look back on the previous
. 9 slide, was really in the development area. This would be for 10 cable manufacturers developing a cable for a nuclear power 11 plant and these are the things that you would do and this is T.,
12 not the standard you use to show anything after the cable is i
/Ed de i 13 installed.
14 We are ready for the next one.
15 (Slide.)
16 This is a very busy slide, and you really don't i
17 have to try to read it. What we want to try to show is that 18 what we have done here is we have tabulated a lot of data 19 from a lot of different manufacturers for a lot cf different l 20 cable types. And what we are showing here is that cables for ,
21 the same kinds of cables are qualified in different l 22 insulation thickness. We also took a look at -- although {
23 these cables aren't all used at Sequoyah, we did take a look im i vf) 24 at the profile, in other words the loca simulation that these 25 cables were qualified to. Thesc are all 383, qualified case ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336 4 46 j
. lj 31663.0 ]
brt 34 .
i 1 and va look at the profile and wherever there is a "yes" in s"%
4:# 2 that column, that cable would envelope the Sequoyah profile.
3 So if you took this qualification report and compared this 4 with the Sequoyah profile, you would say that that cable 5 would be akay for use in the Sequoyah environment.
6 MR. EBNETER: These are all cross-linked 7 polycables. The cables we used are silicon.
8 MR. FITZPATRICK: We have similar data on the next 9 slide where we have tabulated some more. I'm sorry we 1
10 stalled so long on that one, j 11 (Slide.)
12 What this is is a summary of the last two slides.
@S1 k 13 What we have tri'ed to show here is, if you look at silicone i
14 rubber insulation the people have qualified that in thickness 15 from 60 mils all the way down to 30 mils, and so forth for ,
l 16 the others. The real intent of this thing, to say that if j 17 you have a cable that is qualified for 45 mils and there is a 18 little nick or dent or whatever in the insulation, the 19 qualification isn't immediately invalid dated because the l 20 insulation might be a couple of mils or whatever thinner in
! 21 that area.
22 Again, this is the qualification of this test and 23 analysis approach and this is done routinely when we look at jf.' 24 these things in cables that are installed. It is not unusual 25 to have installation damage on a cable in any nuclear plant ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33M446
31663.0- ,
, l brt 35 1- ,in the country and that minor damage is just repaired or e
$n 5' 2 whatever and the qualification is not invalidated. That is 3 what we are trying to'show here, that we have broad ranges of '
l' l 4 qualifications for all kinds of materials.
5 (Slide.)
6 The next thing that we did is we looked at the 7 TER, the technical evaluation report.
8 The task force reviewed this report and their 9 conclusion is this is a very lengthy and thorough job that 10 appears to be based on severa3 months of analysis, interviews 11 within stallers and workers and walkdowns. It is a long and
. 12 extensive document and the TER conclusions are that the s
'2$: 13 installation was under control and that it was similar to 14 other nuclear sites.
- 15 We have had a number of the representatives from i
16 our task force who are familiar with plant' design. We have 17 had these people actually walk down the Sequoyah site.
18 The thing that is very, very interesting about l
19 this is that everybody that walked this down came back l 20 independently with these exact sane conclusions, 21 So, with respect to these conclusions, our task 22 force and the TER are in 100 percent agreement.
1 23 If we stopped right here you might say: Why are w, t J
(39 24 we all sitting in this room? Why are we even talking about a
- test program?
l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 brt 36 1 The TER has a number of statements that aren't j cs a 55/ '2 "sdbbtantiated. At least the task , force can't find a >
3 substantiation for these. 1 .{
,\
4 MR. RAUGHLEY: What did;you find'in the insulation J%' f 5 when you walked it down? l 6 MR. FITZPATRICK: I'm sorry.. During the walkdown,
,5 7 there was one thing very notable on this thing. When the 8 taskcforce got in this thing everybody was wondering what was.
? gbing dn and the observations that everyone of the task force v
'1 x1
't;;
10 walk d6whiindividuals made was that there were a number of 11 expensive condulets installed. More so than you would see in
- 12 a normal job because of the expense involved and also because
.?A U' 13 of the purdhace of the condulet and the installation labor 14 associated with it. 1 15 If you look at the condulet installation,.the 16 advantage of the condulets.is that it tends to break up 17 anyone con'duit pull into a number of a5gments.
d -
i 13 wheniyou break that up into all these pull points 19 it makes a long pull appear to be a series of.short pulses 20 and, therefore,: the consequences of damage caused by pulling 21 in anyone of the issues that we are addressing here because 22 come less as a result of this conduit.
23 So the task force individuals that walked down the
.e
'h?
24 plant were very pleased with the installation.
25 MR. EBNETER: Stew Ebneter. Excuse me, it might i
y ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
g' 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 fky
31663.0
_brt 37 ,
1 indicate just the opposite. Was there evidence that there
? '
E"'E >A 2 were actually pull points -- that these condulets were used 3 as pull points or were they pulling through these condulets, 4 which would make the situation just the opposite?
5 How did you verify'that they were actually using 6 pull points throughout, say, a 270 degree pull.
7 MR. FITZPATRICK: Because of the number of 8 condulets.. You really have to see it.
9 MR. EBNETER: It might just be poor design. Maybe 10 somebody had extra condulets.
11 MR. FITZPATRICK: No, it would be impossible to
. 12 pull through the condulets. It is just not going to happen.
(?%;/ 13 With the size and quality, it would be impossible to pull 14 through the condulets. You just wouldn't make the put.
15 MR. EBNETER: That's my point. You might damage l 16 them.
l 17 MR. FITZPATRICK: It was monitored so the pulling 18 tension was just not out of controlling pulling this thing.
19 You could just not make this pull through the thing.
20 What we have done is we have looked at the 21 cables. We have also looked.at all the cables in there, and 22 the kind of damage that you are alluding to would be very, 23 very obvious, and it is not there.
.r.
24
]
MR. FOX: ,The TER also states -- it observes that !
i 25 there are a large number of short pulse at Sequoyah. That is '
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 1
31663.0 brt 38 i'
i stated in the TER.
. i<$>a 2 MR. EBNETER: That is our TER you are. talking 3 about?
4 MR. FOX: Yes.
5 MR. FITZPATRICK: At this point -- as I said 6 earlier, at this point there is no disagreement. The TER's 7 conclusion and our task Jorce conclusion are identical at 8 this points.
9 MR. EBNETER: I would tend to agree with you, 10 then. If all the insulation was pulled in accordance with 11 pull cards and'they all had potentiometers on them or break
. 12 links or something, then you would say there is very little (Y)- 13 probability of any damage to any of the cables, and why are 14 we going through this big rigamarole.
15 MR. FITZPATRICK: I don't know that answer. I 16 asked that same question.
17 MR. TOMAN: Gary Toman from Franklin Research. I 18 would like to take the conclusions -- the first TER listed 19 there -- are your conclusions from reading the book rather 20 than what we have written as conclusions? Your insulation 21 was under control is not a statement from my TER.
22 MR. FITZPATRICK: I think that's probably 1
~
23 correct. These are intended to be summaries and our I i
- 'r i l '39
- 24 interpretation of what it said; yes, sir. l l
25 MR. TOMAN: But our TER does not say the l l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 !
31663.0 brt 39 1 insulation was under control. We put down, in fact, that G3a
%v 2 that was not clear. Your interpretations from reading the 3 book, those are your conclusions and nottmy technical 4 conclusions.
5 MR. FITZPATRICK: What we'are saying is we are 6 able to substantiate these conclusions from what we found and 7 saw and any other conclusion you can't make.
8 MR. LIAW: You put that down as a TER conclusion 9 as if our consultant concluded that.
10 MR. FITZPATRICK: There's no quotation marks 11 around there.
, 12 MR. LIAW: It is under the title "TER 6)/ - 13 conclusion."
~
How else can anyone interpret that? -
14 MR. FITZPATRICK: This is --
15 MR. LIAW: You say the title is "TER 16 conclusions." You are saying that. How could anyone 17 interpret it otherwise?
18 MR. FITZPATRICK: This isn't intended to be a 19 direct cuote from the TER. This is intended to.be the task 20 force evaluation of the TER and the conclusion that we think 21 that the TER arrived at.
22 MR. LIAW: The record shows that our consultant !
l 23 disagrees with the statement there. j
'[h 24 MR. FITZPATRICK: The other areas in the TER, 25 besides the additional testing issue, which is one we are ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage M336-6646 l
_ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ - - - - _ . _ - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - - ------------d
i 31663.0 i brt 40 1 saying that we wonder why we are doing, as Mr. Ebneter said, Sh
$C# 2 if anything is right here why are we doing that and also the 3 TER represents industry consensus --
4 MR. ZWOLINSKI: Hold it a second. I think we just 5 got through saying that we disagree with those statements.
6 There are problems with installation was under control at l 7 similar nuclear sites. Our consultant has just said that.
1 i
8 MR. LIAW: If our conclusions say that, why'the 9 hell are we asking people to do that kind of thing? In 10 essence, constitution's question. And our consultant just 11 stood up to say they disagreed with your statement there.
12 MR. FITZPATRICK: My intent -- this is --
13 NR. EENETER: Let us move on. I think you 1
l 14 understand that we don't agree that the installation was j l
15 under control. That is the whole basis of this.
1 16 MR. FOX: That is not our governing light here 17 either. I think we know why we are doing this program. We 18 have this program because we have allegations and employee 19 concerns that said there was a high probability that we had ;
i 20 some installation damage.
l 21 We are not going back to argue whether or not we l 22 I have it. We are setting out a test program to by God find 23 out if we have it or not. Okay?
g, Qs) 24 MR. LIAW: That's right.
25 MR. ZWOLINSKI: Thank you.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-34'-3700 Nationwide Coverage . 800-336-6616
y- ,
I 31663.0 brt 41 1]
1 (Slide.)
(F) wV -2 MR. FITZPATRICK: The next thing that we are 3 doing, and, again, just for clarification, we are building a 4 test program and this is where this is going.
5 What this is is analysis of testing that was done f l
6 by TVA, and the in-place tests were conducted at 240 volts 1
l l 7 per mil; tests for one conduit for vertical damage, where it' 8 came through an LV or condulet; and the worst case was 9 selected.
10 The cable construction is a single conductor 6700 11 volt number 14 AWG 45 mil silicone rubber insulation with 40 12 mil asbestos braid.
13 Again, this is what we are really talking about.
14 This is a similar thing.
15 We have the copper conductor in the center. We 16 have silicon insulation. This is the black asbestos braid. q I
17 When you remove the braid, this is a sample of the j 1
18 insulated conductor. This is the impair silicon. This is 3 19 covered with this.
l 20 This is what we are trying to describe here.
J 21 There are 16 of these in a conduit.
22 The acceptance criteria that was used was that 23 these cables be conducted from conducters to ground. We hold l kf) 24 the test voltage of 10.8 kV, which is the 240 volts / mil, DC l
25 for five minutes.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- - , - u_m m_ --- >
31663.0 brt 42 1 Below here we are summarizing the outcome.
f%
%.9 ,
2 First of all, it is worthy of note that none of 3 these cables failed in service. The area that we were 4 testing, and maybe we could just bounce back and forth for a 5 second.
6 (Slide.)
l l 7 This is an isometric of the cable test that we 8 were doing. What is really being looked at, you see these 9 cables dropped from condulets up here, down here and also 10 these cables come down through a condulet here.
11 The purpose of the test was to see if the cables
. 12 were damaged at this point and at that point, which is kind
' p/
Vu 13 of off the screen.
1 l 14 Can we come back to the first one again?
15 (Slide.)
16 MR. THUE: Bill, do we -- in this case were all 16 i 17 cables tested at the same time or was this one being tested 18 and 15 grounded?
19 MR. FITZPATRICK: Tim, would you answer that?
20 MR. SHEA: Tim Shea. The answer to your question 21 is each one was tested individually to the other 15 22 grounded.
23 MR. THUE: Thank you.
A Bdp 24 MR. FITZPATRICK: Again, the outcome was there was 25 no breakdown at the condulets; and these are letters D and B ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-__ un - --
31663.0 brt 43 1 of the two condulets that were being tested.
l
?%
'QV - 2 MR. ZWOLINSKI: Are you looking right at the bend 3 of the condulet?
4 MR. FOX: You might explain how you physically did 5 the test.
6 MR. SHEA: You are saying did the test look right 7 at the point of the bend? The concern here is at point B, 8 which is a T condulet, eight of the 16 cables running.
9 vertically turn horizontally at point B. The other eight.run 10 vertically and turn horizontal at point D.
11 The concern was that either at point D or B, right
. 12 at that point, that due to the cables having b'een rested on
,y UC); 13 the " sharp" inside edge of the condulet there could have been 14 conductor migration, that the conductor could have migrated 15 toward the condulet. That was the intent of the tests to 16 test at those points whether we have a reduced insulation 17 wall thickness at that point; right at condulet at point B 18 and the other condulet at point D.
19 (slide.)
20 MR. FITZPATRICK: What the result of this test was l
21 that there were four anomalies. located in the horizontal j 22 section of the conduit.
I 23 There was one breakdown at 10.8 kV, which was the !
.g Qg7 24 test voltage that was being used, after one minute. There l i
25 was one breakdown at 7.5 kV. And there was one breakdown at l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ;
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 brt 44 1 10.0 kV. And there was one cable that existed higher than 9h (hF 2 normal' leakage current; however, it successfully passed the 3 test and held a 10.8 kV for five minutes.
4 MR. EBNETER: Breakdown means what? Excess of I 5_ leakage current or an actual arching across the insulation?
6 MR. FITZPATRICK: Actual arcing across the 7 situation.
8 MR. EBNETER: With subsequent charge of the 9 insulation?
10 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes, sir.
11
% ,. L S l i d e . )
. 12 What this is showing is that the cables 1 and 3 --
6%
' ~d 13 this is showing the locations were about in that area and the 14 cable 2 was over here.
15 So, really again just to run through this we were 16 testing for a problem here and.here.and the test actually 17 broke down cables in this area and this area.
18 Next slide. !
l 19 (Slide.) ,
20 The cables that were involved in this in situ test 21 were removed and sent to the University of Connecticut for 22 analysis. The test program or the analysis program that the 23 University of Connecticut conducted is outlined in this i 40 i lif 24 slide.
l 25 Essentially there were four cables from the test; !
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646. j J
31663.0 brt 45 j 1 ,the three that failed in the breakdown and the one that
^
Sh
'60 2 exhibited the high leakage plus one installed cable with 3 identical construction, same purchase order, to be used as a 4 base case.
5 As you can sea listed below here there are a 6 number of physical and electrical tests conducted on the 7 samples that were sent back.
1 8 (Slide.)
1 i
9 On the next slide --
l 10 MR. ZWOLINSKI: Could we stay on that just for a 11 second?
- . 12 MR. FITZPATRICK: Surely.
(Sh " '
13 MR. ZWOLINSKI: That looks like the focus of the 14 University of Connecticut with the materials properties and 15 composition of the cable.
1 16 Are the last two dedicated to more mechanical I 17 issues? Or failure due to mechanical stresses?
18 MR. FITZPATRICK: I'm not sure I understand the 19 question.
)
J 20 MR. ZWOLINSKI: The way I am reading some of those 21 bullets it appears that you have asked the University of 22 Connecticut to perform a program to ascertain the quality of l
23 the cable. l
$3d 24 MR. FITZPATRICK: That is correct.
25 MR. RAUGHLEY: You are right. The purpose of the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- m am mm _ m ,_ _ _~- ,i
31663.0 !
brt 46 ,
1 last two tests was to be sure that once they had removed the R
Mb' 2 faulty sections that the rest of the cable was good. In 3 other words, to be sure they had the whole problem; so what !
4 they did was they removed the faulty section and then the 5 balance of the cable was tested to make sure that they found i
6 the problem.
7 MR. LIAW: The thrust of John's question was 8 whether or not you asked them to assess the root cause of the 9 problem; in essence, to make -- what you have asked them to 10 do, in essence --
11 MR. RAUGHLEY: They were to provide us with test
. 12 results and observations, and the task force was to draw the G.)
\;/ 13 final conclusions.
14 MR. LIAW: Conclusions on what?
15 MR. FITZPATRICK: On the test results and ,
i 16 observations.
17 MR. LIAW: Does that include the cause of the i
18 problem? Potential mechanical damages? I 19 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
20 MR. LIAW: The reason I'm asking you this question 21 -- let me tell you why I am asking this question. My 22 understanding was, they are very good in counting, but in 23 terms of field installation their experience is somewhat
-w (s) 24 limited. That is the report I received.
25 I guess the thrust of John's question was whether l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
> = m mm s,m~~~ _ ___
q 31663.0 brt 47
'l or not the University of Connecticut people are able to make rua Eh! 2 an assessment in terms of the physical damage and cause of 3 it.
4 I hope at some point in time someone can answer 5 that.
6 MR. FOX: They will. )
i 7 MR. FITZPATRICK: The University of Connecticut 8 was not asked to make an assessment of the cause of the 9 damage, what really caused the damage to occur. Our task 10 force did that.
11 MR. LIAW: I heard from some telephone 12 conversation that subsequent to that you asked them to
.n CY' 13 reproduce the type of damage they had seen in those four 14 cables.
15 MR. FITZPATRICK: We will get to that in a )
16 second. The University of Connecticut didn't do that, but we ;
i 17 will get to that in a second.
18 MR. LIAW: By the way, is anybody here from the 19 University of Connecticut? I 20 MR. RAUGHLEY: Why don't you explain that, why ;
I 21 they aren't here?
l 22 MR. FITZPATRICK: We have tried to assemble as 23 many of the task force mentioned here, and in the ' audience is cms i l ggp 24 essentially every task force member with the exception of Ted i 25 Balaska, who is at an IEEE summer power meeting; and Ronnie
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-66*6
i 31663.0 '
brt 48 ;
1- . Luther is a second person who is at the summer power meeting, kh 2 presenting a paper and is unable to be here today and. j I
3 Dr. Mashikian and the representatives from the University of 4 Connecticut where the school was out and so forth, this is 5 the time where they take their vacations, we just couldn't 6 convince them to come here.
I 7 MR. FAUGHLEY: They were not allowed to 8 participate on the, task force. They could'only participate o as an adviser, consultant to the task force.
10 MR. LIAW: The reason I was asking if they are 11 here is whether or not they can be sure that the information 12 by you is exactly what they told you.
(?v2.7 13 MR. FITZPATRICK: They are not here today.
l 14 MR. MARINOS: Ask them to read the transcrip't.
15 MR. CANTRELL: When the report comes in it will 16 bear the signatures that they reviewed it and agree.
17 MR. LIAW: Let me be frank about it. When our 1
- 18 consultant asked them about what happened with what appears 1
19 to be physical damage during examination, the answer was they l
20 were not able to determine that until it was pointed out to 21 them, and they said, ch.
22 MR. FITZPATRICK: We were also able to l 23' reproduce --
m jg 24 MR. EBNETER: It doesn't make any difference. If 25 the cable exhibits these anomalies, it was either i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 brt 49 1 manufacturing or pulling it through the conduits or
,;w.
f Gj 2 something. It doesn't meet specification, and that is what i
\
3 you are looking for to get back to a fault mechanism.
4 Speaking of the University of Connecticut report, 5 when is that due? We are making a lot of judgments here on 6 the report that apparently isn't produced yet. )
j 7 MR. RAUGHLEY: They have given us a preliminary 8 copy.
I 9 MR. EBNETER: Do you have a draft copy? !
10 MR. FOX: Do you have a draft copy? We will l 11 provide you a copy of the final report. We will be happy to 12 furnish a copy of the draft.
t?
t;S i 13 MR. RAUGELEY: That will be submitted with the 14 submittal.
15 MR. EBNETER: We would like to see the draft as 16 soon as possible so we can get a look at it.
17 MR. FITZPATRICK: There's one point I omitted.
18 When the tests is going on several members of the task force 19 went down to the University of Connecticut and the testing 20 and results, so we are speaking from actual, in-place 21 observations and not just the report. So several of the 22 members of the task force were also involved at the 23 University of Connecticut.
(ih 24 MR. MARINOS: Was there a destructive test 25 conducted on the good portion also?
d ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3 31663.0 brt 50 1 , MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
?mEl 2 MR. AXELRAD: Jane Axelrad from special projects.
3 When will the final report be finished? When do you expect 4 to get it?
5 MR. RAUGHLEY: Right now the task force 6 anticipates having the report finished from the University of 7 Connecticut.
8 MR. RAUGHLEY: Approximately the 24th of July.
9 MR. FOX: We will get back to you when we finish, 10 and we will furnish you a copy of the draft report.
11 MR. ZWOLINSKI: We have will take a five-minute 12 break.
fih 13 m:- (Recess.)
14 MS. MC KENNA: We can go back on the record now.
15 MR. FITZPATRICK: Just for the sake of 16 clarification, the University of Connecticut -- I think wo 17 decided to leave the lights on -- the University of 18 Connecticut was asked to do tests and make observations.
19 (Slide.)
! 20 The ca'ble task force actually drew the conclusions 21 of what caused the damage and so forth so that the expertise 22 in terms of the insulation-type damage truly was in the 23 design area rather than the laboratory area.
g),[.y 24 This is an outline of the results of the 25 University of Connecticut. I think I just want to tell you ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 brt 51 1 the highlights here.
p.
-47 2 They observed minor protrusions from the asbestos 3 braid. I guess I'm kind of glad that the light is on.
4 If you look at the sample that we have got around 5 someplace, if you look there is like a little thread sticking 1 6 up. That is the kind of protrusion -- the light is a good i
. l 7 way to look at them, you can see them -- that is th, kind of 8 thing that they noticed.
9 They also noticed -- J 10 MR. LIAW: Excuse me, what caused that?
11 MR. FITZPATRICK: What I am going to do here is
. 12 tell you what they found, and then I will tell you what our l
f3%
'- 13 conclusions were. I will do that in a minute.
14 I can tell you the installation caused it, but it 15 is not an unusual occurrence.
16 MR. LIAW: Okay. I am sorry.
17 MR. FITZPATRICK: There were black imprints on the 18 insulation and -- for those not familiar with those terms --
l 19 this is inside. This is the insulation and this is the l
20 jacket material.
l 21 There were black imprints on the insulation j 22 surface and these were imprints from the braid saturant -- in 23 other words, the saturant used in the jacket.
m hl) 24 There was surface crazing noted on ,the test 25 specimens. These define where they were.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
- - ________ _ 7 31663.0 ^
brt 52 1 (Slide.)
fih N# 2 On the next slide you see they found that there 3 were also discontinuities at the conductor to insulation 4 interface in a number of the samples.
5 (Slide.) t 6 The task force -- and this is the task force :
7 review of the UCONN results. What the task force concluded l 8 is that the jacket anomalies -- the little protrusions on the 9 jacket -- are not unusual for installed brai.ded cables and 10 therefore there is no significance to that.
11 The imprints caused by the braid imprint is also
. 12 not unusual for this kind of cable and is of no
-> 13 significance.
l 14 The surface crazing and this is again the little l
l 15 minor imperfections that were noted, the surface crazing and 16 the damage that was at the conductor to insulation interface 17 -- again, if you look at the end of this the conductor is the 18 copper in the middle, :Pis is the insulation, so we are 19 talking about at that interface between the insulation and 20 the conductor. This was highly localized. As you can-see 21 these are cables 1, 2 and 3 in the breakdown areas.
22 The breakdown of the cable 33 and high leakage 23 from cable 4 appeared to be caused or was caused by the s
(QJ 24 surface imperfection and the insulation damage near the 25 conductor. In other words it was a combination of the l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 -
31663.0 brt 53 1 surface crazing and these cuts near the conductor on the Q
\UP 2 insulation and the breakdown of these cables was caused by a 3 combination of the surface imperfection, the imperfection at 4 the conductor insulation and the test voltage that was 5 applied.
6 The surface crazing on cable number 1 was not 7 significant in that there was no interior damage. Again 8 interior is at the conductor to insulation interface, so on 9 that one there was no inside damage. On cable 2, there was l 10 little surface crazing or no surface crazing and no interior i
11 damage. .Okay?
. 12 Therefore the actual breakdown, the test involved l i7h LA' 13 resulted in the breakdown of the cable.
14 When we analyzed this phenomena, it appeared as 15 though the surface crazing and the damage inside is caused by.
16 an impact damage. This actual]y was reproduced in an 17 informal test of taking a sample of the cable and hitting it 18 with a hammer. They were actually able to reproduce in an 19 informal test, but not with the University of Connecticut, 20 and consequently as a result of the informal test a more 21 formal test was done by TVA and actually the same kind of 22 damage that was observed at the University of Connecticut was 1 23 reproduced with this impact-type damage.
in Gjp 24 MR. EBNETER: This is the internal damage?
25 MR. FITZPATRICK: This is both. The impact damage ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347;3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 i brt 54 I 1 actually caused -- I may have gone a little fast here. l
??)
e' 2 In the areas where the internal damage was, there 3 was also this crazing on the outside. So there was crazing 4 on the outside and internal damage in that area.
5 The test, the impact damage test that -- hit it ]
i!
6 with a hammer type test was able to reproduce both the 7 outside damage and the inside damage.
8 MR. THUE: Bill Thue. Is your point, then, that . ,
l 9 the cables that failed were impact -- impact occurred during 10 their installation or after? Or did you draw such a 11 conclusion?
. 12 MR. FITZPATRICK: The conclusion that -- well, 63
' 2 means have been used to incur the same damage? The original 3 diagnosis of this was that it was very similar, indeed, to 4 pulling over a corner. 4 5 MR. FITZPATRICK: Whose original diagnosis?
6 MR. GARDNER: Mine. At UConn. I was told )
7 informally and that is why I was going to ask the question i 8 whether the task force had evaluated whether, in fact, j 9 pulling over a corner under tension and with friction -- not 10 around some smooth corner but around a rough corner where you 11 have a lot oggehear forces, would not incur the same kind of g U
- 12 damage on the surface as well as inside? That has been my l l d74
'C
i 13 own observation in the past. It seemed a very logical j 14 explanation for what has happened here.
!i 15 In view of the fact that four out of four -- three l
16 out of the four of the troubles have all occurred immediately ;
17 adjacent to a sharp corner, it suggests it's more than being 1 11 18 able to arrange impacts on the floor to coincide at what are !!
- i
')
i 19 later sharp-cornered Ts. I i
20 MR. FITZPATRICK: I will let Paul Cardello answer ;
I 21 you in just a second because he is more of an expert on 22 silicon.
23 You will have to take my word for this, but I am a k 24 reputable person. The point is that when this thing first 25 occurred, Paul Cardello was down there and reviewed this ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i mm- ma_m m_ --
m _ - -
31663.0 l brt 59 !
1 thing. He came back to us and told us that this was impact 1.?1
' ; p' 2 damage. Okay? This was his immediate conclusion when he 3 . observed the outside crazing and inside damage.
4 That is what prompted the informal test to be done 5 and later the formal test, was because of his conclusion. So 6 this wasn't a matter of let's dream up a story and see what-7 happens. Tnis was a matter of our consultants feeling was it l 8 was impact damage and we were able to reproduce it.
]
9 MR. CARDELLO: You mentioned the test was run 10 under considerable tension to the point where it caused very 11 obvious damage to the surface of the braid, where it was 12 rubbed around the corner, indicating that its condition was i l'% .
1/ 13 much more severe than the observations made in the faulted 14 area by the University of Connecticut and it was interesting 15 to note that, indeed, the surface crazing phenomena was noted 16 but absolutely no case of the anomaly next to the conductor.
17 It is a fact.
18 Whereas, on the other hand, impact damage would 19 not necessarily render -- give you an immediate visual j 20 observation of a problem because of the fibrous nature of the !
21 braid but did, indeed, produce both phenomena: That is, the 22 surface phenomena and the anomalies next to the conductor.
23 MR. EENETER: Let me clarify this. You tell me {
+~
Tjp 24 you did two informal tests, one a cable pulling test over a j 25 rough edge, and it did not produce the types of defects ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6666
31663.0 brt 60 1 noticed by the University of Connecticut and then you did
.fB V* 2 another set of tests, an impact, hit it with a hemmer or 3 something and that did reproduce the effects noticed by the 4 University of Connecticut; is that right?
5 MR. CARDELLO: I said the impacts reproduced both 6 conditions.
7 MR. EBNETER: But you did do both sets of tests?
8 Both cable pulling and impact?
9 MR. CARDELLO: That's correct.
10 MR. GARDNER: Are those going to be covered in the 11 Connecticut report?
. 12 MR. FITZPATRICK: Actually the informal tests were i ,, 4 v 13 done by Tim Brown so they are not in the University of 14 Connecticut report.
15 MR. RAUGHLEY: The final submittal will have those l
16 reports.
17 MR. FITZPATRICK: They will. I'm sorry.
i 18 MS. AXELRAD: Other plants at the cable at the 240 l
l 19 volts per mil level. Are you aware of any results of those 20 tests that have shown some damage to the cables like you have 21 seen here?
22 Have you looked at what other damage was found for 23 plants tested at those voltage?
l 24 MR. SHEA: Do we know of any plants tested at 240 25 volts per mil?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33f>6646 w___-_-__-________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _
I 31663.0 brt 61 1 MR. FITZPATRICK: On the record, what our approach n
Op 2 is, is that the industry standards, which we are trying to 3 align with, do not define 240 volts per mil to be a test 4 voltage that is used for low voltage cables?
5 If somebody has done a test at this number --
6 really I am not aware of it. I would -- I would be sure 7 there is some --
8 MR. LIAW: We were told by TVA tests were done for 9 cables ranging for 30' mil to 60 mil. For 30 mil cable the 10 average voltage would be 267 volts per mil.
1 11 MR. RAUGHLEY: That's correct in the copy of the 12 report we have.
( 13 MR. LIAW: Are you not aware of this information?
l 14 MR. FITZPATRICK: I am not aware of that 15 information; no. It is not pertinent to my discussion, to be l
16 honest with you. I am not surprised people could do those I l 17 tests but that is really not pertinent to this discussion. ;
1 18 MS. AXELRAD: I guess my question was it might be l
19 usable to look and see if other plants have tested these type {
20 of cables at this type of voltage, it might be useful to see 21 what their results were and whether they have observed damage 22 like you have obse rved in these cables to see whether there l 23 is any similarities and what they determined the causes to jp 24 be.
25 MR. FITZPATRICK: To answer your question, our ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 I
___x-_.. _ - - _ ---_--_--------_----.J
. t 31663.0 brt 62 l
1 . task force has not done that research to do that. However, I m
O?.) 2 think it is also worthy to note -- and it seeras like we are 3 going on an assupmtion that the higher the test voltage is 4 the better it is. We are going to show a little later on 5 that isn't necessarily true.
6 MS. AXELRAD: You are trying to show the voltage ,
7 1]
at which you tested it was not -- that you didn't need to
, 8 test it at that voltage level. You are making certain i
9 conclusions on the' damage that you observed.
1 10 I<think that what has been found at other plants, 11 if you are going to try to convince us that you want to be 12 able.to test it at a lower voltage it might be relevant to
)0 1
1 v 13 see what othler plants have done and what they found.
14 MR. FITZPATRICK: We do have some information. I 15 don't know -- we have done some research. I don't know if we 1
16 have it ava.i.lable today or not but we have done research to 17 show that we have found damaged cables at lower test voltage la levels. That kind of information -- we are looking for that j l '
19 and compiling that.
20 MR. RAUGHLEY: I shared that at the beginning of I 21 my discussion. I poi.nted up that some people had responded 22 that-they had identified problems with a 500 volt measure as 23 typical -- as a result of using industry testing.
(h 24 MR. EBNETER: Excuse me, they didn.'t test --
25 MR. RAUGHLEY: It's gross damage.
ACE.FEDERA). REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 t______________________. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________m
31663.0' l' brt 63 1 MR. EBNETER: All that will show you is the cable 6% '
'ei? ,
2 is wet.
3 I'm a little curious. All these four cables that 4 we are talking about did have this impact-type defect?
5 MR. FITZPATRICK: No.
6 MR. EBNETER: Three out of four*/
7 MR. FITZPATRICK: That's right.
8 MR. EBNETER: The one that didn't have it is the 9 one that had the high leakage? .
10 MR. FITZPATRICK: See, breakdown of cable 3, and 11 the high leakage from 4 caused by -- so these two cables had
, 12 4 'both. Okay? That was the surface crazing and the internal 13 damage.
14 Cable number 1 had minor surface crazing but 15 nothing on the interior portions. And cable 2 had neither.
16 MR. MARINOS: You know your reference ground is.
17 not the same. You can't tell how the cables were approaching 18 { the conduit in order to make any extrapolation about anything 19 beyond the failed cables.
l 20 You tested 16 cables.- You don't know where they 21 were standing. There may have been flooding in between the 22 conduit and you will never find them so I don't know what 23 conclusions you can reach. You can only say for a fact that hh 24 three of the cables failed catastrophically at the level you 25 were testing or lower. The ones that passed you can't make a ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
,7,y , , , ,
i , .g R- ,
31663.0 >
y"' J i j brt 64 1 conclusion because,you don't know how close they were to a h (W> " '
2 ground.
a l 2 i
'1 '
Y3 MR. THUE: You didn't test the 12 so-called good
,a
[
t4".
gables in water after removal, did you? l 5,g !q 5 MR. FITZPATRICK: Not to my knowledge.
y i i
6 MR. RAUGHLEY: We didn't remove it. ;
4 s 7 i /. ,15R.'THUE:.
I want to be sure Ior the record -- i
. ., ., w .,
m a
, x 6 Bill"S$e that there is nd possibility that the damage' J i T l A
- , ,gs g 7 -
l 9' fthat- ;,you.saw had anything to dom with the test voltage?o You jp >.
( 10 are riotMnferring that, are you? )
i g ~
i 11 MR. FITZPATRICK: Well, yes. But not in the sjnse ]
b
, 12 you are asking the question. ,
A,e 13 O,bviously the failure was caused by the voltage.
- i. ,-
t t .
14 MR.'THUE: But the impact damage, was that done by )
o , , j 15 the'tust' volt' age? '
- ; i 16 MR. FITZPATRICK
- Oh, no. Oh, no. ;
17 MR. THUE: It seemed to be one of the questions, 18 was the damage caused by the high voltage? ~
I just hope the g
19 answer is -- "
20 %
MR. FOX: We said it was a combination of high 21 vtStage,and damage to the cable.
9c 22 s.
MR. THUE: We tended to sort of schmeer the two !
' v,;
2q-
.a
,tbgether, l m. 1 0 t l Qp 241 ,' MR. FITZPATRICK: There's surface and cuts near 25 the conductor. When the cuts broke down from the voltage 4
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,; INCT y -
q f9 ]. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80M366646
. li'_: -
_ 7 --
31663.0 !
brt 65 !!
l 1 they actually put a little hole in the cable. What we are ih I l Iv 2 saying is that voltage breakdown obviously was caused by a 3 voltage, without talking about the level. And it was caused 4 by these imperfections in the insulation.
3 MR. LIAW: There is some problem in the use of 6 terminology here. You have to check the leakage test or 7 something -- put water in there -- water will start a leak. ,
l
- 8. Water does not cause the leak. It is whatever damage, a j i
9 pinhole or whatever was there in the first place. I think we )
i 10 are asking the question why --
l l
11 MR. FITZPATRICK: Again the surface crazing and t
12 damage against the insulation was not caused by the voltage.
I 6Ih w. 13 MR. LIAW: The question w.as whether or not the
)
l 14 voltage cautioned the damage?
I 15 MR. FITZPATRICK: Surface crazing on the conductor
{
16 and the surface to conductor interface damage was not caused i 17 by the voltage, whatever its level was. Okay? The actual 18 break down, the electrical break down was caused by the 19 voltage because there is nothing else there.
20 Yes, sir? I 21 MR. GOODWIN: Ed Goodwin, TVA staff.
22 Going.back to the data on the page before, before 23 we leave this, there is a listing of insulation -- remaining
- x. .
- 3) 24 insulation thickness at the cottom of the page.
25 I want to be clear in my own mind. These are ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ;
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0- '
brt 66 l 1 points where there was damage that did not fail? 12 mils?
kh- 2 10 mils? 8 mile?
I 3 These are po'ints of different continuity in cable I 4 4 that did not fail during testing? l 5 MR. SHEA: This is Tim Shea. I can answer that 6 question. Cable 4 is the cable that existed the high leaksge 7 current but which did not have a breakdown during the test.
8 MR. GOODWIN: So we can assume that 8 mil of 9 intact insulation is sufficient to survive the test?
10 MR. FITZPATRICK: You could infer that from this, 11 yes.
. 12 MR. SHEA: At a point, yes.
13 MR. GARDNER: Another question regarding 14 terminology and the implication of stress.
l 15 In your chart of insulation walls going from 60 to 16 30, for silicone rubber that we had a.few minutes ago, you 17 talk about jackets, overall and individual; and you talk ;
18 about jackets here in the sense of braids. i 19 Do you, in that chart, also, are you calling 20 jackets what actually are braids?
21 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
I l 22 MR. GARDNER: Jackets in both cable terminology {
23 are excluded things that have some electrical and moisture 44r i ggp 24 protecting and mechanical properties. Braids are strictly l 25 mechanical. That is a very significant difference.
l
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202 347 3700 Netionwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
7 ,
31663.0l ;l brt 67 1 , MR. FITZPATRICK: This is a jacket in the ki:/ 2 terminology I am using. -
3 MR. GARDNER: Is that also the terminology.being 4 used in this table?
5 MR. FITZPATRICK: Sure, in the silicon cable, 6 yes. I 7 MR. LING: I am Ting Ling. As far as silicone 8 rubber is concerned, a braid can be considered as a jacket.
9 okay? This industry hasn't changed for 50, 60 years. It is 10 the terminology.
11 MR. GARDNER: I have seen silicon cables without 12 jackets, king -- i (D;i o 13 MR. FITZPATRICK: What he is saying is that a 14 braid is considered a jacket in his' experience.
1 ,
15 MS. AXELRAD: Are you suggesting if you tested 16 these cables at a lower voltage it would have passed the 17 test?
1-18 MR. FITZPATRICK: No. i I
i 19 MR. LIAW: It wouldn't have?
l 20 MR. FITZPATRICK: It may have. I don't know.
I 21 The question is: Are we trying to come up with a voltage l 22 that will pass, no matter what is wrong with the cables? The i
23 answer to that is definitely no. And whether the voltages we ;
1 . l l yy! 24 propose would have broken this cable down or not, I don't 25 know that answer. We haven't done that kind of testing.
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage ' 800 336-6646
31663.0 brt 68 1 MR. CANTRELL: The reverse of that is rather the Ps Vs# 2 test we are talking about. We are proposing a set of 3 voltages in a dry condition, that we say if it will pass that 4 test, there may be degradations in the cable but if it should 5 pass that test it would be suitable for the intended service, 6 the way it is being applied. That is all we are saying.
7 MR. LOVELESS: Excuse me, I am David Loveless.
8 Are you saying the three damaged cables and the 9 one that had a high leakage rate, has an acceptable amount of l
10 damage? Is that your conclusion at this point?
11 MR. FITZPATRICK: We don't know that answer l 4 12 because in the area where the actual breakdown occurred, the O
(i) 13 insulation was damaged because of the breakdown. Don't put 1
14 the wrong connotation on that.
15 When you blow a hole in there it is all carbonized 16 so the evidence was really destroyed during the test, so you 17 couldn't really draw that conclusion that you are looking 18 at. I just don't know that answer.
19 MR. GOODWIN: Edward Goodwin again. The remaining l 20 mil thickness of 8, 10 and 12, you would consider acceptable 21 for intended service for this particular cable?
22 MR. RAUGELEY: Yes. We will be addressing that at 23 the end of the discussion.
hh) 24 MR. ZWOLINSKI: I appreciate your time in going 25 through the University of Connecticut. Perhaps you want to ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
d a
31663.0 brt 69 h
1 move on to program development. l
@)
w 2 (Slide.)
3 Again, the task force, looking at the TER, the 4 University of Connecticut results. What we have done here is 5 the scope of the task force is to address pullbys and pullbys 6 are installing cables into conduits that already'have cables; 7 jamming is when the three have the same diameter as the pipe E and the jamming is the other and we are looking at 600 volt 9 power, 600 volt control and 300 volt instrument. The medium l
10 cables did not meet the criteria.
i 11 Mr. Cantrell, I think already mentioned this --
. 12 what we are doing is looking at the visibility of the cable.
/Ph i E3# 13 What that means is that on the 600 volt rated power cables, l 14 they are really only rated at 480 volts AC; the control 15 cables that are rated 600 volts are really operated at 120 16 volts AC, and the instrument cables that are rated 300 volts l 17 axe operated at 50 volts AC. l 18 The approach we are using here is not an unusual 1 i
19 approach. In fact, 383, the qualification standard, says l 20 that you only have to qualify the cables for its performance 21 characteristics.
l l
22 In other words, if I use the 5 kV cable on a 600 !
23 volt application, I certainly don't have to qualify that
/.In I is? 24 cable for 5 kV service. I will only have to show it will 25 operate in a 600 kV application and we are using a similar ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
nn_ ~~- - ~ . - ,.
31663.0 brt 70 J
1 approach here. I'm using a 600 volt cable when I could have (Q
c' 2 used a 300 volt cable; I'm using a 300 volt cable when I 3 could have used a much lower voltage cable.
4 What we are looking at here is what are the 5 performance characteristics of the system that we are talking 6 about?
\
7 Plant life extension, also, when we have a plant' 8 that we want to extend the life of, beyond, say, the 40 9 years, it actually looks at this kind of thing when you have 10 margin in the cable and you have, say, the cable is really a 1] 90 degree C-rated cable but the cable really only operates at l
. 12 40 or 50 degrees like in the case of control cables, that you
/3a E/ 13 can use that to your advantage'to say that that translates 14 into a longer life and essentially, I can use that added 1
15 margin that is put in to extend the life of the cable.
16 The objectives of the task force, and I think in 17 this indication the objectives are identical to the NRC's 18 objectives, and that is in the area of nuclear safety. We 19 certainly have the same concerns therein that our tests 20 requirements are to ensure the cable integrity and to avoid 21 -- but on the other side of the fence -- to avoid inducing 22 any unnecessary damage to otherwise sound cables. l 1
23 This is the story as we are going to try to
? :.
Q:i; 24 approach it. , i l
l 25 MR. LIAW: I take strong objection to your last. 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j u mwm ~n~_ ---
I 31663.0 brt 71 1 statement: To avoid induced damage.
h l
- / 2 You so far have not produced any piece of evidence j h
3 to show that 200 volt DC is causing damage to this cable.
4 MR. FITZPATRICK: I'm sorry, we haven't gotten to 5 what you are trying to get to yet, but this right here is 6 exactly what testing philosophy is. You test to assure that 7 the cable is okay. However, you don't test to damage the 8 cable. You don't test for destruction.
9 MR. LIAW: Let me ask you a question here. To 10 what extent have you read the entployee concerns?
11 MR. FITZPATRICK: I have not read employee
. 12 concerns. i
()
13 MR. LIAW: Do you know what is the objective of ,
i 14 the testing, to start with?
15 MR. FITZPATRICK: Let me take that back. The l l
16 employee concerns I am familiar with are the employee 17 concerns outlined in the TER. I have read the TER. I have l
18 not read all of the employee concerns, i
19 MR. EBNETER: That's all right. We don't have to 20 discuss employee concerns. We know this came from that.
1 21 I think it is generally accepted in the electrical 22 area that you do get cumulative damage on the cable 23 insulation of repetitive applications of voltages. Is that c:.
Wdf 24 not true, Mr. Ling? You generally do induce damages over a 25 period of time by repetitive applications of stress to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~
1
, j 31663.0 brt 72 1 , cables?
l f% l M) 2 MR. LING: Oh, yes.
]
4 3 MR. EBNETER: So I can understand your
- 4 philosophy. I don't have any questions on that. !
5 Did you have a question?
i 6 MS. AXELRAD: If the tests that you are talking I 7 about and the levels you are talking about are adequate to 8 ensure cable integrity, why didn't TVA suggest that or why l
l 9 didn't you do that in the first place? Why are we~ coming in 10 now after the cables have failed the test and trying to' 11 change the test? Why isn't this the test that was proposed l l
12 orig.'.nally? j (h 13 MR. FOX: We didn't propose the right test i
14 originally and we take the fault for that. We have gone out
]
1 15 and taken a fundamental relook at the cable testing program. !
4 16 We weren't sure that we weren't inducing damage. We weren't 17 sure that we were doing the right thing we went and solicited )
i 18 the expertise from eight industry people, cable consultants, ;
19 code experts, to find out if we were in fact doing the right ,
20 kind of testing.
21 The fact that we had failures on the vertical --
22 the long runs of vertically unsupported cable inside 23 containment led us to go back and take a relook at the whole 24 test program.
t[f) 25 I said in my opening remarks that I wished that we ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202'347 3700 . Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 brt 73 ,
1 had taken this in-depth a look at this earlier. If we had we vo 2 wouldn't have had to come back today.
3 MS. AXELRAD: I think the problem that BD had and 4 you just addressed, is that some of what you are saying is 5 suggestive that the test voltages that were applied to these I
6 cables was inducing damage in the cable or would induce 7 damage in the cable.
8 MR. FOX: Again, in my opening remarks I pointed l 9 out that we weren't here to try to show that we had in fact I 10 induced damage. It is a very complicated phenomena. It is l 11 debated. Technically it is very difficult to prove that.
. 12 We have no hard evidence. We do know that hard 13 vc1tage does not improve cable. We set.out with these 14 consultants to have them define what we needed to do to l
15 ensure cable integrity and they have come back to us with the l 16 approach that you are getting ready to hear about in just a 17 few minutes. i 18 MS. AXELRAD: Isn't the voltage that these cables l 19 were subjected to here much lower than the voltage at which l l 20 they are subjected at the factory and in other tests? !
l l 21 MR. FOX: Yes. But once that cable leaves the 22 factory it is rolled on reels, it is shipped, it is unrolled, 23 it is pulled through conduit. It under goes a number of nu l eg4 24 things. 'In fact it even ages. These things reduce its 25 resistance. I'm not talking quantitatively, I am talking ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~ ~e _ -, _ _ _ . ~ \
31663.0 '
brt 74 1 qualitatively.
k' ) 2 In fact this reel of cable was tested at some 3 rather high voltages at the factory.
4 MR. ZWOLINSKI: One point. Charlie, we don't want 5 to have a test which is going to degrade the cable.
[
h 6 MR. FOX: What we want to do is come up with one
[l s
7 that will ensure that we find insulation damage and we feel 8 like we have a good recommendation from these consultants to j 9 find credible insulation damage that is at a reduced voltage 10 from what we originally proposed.
11 MR. ZWOLINSKI: I have a' question. I don't know 12 if installation damage and the goal of -- to ensure cable 13 integrity -- are identical goals.
14 MR. FOX: To ensure cable integrity as relates to 15 installation.
16 MR. MARINOS: You may have damage that would be !
17 insignificant with respect to the cable function. That's 18 what you are aiming at. Not generally damage.
19 MR. RAUGHLEY: Breakdown is a function of damage l
1 20 and test voltage. Where do you draw the line? j 21 MR. MARINOS: Any voltage that you apply may 22 discover some damage or may not. It depends on what damage 23 you are looking for.
(q? 24 MR. ZWOLINSKI: Okay.
l 25 MR. CANTRELL: Let me try one more time. I guess i
/\CE-FEDERAL IlEPORTERS,1NC. ,
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6645 -
31663.0 brt 75 1 what is significant here is that we could use a series of
??% l 421 2 test voltages, from 500 kV down, and we would fail certain i
3 cable. We would find certain defects as we came down.
i 4 We want to find those defects that are significant i 5 to that installation as it is applied. We truthfully want to 6 find those.
7 But if we identify a threshold that is 8 significantly above that, that are defects that would be 9 visible for the full life of their intended function, the 10 ALARA costs and everything else to pull and replace those 11 cables are something that we have to consider and-we feel you
. 12 do, too. So that is why we want to get the right voltage 5@47 13 with margin that gives us confidence in that installation.
14 MR. FITZPATRICK: Again, we are still building.
15 What we are trying to show is that the areas that we looked 16 at to build with our final recommendation -- what we have 17 looked at here is IEEE 690, which is the installation 18 standard for nuclear generating stations.
19 Maybe we could just flip that slide for a second.
1 20 (Slide.)
21 This shows that in 690 -- this is the 22 recommendation for medium voltage power cables. " Low voltage 23 power cable insulation, resistance tests should be measured f;>
- 93) 24 -- this, again, is a recommendation -- between any possible 25 combination of conductors in the same cable and between each ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l 1
31663.0
!)
brt 76 1 conductor and the station ground with all orange conductors o
$d 2 in the same conduit grounded." l1 3 Essentially this is outlining a megger test with 4 the others grounded.
5 The pass-fail criteria is you are measuring 6 insulation resistance and that is usually rated voltage in kV 7 plus 1 so if you looked at a 600 volt cable, that would be 8 1.6 megohms per thousand feet and the shorter the length the 9 higher that number is so if it were 500 feet it would be 10 double that. That's the way the number works.
11 MR. ZWOLINSKI: We had the discussion on low 12 voltage and medium voltage --
{
13 MR. FITZPATRICK: This is the medium one.
14 MR. ZWOLINSKI: 6.9 kV?
15 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes. Which is a high potential i 16 test for a field acceptance test and again the field 17 acceptance test is a test you performed after the cable is 18 installed but before it is energized. In a high potential 19 test that's like 80 percent of the factory test voltage.
20 .Again as that cable goes on in its life, the same !
21 cables that would be energized, you would normally test these l 22 at about 60 percent of that number again, so it keeps coming 23 down. -
() 24 However, in the low voltage cables they only talk 25 about doing this with 8500 volts megger, and that's the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
__ ~ . . --
H 31663.0 brt 77 ,
1 . recommendation in 690.
@9 c 2 MS. AXELRAD: Excuse me, those are routine tests 1 3 that you perform on a routine basis.
J 4 Are there other tests where there is some 5 suggestion that there might have been installation damage )
6 where it might be subjected to a higher test because somebody 7 suggested there might be a problem?
8 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes. If you could.just hold 9 that question for a second I'm going to answer it. Okay?
j 10 MR. ZWOLINSKI: I think you just did. You-just {
ll
.- \
11 said yes. '
T, 12 MR. FITZPATRICK: What I am saying is, yes, there h
RL 13 is. That is going to come up later on in a slide.
14 Depending on where you are in the life of the 15 cable. Okay? If you talk about a field acceptance test, 16 IEEE-60 says that you do that at -- with a 500 volt megger.
17 Now, 422 says the same thing, this is a nuclear l
18 standard, this is the fossil standard.
19 IEEE 400 -- this, I think is maybe starting to 20 answer your question -- IEEE 400 is the standard.for high 21 potential testing of the cables. And they are not nuclear 22 cables, but cables -- and what they recommend is a field l 23 acceptance test be conducted which is a percentage of the l
(qu;f 24 system BIL.
25 Then the values they give show that you are to use ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-216-6646
31663.0 brt- 78 1 about 50 percent of the system BIL.
ph
'II2 2 MR. RAUGHLEY: What is the BIL? ij e
ll 3 MR. FITZPATRICK: Basic impulse level of the 4 system. These are the numbers that are in the medium voltage 5 cable standards.
6 The problem is this doesn't give numerical numbers 7 for the low voltage cables where we are talking about but it 8 does provide this kind of guidance.
9 MR. MARINOS: But her question is when you 10 increase the voltage if you have a suspicion that there is 11 damage and the answer is that is not true. You don't
. 12 increase voltage because you have suspicions that a cable is if3D
- s 13 more damaged. You use a standard level.
14 MR. BURZYNSKI: It just tells you to test.
l 15 MR. FITZPATRICK: It tells you to test. Yes.
16 383 doesn't really belong in this but because 17 everybody is talking about it we put it in here. This is the 18 qualification test for cables and that provides no guidance 19 for field testing of cables.
20 There is the motors standard and the ANSI relay 21 standard.
22 They say you use a field acceptance test voltage, 23 again, this is after installed, not the factory, field
) 24 acceptance voltage of twice the rated plus 1000. If it was a 25 480 volt system that would be 90 plus 1000, 1960 and you ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ,
-m- ~m m _ __- i
1 1
31663.0 '
brt 79 i,
1 multiply 75 percent of that. Whatever that comes out to be. l SS
<17 2 The relay standard says the same thing.
3 (Slide) j 4 What we have done so far is that we have said, in 5 the UConn results, the University of Connecticut results, 6 this is what the industry standards say.
7 This is intended to show, again, and this is 8 another answer to the previous question -- when you look at 9 testing, high potential testing, there are two things 10 really. It is kind of a dichotomy because the higher the f
11 voltage you use the more minute defects that you can pick
. 12 up. Okay?
fh
%# 13 But, also, the higher voltage you have the more 14 probability of inadvertent failure. In other words, if I i 1
15 make this high enough in here I will fail every cable in the 16 plant whether it is good, bad or indifferent.
I 17 So the higher you want to define these things it 18 is just opposite of what you want to do. You don't want it l )
1 19 so high you cause inadvertent failures and you don't want it 20 so low that you don't show anything.
21 The factory test is 100 percent of the number.
l 22 The industry standards recognize that these voltages degrade 23 or that the cable is degrading and these voltages come down
.e.a.
WP 24 during the life of the cable, j 25 383 is the 80 percent number, in here, and we are ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 i
'31663.0- il l
brt 80 1 1 showing that 383, the 80 volts per mil'in 383 is an-example f3, M/ 2 in 383 and is really not how you qualify caulos. It says you l l
3 qualify cables for the performance and then it gives an 4 example, 5 To proof this we are saying 80 volts per' mil is 6 not the field voltage test performance for an 8 kV cable. It l
7 is higher than that.
8 If you did, it would be -- it is a highest stress _
9' cable but you are qualifying it to the lowest number so 10 there's a little glitch in that also; all right?
11 MR. ZWOLINSKI: I would like to point out that we
, 12 used a graph very similar to this in. working with the staff
@l k 13 in March in which we pointed out that we would go as high as 14 1500 volts per mil and work our way down. That was how where 15 he were able to move from the 120 volts per mil to the 240.
16 We are at the base of that particular configuration.
17 MR. FITZPATRICK: You can appreciate that the 100 18 percent and the 80 percent numbers are based on 600 volt 19 rating of the cable. Appreciate we are applying that cable j
i 20 at 480 and 120. What someone could suggest, if you say you i
21 have to do that, you really get penalized for using a good 22 cable because if you used a 600 volt cable in a 120 volt 23 service where I could have used a 300 volt cable you are eA l
%& 24 saying you are going to penalize me doing that. That's the 25 problem we have developing these voltages. You say just ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 brt 81 1 because I overinsulate the cable, don't penalize me because
/@
Rs 2 no one certainly is saying cut the insulation off and then 3 you could lower the test voltage; because that is what the 4 standards would lead you to believe. Okay?
5 (Slide.)
6 This slide right here is that same thing again.
7 This is an excerpt from the industry standards that say tha't 8 where the thickness of the insulation is increased for 9 mechanical reasons, and you remember earlier we are saying 10 when you look at lower voltage cables, when you get to a 11 bigger conductor size the insulation is bigger than a smaller
~
12 voltage size, they still have to withstand the same thing.
(<h> 13 Obviously that's for mechanical reasons. The standards say 14 when you increase the insulation-for standard reasons the 15 test voltage is only based on the size of the conductor and I i
16 rated voltage and not the size of the apparent thickness of 1
17 the insulation. .
j 18 We are looking to performance of the cable. We 19 are saying just because we spent more money, we, the industry 20 -- just because we spent more money overdesigning the cable 21 that you really shouldn't be penalized more for doing that 22 than someone who underdesigns, so to speak, or designs closer 23 to the actual operating condition. This is the concept we (fh 24 are trying to develop.
25 (Slide.) .
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
31663.0 brt 82 1 Before we get into the voltage level, what we are l.
A?,
49 2 looking at --
and I don't think anybody would argue this -- ,{
3 that testing is an integrated process. Everybody in this j 4 room so far has really only talked about voltage level of 5 the. I know that is what we are interested in, but you can't l
6 talk about voltage level until you talk about acceptance 7 criteria, the ground plane. The whole thing is part of the ,
i I
8 test program, not just th,e voltage level. Okay? '
9 This is a busy slide again. I just wanted to 10 point out this has a lot of the bases for what we are doing i
11 from now on and calculates a lot of ratios. But we are going 12 to expand from those, but we can look back from that if we 13 have to, i
14 MR. LIAW: Excuse me. On the earlier Vugraph --
15 (Slide.)
16 I'm sure those four things were specified in the 17 original discussion and were addressed in TER and in your 18 proposed program. I just don't want to leave it with the 19 impression, that you indicated, that people talk only on 20 voltage. I don't think that is right.
21 MR. FITZPATRICK: I don't want to give that 22 impression. All I'm saying is we are developing a test 23 program. You have to look at these things. Certainly this
. .a is) 24 morning everybody is looking for the voltage. Everybody is 25 waiting for,me to say what the voltage is and all I'm saying ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 brt 83 l
1 is there are other things, too. Il 2 MR. FOX: He's talking about the program that 3 exists today, as it existed in the past, that dealt with 4 these same factors also. l l
5 (Slide.)
6 MR. FITZPATRICK: We have four analyses here. We 7 have tried to characterize -- some are sanity checks and some 1
8 are checks against standards. '
9 301. ZWOLINSKI: Excuse me, is this out of a book l
10 or your own chart that you developed?
,, 11 MR. FITZPATRICK: The information on the -- these I' i
, 12 are TVA specific. Okay? ,
l 13 MR. ZWOLINSKI: TVA generated. Okay. 1 14 MR. FITZPATRICK: Up to here is ratios we will use 15 in the rest of our analysis. From here over is really I i
16 information that we have tabulated to use in the analysis l 17 from now on and the information from here over is our l 18 standards. l 19 MR. SHEA: Tim Shea. The sources are listed in !
l 20 the first column there under the type of insulation.
21 MR. ZWOLINSKI: I definitely have to get my eyes !
22 checked. I'm having trouble reading it.
23 (Slide.)
i kh 24 MR. FITZPATRICK: Again what we have done is a 25 series of analyses here. We have tried to tune in on, and
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
_-___- _ - a
31663.0 brt 84 1 what I would like to say from a technical approach, from a
- 4 tB# 2 sanity check and from a standards approach we have tried to 3 tune in on the voltage. You will see every place we go we 4 wind up at about the same area.
5 What we have done here is said let's look at the 8 6 kV cable. In a previous slide, we said the 8 kV cable has 7 the highest stress, highest insulation and all those kinds of 8 things.
9 If you calculate the 8 kV factory test voltage, 10 not field acceptance test, this is 100' percent, factory to 11 field voltage, that ratio was about 4.6. Okay?
, 12 Now, what we have done is we said: Let's apply A
t.u/ 13 that same ratic to the lower voltage cables in the way of 14 trying to develop a factory test voltage to see where this 15 thing comes in. Then, ultimately, you would say this should 16 be adjusted for a field voltage so the field would always be j 17 lower than the factory test voltage. ,
l 18 If you look at the 480 volt cable and multiply by 19 4.6 this gives you the equivalent test voltage of 2200; 20 okay?
21 This is sort of the technical analysis. Now look 22 at this one and say let's tune in on an industry standard and-l 23 the industry standards for connected equipment say that you 1 l, hh) 24 test at twice the rated voltage plus 1000, the equivalent 25 factory test in there -- and if I apply the same philosophy ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
m -
1
. 31663.0 brt 85 l
1 to the connected equipment and appreciate the connected )
m 0$) 2 equipment at these numbers, not these numbers -- okay? And.
I 3 this is a system test, so it is appropriate to use these l 4 numbers in this thing. {
i l i
1 5 This is the resulting number, so on the 600 volts 6 power, you wind up with a 1960 volt AC; and 1240 AC for the 1
7 600 volt control; and 1100 volts AC for the 300 volt
)
8 instrument cables. Anybody that is trying to compare the 1
9 ratio AC to DC is 3:1. So the equivalent DC test would be j i
10 3300 volts.
11 MR. MARINOS: Your logic doesn't seem right. You
, 12 seem to be establishing something that is sim,ilar to other 4
t@9 9 13 standards and is not necessarily the premise that Bob 1'
14 indicated. You are trying to find a test voltage that will 15 give you a confidence level of the integrity of this 16 insulation for that cable. You are establishing something to 17 make it consistent with other standards. But it has not been 18 established whether those standards are too excessive, too 19 excessive, less conservative or not' conservative enough for 20 the purpose that we are doing the test. I don't understand.
21 MR. FITZPATRICK: Let me back up for a second.
22 First, this standard exists. Okay? This is an appropriate 23 industry standard.
, h 24 What we are trying to do is say that the industry 25 standard for cable testing says that you test with a 500 volt l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 L----_-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ -- ---
- ___-- 7 _
31663.0 .
brt 86 1 megger. So if you got our task force in a room and say, hey, '
on dd 2 what do'you do with a field acceptance test voltage for 600 3 volt power, 600 control and 300 instrument; we'd say megger' f 4 as IEEE-690 says.
5 But Mr. Raughley charged us with coming up with a 1
6 high potential test voltage and we are trying to say: Okay, l 7 there isn't one that exists in the industry for this. We are i
8 trying to establish this for you. And the way you do that is l
l \
l 9 when one doesn't exist, you try to rely on consensus 1
10 standards or you try to do an analysis to it.
1 l 11 MR. MARINOS: And give certain results. If you l l !
12 establish a certain level now and you test the cable and it hh 13 fails, what is it going to tell you? In service, the plant 14 is going to melt down at a certain time, X, of service? Or 15 is it immediately no good? Or, l'f it passes, you are 1 l
16 confident the cable is going to perform its service for the 1 17 40 years under the environmental conditions that are expected 18 for that cable? l 19 MR. FITZPATRICK: The test voltages that we will 20 be recommending are the latter on that: It is that if the 21 ' test voltage passes, we feel we have confidence both from a 22 r technical standpoint and an association with industry 23 standards t' hat we have demonstrated with that test that'that T [1 24 cable is not only suitable for its intended service, but for 25 any abnormal excursion such as a LOCA or whatever that the l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
31663.0 brt 87 1 1 . cable could be exposed to. Okay?
??h
%9 2 If the cable fails that test, then that cable is i 3 no good.
4 MR. MARINOS: But you are proposing to do the test 1 5 in absence of the conditions that we are talking about, the 6 environmental conditions that may be imposed upon the cable.
7 MR. FITZPATRICK: You mean at a local condition?
8 MR. BURZYNSKI: You could use the operating 9 voltage.
l 10 MR. MARINOS:' It is an aging process that would j 11 synergistically work against that cable integrity as time 12 goes by.
l
- 13 MR. FITZPATRICK: If you could just wait for a 14 second in the last slide, we have calculated what we call 15 " margins." It confirms that the industry standards are !
l 16 correct. I'll show you that -- we are going to be there in a l 17 few minutes, I hope.
18 MR. ZWOLINSKI: I have a suspicion that your I 19 translation of operating voltage to the factory test, this 20 graph presented earlier, I have a suspicion that that voltage 21 would probably be higher in volts per mil.
22 MR. FOX: Bear with us. Go. I 23 MR. FITZPATRICK: The next one in IEEE-400, and p,
. Q@) 24 this is the standard guide for making high direct voltage 25 tests on power cable in the field and this is the standard ACEaFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 !
brt 88 1 for testing cables. This standard says you use a BIL -- you
?%
Sh' 2 use a percentage of the BIL. And it also shows you use 50 1 4
3 percent as the number.
4 (Slide.) {
l 5 This corresponds with the values for median test 6 cables.
7 We then said what is the BIL of a 600 volt system 1
8 and 300 volt system and so forth? They are a little bit 9 lower than these numbers, but we said let's not fine tune, j
10 IEEE-28, lightning arrester is 10 kv, and it defines 175 11 volt, I think it is, BIL of 5 kV; and these cables are 120
, 12 and 50 so we are in this range for these.
(asb 13 If you use the same thing which is 50 percent of 14 the BIL, you come up with numbers like this in DC. These are 15 field tests, so there is a different basis than other one.
16 The other was an equivalent factor. This is a field test.
17 Then you divide these numbers by 3 to come over 18 here because of the AC to DC ratio or DC to AC ratio of 3:1.
19 So you come over there.
l 20 In the last one, we said let's look at the 8 kV l
21 cable and design a cable that is stressed the same as the 8 i
l 22 kV cable. What we did is we said let's look at the operating l
23 voltage stress, divided by the mils, the 8 kV cable, that's as Qif 24 34.6 volts / mil. Then let's look at the factory test stress 25 compared -- that's 156 volts / mil. We have been talking 100 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 1
31663.0
'brt 89 l
1 percent, or 80 percent of that -- we are talking 156 volts 6Eh 42> 2 per mil on this one. Let me design the low voltage cables i
3 with this same stress.
4 What this is showing is that this is the thickness )
5 of insulation that would be required for the operating 6 voltages to have that equivalent stress over there.
7 What this is showing is that the insulation 8 thickness is more than just for electrical reasons. It is 9 really for mechanical reasons and this isn't intended that we 10 design a cable like this. We are just showing this for 11 illustrative purposes.
T ,. ,,
. 12 Then, if you take these minimum thicknesses, l
(EI) 13 l
multiply it by this high test voltage stress, and these are 14 the test voltages that you would use to prove that over 15 here.
16 (Slide.)
17 If you -- this slide really has all of them on one l'
18 spot for comparison purposes. If you look across the board 19 you can see that the numbers aren't all an awful lot 20 different. In other words, in this one and this one they are 21 not a lot different. We are looking -- we think this is !
i 22 probably -- this is a little bit lower than this, but l 23 certainly these are higher than that, so this is probably the eos ggf 24 1
most conservative of the three. Especially in a testing '
25 arena, this isn't a big difference. This is probably the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
3
-31663.0 brt 90 1 most conservative of the three.
"Id 2 Now, the next issue is the wet / dry testing or the 3 ground plane selection.
4 MR. LIAW: Before you go to new subject, let me i
5 ask you a general question here. It seems to me you are 6 extrapolating the scheme or methodology used in the IEEE-400 7 for system voltage 2.5, or above; correct?
8 MR. FITZPATRICK: For BIL -- this approach --
9 MR. LIAW: You are taking the table from the 10 IEEE-400; okay? Cable 1. Your test-voltages for cables up 11 to 6.9 kV system voltage.
. 12 , MR. FITZPATRICK: ,That's correct.
^
@D' 13 MR. LIAW: Your lower end is 2.5 system cable 14 voltage. You are trying to extrapolate downwards; correct?
l 15 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes. Not from that table, 16 though. We are not using a straight line extrapolation.
17 MR. LIAW: Take roughly .5 from the BIL level for l 18 the test voltage. ;
19 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
20 MR. LIAW: My question to you is do you feel the 21 type of cable below and above 2.5 kV system voltage is 22 essentially the same in terms of construction material?
23 I qualify it with my own admission I am not an l w-
$? 24 expert,on the cable. Answer my question in terms of 25 material.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage
- { 800-336-6646
l 31663.0 '
- brt 91 1
1 MR. FITZPATRICK: Are they different? Yes.
( 2 MR. LIAW: Material and construction practices?
i l
3 MR. FITZPATRICK: When you go from the 600 to the '
4 next level there are some differences.
l 5 MR. LIAW: Take 2.5 kV and above, take 2.5 kV as a
\
6 dividing line.
7 MR. FITZPATRICK: In some cases there are 8 differences; in some cases, there are not.
9 MR. MARINOS: What difference are you referring 10 to? Material differences or dielectric strength?
11 MR. FITZPATRICK: That's the question. In the 12 material -- sometimes yes and sometimes no. Sometimes the 1 ..
's- 13 vendor will use the same insulation.
14 MR. CANTRELL: Is it correct, conservative or less l 15 conservative to extrapolate down from that data?
l I
16 MR. BURZYNSKI: If you were going to use higher 17 quality which end would you use it?
18 MR. PETTY: Excuse me. Keith Petty. I think in 19 IEEE-400 discussion they indicates the user may wish to 20 consider utilizing the standard for control and communication 21 cable. So they are on the record saying we expect people 22 might want to use this in extrapolating downward.
23
~
MR. LIAW: I heard you and we don't usually have
.e i kg) 24 to choose, but -- that is why we are here-. What is the I l
25 answer now?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 - Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
% l
'i1663.0 '
~
s b'rt , ' ,
m 92
,y -
Y
. FITZPATRICK: I'mnotsube:ifrememberthe
,1 MR y ,
a4
$g ;
h I 5g
'2h '= q 'ftion.
,h i MR, LIAN: The question I asked is yes or no. You j n ,, , . m. ,
i'\ !
4 are *not"giving me a definitiveIhn;swer here. The ability to l 5) 5 er.trapolace that type of data downward do cable with system ,
g !
6 voltage be.'.ow 2.5 kV. S 7 MR. FITZPATRICK: I think, if I understand your 8 question you are saying to me that'gkif.I have an insulation 9 *1hich has better electrical properties and I apply it on this 10 circuit, and if I take an insulation that 9.as lower '
! 11 electrical properties and I apply it bn an identical circuit
~
M 12 over here, do I test those differently? And what I am saying 1 .,.<. ..
(O 9 1 13 is IEEE-400 says you base it on the system BIL, which really 14 says it is independent of the system $ material.
m s MR. LIAW: Did you say that?-
15}h'h-l 16 9
s: MR. FITZPATRICK: I/m trying to answer your
,t*/
17 que estion .
1
' \ '
18 Y MR. LIAW: You are telling me. Does IEEE-say
- . n *'o
- 19 that? + * '*
A q$
" ",1 20 f 'MR. FITZPATRICK: .That's what IEEE says, yes.
21 4 M , MR '. LIAW: Independent of material and N
22 construction practices? Manufacture process?
1 z
23 MR. PETTY: Yes.
h g) 24 MR; MARIh'OS : Each insblation has its own BI's?
A.
h, 25 MRI FlTZPATRICK: No, eacn' system, an electrical o;v i .
E ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M o
' 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31'563.0 brt 93 1 system has a BIL, and therefore all the components on that
'j) y 2 system should be satisfactory for the BIL.
3 MR. MARINOS: So the insulation is comparably 4 constructed to be representative.
5 MR. FITZPATRICK: Otherwise, it would be the weak 6 link in the chain. Sure.
7 MR. LIAW: Let me ask you the next question. If 8 that's the case as you indicated and that gentleman 9 indicated, why should I put 410 on a 2.5 kV system voltage?
10 Why didn't they simply list all of them?
11 MR. FITZPATRICK: I don't know that answer.
12 MR. LIAW: Do -- you have your experts. Can they (C,% 13 answer the question?
14 MR. FITZPATRICK: His question is why does not 15 IEEE-400 specifically address --
16 MR. CANTRELL: Could you hold that for a moment to 17 where we are showi g the margins? I think it shows some 18 sense of why the industry becomes kind of silent below a 19 certain level.
20 MR. FITZPATRICK: That's a true statement.
21 MR. GOODWIN: Ed Goodwin again. IEEE-400, the 22 values stated for the various voltage classes where there is 23 a 1:1 correlation, it seems the insulation values are 80 i r -
I gy; 24 percent of the factory acceptance. I saw that correlation 25 more strongly than I saw 50 percent of BIL.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 brt 94 l
1 MR. FITZPATRICK: The 50 percent of the BIL is 03 E>d 2 equivalent to the 80 percent number. That is correct.
3 MR. GOODWIN: Okay. But then we go to the cables 4 at interest and the factory test values, there, are roughly 5 300 volts per mil and 80 percent of that would be 240. But, l 6 'yet, by usf.ng the IEEE-28, which is weak-link dependent, I 7 believe the 400 volt cable, the weak link is that you are not i
8 required to take terminations. It isn't that the cable won't i 9 take a higher BIL, it is that the terminations at 480 aren't 1
10 required to have stress cones to be taped for service and 11 that, therefore, this is why the BIL is so low for 480 volt 12 service.
() 13 In medium voltage cable / both the BIL and 80 14 percent of the factory test, 50 percent of BIL and 80 percent l
l 15 of factory test track together rather well.
l 16 MR. FITZPATRICK: Correct.
17 MR. GOODWIN: They diverge markedly in low 18 voltage.
1 1
19 MR. FITZPATRICK: Well the IEEE-400 doesn't really 20 tell you what the answer is.
21 MR. GOODWIN: But the same two calculations will 22 diverge markedly. My question is does this have anything to 1
23 do with the cable or does it have to do with the recommended i:.r, gp 24 insulation practice for access region and terminations.
25 MR. GARDNER: J.B. Gardner. I would like to ask a i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
7 31663.0-brt 95 i i
1 question very parallel to that. Are there any people in the
. w/ lS 2 room who are familiar with the fact that any c'able insulation I
3 system has ever been cesigned, in the low voltage area, j i
4' against system BIL? Or any test program been geared around 5 system BIL for low voltage?
6 MR. FITZPATRICK: Let me answer that question, 7 JB.
8 The reason for that answer, and I have jumped 9 ahead several slides -- I am going to answer your question.
10 (Slide.)
11 I have jumped ahead several slides here. l 12 Essentially, our recommendation, the task force 13 recommendation is going to be 80 percent of twice the rated 14 voltage plus 1000. Okay? Whatever that number is in there, 15 similar ratios would apply.
16 If you look at all of the numbers that are on this 17 slide, essentially this one says " margin," but the whole ;
18 title is " margins" it you look at the margins that are in the ;
19 cables, if you look at the 8 kV cable, it operates the r .
20 closest to its rated voltage. The control cable operates the j 21 furthest away and that's 50 volts compared to a 300 volt 1
22 cable so you have the most margin with respect to the 1
23 operating voltage in there.
. r ,,
5;$! 24 If you look at the test voltage we have and 25 whichever number you used in here, the numbers would change, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverag 800-336-6646 ,
.1
31663.0 brt 96 l 1 but the ratios would be the same -- if you look at this f%
vgp 2 number in here you see a similar thing. As you come down to 3 this number and'if you look at the ratio of this number to 4 the operating voltage, by the time you come down to 5 instrument cables you wind up with 17 times the operating 6 voltage that you have stress in that cable whereas in the 8
~
7 kV power volt cable where you are most concerned, you only do 8 that with 1.72, and the last column is just this one over i 9 that one to try to establish that.
{
10 If you look at these numbers what really comes 11 screaming out here is that the industry says that you high 12 plot these things for a field acceptance test voltage, the 8 6?\
Ny 13 kV medium voltage cables and by the time you come down to 14 these things you have so. Margin there all you really need 15 to do is a megger test and that is what 690 is saying.
16 If we looked through all these things to come up 17 with a high potent.al test and we have one and we recommend 18 this one here in our presentation, but when you look at this 19 thing it says the industry is correct in what they are 20 saying. IEEE-690 is correct, you really don't have to have i 21 high voltage cable because you have so much margin in the 22 design of the cable against the operating voltage and don't 23 forget most of them operate much lower than 350 volts. We (fh; 24 have taken an extreme there. Okay?
I 25 MR. THUE: Let me answer a question. This is Bill ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
li 31663.0 brt 97 i
l 1 .Thue.
ca Qdy 2 The basic concept of IEEE-400, to get away from i 3 the actual ratio of a megger test, is a very basic fact. In I 1 '
4 a utility distribution system a circuit could be five miles, 5 10 miles long; it might actually start out from the 6 substation with some varnished cloth and change to paper and 7 polyethylene and cross-linked polyethylene and EPR. From the l 8 utility's standpoint you have must establish a voltage that 9 , is universally applicable. That is where the relationship 10 between BIL and test voltages has cume from.
11 It has nothing to do with the case in point of a '
. 12 specific insulation in a plant.
) 13 Let's just be sure that we have, for the record, 14 stated where the BIL concept came from in the DC testing 15 standard of IEEE.
16 MR. FITZPATRICK: Let's also make sure that when 17 we use a cable with a higher rating, much higher than is i 1
18 necessary to support the operation of a system, that is 19 margin. That costs a lot of money to put that in there and l 20 you really shouldn't be penalized for doing that. Okay? j
{
21 MR. ZWOLINSKI: Do you folks agree with Bill's 22 statement? I 23 MR. FITZPATRICK: His statement is a fair 24 statement. Yes.
([h I said -- I think he is just summarizing 25 what I said. I don't think there's.any difference of I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 u________
l 31663.0 brt 98 i 1 opinion.
T\
J.J 2 MR. THUE: But it has to do with high voltage i l l
l 3 circuits.
4 MR. RAUGHLEY: No, I disagree with that.
5 MR. FITZPATRICK: You have a minimum basic impulse 6 level or minimum surge that all of the cables in the whole 7 string have to handle and, therefore, you don't have to look i;
8 at this one, this one, this one and this one. We are saying 3
o the same thing. Really in our whole string of things which 1
10 goes from a power source to a load with the cables in there l
., 1 11 that I really don't care if the motor breaks down. It i Tf%
12 doesn't make me any happier that the cable survived;
)
se8 w, 13 likewise, if the cable breaks down and the motor survived, I 14 don't feel happy. The same thing applies.
15 Just the fact that I use a 5 kV cable in an 16 instrument circuit doesn't mean to say that I have to test 17 that cable like it's a 5 kV cable because I am only using it 18 at 50 volts.
19 MR. ZWOLINSKI: The task force accepts, but you 1
l l 20 folks don't --
21 MR. RAUGHLEY: As far as Bill's statement that you 22 would only use BIL on certain systems.
23 MR. THUE: It is the source of the concept. .All
,x
$gj 24 right?
25 MR. RAUGHLEY: That's the source of the concept, ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
7 31663.0 brt 99 1 but you could apply it and you do apply it in lower voltage l O
&# 2 concepts: The. relaying circuits, the carrier current, the 3 communications circuits. That is correctly applied.
4 MR. LIAW: I thought that was my earlier l 5 question: Whether or not they are applicable?
6 MR. FITZPATRICK: This is a system. The' concept 7 here is a system voltage which says that all of the 1
8 compcnents in that system, if any one breaks down, the others 9 are no good.
l 10 Therefore, you would say, okay, you want to make 11 sure they are all all right. Don't forget this is an
, 12 overvoltage now. This is not an operati,ng voltage and this O'
M 13 is test voltages that are many times higher than the industry 14 recommended number and many times higher than the operating 15 voltage.
16 MR. LIAW: Tell us why the IEEE-400 has a separate 17 column called " maintenance test voltage"? What is that used l 18 for?
19 MR. FITZPATRICK: Maintenance test voltage, you i
20 remember a few slides back, that's the 50-60 percent number. I 21 MR. LIAW: What are those numbers?
22 MR. FITZPATRICK: Again, that goes back to this 23 slide.
s Qd# 24 (Slide.)
25 When the cables are manufactured this is.what they ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, .
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 "
brt 100 1 have to pass to show they meet whatever standards you A
(b,, 2 specify. Okay?
3 After the cables a're installed, and again the j
4 standards specify this number for medium voltage cables, not i 5 low voltage cables -- after the cables are installed but 6 before they are energized, you test at 80 percent. After the 1 1
\
7 cables are installed and operating for a while, now you test j 1
l 8 them at this 50 to 60 percent number and this is more for l
l 9 maintenance testing, to make sure, if you want to go in and j l
10 do that, there is different schools of thought whether it is I
11 worthwhile doing or not.
12 Someone mentioned earlier this may do harm to the ppr i s.JS 13 cables, so really is it something you want to do or don't l i
14 want to do? There is no right answer.
15 MR. LIAW: Is it part of your proposal or part of 16 your recommendation? That you will have maintenance tests?
17 MR. FITZPATRICK: Part of our recommendation is 18 that we do testing to show whether we have pullby and jamming 19 and the vertical issue over there and there is no requirement 20 as far as we are concerned to do a trending analysis. This 21 is really a trending analysis type' test.
22 MR. RAUGHLEY: We do maintenance testing on the 23 medium voltage 6.9 kV cables and on any cables connected to
([, ) 24 motors 100 horsepower and above. That's our. current 25 practice. On the 6.9 kV cables, it's a high potential test-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 l __________-__-___m
31663.0 brt 101 1 and on the 100 horsepower and above, it's 500 volt, s'.>
60' 2 MR. MARINOS: Is that the 50 or 60 percent test 3 recommended there? Or how often?
4 MR. THUE: It is a lower test voltage. I don't 5 have my notes with me.
6 The periodic is -- maintenance test is not at 50 7 or 60 percent. By the way, that number can go to 65 percent 8 if you follow AEIC. But the.whole concept of that was an 9 annual test or periodic test. The period could be 19 months 10 or two years. But the periodic test was an old concept 11 behind maintenance testing.
12 MR. FITZPATRICK: Sure, but also, it is worthy of
() 13 noting it is not done at 80 percent.
14 MR. LIAW: 1 understand that. What is the i
15 frequency of the maintenance tests?
16 MR. RAUGHLEY: I would have to look. I believe on 17 the medium voltage, I am thinking it is every outage, but I'm 18 not sure. Every cycle -- approximately 18 months.
19 MR. LIAW: Ken is shaking his head.
20 MR. BROWN: I am not confident about that.
21 MR. RAUGHLEY: Every refueling cycle, but I can 22 get the answers back.
23 MR. THUE: But it is a voltage in the vicinity of
.g}.
24 5-10 kV, if I remember what you said earlier.
25 I don't have any notes like that with me, but it l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
y ' - - -
31663.0 brt ,102 1 is conceptually, it is 5-10 kV. l
'd 2 MR. LIAW: Go ahead. I 3 MR. BUSTARD: Can I ask you a quick question? The l I
4 typical applications are 600 volts or less because you are 5 talking about the silicon cable. Is the dominant degradation I
6 process for 600 volt cables voltage stress or is it going to 7 be something like degradation of mechanical properties
)
8 leading to cracking during aging in loca environments? And 9 if that's the indication, how does a voltage stress test tell !
i 10 you anything about what is the truly significant degradation 11 process for the cable?
. 12 MR. CANTRELL: There is none. But once it is in Occ- 13 the conduit, suitable for service '- then the mechanical or 14 chemical properties that were confirmed at the time of the j 15 type tests and so forth are the dominant factors.
16 MR. EBNETER: We are getting a little off the 17 track here, I believe, talking about aging and degradation.
18 We are talking about trying to detect basic flaws in cables.
19 We appreciate it,-but we are going to run out of time here.
20 Let's get down to the basic proposal.
I
( 21 MR. FITZPATRICK: This is addressing the ground 22 plane selection.
23 (Slide.) 4
- m. ,
!Qp 24 We are discussing the integrated testing 25 philosophy. When we addressed this, we said IEEE-400 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1 31663.0 brt 103 {
1 1- specifies a dry test value in test procedures for a dry
]
6% 'l sj/ 2 test. The experience for the task force members, and I'm I
3- sure anyone who has had experience with cable is, when you 4 have similar kinds of concerns during the installation of the !
l 5 cable and you go back to the' cable vendor.and say I think I I 6 damaged the cable for whatever reason during installation, i
7 what can I do to test this cable? He will recommend that you 8 do an in situ test and that you do that test dry.
9 No one has ever heard of a rendering that you do a 10 wet test; in other words, filling the conduit and so forth. I 11 MR. MARINOS: Why wouldn't he recommend doing it 12 wet?
O s.s 13 MR. FITZPATRICK: I think the reason ---first of i
14 all, the wet testing is a complicated process. The test 15 voltages that we are recommending here are significantly 16 higher than are really required. That is really saying that )\
17 there is margin there. '
18 MR. MARINOS: If that cable is suspended in the 19 conduit, it is not going to tell you anything_if you do it !
l l 20 dry; is it? i 21 MR. RAUGHLEY: If you get it wet then you have to 22 dry it out.
23 MR. MARINOS: You get it wet and put the test (jh 24 voltage there, then you know you have a ground throughout the 25 whole cable.
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ __O
E l 31663.0-brt 104 3 1
1 -
MR. FITZPATRICK: What we are saying in here is 1
,a j Yl1 2 first of all, you have to appreciate that we are talking --
1 3 you could dream up a case where what you said was true.
4 There'is a case that you could dream up. You could probably 5 do the same thing with a wet test. You could probably dream l I 6 up a case where you could miss something in a test.
t 7 What we are looking at -- is what we are doing 8 consistent with the industry standards;'is it consistent with ]
a 9 what the industry is doing and is there a big probability of l
]
)
I 10 this occurring? )
l 11 Our opinion is that we are looking between each l
m 12 conductor and all other conductors grounded to the conduit. 1
(% "
'h8 13 We are saying that the cables have demonstrated acceptable 1 14 service for however long they have been installed. We have i
15 got, God only knows -- in these cables,.we have significant i 16 margin in the insulation. They are very much thicker than 17 they have to be; by that slide we showed from an electrical 18 stanopoint. And it is our opinion that the dry testing ---
19 MR. MARINOS: But aren't we trying to determine 20 how much of that we have lost because of the bad installation 1
l 21 practices.
22 MR. FITZPATRICK: We are not interested in how 23 much we lost. We are interested in the bottom up.
? 24 MR. MARINOS: We are interested in do we have the 25 margin for safety that we require.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
31663.0 brt. 105 1 MR. FITZPATRICK: That's correct; yes. But we are (Ij -2 not trying to detect every little miner damage either.
3 MR. MARINOS: No, that is unimportant, but to bank 4 on the fact the construction of the cable is so conservative, 5 you don't have to do anything. It's fine under good
)
6 circumstances but under questionable circumstances, you have 7 to develop a test program to reveal those deficiencies some 8 way.
9 MR. FITZPATRICK: But don't forget that the test 10 program that we are proposing is six times higher for the 11 instrument cable. I think it's 3300 volts compared to a 500 12 volta megger; it's six times higher than the industry (b) 13 standards say you ought to do it. That is certainly imposing 14 a much higher voltage on the cable than the plant across the 15 street.
16 MR. MARINOS: If the arrangement of the cable 17 changes at some point, this might not be significant It may 18 be a much lower voltage will break the cable down, but you 19 bank on the fact that the cable will retain its arrangement 20 in the conduit. It is not going to shift.
21 A bad installation within the bunch is not going 22 to move towards the ground plane that may break down with a
~
23 lower voltage. That is basically what you are banking on and
([j 24 I guess we would have to accept that if you are going to do a 25 dry test. We'd have to be convinced that this cable ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
_7 !
31663.0 brt 106 1 arrangement will retain its arrangement throughout the life
(:%
- e/ 2 of the plant and is not going to migrate towards the ground l l
3 because otherwise, only the wet test will confirm no matter 1
4 what the arrangement of the cable; at any point in its life j l
i 5 it will be all right. !
6 MR. THUE: Before you get rid of that, let me just l l l 7 make a couple of points for the record. IEEE-400 is !
8 basically looking at shielded 5 kV'and higher e dry and wet is 1
9 not an issue. In the cable vendor recommendation, if I were 10 working for a cable vendor today, I would certainly try to 1
11 get a dry test, especially if I were going to be responsible l l
I ,
12 for the cable.
() 13 The fact is that I think that any manufacturer 14 would quickly admit that he has already tested that cable in 1
15 water, and so if it were the owner's decisica to test in i i
16 water, there would be no objection.
17 MR. CANTRELL: I guess I would like to comment a 1
18 little bit. I believe that our objection to the water is on i 19 a case-by-case basis.
20 MR. THUE: We have allowed a case-by-case concern i 21 in all of our original discussions.' But what I am hearing 22 here is quit your water testing --
23 MR. FOX: Just a minute. Our consultants made one m
gfp 24 recommendation. You need to see what we are going to do with 25 that recommendation in our final arguments, so let us not get ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6616
3 31663.0 brt 107 1 ahead of ourselves here.
tu 2 MR. THUE: It was up there.
3 MR. FOX: That's fair game, but all I want to tell 4 you is that we are not making a blanket move away from wet 5 testing. Just bear with us. We are going to look at it on a 6 case-by-case basis.
7 MR. FITZPATRICK: Also for the record, IEEE-400 8 does address unshielded cables.
l 9 MR. BURZYNSKI: That is correct. l 1
l 10 MR. THUE: But the main gist, I believe, is the 11 words 500 kV shielded cables.
, 12 MR. FITZPATRICK: But it does address unshielded 13 cables.
14 Again, we are looking at the acceptance criteria, 15 and the task force recommendation is that the acceptance 16 criteria of this be a voltage withstanding test commonly 17 referred to as a go no-go test; being either you pass or fail 18 and there is no evaluation of how good you pass or how good l 19 you fail.
20 The concern is, do we put a pass / fail criteria on 21 leakage current. What we are saying here is for the purpose 22 of this test, the leakage current test is really a trending 23 analysis test where you look at the cable this time and look
.n.
Q3) 24 at it again and see what is happening. We think part of the 25 reason for that is that the current that is being measured is ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800L336-6646
31663.0 .
brt 108 I
1 really not the true leakage current of the cable. It is
?" ^ ,
\?N 2 composed of a whole bunch of components, namely the charging l 3 current, end effects cause by corona, and then also the true 1 4 leakage current.
1 5 Some of these other effects could mask the true l 6 leakage current.
7 The conclusions of this are that if the leakage 8 current decreases with time, it certainly would prove the 9 acceptability of the cable. However, increasing currents may 10 be caused by other factors such as are indicated up here, and 11 the length of time of the test and really trending is a true ;
, 12 application of leakage current and not part of a go/no-go
??> j L/ 13 test. j 14 (Slide.)
15 What we are looking at here is to make sure that 16 we have not invalidated the 383 qualification. Cables. We l i
17 pointed out that 383 allows for performance qualifications 18 and that just because I use a higher voltage cable and a 19 lower voltage system, I don't have to qualify the cable for 20 the higher voltage. I only have to qualify it for its 21 operating characteristics.
1 i
22 The low voltage cables that we are talking-about 23 have significantly more margin in the design of the cables 3
(d31 24 that are purchased than the higher voltage cables.
25 similar techniques that we have used here have
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 i -brt 109 l
1 been used in plant life extension and these techniques in l
Ch sr u '2 plant life extension -- also, the intent is to not invalidate 3 the equipment qualification.
4 In other industries, and I really can't speak as 5 an expert in these areas, but the mechanical analyses of-6 pressure vessel testing where the pressure vessel is designed 7 for one number -- however, the testing of this things is only 8 done based on the design testing of the vessel.
9 (Slide.)
10 Again, just as a summary here, the equipment 11 qualification. It is not unusual to find cables that are 45
, 12 mil cables qualified and 15 mil cables qualified all for the
@2 s- 13 same voltage, so that extrapolating is not new.
14 If we have damage in some of the indications, that 15 does not necessarily invalidate the qualification just 16 because the insulation may be a little thinner in the damaged 17 area.
18 Again, 383 says satisfactory performance of the 19 cable, not rating of the cable. This says that satisfactory 20 performance, electrical and physical measurements --
21 (Slide.)
22 Again, this is the task force recommendation which l 23 essentially says that we use twice the system-rated voltage df}9 24 plus 1000; that we use 80 percent as a multiplier; we use a 25 DC/AC ratio of 3, we use a voltage withstand test in place ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
9 31663.0 I
.brt 110 l i
1 dry and the test should be conducted from each conductor to
%of;p 2 all other conductors grounded and these are the numbers.
3 I think that it is also worthy to note that if you 4 look at the 8 kV number -- can I just go back to the summary 4 5 slide. If you look at this slide and you look -- if you do l
I 6 this analysis right'here -- I'm sorry -- yes, if you do this l
{
7 analysis right here for the 8 kV cable, you will find that 8 that coincides exactly with the field acceptance test 9 voltage. Our recommendation coincides exactly with the field 10 acceptance test voltage of the 8 kV cable. So we felt pretty 11 confident that this approach was a good approach.
12 Again, the slide that we are looking for right now
(]f) 13 is the margin slide, which shows that there are significant 14 margins in this test procedure.
15 MR. MARINOS: That's the one you showed us 16 before?
17 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yeo. That's the one I showed 18 you before and there are significant margins in this test 19 procedure.
20 (Slide.) ;
l b 21 This, again, is the slide which is showing that 22 there are significant margins, and again with the 8 kV, this I l
23 number coincides exactly with the 8 kV field acceptance test 2h 24 number which provides confidence that this approach is a ,
25 reasonable approach. And you can see that, again, with the ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33 0 s 46 1
, . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _______
31663.0 brt 111 1 margins that we have in the lower voltage cable -- we think
/m ej/ 2 accounts for the fact that the industry specifying a megger 3 test for this is not an unreasonable thing to do.
4 However, we are not recommending this because this 5 is not our charge. Our charge is to come up with a high 6 potential test voltage and that is where we are.
7 With that, unless there are any more questions, 8 Bill Raughley will conclude the technical portion of the 9 presentation.
10 MR. GOODWIN: I have one question. 3000 volts DC, l
11 how thin -- if I built an insulation, or a cable system that Tt:
12 had, perhaps, 6 mil of silicon or XLP, do you think that (f) 13 would pass a 3000 volt DC test?
14 MR. CARDELLO: Firrt, you took two very different l l
It might have two times the breakdown gradient 15 materials.
16 than silicon -- if you are talking silicon, DC breakdowns, 17 eight.
18 MR. GOODWIN: So there's 2 mil insulation would 19 hold this?
20 MR. CARDELLO: Yes, but under ideal conditions.
21 MR. GOODWIN: But do you think 2 mil or even 4 mil 22 or 6 mil would survive an unhealthy environment? Because 23 that's all I'm going to be able to detect is intact 24 insulation?
[ff) ,
25 MR. GARDNER: Again, I had another corollary ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
I 31663.0 i brt 112 1 question paralleling that. In all the study to date, I have j
\
km3) 2 heard no mention of harsh environment whatsoever. I would l i
3 ask the question: Has the study group addressed whether it i
4 is justified to apply a commercial practice for general use 5 throughout the field to the conditions I thought we had here,
)
6 where we are trying to understand the safety factor involved 1 7 in the operation of a cable in a harsh environment some time I 8 in the future?
9 MR. FITZPATRICK: I guess maybe we didn't do a j l
10 very good job, JB. What we tried to say today was that, I 11 first of all, we are not applying any ordinary test on this. j l
12 Our charge was to come up with a high potential test. The 6@7 J 13 ordinary test would be a 5500 volt megger. In the very 14 worst, lowest scenario that we have -- where is our other 15 analysis slide -- the lowest scenario that we have is a test 1
16 voltage six times what the industry says it ought to do.
17 Again, higher is not always better. I mean the 18 higher voltage isn't always going to find the most problems.
19 All right?
20 So we'have tried to come up with a test voltage I!
'l 21 that is six times higher than what the industry has done and 22 all through this we have tried to say that equipment l
l 23 qualification -- this one right here is 3300 volts DC, which l'
tv is six uimes the 500 volt DC megger -- so we have put a gg? 24 j l
25 pretty significant increase in voltage on that. 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 )
_o
31663.0 l brt 113 1 All through this we are saying that we have the
/A
3/ 2 same concern about the. qualification of the cable and the 3 cable operating in a harsh environment, and that we are 4 trying to show that qualification is not invalidated just 4
5 because there is some kind of damage on the insulation.
6 Okay? And that dantage on insulation in a nuclear power plant l 7 is not an unusual occurrence. Okay?
8 I mean, I have had business with you with this 1
I 9 kind of thing, so that is not an unusual occurrence. '
10 MR. MARINOS: How do you determine that the I l 11 qualifications aren't invalidated if you aren't applying the l
~
l
. 12 environmental conditions to the cable and apply these' tests !
. ([%
N' 13 and see whether this cable will survive? How did you make 14 that determination?
15 MR. FITZPATRICK: What we are trying to show on 16 that is were this slide right here -- there is nothing 17 mysterious -- there is nothing synergistic in here that says 18 45 mil cable passes and 44 mils doesn't pass a loca. Okay?
I 19 We are showing there -- these are tests done, some 1 20 of these are even done down to 10 mils in here.
21 MR. THUE: But let's be sure everyone understands 22 that when you put on 10 mils, you have a jacket on that EPR l
23 cable. All of those that are qualified for 10 mils do have l'h l qis 24 jackets and they are in the c,ircuit. ,
i 25 MR. FITZPATRICK: In general, that is correct. i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cove. rage 800-336-6646
'31663.0
.brt 114 1- MR. THUE: Well,_for all -- .
~(g- o-2 MR. FITZPATRICK: Except for in the qualification i
3 area, we are not depending on the jacket. !
4 MR. THUE: Except .it is there. I 5 .
MR. FITZPATRICK: It is there.
t 6 MR~. LING: Can I! answer the question on the 7 ' element of concern about how we can apply a cable from 4
. I 8: qualification testing of brand new cable and. apply'to the 9 cable after. installation qualifications >to work -- okay?' I l
10 think this is what everybody is concerned with. This is our 4
11 life. You must think about this.
12 I remember the early stages, starting from 1968 13 with J.B. Gardner; together on this we wrote the 14 specification -- I really cannot recall why we picked 80 15 volts per minute. But today, when you take a -test cn1 the 16 brand new cable, test according -- after 40 years, you are 17 still testing 80 volts -- it doesn't mean-a lot of safety 18 margin especially applied to low voltage cables. Your low 19 voltage cables -- 45 mil or 30 mil -- roughly 15 to.20: volts i
20 per mil; okay?
_ So my feeling is you ---just^in your cable i 21 after installation, after so many years, your safety margin ,
i 22' is reduced. The safety margin.cannot reduce from 80 volts to -j 23 a mere nothing. Okay? So I feel today the 80 volts per mil (k 24 is building in a large safety margin.
25 We know from our experience there is plenty of- .)
'l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage . 800 336-6646
V 31663.0 '
brt 115 1 safety margin -- how much safety margin? How thin the cable
$1
'W/
2 can be and still pass has to be tested.
3 MR. CANTRELL: To somewhat address that, the 1
4 materials and the properties of the cable as an insulation !
5 were proven in a test; it was in loca environments.
6 I think what is being drawn -- we are trying to 7 draw on, is that the margin, as ludicrous as it sounds, 3 or )
8 3 mils of insulation -- that once it is in place the margin 9 of the 8 kV cable and control cable are comparable and the i
10 trauma it is going to see after it has already received its 11 mechanical abuse do correlate. If that is the case, then we
, 12 are saying that that is where we are headed; making the 6'9) 13 parallel. .
j 1
14 I thin'k you can get an 8 kV cable in with a l
15 percentage less deterioration than you can with a multiple 16 control instrument cable. A lot of that cable 17 instrumentation is a mechanical buffer. Just the ability to 18 manufacture it guarantees amelioration.
19 The point we are making is not to downgrade the i 20 qualificaiton effort -- and it does get into -- the margins 21 are great. But once it is installed in there, it correlates 22 with the margins in that 8 kV cable --
23 MR. LIAW: I think it is going to be an opportune (hh 24 time for me to pass you the question, Charlie.
25 What kind of certification did you receive from ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
I 31663.0 bre 116 1 the manufacturer, what kind of tests your cable went n i Jj 2 through? The second is what kind of receiving instructions 3 you had, that you received before you can install it? ;
.i 4 MR. FOX: I am going to let Bill Raughley answer 5 that. l l
6 MR. RAUGHLEY: Can you speak to that, Ken?
f 1
I 7 MR. BROWN: My name is Ken Brown. As far as the' 8 manufacturing tests that were conducted, the cable before it 9 was jacketed, was subjected to 5 kV AC in water. Then it 10 went to the jacketing process.
i 11 After it was jacketed it was not again tested as a 12 completed cable. They did selected samples, 1.2 kV AC was as
' 13 high as they went after they-jacketed it, after the cable was 14 jacketed.
15 As far as inspection goes --
j 16 MR. LIAW: I understand you have something like 20 l
17 suppliers on the cables. What you are saying is uniform to 18 all of them?
19 MR. BURZYNSKI: He's addressing this one.
20 MR. BROWN: I'm addressing directly the silicone 21 rubber cables.
l 22 MR. LIAW: How many suppliers were there for 23 those?
m 24 i
Qf MR. BROWN: I believe there were three at 25 Sequoyah.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 u-_____. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
31663.0-L brt, 117 1 MR. LIAW: Would you'be able to give us a' copy of l 73 isp 2 the certifications you were'provided? ,
- 3 MR. BROWN
- Sure.
~
l 4 MR. EBNETER: Let's hear the rest of the j i
l 5 presentation. The qualification'-- can't tell -- says it is l
6 established by a test program. We are concerned'that the 7 cable we' degraded during the installation process'and this i
8 test is supposed to detect that. That is what we are 9 interested in. The basic qualification mechanism is already-10 in place. Now we want to make sure that when you pulled the-11 cable and installed it, it is still going to be.in service.
l 12 The cable will never be the.same.again after it (hh 13 leaves the manufacturer. We want to make sure it.is suitable l 1
14 for service. Let's hear the rest of what you have to say.
15 MR. RAUGELEY: I wanted to address one conclusion I
16 at a time here.
1 17 First off, with regard to the vertical cable'and 18 conduit, the cable and vertical conduit issue, there were no 19 failures as a result of a cable -- of our lack to support 20 . vertical cables in 'onduits.
c L 21 (Slide.)'
22 If you go back to the test, th'e worst case 23 condition in the plant was this one up here.- We ended up lf}.; 24 testing these cables because they ran in this conduit here, 25 but this distance was 10 feet in.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700-- .- Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 '
i 31663.0 , j brt 118 1 MR. SHEA: Not quite. Less than 10.
e,
-sF 2 MR. RAUGHLEY: For these particular cables, the 1
3 code allows 25 feet and we were approximately 10 feet over 1 4 that. These cables passed the test. These cables at this
]
5 condulet passed the test. As far as the vertical cable
)
6 issue, they have passed the test and met the code l l
7 requirement.
8 As far as our disposition of the cables that broke I 9 down, I want to go back -- Art went pretty quick through the )
10 University of Connecticut test.
t i 11 If you look here, these cables passed all the et 12 other -- this was, for all practical purposes, this was as
%'% .- 13 good as new cable. There was very minor degradation of the 14 cable when you look at the other attributes.
I <
15
- As far as the insulation thickness for new cable, I i
i 16 it was consistent. As far as X-ray ~and-infrared l
17 spectroscopy, it revealed no abnormalities. These are 18 studies, pictures, X-rays that they take of the cable to look 1
1 19 at the structure and there were no abnormalities there. !
20 Very important is the ' fact that what they did was l
l 21 they took very, very fine slices; they tried to dissect these 1
t 22 pinholes and did these micro-samples tensile elongation 23 tests. That's a very important attribute when looking at the I ,
24 life of the sample.
($)
25 The elongation in the new cable, it wds here -- if ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 brt 119 1 you look at the installed -- two were above it and the others 2 were close. There was no degradation of the elongation 3 property. It was still able to maintain its tensile ,
4 strength. The physical properties of the cables have been ;
5 maintained of these failed samples.
6 The point is, even though it failed, it didn't 7 pass the test at 7.2 kV, or 10 kV, if you look at the other 8 attributes that still -- well, let me get to that.
9 As far as the impact damage, we.were able to 10 duplicate the damage. Just rolling it over the edge of the 11 table only reproduced the surface damage. Hitting it with
. 12 the hammer reproduced the interior and exterior damage.
O ws 13 If you look at all these cables -- three of the 14 cables were within one foot of one another and one cable was 15 out here. There were three within a foot here and one out 16 here.
17 If this were construction damage as a result of 18 the pulling process, either this way or that way, or rubbing ,
i 19 it over the surface like you said, you would expect to see 20 that over a significant length of the cable. Not an inch. l 21 I wonldn't expect to find one pinhole. If it were i 1 ;
22 a result of a pulling process, it would have been over 23 there. {
(m{b 24 MR. FOX: With one exception. These were, in 25 fact, point defects.
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
,- 7-=--
31663.0 ' ' '
brt \
120 1 MR. RAUGHLEY: Yes, three of the four were point 2 defects. One.was over a three-inch area. We confirmed the A,
3 .est at our Singleton Materials Laboratory. If the inch were !
4 developed onto two linear inches and we were able to 5 reproduce the damage as noted at the University of 6 Connecticut --
the damage was found to be highly localized. )l 4
3 i;
7 The damage was likely to have occurred -- the cable was ;
- x. i 8 factery-tested and we have the factory test results, that l 9 this. cable passed the factory test results. It was then y .
10 jacket'ed, reeled, shipped, unreoled, et cetera..
. (
11 3- You know, wearesayinkithadtohapenafterthe Q .E y . >. i, 12 ;
f actory t ests but before it warg pul}!1ed ?throdghp T <
st i
l
+3 ,
O,g 13 The damaged areas were'close to one another. The 14 cables were pulled from the same reel. They were pulled on j l 15 the same day and they were running a conduit which has a low l
u 16 numberof$bendsand'buitiplepullpointsandmeetsthe t
current day req.13 rements .
27 13 MR. THUE: I dgree with Phat you are saying --
19 Bill Thue ; /.s
-- and certainly I have seen this kind of impact t '
20 damage. l' kiiow it. can happen. But, I am sorry, you have not s
21 convinced me that itcouldnothavehappebedduring.
22 installation. I have watched too tinytof these cables go 23 ' .t i.n , ., I .ghave talked to yotir folks. I know that tnat T could .
y l
h 24 have been the pull point; you could have. put a twist in those l 25 xenbles; you could have scraped it' over that Thave condulet.
l 5 y,y-Q i . ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
,s.m.nx sationwide cov, tone 800 336-6616 o v
c_ _ _
l-1 31663.0 -
brt 121 1 I am not telling anybody here that I know what 1
th -., 2 caused the problem. I am just saying that I cannot be
.l 3 convinced that it is not installation problem, and even if 4 the guy ran over it with a forklift, you know it's hard for 5 me not to call that an installation problem.
i> 6 MR. RAUGHLEY: I will give you that. I disagree l 7 with you. I don't see how that could have happened.
8 How do you have one spot? One pinhole as a result j i
9 of pulling several those, these forces -- J 10 MR. THUE: I have seen them. We have done it. On ,
l 11 EPR we have done it. )
I 12 MR. RAUGHLEY: Where, at a plant in the field?
13 MR. THUE: Yes, at a plant. A nonnuclear plant, l
l 14 everybody, for the record. i 15 MR. RAUGHLEY: I would like to say we would be 16 able to duplicate the damage, we believe it is an isolated 17 case and we don't feel any need to test it any further to
! 18 expand our program to look at any more cables of silicon 19 cable in the field.
l l 20 MR. MARINOS: There is another slide. Are you l
l 21 going to present that?
l 22 MR. RAUGHLEY: That is what I was working on.
23 That's next.
(,h 24 (Slide.)
25 If you look --
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ A
31663.0' brt 122 1 MR. CANTRELL: Just momentarily, to answer your Ch.v.?- 2 question, we have not said whether the tests that we are 3 proposing would have caught that same defect _or not. What we 4 are saying is that we are satisfied that we know the cause of 5 that as being a random impact rather than a pull problem; and 6 therefore, it, in and of itself, would not automatically 7 expand our sampling.
8 MS. AXELRAD: Wouldn't that have provided more 9 function if you had expanded the sampling technique, if you 10 used another conduit and another cable that wasn't from the 11 reel and pulled under the same circumstances? You are 12 proposing to do a new tech method. Wouldn't that have been a
([) 13 better way to justify your conclusion that it wasn't 14 justified by the pulling to expand the sample the way you 15 originally intended to do in your test program and test 16 another conduit run?
17 Would that have been terribly expensive or 18 difficult to do? Why not just do that? Wouldn't it have 19 given you more credibility and if you had different results, 20 then you would have been more sure that it was caused by 21 something other than the installation practices?
22 MR. FOX: What we promised was when we had a 23 failure we would run it to ground. We ran it to ground to
{/g 24 our satisfaction and our consultants' satisfaction to the 25 conclusion that the damage was not caused by pulling. It was Acs-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
\ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
m 31663.0 brt 123 1 l' not caused by installation. These are three -- with one j
- l
(;$) 2 exception, three very small point defects that it is hard to 3 understand how pulling or installing a cable could have i 4
h caused a very small defect of this size, a pinhole if you j 5 would.
6 MR. LIAW: I would interject, I am sorry. You 7 said pinhole, small defect. But in fact the interior damage 8 is much more severe to us in at least two of the'four. This 9 is not something that is a small defect.
10 The interior of the insulation material was l 11 damaged. ', I t,,
12 MR. GARDNER: I think I can clarify one thing.
() 13 J.D. Gardner. As far as the outside damage is concerned, it l
14 exists not at the point of the field failure but over an inch '
, 15 or inch and a half of the surface. Can you readily see the 1
16 little rupture marks on the surface? I don't know how much l 17 on the inside, because I never saw that.
! 18 On one of the samples, you had it over a distance l
19 of three or four inches, these marks on the surface. So it 20 is not a pinhole damage. A pinhole fault, yes. But damage l 21 is extended over some distance of inches on the surface.
I j
22 MR. FOX: It is pinhole on the inside. That 23 damage originated from a nucleation site, it appears to us, l ([y 24 against the conductor itself. And that origination-site if 25 this is indication of it was quite small. You saw the ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 !
l __ __ _. _ _ ___ _ _ ---_ _ - __
31663.0 brt: 124 1 physical external.
,o (f) 2 MR. GARDNER: I was looking at the damage; not the '
3 fault.
4 MR. RAUGHLEY: What do you say about this one; one i
cable will no surface crazing, no interior damage, the 5
1 6 surface test was okay -- what happened to it? If we had put 1
7 7.2 kV on that that was a good cable that we damaged.
8 MR. MARINOS: Which failed?
l 9 MR. RAUGHLEY: Here is a cable with no problem, it 10 passes all the elongation, tensile, has the proper number of 11 mils on it, yet it won't hold 7.2 or 7.5 kV.
12 The only thing abnormal that happened to that
- h, q; 13 cable is we_ raised it above its operating voltage.
14 MR. GARDNER: Sitting next to two others that 15 failed in the same area. ;
16 MR. SHEA: No, J.B., that is not correct. Cable 2 17 is the cable that was off by itself, not associated with any 18 of the other three.
19 MR. RAUGHLEY: Here is one that was associated i l 20 with the other three, and all it had was the surface crazing, ,
l 21 yet all the other physical parameters were fine.
22 MR. GOODWIN: Ed Goodwin. If you say this damage 23 is caused by impact, tell me how the impact occurs at the l dj) 24 same point on two different cables that were drawn from the i 25 same reel and, therefore, could not have been pulled directly ;
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ,
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
1
31663.0 brt 125 1 off the reel together.
(J) 2 MR. FOX: Yes, they were.
3 MR. RAUGHLEY: When you go through the pulling 4 process, what they would have done is pulled the cables off i
5 the reel, cut it, pulled.them off, cut it and laid-it out.
6 With those cables lying on the ground and then they would 7 have harnessed them and pulled them through. That's l
8 physically how. If confirmed they are all from the same reel 9 so you would have had to pull it off, cut it, pull it off, 10 cut it eight times.
11 MR. RAUGHLEY: 16, 12 MR. ZWOLINSKI; Nobing the time, I would ask staff (k 13 to hold questions and let these folks complete their 14 presentation.
15 MR. RAUGHLEY: I was trying to make the point 16 here.
17 (Slide.)
! 18 Everything else about it looks okay, except we put 19 7.5 kV on it.
20 Here is another one with minor damage which you 21 wouldn't consider degraded at all, and it wouldn't pass.
22 I think on all.these cables, that is the case. If 23 we hadn't gone that high on the voltage, if we had stayed
-{y 24 within the service voltage or reasonably within the service l
L 25 voltage, it would have lasted.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
31663.0 brt 126 1 You know, you just can't look at the high n
(j) 2 potential test.
3 (Slide.)
4 That was the last point there. We are concluding 5 if testing had continued at the original parameters, it could 6 result in replacement of acceptable cables.
? As far as what we are going to do with the task 8 force recommendation, we are golug to use two times circuit 9 rated plus 1000, which would mean that we would be testing 10 the 600 volt power at 6 kV; the 600 volt control at 3.8 kV; 11 and the 300 volt instrument cable at 34 kV.
12 We are going to evaluate on a case-by-case basis
'(h) 13 the use of water based on considerations to plant safety and 14 our ability to remove water from the conduit.
15 MS. AXELRAD: Does that mean you are going to use 16 water,unless on a case-by-case basis you find a problem, or l 17 does that mean each time you are going to look at it.
1 18 MR. RAUGHLEY: We have four places we can use l 19 water without impacting plant safety.
20 MS. AXELRAD: Out of how many?
21 MR. RAUGHLEY: 30 conduits.
22 MS. AXELRAD: And you have evaluated the other 23 167
((g, 24 MR. RAUGHLEY: I don't know if we have gone all 25 the way through the jamming.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 '
brt 127 1 MR. FOX: Each will be documented. It will be a hg; 2 documented rationale, subject to your review.
3 MS. AXELRAD: Before you do the test? ,
4 MR. FOX: Yes.
5 MR. RAUGHLEY: We are going to test -- if there is 6 a multiconductor cable, we are going to test each conductor 7 separately so we are testing 380 cables and the majority of 8 the cables are multiple conductors on the pullbys. So there 9 will be many more tests in excess of the 380. And we will be 10 going with the no-go acceptance criteria, and we will 11 continue to record the values at one, two, three, four and 12 five minutes.
() 13 MR. FOX: And a point Bill made earlidr, we do 14 have a maintenance program which goes in at a periodic basis, 15 which looks at 6.9 and above kV cable and also all circuit 16 motors ,100 horsepower and above.
17 So, we have something that addresses Marinos' and 18 Mr. Liaw's question earlier about an in-service inspection 19 program, on cable, if you will, which should pick up shifting 20 of the cable in a conduit if that were, in fact, occurring.
21 MR. RAUGHLEY: For the record, I said we were 22 testing the 300 volt instrument et 34 kV, it is 3.4.
23 MR. FOX: What is a few decades.
24 MR. RAUGHLEY: You guys were going to let me go on
{. }.
25 that; right?
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
31663.0 brt 128
'l As far as the revisions to the original submittal-m
'])
Q 2 the test voltages are stated as I just stated. We will 3 evaluate the use -- clarify our use of water, and we will 4 clarify the use of the ground plane.
5 On the go/no-go, that was part of our original 6 submittal. And as far as the supplements we will be giving 7 you, we will be outlining any previous -- just for licensing 8 consistency -- we will be going over the discussions with 9 regard to reg guide 168 and formation notice 86-49; we will 10 be assigned a copy of the University of Connecticut report; 1
11 the cable task force report will be signed by all members and i
12 submitted; the calculations for the ranging of the conduits l (h) 13 as we apply them to the worst case criteria that we 14 developed, the conduits, those calculations are in the 15 process of being reviewed right now, and we will submit them l
l 16 as part of the original submittal.
17 Then we will also submit TVA's comments'on the 1 i l 18 TER. !
l 1 19 The approximate time frame that we were looking to ;
20 internally try to close things by July 24th, and then follow I
21 it up the week after.
l 22 We have -- these consultants are kind of 23 independent about schedules and stuff.
24 MR. EBNETER:
({} You pay them a good salary, don't 25 you? l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 H brt- 129 1- , MR. BURZYNSKI: Quality first. Schedule second.
o..
73 ) 2 MR. RAUGHLEY: In order to get review of.the whole 3 task force and in order for them to properly do their thing. ,
il 4 MR. ZWOLINSKI: Does this complete your 5 presentation?
6 MR. RAUGHLEY: Yes.
7 MR. ZWOLINSKI: You said the 24th, and a week 8 later, I think --
9 MR. RAUGHLEY: I said internally we are trying to 10 get things done by the 24th.
11 MR. ZWOLINSKI: I think mid-August might be 12 realistic for a submittal to the commission.
(k)* 13 Do I understand correctly that you folks are on 14 hold with your test program until the staff endorses it?
15 MR. RAUGHLEY: We were testing at the voltages --
16 we were doing, at our risk, testing at voltages other than ,
i l
17 that which we had submitted. l i
18 MR. FOX: You tested three conduits? l i
19 MR. RAUGHLEY: We are definitely through three. l 20 MR. EBNETER: You know we discussed this over the 21 phone. You said you were going to do some analytical tests.
22 I don't want those voltages submitted to us as part of a 23 submittal to justify your case. l 24 f{} MR. FOX: They are not, no. 1 25 MS. AXELRAD: Let me just ask you, if you send in ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
y-------
31663.0 brt 130 1 your submittal on July 24 and the staff approves the program
(?) 2 on August 24, are you going to come'in and say: Fine, we 3 have already finished it? Or are you going to be beginning 4 it after we approve it?
5 MR. FOX: I guess we could begin the program at 6 any point we so. chose. Whether or not it was for credit 7 would depend on whether you approve the program.
8 In essence, anything that we did in the 9 intervening period would be at our own risk.
10 MS. AXELRAD: I'm asking you do you intend to 11 proceed at your own risk and do you intend once we approve l
l 12 the program to come in and say fine, it is already done?
h 13 MR. FOX: We have no intentions of doing it quite 14 that way. I am not quite sure what your inference is i
15 meaning.
l 16 I am not saying that we wouldn't do some 17 additional testing or wouldn't go ahead and proceed at our 18 own risk with the program.
19 Are we at fault for that?
20 MS. AXELRAD: No ', I am just asking you a simple 21 question: Are you going to'do that or aren't you? Yec or l
1 22 no?
23 MR. RAUGHLEY: We are going to be. testing for g 24 analytical purposes. We are going to be conducting tests in 25 accordance with the numbers we have outlined. They_will all ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31663.0 brt 131 1 be documented.
e y;i 2 MS. AXELRAD: It is not an irrelevant question 3 since it would be interesting for us to know how much on your 4 critical path the approval of your test program is going to 5 be? If you are obviously waiting for us to approve it before 6 you even begin it, then my next question would be how long 7 would it take you to complete the test program so we would ,
8 then be able to map out a schedule based on if our approval ,
9 were to take some extra time or what you would do if there j.
10 were failures or something like that?
11 For schedule purposes alone, I think it is a 12 relevant question.
(kf 13 MR. FOX: I would like to get back to you with the 14 answer to that.
15 MR. EBNETER: Has Admiral White gone over this 16 proposal extensively?
17 MR. FOX: He has, yes.
18 MR. EBNETER: The only holdup you see would be 19 getting the consultants --
20 MR. FOX: Getting the reports done and getting 21 them in. That is the pacing item.
1 22 I would like to add that, in addition to Bill 23 Raughley's consultants, we have used other consultants as
! (fp 24 well, external to the group that you saw here today. Those 25 were gentlemen that had worked in the nuclear Navy previously ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-34~,.3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1- o 31663.0 brt -132 1- and'they did provide advice directly to Admiral White which i A04 '
tup 2 led, in part, to us taking a. fundamental relook at the test 3 program per se.
4 MR. ZWOLINSKI: And what you have presented today i
5 seems to be a significant departure from what we have been l 6 looking at in the past as far as your. test program.
7 MR. FOX: It is.
8 MR. ZWOLINSKI: I am concerned that we are headed 9 for this to be put on a critical path as far as you getting i 10 your submittal in, so on and so forth. I would only l
l 11 recommend you do it as quickly as possible.
l 12 The staff will review it,in a timely manner. ,
(h 13 MR. LIAW:
^
Since you just mentioned the nuclear 14 Navy -- l 15 MR. FOX: Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that.
l 16 MR. LIAW: In our first meeting, Mr. White l i
17 indicated something about his experience with testing nuclear 18 conductors for cable. Because he said that we have done some i 19 homework and I would like you to hear what we found, for his 1
20 consumption or your consumption. Whatever.
I 21 MR. FOX: For our consumption. l 22 MR. GOODWIN: Ed Goodwin, NRC staff.
l 23 I made inquiries at what is now called NAVSEA and 1
('hh 24 was in former years called the Bureau of Ships. What in i
25 those days was called Bureau of Ships technical manual, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Natior. wide Coverage 800 336-6646
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ~
31663.0 brt 133 l
1 section 300, now called NSPM-300, is the section that deals
(['h) 2 with periodic testing of cables in naval application -- l l
3 l general naval application. l 4 It calls out a periodic preoverhaul testing of 5 power cables at a voltage level of 2N plus 1000 AC, three 6 times that DC. It called out periodic tests to indicate the 7 passing of it is sufficient to say the cable is unlikely to 8 fail until the next overhaul.
9 These are cables in general service, to the best l l
10 of my knowledge from what I could determine on an )
l 11 unclassified basis that testing was not used to qualify cable 12 within the reactor department of nuclear submarines.
'@,sy 13 MR. LIAW: What kind of cable are you talking 14 about? Is there a distinction between the type of cable they 15 are using there --
16 MR. GOODWIN: The major distinction is the naval 17 cable is metal armored and, therefore, has a clear return l
18 path and there isn't a worry about a ground plane. It is 19 generally rubber insulated, maybe plastic, but I don't know 20 that.
21 MR. LIAW: Our perception is this. There are 22 distinctive differences, and it is used also for different 23 purposes. -
h}y 24 MR. FOX: There are some difficult AQ problems, 1
25 namely sonic shocks from depth charges and things like that.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
__--__-______-__a
31663.0 brt 134 1 , MR. THUE: Bill Thue. I have one question. What hj 2 is the mathematical basis for the testing? Is that in 3 something that had already been submitted?
4 In our last discussion, it was sort of loose.
5 Have I nissed something in the last month or so when I have 6 been out of the country? How many samples you are going to 7 test and so on?
8 MR. LIAW: We are starting with a new ballgame.
9 Now they talking about 300.
l 10 MR. FOX: 380.
l l ' 11 MR. THUE: That's for the whole rest of the Tt 12 plant.
( )' 13 MR. ZWOLINSKI: We are starting all over, 14 Jane, did you have a question?
15 MS. AXELRAD: Yes. Suppose -- your consultants 16 that you have determined adequately what the cause of the 17 damage that you found was. We may disagree with that. There 18 may be just a difference of opinion between the two groups.
19 What would be the down side of us asking you to go 20 and test another set of cebles in another conduit that was 21 not pulled on the same day.that was pulled from a different 22 reel of cable to determine whether you would find the same 23 type of damage?
((g, 24 MR. RAUGHLEY: About a week from the time we wrote 25 the procedure and did the walkdown; assuming work and ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
31663,0 brt 135
- 1. everything else went --
b[3 2 MR. BROWN: It would be much longer than that.
3 MR. FOX: This is Ken Brown. He was involved in 4 providing the procedure. What is your estimate?
5 MR. BROWN: Judging by the e.r7,rrience and 6 troubleshooting that we did on this last conduit, the one 7 involve in the vertical run, it probably took us three weeka 8 just to get the procedures turned around in order to do the 9 troubleshooting once we had that special test instruction in 10 place because it was preceded by a very extensive review.
11 MR. FOX: It was taking equipment out of service li 12 to conduct the test? That what you are saying? !
(
l gch i eg./ 13 MR. BROWN: Selecting equipment, rating the 4 li procedure, getting all the groups to review it, quality 15 engineering staff, getting all the comments incorporated --
l 16 MR. RAUGHLEY: The procedures are all boilerplate 17 now at this point.
18 MR. MARINOS: How many of these vertical drop l
l 19 condulets that you are abandoning?
20 MR. RAUGHLEY: I'm sorry?
l 21 MR. MARINOS: How many of these vertical drop 22 condulets that you are abandoning?
23 MR. EBNETER: Why don't you do one of those as an
,$) 24 analytical test?
25 MR. RAUGHLEY: 12.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
n 31663.0 brt 136 l' MR. SHEA: Tim Shea, I would just want to ask one j dT Q])4 2 question. If we were to do such a test, we talk about 3 testing another vertical conduit, but I think we have shown 4 whatever caused this problem was not related to vertical, so 5 if I were to pick another conduit, I would go out seeking one 6 that had the same commonalities as to what may have caused 7 this and it is not clear what I would base that on.
8 MR. FOX: Doesn't have to be vertical
. 9 necessarily --
10 MR. EBNETER: We agree. It should be like the run 11 you had in there with the 90 degree run to pick up Mr. Thue's 12 concerns.
( 13 MR. MARINOS: We have a difference. It may be 14 impact. We disagree -- so if you pick up one with the same 1
15 configuration, one or two, maybe it would put that to bed.
16 MR. EBNETER: I think you determine whether that l 17 thing is impact or pulling damage, very easily. Just take a 18 couple of conduits and put a condulet in it and pull some 19 cable through it and put different tensions on it and have a 20 limited run and take the cable off and look at it.
21 MR. MARINOS: I would prefer to do some in situ 22 test.
23 MR. EENETER: You can do that, too, but if the (h 24 argument is whether it is pulling or impact, I could do that 25 very quickly. Just set it up in the yard.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
7_ .
l 31663.0 I L brt 137
-i 1 MR. GARDNER: Were there DC breakdown tests made f1 II (fh 2 of'the cables which you damaged in the11aboratory to 3 correlate? And were the measurements of the residual of 4 those' cables made to correlate with the results at UConn l 1
5 where they measured down to 8 mils residuals on one of the i
6 damaged pieces?
7 MR. BROWN: This is Ken Brown again. The answer ,
i I
B to that is no. We were doing strictly a mechanism type of l
)
9 investigation, so, when we damaged it, the next thing we did 10 was cut it apart to see if we'had found the impact level that 1 i
11 caused that phenomenon. There was not an intermediate step e i 12 where we tried to break it down. Again, like in the case of
() 13 cable 2: If there was anything there, the fault took the 14 evidence away. I didn't want to take away evidence of the ]
k 15 inception point of that damage. I lI 16 MR. ZWOLINSKI: Since you did not do a number of 17 tests in a variety of cables and you ha.e chosen to 1
18 reevaluate your program, it may be fair to ask you in your 19 presentation to us to address some of my opening remarks as 20 related to Grand Gulf and the equivalency argument I think 21 you were trying to establish today. I 22 MR. FOX: Okay.
23 MR. ZWOLINSKI: Does the staff have any more
((Ip 24 questions?
25 MR. GARDNER: Just one small one remaining here.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1 31663.0 '
brt 138 1 On the sample at UConn that failed where there had been a cut. j (h. 2 in the insulation due to stripping, was the remaining wall of
- 1 3 insulation that punctured during.that 34 kV breakdown I i
4 measured? )
)
5 MR. BROWN: No, sir, it was not. Ken Brown. It 1
6 was very clearly noted as we were trying to remove that 7 jacket. You'll see in the report, we tried a couple of i B different processes in removing the jacket after we got one )
l
. 9 that we were confident would get the jacket off without j 10 damaging it.
l l 11 It was clearly noted in removing that jacket,
! 12 cable 1, that we had cut --
I say "we" -- UConn had cut that
{
k) 13 spot and the spot was noted.
14 We did test, did examinations before we ever 15 touched the cable and we knew where the weak points were.
,16 After we took off the jacket, we found that one of the areas l
17 where we were cut the cable now exhibited a weak point, so we 18 weren't the least surprised.
19 MR. GARDNER: But you don't know whether the cut 20 went a halfway through? A quarter? Three quarters?
21 MR. BROWN: No.
22 MR. GARDNER: In the same UConn test report, they l
23 say there were residual wal'1s down to 8 and 10 mils on that ggy 24 four-inch sample, that did not fail under the 10.8 kV field 25 test.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 L____-_______________________ __ _ _ _ _ _ -. _
31663.0 brt 139 l' Do I infer correctly, then, that that, together 2 with the conclusion of the task group that continued testing' ;
3 at 10.8 kV could fail good cable -- service cable, pardon me 4 -- that you would suggest that then 8 or 10 mils residual 5 insulation is serviceable cable?
6 MR. RAUGHLEY: The lab results from the University 7 of Connecticut, if I can throw them up again, indicate that 8 the other parameters don't show any other degradation.
9 MR. GARDNER: You don't clearly have degradation l 10 here down to 8 or 10 mils that did not fail under the test.
11 MR. RAUGHLEY: If you take the task force analysis l
. 12 of how many mils of insulation are needed for it to do its l O>
l u 13 electrical job, it was 3.99.
14 MR. GARDNER: Okay. That is what I wanted to l
l 15 know.
16 MR. RAUGHLEY: We were in excess of that by a 1
17 factor of 2-1/2 or three.
18 MR. ZWOLINSKI: Collaterally, I want to thank you 19 and your staff. I thought the presentation was a job well 20 done.
l 21 We have the notes that we can work with. We are 22 only as good as your submittal and I am concerned that that 23 might become a schedular issue.
$kh 24 MR. FOX: We are going to do everything in our 25 power to get the submittal finished and do everything ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
r l 31663.O brt~ 140 I possible to get it to you. We will try to give you a lli ikf) 2 schedule early next week that we can meet.
3 MR. ZWOLINSKI: Thank you.
4 (Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the hearing was j 5 concluded.)
6 1
7 1
9 10 11 1 ,
1 12 h 13 l 14 l
l l 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 l.
23 i
f;h 24 .
25 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L___________-__-___________-___
1 CERTIFICATE'OF OFFICIAL REPORTER i
i
/Ih wr
\
J This .is to certify that the attached proceedings before j the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the i
i matter of:
l NAME OF PROCEEDING: MEETIUG - NRC/TVA SEQUOYAH UUCLEAR PLANT {
CABLE TESTING '
l 1
l l
DOCKET NO.: 50-327; 50-328 l l
PLACE: BETHESDA, MARYLAND L
m (h
- DATE: MONDAY, JULY 13,~1987 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
l (sicto (TYPM)
JOEL BREITUER
[
Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, IUC.
Reporter's Affiliation I
i6 l
l
\:
d N CABLE TASK FORCE A..R. FIT 2 PATRICK l l
CHAIRMAN OF TASK FORCE l l
l l' SWEC ASSISTANT CHIEF ELECTRICAL ENGINEER l
l l DR. M. MASHIKIAN l
l UNIVERSITY OF 1 l CONNECTICUT l l l l l l P. CARDELLO l l H. V. REDGATE l l A. P. STAKUTIS l l T. BALASKA l l SWEC l NEWTOWN .l l INDEPENDENT l l l IPCS l l CONSULTING l l l CONSULTANT l l l l .l l ASSOCIATES ENGINEER l l l l l
'l l l l l l l l DR. T. LING l l E. P. DONEGAN l l K. A. PETTY l ,
l R. LUTHER l l SWEC SENIOR l l CABLEC l l INDEPENDENT l l INDEPENDENT l l l CONSULTANT l l ELECTRICAL ENGINEER l
.m.- l CONSULTANT l l l l l l CABLE SPECIALIST ,l Q' l l l TASK FORCE EXPERTISE NUCLEAR CABLE MANUFACTURING BROAD REPRESENTATION FROM STANDARDS COMMITTEES CURRENT DESIGN AND INSTALLATION EXPERIENCE AT NUCLEAR PLIJTS DNE3-4042W
)
4
-(}-): FORMATION OF THE TASK FORCE
' TASK FORCF QUALIFICATIONS I
'" BAtASKA FORMER UTILITY ENGINEER AND MANUFACTURING SP J INVOLVING HI-POTENTIAL TESTING SENIOR MEMBER - IEEECHAIRMAN - INSULATED C ENGINEERING SOCIETY (PES) 0F IEEE AUTHORED NUMEROUS PAPERS ON HI-POTENTIAL TESTIN l
- 40. YEARS.0F EXPERIENCE i
f LUTHFR REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER FORMER NORTHEAST. UTILITIES CABLE SPECIALIST SENIOR MEMBER - IEEE
'(3) 1 I
VICE CHAIRMAN - ICC 0F PES OF IEEEWORKING GROUP l
MEMBER OF IEEE 383-1974 '
l COMMITTEE l AUTH0R NUMEROUS PAPERS ON CABLE 3S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
! CARDFLLO 4 FORMER DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING FOR A CABLE M EXPERT ON SILICONE RUBBER INSULATIONS l MEMBER - IEEEFORMER GROUP ICEA CHAIRMAN - INSTRUMENTAT AUTHORED NUMEROUS PAPERS AND CABLE RELATED PATE 26 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE ;
DNE3-4042W
ls l
, , 2,,
FORMAlION OF THE TASK FORCE 1 liU' TASK FORCE QUALIFICATIONS (CONT'D)
)
I l DR. LING
\ .,
TECHNICAL CONSULTANT FOR CABLEC - .)
MEMBER - IEEE MEMBER OF IEEE 383-1974 WORKING GROUP AND REVISION i COMMITTEE MEMBER OF NUMEROUS COMMITTEES IN INSULATED CABLE ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION l AUTHOR NUMEROUS PAPERS ON CABLES l MEMBER - NPEC (PES OF IEEE) 1 35 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE REDGATE
^
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER (fj) FORMER SWEC CORPORATE CONSULTING ENGINEER FORMER SWEC CORPORATE EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION CONSULTANT SENIOR MEMBER - IEEE <
l MEMBER - NPEC (PES OF IEEE) WORKING GROUP ON EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION .
1 MEMBER - AIF ON EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION 28 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE l
I DONEGAN l
l REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER FORMER ASSISTANT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF SWEC ;
SENIOR MEMBER - IEEE
~
MEMBER - IEEE 383-1974 WORKING GROUP FORMER MEMBER OF NPEC - EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION ,
FORMER MEMBER OF AIF 38 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE INCLUDING CABLE SPECIALIST, PROJECT ENGINEER AND MANAGER, AND CHIEF ELECTRICAL ENGINEER 4042W i
u__._______________________.._________..___.____________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _
f I 1
FORMATION OF THF TASK FORCE l(). TASK FORCE QUAL:IFICATIONS- (CONT'D) 4
! STAKUTIS
+ g. .,
]
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER CORPORATE CONSULTING ENGINEER OF SWEC SENIOR MEMBER - IEEE MEMBER OF NPEC - SC-2 SUBCOMMITTEE - EQUIPMENT I QUALIFICATION .
40 YEARS 0F EXPERIENCE INCLUDING CHIEF ELECTRICAL ENGINEER PETTY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
- SENIOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEER AND CABLE SPECIALIST SWEC ;
SENIOR MEMBER - IEEE 1 g:3)
L CHAIRMAN ON ICC WORKING GROUP - STATION CABLES MEMBER OF PGC WORKING GROUP FOR IEEE 690 AND IEEE 422 j AUTHORED VOLUME 4 - WIRE AND CABLE OF EPRI ELECTRICAL
-POWER PLANT REFERENCE BOOK I AUTHORED SEVERAL PAPERS ON CABLES AUTHORED EPRI/VEPC0 REPORT ON CABLE LIFE EXTENSION IN '
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 14 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE ;
l FIT 7 PATRICK REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ASSISTANT CHIEF ELECTRICAL ENGINEER --SWEC SENIOR MEMBER - IEEE CHAIRMAN SUBCOMMITTEE 14 0F ICC ON STATION CABLES CHAIRMAN TASK FORCE 12aio - DEVELOPED IEEE 634 REVIEW COORDINATOR FOR ICC ON CABLE-RELATED STANDARDS 1 CONTRIBUTOR T0 IEEE 383-1974 MEMBER-OF IEEE 383-1974 REVISION COMMITTEE FORMER SWEC CABLE SPECIALIST y..egp 24 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 1
DNE3-4042W l
i&-
FORMATION OF THE TASK FORCE PURPOSE-vw REVIEW NRC'S TER AND PROPOSED TEST PLANS ,
' REVIEW TESTING REQUIREMENTS AT SQN T0. ENSURE CABLE INTEGRITY FOR THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS PULLBY .t JAMMING SUPPORT OF CABLE.IN VERTICAL CONDUIT-
.. :c e t' f ,
I 4
? f*
'khh' ,
4042W
I hi.
BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION CABIE OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
~
w MEDIUM VOLTAGE POWER CABLE OPERATE AT OR NEAR TEMPERATURE RATING OPERATE AT OR NEAR VOLTAGE RATING l ** OPERATE AT HIGHEST VOLTAGE STRESS - VOLTS / MIL ** .
HIGHEST QUALITY INSULATION / DIELECTRIC l
l 1 LOW VOLTAGE POWER CABLE
- ~
OPERATE AT OR NEAR TEMPERATURE RATING g5 OPERATE BELOW VOLTAGE RATING w
^
- OPERATE AT A LOWER STRESS **
- INSULATION THICKNESSES BASED ON MECHANICAL PERFORMANCE **
AND NOT ELECTRICAL PERFORMANCE-CONTROL / INSTRUMENTATION CABLE OPERATE BELOW RATED TEMPERATURE OPERATE WELL BELOW RATED VOLTAGE .
1
- OPERATE AT LOWEST STRESSES **
- INSULATION THICKNESSES BASED ON MECHANICAL PERFORMANCE **'
AND NOT ELECTRICAL PERFORMANCE l
1 DNE3-4042W j
~ , , ,
f h, , 4 v' ;.
T t, j I- ,
-gg O ,
H INDUSTRY .
I HlGH VOLTAGE TEST !
VAL.U ES
. , J l o '
{
i i
(
4 i
1
'N f N
-t i' i .,
I e .
(FACTdRY TEST) o' i
iOO % ----- - - -
I w i MEDIUM VOLTAGE ,
A FIELD ACCEPTANCE TEST -h N i
!! 80 % % - - - - - - -- t >
j M I w
F MEDIUM VOLTAGE i E MAINTENANCE 2 o 60 % ----- ---- ---- l 13 a
" 50 % ---- --- ----- - - - -
w z W
9 H
C 2 $ <
- a. w
. Zt- .CC cc > w 1W- o w 2 v o ,
500V MEGGER* 2 H b u
< w Q
z o H -u -.1 -
o co 4 4 w ,
.J w u. o a, ce o p w H o o z_
> z -
u w
w < W
- u. CD y
c 2 CABLE LIFETIME :- '"
(
t *RECOGN'.IZED INDUSTRY FIELD ACCEPTANCE TEST >
7 FOR LCW VOLTAGE CABLE (IEEE 690)
I, s
~
.w-
L BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION i 1
$ CABl E QUAL IFICATION IYPE TEST 1
l USED TO VERIFY ADEQUACY OF MANUFACTURERS DESIGN P asm ** NOT INTENDED AS FIELD ACCEPTANCE OR PROOF TEST STANDARD **
- NOT PERFORMED ON INSTALLED CABLES **
TYP'F TESTS AS QUALIFICATION METHOD DESCRIPTION 0F $ BLE SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF ENVIRONMENT DESCRIPTION OF CABLE PERFORMANCE i
MFETING SERVICE CONDITIONS ,
SUITABLE FOR OPERATION AT MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE SUITABLE FOR ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS l (~p' j
SUITABLE FOR NORMAL ELECTRICAL AND PHYSICAL STRESSES EVIDENCE BASED ON COMPLIANCE WITH INDUSTRY STANDARDS PAST DOCUMENTED OPERATING EXPERIENCE COMPONENT TEST
- COMBINATION OF AB0VE ** ,
QUALIFICATION METHODS-TEST ANALYSIS
, ** COMBINATION ** ]
l
}
U , .
is) l i
DNE3-4027W
)
< C
\
g TI N5 SF0/
EO$Y TR> YNYYYYYYYYYY2YYYYYYYyYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYVYY '
h w .P T
RE 001 1 11 1 1 OT PA 01888888 54 4235553560059356 111111111118811111 5951 01 981 6660
- - - - - - - - 1118881181118 ED R
03222222 - - - / - - - - - - - - - - -
61101 0601 211 1411 41 8 1 1 1
- - - - - 01699616 21001 4 1 111 1 1
2 11l 21 1 1
- - - - - - - 1 8 8 8 T
1 23 A2 430221 8 R
I 0888088 86631 - - 8228 3 0
- 5222222 50064 1 1410 53 0 - 1 3 - - 0 0 - - 054 - 8
.O .
810O0200 .1 64 - 0I 1611 ' 1 6P1 4 4 031 PO 528 l 1 01 1 99439093955233335I 939 3C 4 45 EN R.
5C888888 S.- C
- N C4-C 33331C C 4 91 41C31
- - - - C3C 4 4319894 CCB 01 631 3 - 1 81 81 8808003N -
- 3C C94944 45954 - 5334Ry 1
O LFLLLLLL T~ TTTTTT FFFFF-F F
- F- - LC FC3C3CCC535CO566COe N - - - -
E FF T F - - S Nw F- FSFFFS'T SFIS E EEEEEE F A AAAAAA EF T T S
J, A N N N
. CCCCCC TT T T T
G SI I III I S NN N N T F ORRRRRRO OO A A A OCOACA N N M ETEEEEEETECC TS - - - - - - ST - -
D D D C6CD6DE .C O O C
A N N N - W - NWNT DEE
. E L
IEAAAAAAEIAAWOWWWOWOWA NWDDDDDDBRDDI Cl l I CI C1 D .DC AO OIWAWOWOAOOWWOII N N- NN NTT B
- A NCOOOOOOCEOOOKNNNNNNNENNAAABAAAA3NENAEAOANAABANAAS9AOO.CN1DITITDTTI1CNM OOCCCCCCO CC N
A N N O ON NE O E EOEE NNN C A A C .CA .AO C RAAAAAAR AA AGA G C AOO NNNNWW NW N N A
W A
AAAAAA AA A A W
A A
_ g oE LT .
_ IGS TNE S LIT US WS.S$MS$MSM$SS5MMM5MMMSM $M$S$MM$MMMMMSMMSSS N
LT e LE .
AKN RC/ H EAY VJ S.NNYMNYYYNNNNYYYNYYYN YYYNNNYYNYYYYYYYYYYN H
O f, .
L A
l I. T DE .
IEW 5 VC/ W .
IAY DJ N
N YNYYYYNNHHNYYYYYYYYWYNYYYNYNYNYNNWWYYNNY I
DE _
NZ OI CS 6324e444a466e22e646224224a2 1
N 1l1 1 1l 1 11l 1 l 1 1 1111 11 1 l1 242 1 1 1 6
1 6
1 6626 1 1 N -
OS IS TE) .
AHl LKl UCa Sl l nS05555000660600000000000000000555500oo006 i
N 444443341 1 2433333333333333333222222t t996 Ni l
_. IT
. E DG
. EA 00000O000000 TT AL 00000G000000S.00000000000000000000000000000 644664644463 00000000300000000000000000000 RO V H 64446666466666666666664466000 n
n 552 e
w N
)
R O EEEEEEEEF m_ I TE L4 HNNNNNNI RR i
r AP LY E'CCOOOOOONAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRHHH 2CCCCCCCCOLLPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP FI a
t UT S ELLLLLLLLAHHIIIIIIILAAEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE T.III I I I I I P EE e N n I SSSSSSSSY
). H
. yY
/
- II
,I'
- Ik! !
i
{ m be ** 2 2 %
wt b o N De > > >
W G 44 De
>= E A >be>>>>>=a=>>>>m.>>>=>=>=>me> >=>>= >>e> > > :n. > > a- 3. > > a., a A
r 3. > > > > >
I XM
_A O t= et me O O N an. 4 0 .= M 4 eee
- e. O. i e e.a iMee un en # M art O O N N P O O arn W e O ==
% a.j h ae C. C. O. i e e Ian Q C C C & M 4F*i O e f* O. i if* M M. M. MePeI"*Wr.Sa. Ce eC c et C N == c eOe t"* ,
m S .=.=
- t> e e e S == M == Pt ce di $
e e eC s C. M. e c. e, e. em
==
e ==.
. e art
- 6
- e == *OeNewO e e,
.=
(
== e == m e =.= . isa e e e ce le re M N Pe N N M == M MN*
==
C* N e W '
i e e e s s Ow e e e a 4 ("I w s 1 M - ==I C eaome == O == me O
- re OOOOOO e 8 P9 8 w e == * == c #=5 ==
O @O@e==O r= W == O eOOM==C r= I O == f* O C a M t t 6 e w *ep e M e e e
==
- n. O = .N. (an e N re fe e art e e N NO t re f.) 2 2 e == == == c
- e= es
- O en e e o et N en e iners a e w = Q =e == 2 == w a= 6 f* en ==
- c == arn w -e == e 4 N O e rm e N == m e e e== M == O O O O O O O == M M Mw as s == in u e en an e Q en o O
- een
- an el==Nreunfe ee M M M e an == *
- e = m Oewm*== ce a
' a a 2 4e O* O O as O s aQuoOOOe ae == es
.*OO TP O M
- i e e OOe i 2
- e a b fe. too b b ises em 6= Em n= sie (m. b o to O he er ib e a* O me a.
a at f= he i e 4 e!=fue e OUe Qmaeu*Ueeeei e e be 0OasOmaoiOQuo
= a U w w *O ea2
- = he ime 6= * * *
- OO+
=
W en h. he he 6 (me Is. b b fa. e e 2 L s
- > b K
4* 6= 6 O 2 2 2
== 6e &= 6e O
tri ac aC 22 w O 4 at M 2 K to
- b. te at 4 fs1 W O 2 w w he Z ze 2 O as as 2 i
b- as O 4 > Ut 3*, .I J 6. fee Eel fan W !a& Is4 fel 6. fen W Col fas fanas O 2 2 m W w as 2 se 4 tst (#1 J a dt a ogh z z z a a a sta es QG 6e er. & W be ist W W =J Int faa ten ist WmeWme aCtrtCet OOM fot ist to .4 w w w 2 me O O w me e s e b e & Get e e ** e 2 W fat W m fasast!teogm1Ei W 6. > retf.E 2 22M QGBEQQQROmmOQ2O W 2 KtsaGEa"ana
- fan a. b e 4 *aeaae EsEFeE4K.Jen aO2seaesasa TsC '
3 me e e fag W 4 2 e st imi to a
- 5 m. e :e3 Tag e e
===m.
at Q
2 2 O etas4a4a 4 E4
====O as se t* O 4 4 as de 4as Q 22 2 32 2m0 2 203 O as a o as as
.2 asmS 2 U2 >*O U2 Q .3QQ ata2Qhs m at 2 C3 Q2**QRmEQQQQEO2 QQQR an 4 0O 44 toze== 2 *E as a WB 4 asa 4O4**4 O a2su W aata 4 4 4 est =sr at O R S E 6e 6e e a a he 4e a 6e ee E a a a ist 2 m em 6e a 2 mmaac he a o aA E 4 eO4 at at>lms2 2 2 Q 2 as me
>e me me 2 )* 6e be e fs4 E e 2 2ma$eeaeam a O O e K GE m at O fat ud me De s.e O (el me he '
O
.3 0 h3
.h to 4.3.3.3.3.2.33 me 4 se a me 43 se ame >= .4.e me De 2 !st e se e.s me ==4 at 4
.4 ** Pe ** 4 4 4 at 4 4 atat w me se w me he sue Z Up Un ta gA pt W g 2 g g g g D U6 2 EOOC00OO gig g yg g gg g gy g g gay g g yg 2 W X W 2 84 2 2 2 6ft WD 44 2 M HUUQUUUU er m3 $*
3:3
- at u 2 QE U N p W 4 >e ye .
. *i
> *3 O 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 > 2 2 2 2 2 2 De > De > 2 >e 2 De 2 De 2 De 2 De 2 2 >
Y = De 2 3se 2 > 2 > 2 De >= De 2 2 2 de 2 a
at D be QW i
- 's M 2
>O% >
== 4 3e Q P3 2 >= > >* 2 > De > 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 2222222 22 2 2:D 3F 3 2 2 2 2 2 s
O fel 2 me e a o me a i a s U 14 em me e o ee e f5 e6 M..ca et O es am =r ao PT .=, se .
w w e ce ce ce w ce
=.e====-eme==m= ce ce reeCce a= se e= se rg e-
ce e e s e e e e o e fg .e .e metw e es e = = = =
2 O in me vt
- 3. W == . . .
at 2 as . .
s
.,1 m <e '
3QS WB e
- 14 Ut fe O O == gr te 57 e e e o O O O O O O O O O O O
- e e e ce no e 23.2 == == 2 2"=
in **
=
w w w M M M M M 99 M M e*tet99 en91 m 91999'>99O O O O O O e1 art en O en O O O O O O e en N N en te re te N Nfe te N .= =. *
- M =m f=3 0 49 isl as -
6e > 4 as 4 4 4 48 4 4 4 =J %%N%%%NNOOOOOOOOOOoOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Z2222222 e e e e d e e e e e @O O O O O O O O O OOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOO KQ a> O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OOOO OOO 9 e e e e 9 e e e e e e e e e e F9 at M P9 et f=1 P4 .=M==MemOe O O 2
O se
>W v 4h a4 >
3 to a. 4a. .%
.J .2 as so w w me me meav.Jm.Jme
.2 a. J .J a. a. a. a. sh. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a.
.2 w.2 se
.J .2 a. a a. a. a. a. a. a. a. m a. a. tsta.
a.WWW asfm3 W &Wa.
W W W Ts4 rei fua W W W W W W W m*d W W W W W W W W W W W W
=
th at
.. k 2 I .J .J .2 .2 .2 .J . 2 .2 .J .2 .2 .J .2 .J .I .2 .; .J .J .2 .J .J . .4.J e se se w me w w me me
.J.J .J .J . !fw
.J me so w W
-2 amr 2 E= me w me me w Y
Leh _-
mm..- - - -
_________-u-_----^-- - - - - - - ' " - - - - __ , _ _ _ __. - - - - -
A C
I F
FI L OA U
Y R
SC -
L E
- Z F
E
. T R
P E
E N
O C
I L
I SR E
f ,/ P L
X 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 6 5 4 3 2 1 r
3 3 menltZgTV i
n
$ 0 d L,- Umg G ,
' i
" D..
3/
BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION RFVIEW OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT (TER)
TER INVESTIGATION BASED ON SEVERAL MONTHS OF ANALYSIS / INTERVIEW TFR CONCt_llSIONS INSTALLATION WAS UNDER CONTROL .
SIMILAR TO OTHER NUCLEAR SITES
- ADDITIONAL TESTING IS REQUIRED AT SON
- TER REPRESENTS " INDUSTRY CONCENSUS" ,
,,!
- INFERS THAT INDUSTRY IS IN A STATE OF CONFUSION os'",a
" INDICATES CABLE JAMMING IS MAJOR ISSUE FOR STATION CABLES l
l l
)
l l
l I
DNE3 - 4007W
b BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION ANALYSIS OF TVA TEST RESULTS IN-SITU TEST 240 V/ MIL DC ONE CONDUIT FOR VERTICAL - WORST CASE SELECTED 16'- SINGLE CONDUCTOR, 600 V, NO. 14 AWG, 45 MIL SILICONE RUBBER INSULATION, 40 MIL ASBESTOS BRAIDED JACKET ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA - HOLD 10.8 KV'DC FOR FIVE MINUTES OUTCOME NO IN-SERVICE FAILURE
($)- NO BREAKDOWN AT CONDULET FOUR ANOM0 LIES LOCATED IN HORIZONTAL SECTION OF CONDUIT BR$AKDOWN SPECIMEN CABLE NO. IN KV IlME 1 2V5887B GIAN 10.8 KV 1 MIN 2 2V5888B GIAN 7.5 KV N/A 3 2V5889B GIAN 10.0 KV N/A 4 2V5889B GIA3 HELD 10.8 KV 5 MIN l'
9 DNE3 - 4007W
.s A 10 'O f3 CABLE #2 FAULT LCCATION CABLES 1 AND 3 FAULT LOCATION p'g AND AREA 0F
. > . HIGH LEAKAGE f/
.C 'q ,p FOR CABLE 4- d 18O N
,.g}- .
~d g.. h -
l l
, e
=
r .,
e 5
e m
/ .
o7I ,
2 ~
6 0% "
[ i e'1
- s. .j vfjj i 1
?
1 i
I
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT F!FCTRICAl INSULATION RESEARCH CENTER
($) TFST PROGRAM 1.
VISUAL INSPECTION OF CABLES AS RECEIVED 4 CABLES FROM IN-SITU TEST 1 UNINSTALLED CABLE - IDENTICAL CONSTRUCTION -
SAME PROCUREMENT CONTRACT
- . . ag, 2. TESLA-COIL EXAMINATION TO LOCATE FAULTS
- 3. JACKET-REMOVAL AND THICKNESS MEASUREMENT
- 4. VISUAL INSPECTION OF INSULATION
- 5. TESLA COIL EXAMINATION TO PINPOINT FAULTS
- 6. OPTICAL MEASUREMENT OF INSULATION THICKNESS AT FAULT LOCATION
- 7. X-RAY SPECTROSCOPY OF FAULT LOCATION FOR CONTAMINANTS
- 9. MICRO-SAMPLE TENSILE AND ELONGATION TEST
([ 10. IR CHECK IN WATER WITH FAULTED AREAS REMOVED
- 11. HI-P0T AT 10.8 KV DC FOR 5 MINUTES IN WATER WITH FAULTED AREAS REMOVED
- 12. DC BREAKDOWN TESTS IN WATER WITH FAULTED AREAS REMOVED' DNE3-4041
Gj UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT FLECTRICAl- INSULATION RESEARCH CENTER d
TEST RESULTS "w
- 1. MINOR PROTRUSIONS FROM THE ASBESTOS BRAID
- 2. JACKET THICKNESSES MET SPEC REQUIREMENTS
- 3. INSULATION THICKNESSES MET SPEC REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CABLE
- 4. BLACK IMPRINTS 0N INSULATION SURFACE WERE DEPOSITS OF l BRAID SATURANT ;
- 5. SURFACE " CRAZING" WAS NOTED ON TEST SPECIMENS:
- 1 - VERY LIGHT, 1 INCH ONLY ON BOTH' SIDES OF THE FAULT
- 3 - VERY LIGHT, 1 INCH ONLY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FAULT
- 4 - OVER 3 INCH SECTION NO FAULT f g, SPECIMEN #2 - RQ SURFACE CRAZING ,
i SURFACE CRAZING WAS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN 5 MIL IN I
DEPTH.
- 6. X-RAY AND INFRA-RED SPECTROSCOPY REVEALED NO ABNORMALITIES
- 7. MICRO-SAMPLE TENSILE AND ELONGATION RESULTS IN THE VICINITY OF THE FAULT COMPARE FAVORABLY WITH NEW CABLE i
AVG AVG CABLE N0. OF TESTS TENSILE (PSI) ELONGATION %
1 8 1700 522 l 2 7 1956 450 3 8 1932 485 4 8 1819 421 )
5 (NEW) 6 1743 481 ;
DNE3-4041 1
1 UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT El ECTRICAL INSUL ATION RESEARCH CENTER
_ (- TEST RESULTS (CONTINUED)
- 8. .ALL CABLE PASSED 10.8 KV TEST FOR 5 MINUTES WITH FAULTED AREAS REMOVED t" 9. EDC BREAKDOWN RESULTS WITH FAULTED AREAS REMOVED
#1 34 KV (FAILED AT CUT MADE BY U CONN)-
#2 76 KV
#3 62 KV-
#4 55 KV
#5 80 KV (REFERENCE SPECIMEN) l 3.0 . DETAILED ANALYSIS OF " DAMAGED" AREAS ON THE INNER SURFACE OF THE INSULATION ,
SPECIMEN #1 - NONE SPECIMEN #2 - NONE SPECIMEN #3 - 1 SMALL DISCONTINUITY APPR0X 1/16" FROM THE
- FAULT SPECIMEN #4 - 10 DISCONTINUITIES OVER APPROX 2" SECTION UNDER SURFACE " CRAZING" REMAINING INSULATION THICKNESS AT SIX OF THE LARGEST DISCONTINUITIES FROM CABLE #4 )
12 MILS 10 MILS 10 MILS 10 MILS 8 MILS 20 MILS l I I i I ffb) DNE3-4041 : l l
% UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT TESTS Q)
TASK FORCE CONCLUSIONS JACKET ANOMOLIES NOT UNUSUAL FOR INSTALLED CABLES, NO SIGNIFICANCE IMPRINTS CAUSED BY BRAID IMPREGNANT; NOT UNUSUAL AND NOT g SIGNIFICANT SURFACE CRAZING AND INTERIOR DAMAGE WAS HIGHLY LOCALIZED DAMAGE NOT CAUSED BY INSTALLATION BREAKDOWN OF CABLE No. 3 AND HIGH LEAKAGE FROM CABLE No. 4 CAUSED BY SURFACE 2 IMPERFECTIONS AND INSULATION DAMAGE NEAR CONDUCTOR COMBINED WITH HIGH POTENTIAL TEST VOLTAGE SURFACE CRAZING OF CABLE NO. 1 WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT. NO NOTABLE INTERIOR DAMAGE. g LE NO. 2 HAD M SURFACE CRAZING AND No, INTERIOR DAMAGE. . is I o TEST VOLTAGE SELECTED RESULTED IN THE BREAKDOWN OF CABLE DAMAGE APPEARS TO BE CAUSED BY IMPACT
j
- ~
%EE j PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SCOPE / APPROACH /0BJECTIVE
- s. ,
-SCOPE PULLBY, JAMMING, VERTICAL CONDUIT 600V POWER, 600V CONTROL, 300V INSTRUMENT NOTE: NO MEDIUM VOLTAGE CABLES MET THE CRITERIA FOR THE ISSUES OF CONCERN APPROACH ENSURE CABLE INTEGRITY q POWER CABLE 480V AC CONTROL CABLE.120V AC .
- pkk INSTRUMENT CABLE 50V AC u- , SIMILARITY QUALIFICATION PLANT LIFE EXTENSION OBJECTIVES NUCLEAR SAFETY - COMMON MODE TEST REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE CABLE INTEGRITY TO AVOID INDUCING DAMAGE- .) l 1 i G
-DNE3-4018 j
NN 91/ ' PROGRAM' DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY' STANDARDS ON FIFlD ACCEPTANCE TESTS i '. ~ - IEEE 690 500 V MEGGER (CABLE) IEEE 422 500 V MEGGER 1 (CABLE).
-IEEE 400 PERCEN1 AGE OF BIL- LEVEL', DC-50% H (CABLE)
IEEE 383 NO GUIDANCE (CABLE) ANSI / NEMA MG1 75% OF (TWICE RATED'PLUS 1000 V) AC-(M0 TORS) ANSI /IEEE C37.90 75% OF (TWICE RATED'PLUS 1000 V) AC' *
- (RELAYS)
L i i l
'l l
I l l l 4
-DNE3 - 4007W 1
1 i
. . . I
, .e
- w "Q% ' :
,D/
TEST VOLTAGE APPROACHES , j ic -w I J L l- i MOST CONSERVATIVE 10 0 % -
/ T- ,
1 FACTORY TEST- -
.j p
80 % IEEE 383 80V/Mll EXCEPT 8 KV [U$ m o I E 60 % - - g l a: I o
=!
4 H z w IND STD FOR LOW VOLTAGE H 500V DC . $ B
<C 2
LEAST CONSERVATIVE
.s
~
- 4. O g
l PROGRAM DEVFIOPMENT TEST METHODOLOGY INSULATED CABLE ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION STANDARDS STATE 1 "W4ERE THE THICKNESS OF INSJ' LATION IS INCREASED FOR MECHANICAL
" n. :.: . REASONS:0R FOR SPECIAL SERVICE CONDITIONS,'THE TEST VOLTAGE SHALL
'BE DETERMINED BY THE SIZE OF THE CONDUCTOR AND THE RATED VOLTA
, AND MOT BY THE APPARENT THICKNESS OF THE INSULATION"
- r. . .
t . 8 I e
.: . . .: a. , a.
., 's -
w.,. i DNE3 - 4007W ; I
-~
j
b) PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TEST METHODOLOGY w ! l INTEGRATED TFSTING PROCESS l i i VOLTAGE LEVEL I SUITABLE GROUND PLANE j ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA CONDUCTOR ARRANGEMENT DURING TEST ! l l e
=
l l I DNE3 - 4007W < Y h
- - - . - - - - - - - _ .-._----__-._-_-_.-----___s
c0 3 3 3 3 J l 1 3 3 3 3
/ f 3 3 3 3 3333 c&
aR T 0 S G 6 8 9 E u 2 0 2 4 T 2 0 6 2 t M 0 6 a g i I c f oi 0 t l t 8 5 - 5 4 52 4 4 2 5 - 5 6 52 4 2 4
-5 1 2 3
0 4 2 N 5 4
- 52e d 3
3 0 f 0 2 4 2 . f 8 5 f 1 1 t s C O 1 5 t A G A F M t T e L T 1 0 1 1 1 1 r 9 t 6 4 f 4 e 5 t f 1 ot e 5 9 1- $ 4 5l 9 6 1- 5 3 2 5 1 1- 5 6 t i l O) - 5 3 4 f l 5 0 t f 3 6 1 3 4 4 i 0( 0 a 3 4 8 5 T. t
! f t 8 f C 4 n i - A 5 5 1 r F u l o C
e M I 6 5 4 5 5 2 4 5 1 2 t o i t oT 1 2 1 2 5 4 5 4 t a t t A i 1 1 $ 4 1 1 5 6 I 54 1 1 c l t D F a 0 r O 3 f 5 ~ 2 5 2 H 3 1 3 S R t 1 51- I Mtel t t 4 3 4 1 t e l- t l H3
- 5 i 41 eH oS 5 t l
e ( 5 5 f t C f 5 1 1 - leM I l l l 9 l 3 1 4 21 6 f t8 ll 7 i t 4 s 1 1 H 2 1 5 1 5 s s
/
Ef t . G 6 8 s A c ' L t T a K80 6 4 4 6 4 5 t 5 8 L 4 -1 4 1 2 l 0 l l f 1 614 5 4 5 1 6 4 0 4 1 4 - c e it 9 a 1 t 0 4 3 4 2 3 4 2 4 - 2 1 4 3 4 2 A t t t 0 r 0 4 S e e OC S t t t r o g n f c c e c c s c c e c e c c e I E s t 4 A 4 e A 4 d ad eaad a ftT eeA d 0 t p 5 0 1 l t 0 48 6 0 t I t 0 t 0 4 t t 0 0 H He t t leHH0 0 7 i ( D 9 f( N I P leH0 55 5 e 9 4 ee 1 5 S l 0 0 5 5 5 S S 5S5 s l t
.t e
i t ttfi u T 5S f t _ R E 1 1 i _ A C E . 0 1 9 t SuG
- t 0 0Ett : tsto t
0 tEt ttt tE i C
) L l A f E f T $
ett t t sup 4 p N s sss uW 4 N ue 3 5( I tL F t 0 r iloo0 mh 5 1 0B NO 4 p o 0 0 0 5 9 8 o O WB 1 5W 4 0 Beo fl 1 Ol 0 A 0 S C 1 e I C A p I0C0 t t 5 S 4 9 u g t . l e e e Y, i t e H t t t& F e 0 . I e t t A 1 ct t i t 0 l e ee 6 0 f n ,t , N ) 0 0it s ai el 0 4 0 0 0l 46 0 9 0 l 4 t 0 t HH t t l 4 0 i c S G R 4- HS _ 4 f st t - 5 e 5 5 e - 0 0 Q ( C t G r A f 1 e i - 0 0 3 2 0 - 0 0 3 2 4 l 2 1 l 0 3 2 E 4 lM E F f p L 1H H 5 0 0 IS IN0 i 0f t _ G t o 5 3 5 3 4 4 t t t _ ttf ! A N u5 ! T L O I 55 1 e t 8 e f 5 ol t t 5 M7 O 1 3 T A t I l H1L 5 1 t- 302 0 51 -eM2 6 11 54 M 5 2 1 1 51 - t M2 0 5 t Sl 1 u l V 1 uC a sl t 1 M 1 M 5 4 1 M tF t E L 0 s u W tF $ u I f S t T ,A to tl S i sE f f E - G f & e T Ktt l t 4 4 0 4 4 0 0 04 eAT lHtl l f G 0 0 6 0 4 004 6 4 t 2 9 0 2 5 8 L 6 2 S i i A t T 9 0 2 5 3 4 1 9 0 2 5 3 4 1 4 1 1 5 3 4 1 1 0tu 9 P o t tL s tT T C r0 $ S Ot O1 $ tNf fl tf t P EhA u0 0 , t t 4 I CMlAt W E l t t f G t eH4t t t t t t eooe OHM t HM 4 t 0 t H99 I 5 f L T t 6 6 9 M f A 6 3 4 e6 3 t t t 3 t 4 3 E f t it i T G E sf tL A CuO 0 T C l 1 L A L t T t T 0 LL t N Lt u t t 0u Lt e LD Lp 0 r. t t 0 R Lt 1 eE A Lt T f l I t t t 0 n t t u t r9 n trt 0 H uit t e t t t t 9 e uuf t L it 0 W W i t wuf sf ooni A T f 3 O O sf oog t ot f rF os P P o5 P t 0 s t 0 5 05 . . . l/ 0 W CW I C u . 2 3 4 C CWI Cu f 1 1
/
r t i I 1 l t E t tl t t I 1 I t t tl : eMt t t t 0 t H0 4 4 0 t 0 0 t 8 eH0 ( t f 6 t 0 e0 e0 0 6 0 3 6 0 3 6 M 3 4 0 3 0 N 3 t et 8 u t 4 1 2 t 2 4 4 t u i e 2 1 4 5 F 5 t - 4 - t 1 L0 t sl Et I Lf l V 6 0 t ta i 6 ot s 1 !
! 1 t
u 1 4 L t L R P 4 rS t
- t t 6
- CI t 5 t F t -
B i A f 5- ftL I 5 tutt 5 L u n t B f t Y 5 C 5 i( 0L 9 O A E uO L A I I B S t C A u L O P A E C C C I l CP I H I p I T E
i i () . ! PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT I l TEST METHODOLOGY l s. , ANALYSIS NO. 1 RATIO 0F: 8 KV FACTORY TEST TO OPERATING = 4.6 EQUIVALENT OPERATING VOLTAGE FACTORY TEST 600 V POWER 480 AC 2200 V AC 600 V CONTROL 120 AC 550 V AC 300 V INSTRUMENT 50 AC 230 V AC ()' ANALYSIS NO. 2 INDUSTRY STANDARD FOR CONNECTED EQUIPMENT (TWICE RATED PLUS 1000 V AC) EQUIVALENT OPERATING VOLTAGE FACTORY TEST 1 600 V POWER 480 AC 1960 AC 600 V CONTROL , 120 AC .1240 AC I 300 V INSTRUMENT 50 AC -1100-AC l DNE3 - 4007W l
- b. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ ______. _ _ . _ _ _ _
l I pi'a t> PROGRAM DEVEL?PMENT i TEST METHODOLOGY ANALYSIS NO. 's
- s. ,
f-IEEE 400 - GUIDE FOR MAKING HIGH DIRECT VOLTAGE TESTS ON POWER CABLE IN THE FIELD PERCENTAGE OF BIL - 50%
- I BIL BASED EQUIVALENT ON IFEE 28 50% BIL AC FIELD TEST POWER 10 KV 5.0 KV DC 1700 AC CONTROL 5 KV 2.5 KV DC 830 AC l q} INSTRUMENT 5 KV 2.5 KV DC 830 AC l ANALYSIS NO. 4 8 KV OPERATING STRESS 34.6 V/ MIL l 8 KV FACTORY TEST STRESS 156 V/ MIL EQUIVALENT FACTORY TEST EQUIVALENT INS AT 156 V/ MIL POWER 13.9 MIL 1248 AC CONTROL 3.0 MIL 470 AC INSTRUMENT 1.4 MIL 219 AC-
-w 5hh
-DNE3 - 4007W
,~..
Q) PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TEST METHODOLOGY [
SUMMARY
ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS. ANALYSIS NO. 1 NO. 2 N0. 3 . NO. 4-4.6 X' 2X 34.6 V STRESS SYSTEM OP VOLT PLUS 1000 V IEEE 400 1S6 V/ MIL TEST 600 V POWER- 2200 AC 1960 AC 1700.AC 1248-AC CONTROL 550 AC 1240 AC 830 AC .470 AC INSTRUMENT 230 AC 1100 AC 830 AC' 219 AC NOTE: DC/AC RATIO = 3/1 dC4 . CONCLUSION VOLTAGE ANALYSIS NO. 2 GENERALLY YIELDS 1THE MOST CONSERVATIVE VALUES. l b DNE3 - 4007W I
C94
'dy PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
' TEST METHODOLOGY l d GROUND PLANE SELECTION s, l IEEE 400 SPECIFIES DRY TEST VALUES / TES
T. PROCEDURE
S i CABLE VENDORS RECOMMEND IN-SITU DRY TESTING DRY TESTING WILL DETECT THE SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE POSTULATED IN.THE TER MARGIN IN INSULATION THICKNESS ALLOWS MINOR UNDETECTED DAMAGE WITHOUT LOSS OF CABLE INTEGRITY CABLES HAVE DEMONSTRATED ACCEPTABLE SERVICE GROUNDING 0F ALL OTHER CONDUCTORS PROVIDES A SURROUNDING l GROUND PLANE FOR THE CONDUCTOR UNDER TEST h CONCLUSION TEST EACH CONDUIT IN ITS' "AS IS" CONDITION (DRY), WITH EACH CONDUCTOR TESTED SEPARATELY TO ALL OTHER CONDUCTORS GROUNDED
~
l 1 DNE3 - 4007W
4 G PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TEST METHODOLOGY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA LEAKAGE CURRENT MEASUREMENTS AS AN ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA HAVE VALUE IN TRENDING BUT NOT FOR GO-N0/G0 TESTS 4 CURRENT MEASURED IS A TEST SET VALUE AND NOT TRUE LEAKAGE
. CHARGING CURRENT (DEPENDS ON CIRCUIT TIME CONSTANT)
. END EFFECTS (DEPENDS ON PATH TO GROUND, HUMIDITY, CORONA IN AIR)
. TRUE LEAKAGE (CONDUCTION CURRENT RADIALLY THROUGH INSULATION) ,
- CONCLUSION b .
DECREASING CURRENTS WITH TIME PROVE ACCEPTABILITY INCREASING CURRENTS MAY BE CAUSED BY OTHER FACTORS AND DURATION OF TEST
. TRENDING IS TRUE APPLICATION OF LEAKAGE CURRENT MEASUREMENT
. G0-N0/G0 IS THE PROPER ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR THE 1 TEST PROPOSED j DNE3-4042W l
I
b PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIATION OF EQUIPMENT 00ALIFICATION
- - s, IEEE 383 0 QUALIFICATION IS NOT INVALIDATED BY TEST AND ANALYSIS USING ACTUAL SERVICE CONDITIONS l
CABLES WITH SIMILAR INSULATIONS WITH REDUCED WALLS HAVE BEEN
. QUALIFIED k[!) IEEE 383 ALLOWS QUALIFICATION FOR ACTUAL PERFORMANCE LOW VOLTAGE CABLES HAVE SIGNIFICANT OPERATING MARGINS SIMILAR TECHNIQUES ARE UTILIZED IN PLANT LIFE EXTENSION MECHANICAL ANALOGY OF PRESSURE VESSEL TESTING UTILIZES SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS l
DNE3 - 4007W
J_
@ N O
I T A C I
)t ,
F I F L OA U Y R Q A M E L .
- MB
- UA ~
- SC L .
l E
, Z F
O l E T R P
/ E E
NR OE CB
/ L B I
I U SR E
/ _
P _ L - / - . X 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 _ 6 _ 3 3 m0zx9rF $_ t1_3mz~ w1_mtO {ll1lll Illl1l!1 ll l' l l'
ELECTRIC CABLES. FIELD SPL CES. AND CONNEC"!ONS ! Std 383 ts sulting from a LOCA. Conditions of loading environmental ex'trames which simulate the and signal levels shall be assumed to be those most severe postulated conditions of a design most unfavorable for cable operation which basis event and specified conditions ofinstal. O may be anticipated under such circumstances. lation. Type tests shall demonstrate margin
)
I b 1.3.4.12 Desisn Basis Event - Fire. by application of multiple transients. in. The cable shoutri not propagate fire under creased level. or other justifiable meansj5a tis. conditions ofinstallation. factory performance of the cable will be eval. > 1.3.4.2.3 .Other Design Basis Events. uated by electrical and physical measure. These should also be considered in case they ments appropriate to the type of cable during " represent different types or more severe haz- or following the environmental cycle or both. ards to cable operation. The values of pressure, temperature, radi. .
.~
L3.5 Type Test Conditions and Sequences ation. chemical concentrations, humidity. 1.3.5.1 General. Type tests are used pri. and time in Section 2 do not represent accept. marily to indicate that the esbles, field able limitations for all nuclear power stations.
" splices. and connections can perform under The user of this guide should assure that the the conditions of a design basis evene. Because values used in the required type tests repre.
the design basis events may occur at any time sent acceptable limits for the service condi. in the station life, the thermal and radiation tions in which the cable or connections will be aging required in type tests to simulate these installed. I conditions may at the same time indicate the ability of cable types to operate under the nor. mal service conditions within the station. 1.4 Documentation j 1.3.5.2 Aging. The effect of normal oper. 1.4.1 General Type test data used to dem- ' ating conditions with time may either add to onstrate the qualification of cables should be
- l. or reduce the ability of cable. field splices, and organized in an auditable form. The docu-l .l connections to withstand the extreme envi. mentation should include: [
ronments and loads imposed during and fM 1.4.1.1 Description or specification of" lowing a design basis event. Thus, the type cable. testing for design basis event conditions shall 1.4.1.2 Description or specification of involve both aged and nonaged samples. As. field' splice or connection. ' @V ing pertains to temperature. radiation. and at. 1.4.1.3 Identification of the specific envi. j mospheric effects applied in sequence or si. ronmental features. ; multaneously in an accelerated manner. 1.4.1.4 Identification of the specific per. ' The basis fcr establishing time and temper. formance requirements to be demonstrated. ature conditions for aging of samples to simu. 1.4.1.5 The test program outline. late their qualified life may be that of Ar- 1.4.1.6 The test results. rhenius plotting (IEEE Std 11969. General 1.4.1.7 Approving signature and date. Principles for Temperature Limits in the Rat. 1.4.2 Test Program Outline. For cable and ing of Electric Equipment. IEEE Std 981972. connections, this outline shall include: Guide for the Preparation of Test Procedures 1.4.2.1 The physical arrangement of the j 1 for the Thermal Evaluation and Estab. cable and test equipment description. lishment of, Temperature Indices of Solid 1.4.2.2 Time program and sequence of all Electrical Insulating Staterials. IEEE Std 99 environmental factors. 1970. Guide for the Preparation of Test Proce. 1.4.2.3 The type and location of all envi-dures for the Thermal Evaluation of Insula. renmental and cable monitoring sensors for l tion Systems for Electric Equipment, and~ each variable. l IEEE Std 101 1972. Guide for Statistical 1.4.2.4 The voltages or currents pro- l Analysis of Thermal Life Test Data) or other grammed in conjunction with Section 1.4.2.1 : method of proven validity and applicability above. for the materials in question. 1.4.2.5 The electrical.' thermal. or me-1.3.5.3 Test Design Besis Event. Type chanical tests to be performed during environ. tests for desien basis event conditions should mental exposure. consist of subjecting nonaeed and aged cables. 1.4.2.6 Testing or examinations sub. field splices, and connections to a sequence of sequent to environmental cycle. 3 9
4 \ 6%, r e i I TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
- s. , . TEST PARAMETERS l
USE VOLTAGE ANALYSIS NUMBER-2 (TWICE SYSI'EM RATED VOLTAGE PLUS 1000 V AC) USE 80% AS: MULTIPLIER USE DC/AC RATIO = 3 TEST "AS IS" CONDITION (DRY) EACH' CONDUCTOR SEPARATELY TO ALL OTHER CONDUCTORS-GROUNDED GO-N0/G0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA r i
#
- I TWICE RATED DC
. PUIS 1000 HH1 EQUIVALENT.
(5) 600 V POWER 1960 V AC 1570 V AC' 4700 V DC-600 V CONTROL 1240 V AC 995 V AC .3000 V-DC 300 V INSTRUMENTATION 1100 V AC 880 V AC 2700 V.DC i s
-4 : I
, i 1'
4 4 [ DNE3-4027W o.
,) ,. .
___i
.kIS u';
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
'-- MARGINS RATIO OF-RATED / RATIO 0F 0.80.X .
MARGIN CABLE OPERATING (TWICE RATED + 10001/) COMPARED TO RATING VOLTAGE TO OPERATING VOLTAGE 8 KV 8 KV POWER- 1.16 1.72 BASE 600 V POWER- 1.25 3.27 1.9 600 V CONTROL 5, 8.3 4.82
- f. 300 V INSTRUMENT- 6 17.6 10.23' u
I DNE3 - 4007W
.;p .
[ ' [? x"y.u,~ <
, g.
- .y _ ,
I (Os'sc.)
?>
.y 0
=
.1 ')&
s <
.. i .; > . 4
.,e y
. s.. , ,
, ,[%',- t TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ?
k R: . -
- SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR (SON) UNIT 5'L AND W,; '
_v PROPOSAL FOR RESOLUTION OF y ., r CABLE PULLING CCNCERNS 1 ,
-i
, t g y
(4. ..
,%' h, =,
'f 4- ,
# 1- %
e (- 6 .,
- b,
V 4, l . j -
V , N i /
.s e;o .,
.. ,e ,
i ,,.
,1 ' ?
\
. , s i
h. r . 1; , s h s ' I PRESENTED TO THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
. BETHESDA, M.D.
l _ s JULY 13, 1987
+ 4
- l. 1 t
'W f .Q 1
d l .: e (; ' l +*s NO ,r-
+
l '. ,
\U ,-. 1 ONd'- 4042id
'(4 .._[
N/
'I e ,
u__________ _i
.,-j^j ,
9.y AGENDA i: . MEETING BETWEEN TVA AND NRC
-73 b CABLE FULLING CONCERNS o- , ,
I. MEETING OBJECTIVE II. REASONS TO RECONSIDER l s L '."- III. SQN CABLE' TASK ' FORCE PRESENTATION
?
A. FORMATION OF THE TASK FORCE
$.. MEMBERS AND' QUALIFICATIONS
- 2. PURPOSE B. BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION
- 1. CABLE OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
- 2. INDUSTRY HIGH-VOLTAGE TEST VALUES
- 3. CABLE QUALIFICATION
- 4. REVIEW OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT (TER)
- 5. TVA AND UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT TEST RESULTS C. PROGRAM DEV'ELOPMENT.
- 1. SCOPE / APPROACH /0BJECTIVE.
- 2. INDUSTRY STANDARDS ON FIELD ACCEPTANCE TESTS
- 3. TEST METHODOLOGY
- 4. SUBSTANTIATION OF EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION D. RECOMMENDATIONS l
- l. TEST PARAMETERS l
- 2. MARGINS i
IV. TVA CONCLUSIONS l V. TVA SUPPLEMENTS AND REVISIONS TO PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL
)
Nh 5 q
,4
.1 U_______________________._____._____________________. _ _ _ _
_ _j
l '. MEETING OBJFCTIVE ,
.1. . EXPLAIN THE REEll FOR REEVALUATING THE TVA CABLE. TEST PROPOSAL
- 2. PROVIDE THE RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY.
OF CONNECTICUT TESTS'ON SON CABLES
- 3. PRESENT A PROGRAM', TO TEST APPR0XIMATELY 380 CABLES,
,~'
THAT: ENSURES CABLE INTEGRITY AVOIDS INDUCING DAMAGE DETECTS THE TYPE OF DAMAGE POSTULATED IN THE TER SUBSTANTIATES THE EQUIPMENT ~ QUALIFICATION DEMONSTRATES MA SIN REPRESENTS THE RECOMMENDATIONS-0F INDUSTRY-EXPERTS HAS A TECHNICAL BASIS DERIVED FROM INDUSTRY STANDARDS - FOR HIGH POTENTIAL FIELD TESTING ( IS CONSISTENT WITH GUIDANCE IN IE NOTICE 86-49
- 4. PROVIDE A STATUS ON THE STATISTICS / RANKING ISSUE FOR PULLBYS AND JAMMING
- 5. RESPOND TO NRC QUESTIONS l
l: DNE3-4042W l
II. REASONS TO RECONSIDER l WHEN NEW INFORMATION INDICATES THAT YOU MAY BE PROCEEDING INCORRECTLY, THE MANAGEMENT MUST TAKE STEPS TO EVALUATE. o ([J TVA CONCERNS INDICATED THAT WE MAY-HAVE BEEN PRUCEEDINGLIN AN-UNSAFE DIRECTION AND PROMPTED FORMATION OF THE CABLE TASK FORCE. A. WORST CASETHIS CONDUITS INCLUDE THOSE TO RPS AND ESFAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF WATER, THE 1 CABINETS. j POTENTIAL IMPACT ON PLANT SAFETY, AND THE NEED TO l l 4" ADDRESS IT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. l B. GENERIC AND ROOT CAUSE EVALUATION 0F VERTICAL CABLE I TEST CA0R l
- 1. TEST VOLTAGE WAS HIGHER THAN NECESSARY TO VERIFY {;
CABLE INTEGRITY.
- 2. TESTING WITHOUT THE INTRODUCTION OF WATER WAS ABLE '
TO DETECT DAMAGE WHICH WAS INSIGNIFICANT WHEN COMPARED WITH POSTULATED FAILURE MODES FOR ISSUES OF CONCERN. : f C. THE ORIGINAL TEST VOLTAGE WAS BASED ON THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OF THE CABLE, NOT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE - SYSTEM IN WHICH IT IS INSTALLED. D. THE BASIS OF THE ORIGINAL TEST VOLTAGE IS NOT ('E% ' CONSISTENT WITH INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR FIELD ACCEPTANCE TESTING. , E. OTHER " EXPERTS" CHALLENGED BASIS i 1 i CONCIUSION TESTING, IF CONTINUED AT THE ORIGINAL PARAMETERS, COULD 1 P0TENTIALLY IMPACT PLANT SAFETY AND FURTHERMORE COULD l RESULT IN THE REPLACEMENT OF ACCEPTABLE CABLE WITH NO l INCREASE IN PLANT SAFETY.
)
1 . 7e., Q4) DNE3-4042W j i l
1 i I C ! 1 I LICENSING CONSIDERATIONS l f '* hl . . SONP TEST PROGRAMS MEET IE NOTICE 86-49. i l
- 2. SONP PRACTICE EXCEEDS PRACTICES OF MANY LICEN)
- 3. SONP NOT AN IEEE 383 PLANT.
e i e i ( i 4 i e l DNE3-4042W
, T P g 5 57 A
4 T O S h P R 8l C - s y o
\ 6M LA iO HT C U C
t DD
- / E4 R N s Yl T O O 4 N Aup BNO F
Y 7 C 6 T D p I V / / l oF C L-L G
\h, N(\
N U E P RO FL P T EQ E RA
% N TELC UF8
/ COOTAM NN '
N REC
/
\
3
/~
l t p N
* \ N o.
O 4 / x N B. f sN N/ p
$ t p\nrN l
t
'6 r 4
t k a /
,Y's u
r u \N o c - x
./ B L
/
/
^a9 g l
( i
/
+*
O , 5
/
x
/
. i
IV. IVA CONCLUSIONS
;.4 1. SUPPORT OF CABLE IN VERTICAL CONDUIT LJ
. NO FAILURES OCCURRED AS THE RESULT OF THE LACK OF VERTICAL SUPPORT.
. TVA HAS FULFILLED ITS COMMITMENTS FOR TESTING RELATIVE TO THE VERTICAL SUPPORT ISSUE.
- 2. DISPOSITION OF CABLES THAT BROKE DOWN
~, ,
. ELECTRICAL AND PHYSICAL TEST RESULTS (U CONN)
DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CONDITION OF THE CABLES COMPARES FAVORABLY WITH THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATIONS AND HAS NEGLIGIBLE DEGRADATION.
. IMPACT WAS CONFIRMED AS THE DEGRADATION MECHANISM.
THE DAMAGE WAS ISOLATED: THEREFORE, NO FURTHER TESTING IS REQUIRED.
. TESTING, IF CONTINUED AT THE ORIGLNAL PARAMETERS, I COULD RESULT IN THE REPLACEMENT OF ACCEPTABLE CABLES.
- 3. FUTURE TESTING FOR PULLEYS AND JAWING A. VOLTAGE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDED TEST VOLTAGES (2 X SYSTEM RATED + 1000) WITHOUT USE OF .8 MULTIPLIER TASK FORCE TVA
) I CABLE RATING SYSTEM RATING RECOMMENDATION SUBMITTAL l 600V POWER 480V AC 4700V DC 6000V DC l 600V CONTROL 120V AC 3000V DC 3800V DC 300V INSTR 50V AC 2700V DC 3400V DC
- 3. EVALUATE USE OF WATER ON EACH SELECTED CONDUIT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS CONSIDERING FLANT SAFETY AND ABILITY TO REMOVE WATER.
j C. TEST EACH CONDUCTOR SEPARATELY TO ALL OTHER I CONDUCTORS GROUNDED. D. GO-N0/GO ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA. l l l
- Ph My
TVA TESTS TO CONFIRM DAMAGE-MECHANISM rs O' TEFTS CONDUCTED AT TVA'S: SINGLETON MATERIALS LABORATORY SPECIMENS TESTED WERE IDENTICAL T0 THOSE EXAMINED AT U. CONN AND FROM THE SAME CONTRACT S0IL-IMPACT TEST FIXTURE WAS UTILIZED CABLES RESTED ON A SOLID SURFACE - 5.5 LBS DROPPED FROM'A HEIGHT OF 9 INCHES ONTO 2 LINEAR l INCHES OF CABLE PRODUCED INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR DAMAGE SUCH AS NOTED AT U CONN TVA ANALYSIS TO CONFIRM ISOLATFD NATURE OF THE DAMAGE
~
- 1. DAMAGE WAS FOUND TO BE HIGHLY LOCALIZED.
es 2. DAMAGE LIKELY OCCURED AFTER CABLES WERE REMOVED'FROM THE C#? REEL EUT BEFORE THEY WERE PULLED. A. DAMAGED AREAS WERE CLOSE TO ONE ANOTHER B. CABLES WERE FROM THE SAME REEL C. CABLES WERE PULLED ON THE SAME DAY D. CONDUIT RUN IS SHORT WITH LOW NUMBER OF BENDS AND MULTIPLE PULL POINTS
- 3. DUPLICATED DAMAGE MECHANISM l
DNE3-4041 ___--__---_=-_ z-_--_-_-__.- - - -- - - . _-..-___ _.-__ a
th REVISIONS TO ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL
- 1. TEST-VOLTAGES AS STATED IN THE_. CONCLUSIONS.
- 2. EVALUATE USE OF WATER ON CASE-BY-CASE BASIS CONSIDERING PLANT SAFETY AND-ABILITY T0-REMOVE WATER.
" 3.. TEST EACH CONDUCTOR SEPARATELY'T0 ALL 0THER CONDUCTORS GROUNDED.
S[lPPI FMENTS TO ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL -
- 1. LICENSING CONSISTENCY
- 2. UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT TEST REPORT
- 3. CABLE TASK FORCE REPORT
- 4. CALCULATIONS FOR RANKING 0F CONDUITS BASED ON APPLICATION OF WORSE CASE SELECTION CRITERIA ,
t 5. TVA COMMENTS ON TER O ~ l l DNE3-4042W}}