ML20244B009
| ML20244B009 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1984 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20097F079 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-487 OL-2, NUDOCS 8906120225 | |
| Download: ML20244B009 (288) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- - - - - - - t c "n
-..s.
.d...f
.I UAnEU STATES
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
COMANCHE PZ:AK ELECTRIC 50-445-OL2 STATION, UNITS 1 & 2 50-446-OL2 1 3- . FORT WORTH, TEXAS LOCATION: PAGES: /(/8- /[M DATE. September , 1984 i Information in this record was deleted in accordance with) freedom of information Act, nemAtions '9
]
F0th- VL IL'"$ O l qm , , , (- l i
~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. OMiciaReporws 444 North CapitolStreet Whington, D.C.20001
. 89061 5 890607 GE04-487 PDR NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
y ,,, { 3 NOI, gpdN 18259 i g6gh's currto srArts or AntarCA ( 3 L 4 In the Matter of I ( Ch$ANY E A? ! H:"*::"*u:""l "':"" i'*"*""!
- :::=9:;-
?;': ":'<l**:L" '"*"
rrie.v. se,temse 21 1,e4 s
'l l
12 13 it i 15 f 16 17 1B 8 19 20 21 22 f., b~ 23 24 25 S 30' b ok5
18160. 1 APPEARANCES: 2 1[' On-Behalf of the Applicants: 3 MARK DAVIDSON, ESQ. f~' ~4 NICHOLAS S.-REYNOLDS, ESQ. BRUCE L. DOWNEY, ESQ. 5 Bishop,Liberman, Cook,Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.- 6 Washington, D.C. 20036 7 -and-8 ROBERT A. WOOLDRIDGE, ESQ.. Worsham,Forsythe,Sampels & Wooldridge 9 1500,- 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 10 11 On Behalf of the NRC Regulatory Staff:~ 12- STUART A. TREBY, ESQ. GEARY S. MIZUNO, ESQ. GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ., ( 13 Office of.the Executive-Legal Director 14 U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. _20555 15 16 On Behalf of Citizens Association'for Sound Energy: 17 ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN,-ESO.. Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, P.C. . 18 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 611 Washington, D.C. 20036 19 20 21 i 22 23 2d 25 1 i .- j
1S161-1 EEEIEEIS BOARD- { 2 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS EXAM 3 D. ARTHUR LONDON d By Mr. Davidson 18165 By Judge Bloch 18218 5 By Mr. Davidson 18231 6 DAVID A. EDDIE 7 By Judge Bloch 18400 l 8 BOUND-IN DOCUMENTS'- 9 DESCRIPTION APPEARS 10 Prerequisite Tes[ Instruction XCP-EE 18271 11 Prerequisite Test Instruction XCP-EE '18280 12 Prerequisite Test Instructions Data Sheets for XCP-EE-12 and XCP-EE-8 18288 ( 14
' CP-SAP-6, Rev. 9 .18348 Memo, 7-28-83 18386 15 Preoperational Test Procedure ICP-PT-02-02,.
16 Rev. O. 18411 17 18 19. 8 20 21 , 22
~. .
23 ! 24 j
?
( 25 l
181627-
./1 1 P_ R_ O_ C_ E E,D_ I_ N_ G S,
(* 2 JUDGE BLOCH: On the record. 3 Mr. London, you have submitted s 4 sworn testimony in this proceeding and were sworn by a 5 reporter. I would like to remind you that you continue 6 to be under oath at the present time, and that your 7 testimony is subject to possible penalty of perjury. 8 Welcome to the hearing. We are 9 interested in hearing from you this morning. , 10 Mr. Davidson, actually, I would 11 like to seek your assistance. The principle reason the 12 Board called Mr. London is to clarify in detail the 13 nature of the obvious deficiencies in Witness F's 14 report of the deficiencies on the annunciator and the 15 system he was testing. 16 MR. DAVIDSON: Perhaps I should make the 17 statement, my name is Mark Davidson. I am a partner 18 in the firm of Bishop, Liberman, Cook,.Purcell and 19 Reynolds, counsel for the Applicants in these proceeding s. 20 I am here accompanied by my 21 partner Bruce Downey, who has been lead counsel in l l 22 these proceedings, and'we are presenting here'today at
/
23 the request of the Board for cross-examination, or 24 further examination, Mr. D. Arthur London, who has L 25 previously filed testimony.
ilSi63-L/2 1 I would.be parfoetly happy to (' 2 assist the Board in any way I can, *if the Board will 3 . instruct me-as to what it is they require. 4 JUDGE BLOCH:' It's just that as I read-A 5 Mr. London's. testimony, he testified'that'there was 6 ob.vious deficiencies in the Inspection Report about 7 which he was testifying that was prepared by WitnessLF, 8 and we'd like to be able.to understand exactly what 9 those deficiencies are. 10 So, perhaps you could go through 11 with him to find out where in the report those 12 deficiencies may be found so we can appreciate what the 13 problem is. l 14 MR. DAVIDSON: Your Honor, if,I may just' H 15 get a clarification, when you say "the deficiencies"' 16 there were, as I recollectoin the pre-filed testimony ~ , 17 a number of comments made about the. report. When we 18 talked about deficiencies in the report we were. talking j 1 19 about I believe a TDR that was filed in connection with- l l 20 what were claimed'to be voltage regulation readings l 21 that were outside the acceptance criteria of 118 volts, 22 plus or minus four percent. 23 There'was'also.some testimony 2d indicating that the procedure for the use of the 25 visacorder, which is the name o'f the oscilloscope e __._________E.__..____.__.___.____.__'_____ m _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _
/3 1 rocording inotruman%, was inodoquatoly dono.
2 And then, of course, there was the {l 3 problem of the annunciator itself, which couldn't work, e 4 but do you view that as a deficiency?: Are those the. A 5 three. issues we are talking about?- 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, and we'd just~like 7 to see where they are on the report, and-to.the. extent 8 where they appear so we will know whether'they.were-9 signed off by QC, that kind of thing. Excuse.me, 10 Quality Technician. 11 MR. DAVIDSON: I'think that's Quality 12 Assurance Technician. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that a QAT?
\ ~
14 MR. DAVIDSON: I think they call them 15 the QA Technicians. 16 I should point out, and 17 the record will reflect because I believe that the 1 18 test package for the preoperational test of the static 1 19 inverters for the Reactor Protection System, which is 20 known as PT-0202, is dated November 23, 1982. The test 21 was performed in November, on November 17th,-1982. . I-
, 22 believe that was the testimony of Witness F. AndLthis 23 is at a time when Mr. London was not the supervisor of-l 24 And, therefore, he does not have knowledge
# 25 and did not witness the performance of the test. W hat
191'd5 1/4 _1 h2 did 10 ho roviewad tho test subsequently when the {' 2 reperformance of the preoperational was done 3 approximately three months ago. / { 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Islthe test report bound I 5 in at,this point? 6 MR. DAVIDSON: I believe it is bound 7 into the London evidentiary deposition,-Your Honor. It
~
B has been moved into evidence. j l 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Would you like to I 10 proceed.
]
i 11 MR. DAVIDSON: I believe it is Exhibit 5 12 of the expanded version of-the London evidentiary i i 13 deposition. 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. 15 Whereupon, 16 D. ARTHUR LONDON 17 resumed the stand as a witness and,'having been 18 previously duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole 19 truth and nothing but the truth, testified on his_ oath 20 as follows: 21 DIRECT EXAMINATION. 22 BY MR. DAVIDSON: l 23 O Mr. London,1 I would like to hand _you 24 a document that is a schematic' wiring diagram that was C' 25 marked in your prefiled evidentiary deposition as R 4
.118166 -/5 1 London Exhibit 7, and I will'have some questions /for 2 you.
(~' 3 (Document handed to witness.) r 4 MR. DAVIDSON: Judge Bloch, that_should A 5 .be a part of the exhibits to the London: evidentiary _ 6 depositions. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: London 7.- 8 MR. DAVIDSON: That_is. correct, Yodr 9 Honor. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Incidentally, we-requested 11 the remainder of this package. Do we have it?- 12 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes. 13 JUDGE BLOCH - Okay. Has it been shown-14 to counsel? 15 MR. DAVIDSON: I will show it to him at' 16 the appropriate time. 17 JUDGE BLOCH: I think the appropriate 18 time is right now, j 19 MR. DAVIDSON: All right.- 20 JUDGE BLOCH: The object is to give 21 people documento before so they can-study them. j i 1 22 MR. DAVIDSON: May we go off the record ! I then. 23
~l 24 JUDGE BLOCH: We'll go off the record, j 25 (Discussion off'the record.)
18167,
- l 1 1/6 1 JUDGE BLOCH2 Back on'the record.
2 During the break there was a brief. (~' 3 discussion about the documents that were brought. There.
' 4 is only one copy, which will create some logistical
( 5 problem, but we'll proceed as best we can. 6 Mr. Davidson. 7 MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you, Your Honor. 8 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 9 0 Mr. London, have you had_an opportunity 10 to look at what was previously marked as London Exhibit 11 No. 77 12 A Yes, I have. 13 G Can you tell me,.Mr. London, what that 14 depicts? d 15 A London Exhibit 7 is a schematic diagram i 16 of the output section of one of the Reactor Protection i 17 System inverters that is in question. 18 It also' depicts the alarm that is h 19 supposed to operate for a loss of AC output on the 1 20 inverter itself. 21 G I think you just said'that.it's 22 " supposed to operate." d t '/ " 23 l A That is correct. .! 24 -G Why did you phrase it that way? 25 A I say " supposed to operate" because in i
^
__-_---__.__________-.--______.-___L---
18168
/7 1 tho mannor in which thia alarm relay wao o.riginally
/~" 2 designed, and the manner in which the' test in question
\
3 PT-0202, was written the alarm relay could not function 4 to provide the required annunciation'.inthe control 5 room that the converter had lost AC output. 6 0 Is that diagram alone sufficient'to y tell you that the ACE loss alarm cannot function as B intended? 9 A This diagram is sufficient to show that 10 the output contacts from the alarm relay would not 11 function as tested in preoperational test PT-0202. 12 O Would you explain how you determined 13 that from that diagram, and try to.be as explicit as 14 you can. If you just say pointing to this and 15 pointing to that it won't reflect itself in the. record, 16 but could you explain to us how you determine that 17 from that diagram. 18 JUDGE BLOCH: And particularly when you 19 refer to the diagram try to describe what it is.you are 20 l pointing to so that the record can understand. If you 21 can't, we'll try to help you do that. 22 l THE WITNESS: All right. 23 In the performance of preoperationa l 24 test PT-0202 in order to test the loss of AC output ['- 25 alarm function the test specified to simulate an
iSi'69
./8 1 overcurrent condition on the output of the inverter '
(' 2 by installing a jumper across contact ICSR on the lower 3 portion of the schematic diagram.
/ 4 Contact ICSR is operated during 5 an overcurrent condition by a sensing relay, Device 6 No. 4B on the right-hand side of the drawing.
l 7 This sensor relay through 8 utilization of a current transformer is able to sense l 9 current on the output and for an overcurrent condition, 10 which is I believe limited to 150 percent of the 11 inverter's output, the relay would pick up and close 12 contacts ICSR. 13 Rather than imposing a direct 14 overcurrent condition on the equipment, itself, which 15 could possibly have undesirable effects, the test was 16 written to simulate that condition by installing a 17 single pole / single throw switch across contacts ICSR. 18 Now when contacts ICSR are closed, 19 which in normal condition would be as a result of a 20 direct overcurrent on the inverter, Relay No. CSRT 21 picks up. 22 JUDGE BLOCH: And where is CSRT on the 23 diagram? I see it. It is somewhat below and to the 24 left of ICSR. 25 THE WITNESS: Yes, CSRT, Judge Bloch,
18170 i l
/9 1 10 diroctly to tho loft of Contcet ICSR thoro. !
2 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Now counsel has j {' $ 3 shown me that ICSR, the initials ICSR appear in the ( 4 second place of the diagram. I was looking at it in j 5 a first place. You can see that it sticks out to the 6 right near about a third of the way down the page. It 7 says "ICSR." 8 . MR. DAVIDSON: 4-B. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: 4-B. Is that the one you 11 are talking about, or are you talking about the ICSR 12 which is down near the dotted line ACB further down. 13 THE WITNESS: ICSR about a third of a 14 way down the page is the sensing device. It's contact 15 that operates as a result of the overcurrent condition i 16 is the one.to which I am referring at the bottom of the 17 page. 18 In other words, when current on 19 the inverter is too high the current transformer would 20 sense that, transmit that high-current condition to 21 Relay ICSR. The auxiliary contact off of Relay ICSR 22 would then be actuated at the lower part of the circuit. 23 JUDGE JORDAN: That's the relay is it 24 labeled ICSR? 25 THE WITNESS: Yes, the relay, itself, and
- '18171 1/10 1 its auxiliary contact is labalod ICSR..
JUDGE JORDAN: So the overcurrent in {' 2 3 the. sensing device closes-that relay, and that's the e 4 normal way in which the plant is supposed to operate; 5 is that correct? 6 THE WITNESS: (No response.) 7 JUDGE JORDAN: In other words,.when over-8 current is sensed by the sensing device labeled ICSR. 9 4-B, or something, then that closes the relay ICSR;-is 10 that correct? 11 THE WITNESS: That closes the relay. 12 contacts ICSR. 13 JUDGE JORDAN: Okay. And when that relay
'~
14 becomes closed, then what happens? 15 THE WITNESS: Continuing with the 16 explanation, when Contact ICSR closes, due to the 17 presence of potential between Point 47 on.the left, 18 and the cther side of Contact ICSR, the relay identified 19 as CSRT would be energized. 20 JUDGE BLOCH: There are'two relays:CSRT 21 that I can see; is that right? 22 MR. MIZUNO: Chairman Bloch, I believe f 23 that CSRT, the coil itself is right to the left of the 24 ICSR relay contact. 25 JUDGE BLOCH: So the CSRT we are talking
18172 ]
/11 1 about is ohown in tha circle on tha --
{' 2 MR. MIZUNO: Yes. That circle is the 3 relay coil itself. ( 4 JUDGE BLOCH.: Okay. That.was a. confusion 5 because I can't read CSRT in that circle. 6 JUDGE JORDAN: So is it true then that
- 7. closing of the Relay ICSR energizes the relay which is 8 ' labeled what?
9 JUDGE BLOCH: CSRT. 10 JUDGE JORDAN: CSRT; is that correct? 11 THE WITNESS: Yes, closing Contact ICSR. 12 relays, energizes Relay Coil CSRT. 13 JUDGE JORDAN: All right. 14 THE WITNESS: I feel that I need-to is differentiate here and say that for any actuated. device 16 there are auxiliary contacts off of that~ device. That 17 might be leading to the confusion between several-18 different devices of the same name. 19 The contacts are an output of the 20 device that is labeled in the circle. 1 i 1 21 JUDGE JORDAN: So that you are saying.the l 22 CSRT, when that is energized closes relays at.other I >
~
23 places on the diagr'am; is that what you wanted to- 1 24 convey? L 25 THE WITNESS: I meant to convey that when
. 1 8-1, 7 3 ' /12 1 Relay CSRT is enorgizGd contacts on other part ~ of the 2 diagram are closed.
{~' ~ 3 JUDGE JORDAN: Are those important parts 4 for us to understand at the moment; do you need to tell 5 us what other contacts are closed, as a result of 6 energizing? 7 THE WITNESS: .Yes, I do. 8 JUDGE JORDAN: All right. 9 THE WITNESS: Once Relay-CSRT is energized 10 there are two other --' excuse me, two CSRT auxiliary 11 contacts that are actuated. 12 The first CSRT contact is 13 immediately above the original contact ICSR.thatTI 14 discussed earilier. 15 The second CSRT contact is 16 immediately above the first CSRT contact. It's that 17 one (indicating). 18 JUDGE JORDAN : I see, and those are 19 labeled CSRT; is that right? 20 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, they are. 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Just to clarify, the first 22 CSRT is to the left of a number which appears.to be 23 47, and the second is to the right of a. number'which 24 appears to be 49. 25 JUDGE JORDAN: Is that correct?
18174: 1/13' 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. That is.corroct.-
'l
.. 2 Once. Relay ~CSRT is energized by
- 3. the original overcurrent condition previously? discussed, J 4 and the contacts close, as I.have mentioned ~that they ll 5 would, two functions-happen.
6 First of all, a red. indicating light on 7 the panel, the circuit is completed to allow its 8 illumination. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: This is the panel of this 1 10 device,.not the Control-Room panel. Is that right? 11 THE WITNESS: The red indicating; light 12 is located on the inverter panel itself on the 792 13 elevation of the control Building. j (- 14 JUDGE BLOCH: And is that that-funny; 1 J 15 little thing to the left of the first CRT with sort 16 of shining lights coming out of it? 17 JUDGE JORDAN: He's talking about-this 18 (indicating). JUDGE BLOCH:
~
19 Where is the light shown 20 on this? i 21 THE WITNESS: The red indicating light j j 22 is directly to the left, Judge Bloch,_of the first-CSRT ' _/ < 23 contact that I mentioned. i i 24 JUDGE BLOCH: .Yes. It's got four little' I' 25 funny things coming out from it.
.l ,
4
.18175 /14 1 THE WITNESS: Yes.
(~ 2 MR. DAVIDSON: Just to be sure I under-3 stand it, that is marked RIL. Does that stand for
/ 4 Red Indicating Lamp.
5 THE WITNESS: That would be a good 6 acronym for it. 7 (Laughter.) l 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Mine is just ILL, but 9 that's okay. That's all right. I 10 MR. DAVIDSON: I don't think it is, Your l 11 Honor. 12 RIL (in dica ting) , Red Indicating 13 Lamp. 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Oh, I see. l l 15 /// 16 /// 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l
- 19176 L2-1 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. So we've'.got' the ho' RIL lit. Now what?
{_ 2 3 THE WITNESS: Having established that ( 4 the red indicating light would function.for the over-5 current condition,_the oth'er thing that happens-is 1 6 that the second CSRT contact'in the line immediately 7 above the red indicating lamp or line -- 8' JUDGE. JORDAN: Horizontal line. 9 THE WITNESS: -- the horizontal line 10 immediately above the red indicating lamp:line, that 11 contact would close, which_ energizes a coil immediately 12 to its left, which is identified as 4CS. 1 13 Coll 4CS is the shunt trip which would-14 actuate to cause the output breaker of the inverter 15 to open, and the output' breaker is device 4CB. 16 JUDGE JORDAN: So that's the'way.the 17 inverter is protected against overload, is by' opening 18 4CB when an overload occurs? 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Could you try.to direct 20 me to 4CB? I cannot find that. 21 JUDGE JORDAN: That's the big one we've-22 been talking about. 23 THE WITNESS: Judge Bloch, 4CB is -- 24 JUDGE BLOCH: ~Okay. 25 THE WITNESS: There.are three 4 e
19177J 2-2 1 hemispherical lines. drawn ldirectly beneath relay
'( 2 CSRT'on'the diagram.: .
3 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. - (
~
4 THE WITNESS: 'Or' semi-circular' lines, 5 I should say. 6 JUDGE' JORDAN: And'those semi-circular 7 lines indicate what? 8 THE WITNESS:. That.is a standard' 9 nomenclature fer~a' circuit breaker. 10 JUDGE JORDAN: Okay. So therefore, 11 overload results infthe opening of2 circuit breaker 4CB 12 and that corrects or, prevents the device? from beingl 13 harmed because it thereby' stops.the current going 14 from the device, is that right? 15 THE WITNESS:- Yes, sir. That is. 16 correct. 17 I should mention that when breaker 14CB 18 is open as a result of the'over-current condition, 19 the inverter itself remains .in operation,: so that 20 there' is potential for output voltage available1at: 21 the top on this diagram of Breaker-No. 4CB.
]
22 All we have done is removed or' isolated-
~
23 the load itself from the inverter. 24 JUDGE JORDAN: Oh, are you saying-that: .4 ( 25 the load, the normal load that this inverter is -I k' __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _____x_ --
18178~
'2-3 I supplying is at the bottom of the diagram, those two 2 terminals labeled whatever, . is that correct?
(~ 3 JUDGE BLOCH: 'UPS-1 and UPS-2. q' 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. The. normal-5 load, although not depicted here, would be connected 6 to the UPS-1 and UPS-2 terminals. 7 JUDGE JORDAN: I see. So therefore, 8 the overload condition is presumably airesult of-9 some failure in the. circuits to-which it's connected, 10 and what this does, then, when'it' detects overload, 11 is to open up the breaker and remove the inverter-12 from the load? 13 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.1 That is correct. JUDGE JORDAN:
~
14 Verylwell. Now, are you 15 going to now tell us how the light in the control 16 room is supposed to come on? Is that your.next -- is 17 that where you plan to go'next? 18 JUDGE BLOCH: .Not quite, he's-going to 19 talk about the light in the control room. 20 MR. DAVIDSON: Dr. Jordan,'I'think the 21 pending question -- and-you've been very helpful in 22 getting some of the additional points out!-- was to i - 23 explain to us how one can determine from this-diagram 24 that the alarm window or annunciator.in the control 25 room would not work as intended and has to be tested _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _____m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.18173 2-4 1 by the. pro-operational tests, and I think he's gotten 2 to the point now where he's told us that the AC output
(~ 3 is lost because the breaker has been tripped by the
,e 4 simulated over-current condition.
5 But he's really just taken us to the 6 precipice of the point we're really getting at,'which 7 is, now, does the alarm window come in in the control g room. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: I like that way of 10 stating it a lot better than the first one, because n this is your witness, even though we're-trying to get 12 an explanation, you try not to lead him to,what the 13 result is, even though he's already stated it in his 14 testimony. 15 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 16 O Mr. London, I think that Judge Bloch 17 wishes you to continue with your explanation. 18 A All right. Continuing, as I mentioned 19 before, tripping the AC output breaker, Device No. 4CB, 20 does not shut down the inverter. 21 Device ACL, which is the alarm relay 22 that would have to actuate to give the' annunciator in (# 23 the control room, is located directly beneath a'rather 24 large conglomeration of squiggly. lines, if I may, 25 located in the middle of the page.
' 1S1801 2-5 1 JUDGE BLOCH:" It's.below what looks'like
'( -' 2 a coil?'
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.- It's below'the
, 4 coils of the transf ormers .
- 5. ' JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. -And.then'below the' 6 coils is something labeled SS and'below that is;where 7 .you find the-loss of AC alarm?
8 THE WITNESS: ' Y e s .. That is the::AC loss 9 relay coil. 10 JUDGE JORDAN: That~ transformer isithe.
- 1) resonant transformer?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes. That~isfa' diagram-13 matic representation of the Ferro resonant output: 14 transformer of the inverter. 15 Since-the inverter output ~, or'rather 16 the ir.verter has continued toJoperate even.though;its-17 output breaker has been opened, relay'ACL,-earlier 18 described, remains energized. 19 Since the relay' remains energized,.its 20 auxiliary contacts, denoted on the right-hand side of 21 the page as loss of AC. alarm,7would no't changejstate.
~
22 Therefore, based on this: diagram,- it i
~
23 is impossible for the alarm to have' functioned as 24 specified in the test procedure in the manner,>for t- 25 the manner in which the test was performed. i____.__________.___.______.-.______-- _ - - - - - -
181$1 2-6 1 JUDGE BLOCH: In fact, it's.also '
~. 2 impossible for it to operate under operating conditiont i 3 of the reactor, isn't that right? l I
( 4 THE WITNESS: That is only; partially I 5 correct. If the inverter were to be completely. shut 6 down while in operation, removing any potential at 7 the terminals of relay coil ACL, the contacts of'that. 8 relay would function and give an alarm in the control 9 room that there was trouble with the' inverter. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. But what it.would 11 not indicate is overload? e 12 THE' WITNESS: It would not indicate 13 overload, nor would it indicate simply opening of ja the AC output breaker to de-energize the loads. 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Now, in:the detail of 16 the ACR, on the right side, there's a difference 17 shown in the schematic of the portion labeled ACL 18 on the right where there's a line diagonally and one 1 19 on the left. 20 Do you'know what that difference is? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. That is a-22 schematic representation of the auxiliary contacts ( . 23 off of the device ACL. ! i 24 Typically, relay contacts have a. ! 1 25 normally open and a normally closed set of contacts, 1 i
1
.. .e 18182 2-7 1 and the middle log, in this case the one labeled 62, ,
/N 2 is used as the common point.
3 Field wiring would be connected to ( 4 either 61 and 62 to transmit ' the alarm ' to the control, 5 room or to 62 and 63, depending on the way in:which- l I 6 the architect engineer had designed that particular 7 alarm circuit. 8 JUDGE'BLOCH: For an expert in )
.1 9 electrical circuits, is the detection of this design
..o /
10 Problem relatively simple or very1hard? 11 THE-WITNESS: I feel that a thorough 12 review of the circuit would show that'the-detection 13 of the problem is relatively simple. }; (," 14 t JUDGE BLOCH: And in the~ field, was any 15 part of the QA technician's job'in the field to look-16 at the wiring diagram? 17 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm not sure if -- l 18 JUDGE BLOCH: If you know. 19 MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you. ; 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Was it any part of the QA l l 21 technician's job to review the wiring diagram? I 22 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware that'it was ! 1 23 Part of his job to review the diagram. 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. Weren't i l 25 you the QA technician supervisor?
.]
f I j _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _b
18183 2-8 1 THE WITNESS: No. 2 MR. DAVIDSON: Fo. Judge Grossman, (~ 3 this gentleman is D. Arthur London. He's the lead
/ 4 of the electrical start-up group. He was for nine 5 months Witness F's supervisor. He succeeded in that 6 position Harold J. Cheatam.
7 He is ncit on the quality assurance 8 staff, which is why I think Judge Bloch tried to ,__ l 1 l 9 correct because he wanted to find out if he was l-l . 10 familiar, but I believe he did testify that he did 11 not believe that that was part of the QA technician's 12 job. - g 13 I would like to ask a clarifying - ( 14 question, too, if I might, Judge Bloch, and that is: 15 BY MR. DAVIDSON:
-=
16 g Was it the job of the STE assigned to l 17 this system who was to perform the pre-operational l 18 test, was it his job to review the wiring schematic i 19 of this system and be familiar with it? 20 A As a course of normal system test f 21 engineer's duties, it is his responsibility prior to 22 the performance of a pre-operational test to review I
~
23 applicable documentation to ensure that the test is 24 indeed written to the latest design installed in the , plant. 25
* .;18184~
' 2 t 1 JUDGE JORDAN: 'But rather'than --
' MR. ROISMAN: Heodidn't answer the-2 3 question. .
( 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Was it part of the'STE's a l 5 job to review the wiring diagram? j
'l 6 THE WITNESS:- Yes.. ,
7 MR. DAVIDSON: I. thought he had 8 answered it. 9 JUDGE JORDAN: I' would'like to clarify 10 a little bit. Is the STE supposed to take the 11 diagram, look caref ully at .the diagram to see 'if 12 there are any mistakes, or is it the STE's job'to! 13 Perform certain tests, observe the operation of 14 certain-relays under certain conditions, and if'that 15 fails, then review the diagram.to see what is wrong? 16 In other words, is it.really his job 17 to carefully review the diagram prior to making the
.l 18 test? <
'l 19 THE WITNESS: YeL ,. it-is his job to 20 review the diagram prior to performing-the. test to 21 ensure that he understands what it is he is per-22 forming and the various system interactions-that
(
. 23 'would arise from imposing certain' conditions.on the ;
I 24 equipment. j 25 JUDGE JORDAN: I see. So he has to i i
l118185 2 1 - understand the whole thing in order to :make sure :that'
,n
(~' 2 .it,is working properly? 3 THE' WITNESS: That's correct. ( 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. London'-- 5 Do you have some more questions on the 6 wiring diagram,'Dr. Jordan? 7 JUDGE JORDAN: I may have. 8 JUDGE;GROSSMAN: Excuse me. 'I have a. 9 clarifying question. I'm not sure!I caught-a. word. 10 You said, I-believe, if the ACL relay remains 11 energized the AC alarm does not change phase; was 12 that what you said? 13 JUDGE BLOCH: I thought he said state. JUDGE GROSSMAN:
~
- 14. State?J f
15 THE WITNESS: I said the.AC alarm relay 16 contacts would not change state.. 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I see.. By that you 18 mean whatever state it was in would remain the-same -- 19 THE WITNESS: Could I1 clarify.-- 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- is that~right?
- 21. THE WITNESS: Yes, j JUDGE GROSSMAN:
~
22 Could it beLin a': state ~ l 'O
% i 23 in which the alarm was on toibegin with? j
-l 24 Look at me. I'm asking the. question.
(' 25 If you don't understand it, tell me. i i ___.____._____________________m _ . _ , _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
.'19286 2-11 1 THE WITNESS: Could you say that again?
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Could the alarm be in {~ 3 a state in which it was on, rather than off, or e 4 whatever your terminology is, to begin with, so that 5 if it doesn't change state it remains on, rather than 6 remain -- necessarily stays off? 7 JUDGE BLOCH: From a prior test -- l 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Can you answer that 9 question? l l jo THE WITNESS: From the standpoint of jj the alarm system, and assuming that the prerequisite 12 test had been done properly, which it is signed in l 13 the prerequisite section of the pre-op, the alarm t 14 could not have been in. l 15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I'm asking you 16 whether if the alarm were in it would stay in. 17 MR. DAVIDSON: I think the testimony is 1 18 it could not be in, Judge Grossman, so how can you l 19 assume -- 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, excuse me. I 21 know what that testimony was, and I'm asking him to 22 assume something else. ( 23 MR. DAVIDSON: You're asking him to 24 assume directly contrary to his testimony, though, 25 Judge Grossman. I think that --
. 18187 2-12 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: As to what occurred?
MR. DAVIDSON: He said it could not (~ 2 3 be in. Now, you just said -- ( 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. 5 MR. DAVIDSON: -- please assume if it is 6 in; I think it's not possible to assume something that 7 he stated is not the case. 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, listen, I don't 9 want to argue with you, Mr. Davidson. 10 If you're unable to answer the question, 11 is it possible to assume that the alarm is in before 12 the test is run, forgetting about what was actually 13 done in the test? 14 THE WITNESS: I don't feel it's possible 15 to assume that, because we normally start tests on 16 equipment when all annunciators on that system are 17 cleared. 18 JUDGE G ROS SMAN : Well -- 19 THE WITNESS: No. 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- let's assume you 21 started this test -- 22 THE WITNESS: It's not possible to i 23 assume that. 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- and the alarm was -- 25 Excuse me. -- and the alarm was in when
'18188 2-13 1 you started t!ho tect..
(~ 2 Now,when the ACL relay remains 3 energized, would the alarm stay in?
'( 4 THE-WITNESS: Yes.
5 JUDGE'GROSSMAN: ~ Thank-you. 6 And by the way, the alarm-is not an 7 actual alarm as aLlayman would-understand it, but a 8 red light indicator? l 9 THE WITNESS:- No. There is a rfd' light '1 j 10 indicator on the inverter in the 792 elevation, and j I 11 the alarm which we are discussing.is located in the I 12 control room, totally remote from the location of- ! 13 the inverters. I 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And how would one. 15 notice whether the alarm was on or off? /Would~that l 16 be an audible sound.or wouldi that.be a visual matter? , i 17 THE. WITNESS: It's a combination of an ! l l 18 audible and visual matter. 19 ___ 20 21 22 ( 23 i 24 L' 25 t e C_________.___._ _
k J
-1 1s189- q' e 1 JUDGE JORDAN: You will.be describing.
{~- 2 the annunciator panel.later that's in theEcontrol' j l 3 room? You have other diagrams to show that; is that 4 correct? f 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I can describe ] 6 the operation of-the annunciator system. 7 JUDGE JORDAN: Before we get that far, 1 8 I want to make sure that I-have followed. i 9 As shown here,.the coil that picks up 10 the relay -- and by the relays, I meanzthe relays to 11 the right of'the diagram. ! 12 THE WITNESS: Do you mean the relay 13 contacts? l 14 JUDGE JORDAN: .The relay contacts, one 15 of which is shown.normally open and one of which is 16 shown normally closed; is that'correctfin the diagram? 17 THE WITNESS:. Yes, that's correct. 18 JUDGE JORDAN:- The coil, as it is now 19 wired, it will show whether there is voltage at the 20 output of the device; is that not correct? 21 It doesn't show an overload, but it 22 does show at the moment as it is wired, it shows that
~
i s 23 there is voltage at the output of the resonant-24 transformer; and, therefore, there would be voltage
- {- 25 to feed the load.
Is that correct? t~
IS100 2 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. ( 2 JUDGE ~ JORDAN: You.say,that was not the 3 intention, however, of this particular light, was to-( 4 show that there was. voltage being delivered at the 5 output of the transformer? 6 THE WITNESS: The intent'of the alarm' 7 for los's of AC output on the inverter is to show that i 8 the inverter is no longer supplying its loads; i 9 therefore the alarm relay coil should have been 10 connected at the output of breaker 4CB at the. bottom 11 of the page to allow-proper annunciation when the :) I 12 output from the inverter was lost. j 13 JUDGE JORDAN: So you are saying that j 14 the alarm, as shown, would show that the voltage- i 15 exists ahead of the output breaker, but not beyond the l
)
i 16 output breaker? l i, 17 .THE WITNESS: Yes, that is the way.it 18 was connected there. 19 JUDGE JORDAN: And the requirement there, ; i 20 if it is to show that if there'is voltage being 21 delivered to the load, what would be required would i 22 be to move the relay -- what do you call'it?' ; 23 THE WITNESS: That is Relay ACL. 24 JUDGE JORDAN: -- would.be to remove
'- 25 this Relay ACL, its wires, to the output beyond the' 4
18191'
-3 i b,ronker rather than beforo tho brackor?'
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.' 3 JUDGE JORDAN: Now, so that this relay. 4 has as its purpose, the relay and the annunciator, is 5 to show that there is no. voltage at'the output of ; the inverter; and when you have a light in the control I 6 ', 7 room, that is supposed to indicate that there is no 8 voltage at the output of the inverter beyond the 9 breakers. Is'that correct? That's the purpose of 10 the annunciator? 11 THE WITNESS: ' Yes, among other things. 12 The annunciator window also includes some other 13 abnormal operating characteristics of the inverter ja that would bear the attention of the_ operator to 15 correct the problem, l 16 JUDGE JORDAN: All right. It.is also, j j j7 however, supposed to annunciate on over3 cad. Did i 18 you say that, that the relay.itself is supposed to 19 pick up and show in^the control room:and'on the red 20 light here when there is an overload. I I 21 THE WITNESS: It should pick up'and l i l 22 annunciate in the control room as a result.of the k~ output breaker tripping _due-to. overload. 23 .] L ] 24 JUDGE JORDAN: Again, it's the output 1 25 breaker tripping and not any detection of overload. j i ___m____ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - * - -
.'?U181921
-4 1. current, perise? Thero's no' coil:on hereEwh'ich~
*2 measures.the overload current?
{ 3 THE WITNESS: There is a coil which { 4 measures overload current, being Coil ICSR. As-5 a result of the overload, the1 red indicating light 6 that~I' discussed previously would become'111uminated.- 7 JUDGE' JORDAN: Yes,'and that's because' 8 you are messuring the current'in there.- So,- therefore, i
-9 there are two ways in-which'these. relays showing.
10 loss of AC alarm, at least two ways in which they 11 should be actuated. 12 One is a' loss: of voltage at - the
- 13 output. Another is an overload current.
14 You get the same indication in'either 15 case, is that correct? 16 THE WITNESS: :You would get an alarm 17 indication in the control-room', and.then you would l 18 have to go to the inverter panel itself to determine 19 whether it had.been a loss of AC voltage or an 20 over-current. condition, the over-current condition-21 being denoted by the illumination of the red indicating 22 light. (- . 23 JUDGE JORDAN:' Okay. I see.- Take me 24 back through again.
~ '
25 So that when you have overload current,
L 18133 1-5 1 an ICSR relay coil is energized beyond the normal. 2 THE WITNESS: . When ICSR coil is (~~ 3 energized, it closes the contacts denoted as ICSR 4 here directly above Breaker 4CB. { 5 JUDGE JORDAN: All right. 6 THE WITNESS: When those contacts y close, Relay CSRT, which in this case is'somewhat 8 difficult to read, is energized. 9 JUDGE JORDAN: Yes. 10 THE WITNESS: Auxiliary contacts from 11 Relay CSRT provide two functions. The first set of 12 contacts looking immediately above on the next 13 horizontal line, that set of contacts closes and 14 gives a red indicating light. 15 The second set of contacts _ closes to' 16 allow energization of device -- excuse me -- 4CS, i 17 which is the shunt trip of the. output breaker itself. ! 18 Now, we have already__ discussed that l 19 when the output breaker is opened, that removes the 20 over-current situation from the' inverter. 21 However, the inverter itself continues 22 to operate.
' 1 23 Since Breaker 4CB is~now open and there 24 is no longer an over-current condition, relay contact
' 25 ICSR would open.
- 18194.
-6 1 However, if I could borrow your. pen, relay CSRT remains energized through the first. set of
{': 2 3 contacts mentioned in the discussion about CSRT. 4 The overload condition itself would L'. 5 .have to be removed by direct operator action of 6 depressing the device labeled here as 2PB. That is-7 a pushbutton and would allow to extinguish the 8 over-current condition -- or extinguish the over-9 current indicating lamp. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: The condition, as I 11 understand it, existed only very momentarily, is that 12 right, the condition of overload? 13 THE WITNESS: Yes, the condition of overload would exist only the period of time required
, 14 15 for the previously discussed actions to trip 16 breaker 4CB. !
i 17 MR. DAVIDSON: Dr. Jordan, I have some 18 further questions on this area, but are you satisfied 19 that you now understand how the system works? 20 JUDGE JORDAN: I think so. I think so, f; i 21 so please go ahead. i 22 BY MR. DAVIDSON:
\s- l 23 0 I would like to draw.your attention,- )
~i 24 Mr. London, to some testimony that.was earlier had' l 25 about the nature of that diagram and what can-be 4
. i l
- _ -o
, : 18135 -7 1 determined from it.
2 I would like to refer you to Transcript (~ 3 Pages 14554 to 14555. The specific lines are Lines 4 10 through 12 on Page 14554; following1through from {~ 5 the.first line on 14555 to Line 10 of that transcript 6 Pages. 7 I-would like you to look'at that. It's 8 a series of two questions asked by Judge Bloch of 9 Witness F. 10 Would you just read.those and look up 11 at me when you are finished, 12 A (Witness complies.) 13 I have completed reading. 14 G The first question that. Judge Bloch-15 asked, and I'm quoting: "Okay. If it turns out 16 that that diagram..." The reference here is-to 17 London Exhibit 7. ...that diagram was complete and 18 accurate, would that mean that the alarm could not i l 19 work?" 20 The answer'of-the witness is: "Yes. 21 Well, maybe I shouldn't say that the' alarm could not 4 22 work. That would mean that the. alarm _was not ( 23 engineered originally to. work that way." 24 I'd like your comment on that question' 1 (
' 25 and answer.
.i
- 5. 18196 :
I
-8 1 A That is a correct statement.- As I
(* 2 have testified earlier,.the problem was one of 3 design and lack of review prior to performance of the 4 test which caused the relay -- or the alarm not to { 5 function. 6 Q Let me just get your reaction or at 7 least your comment on the second question. 8 This'is again' Judge Bloch: "I am saying 9 if this is still the way that it is built at the 10 plant, would that mean that_you would not be able to 11 have the alarm work as intended?" 12 The answer of the witness is: "If_it-13 was just totally for this print, yes." 14 Is that a correct statement, as you 15 understand it? Is that consistent with your ; i 16 testimony? 17 A That'is a' correct statement. 18 0 I'd like to refer you to some earlier. 19 statements by the witness in response to~this 20 questioning, in which the answers were not quite so j i 21 ' unequivocal, j i 22 MR. ROISMAN: Objection. m a 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Davidson, don't ' 24 characterize. This is your witness.
]
L' 25 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm sorry. Your Honor, I
'l s
1s197-
-9 1 balieve the Board called this witness, but I'm
-2 perfectly. prepared to say that --
( 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you want to treat him 4 as adverse? 5 MR. DAVIDSON: Your Honor, I want.to 6 treat him with respect and deference, as you have dose. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Just don't lead 8 him. 9 MR. DAVIDSON: I certainly won't. 10 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 11 O I would like you to refer, Mr. London, 12 to Transcript Page 14551, specifically looking at 13 Lines 23 through 25, which is the question; and on 14 Page 14552, Lines 1 through 4, which is a part, the 15 initial part, of the answer. 16 The question by Mr. Roisman is:- "What 17 is your opinion upon looking at that diagram..." and 18 again, we are. referring to London Exhibit 7,."...as 19 to whether it is.a complete. diagram that, answers the-20 question whether the annunciator.could.or could'not 21 function?" 22 The answer given.at this point in the-23 transcript: "Just with this diagram I1can't.make.the 24 decision that it-would or would not function. .I-25 would.have to look at the other associated' documents, _ _ _ _ _ _ ___m___.__ ._m
218190;
-10 l' being the-alarm' circuit."
J-(] 2 Is that a correct statement? Would you 3 need to look at other documents to make the determina - U tion that the alarm'could not function?'
.{ 4 5 MR.-MIZUNO: ExcuseJme. Thistgentleman' .
i
.6 that just walked-in, I'just want to make.sure.that? l 7 it's all right.
8 JUDGE BLOCH: He's a reporter. 9 MR. MIZUNO: -Thank you. 10 THE WITNESS: In my opinion,-that is-11 not a correct statement. You can determine from the 12 diagram that the alarm contacts will not function 13 for the manner in which the test was performed. It /// 15 /// 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 - a 24 ('- 25
=l i
18199 4/1- l' BY MR. DAVIDSON: 2 0 Well, let me call your attention to some
-{
3 other testimony here. 4 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, excuse'me. 5 I'm unclear what the function of this piece of this- ) 6 exhibit is. As I understood it Mr. Davidson has said 7 the witness is called'as the Board witness I believe ' 8 the question was explained how the system functions or i 9 doesn't function, not to offer rebuttal testimony-or, i 10 the witness' opinion on the testimony of other i i 11 witnesses. ! i
)
12 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, I think, actually, i 13 Mr. Roisman, the . mission that I.was given by the 14 Board was to help them clarify the record, and to 15 clear up the question of the deficiencies. 16 Now, it happens to be my view that l 17 not only Mr. London done a marvelous job of explaining 18 what should be determined from London's Exhibit 7 -- 19 in fact, I was actually quite surprised of how many 20 things you could determine from London's Exhibit 7, i 21 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't understand. Are 1 22 you now testifying?
- i V 23 MR. DAVIDSON: No. I'm responding,'Your j 24 Honor, and I'd appreciate it if I could-just be allowed
~
25 to complete my statement. L 4 4
. 1S200
- /2 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Try to be a little 1
/F 2 briefer, yes.
V. 3 MR. DAVIDSON: I will do my very best i to. But I think it is also the mission here to clarify ( 4
~
5 some of the testimony that was given'that resuled in j l 6 some of the confusion, and that is_what I am doing. j 7 JUDGE BLOCH: I am going to overrule the 8 objection, but I would like the examination at_this 1 9 Point to be brief, because you really,have only one j 10 question to ask that I can think of and that is: Have 11 you reviewed the other documents and do.that affect l 1 1 1 12 your judgment. l
-1 i
13 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, I'm going to get to ! 14 that, Your Honor, and that's how we're going to get the 15 other documents. 16 But I do want to call the witness'- 17 attention to Transcript Page 14553, and I want to --
.i 18 JUDGE BLOCH: Are you sure, Mr. Davidson, l 19 we have to do this torturously? I mean I really think i
20 there was only one more question you have to ask. j 21 MR. DAVIDSON: Your Honor, we had i 22 testimony from Witness F which took no less than six s 23 and a half hours. We have been in session now.for about. 24 forty-five minutes. I really think that although we 25 don't want to digress, that we've been directly
. 18201
/3- 1 pertinent to the topics the Board asked me to clarify, 2 and I really think that we have not had any extensive 3 examination on this.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. I would think if he k 5 testifies that he reviewed the documents, andLthat they 6 are not relevant, that that's just'about all you need. 7 Now, i f yo u n e e d - ---- 8' 'MR. DAVIDSON: Well, no, -- 9 JUDGE BLOCH: -- more, your counsel.-- 10 MR. DAVIDSON: -- Mr. F made three 11 spearate statements -- 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. 13 MR. DAVIDSON: -- in this transcript as F '- to what he needed to review, and I want to find out if 14 15 that is in fact necessary to be reviewed. 16 JUDGE BLOCH:-All right. Let's proceed. 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: . I just want to point out 18 one thing. He is responding now to a partial answer. 19 I just want to point that out for the record, and I'm 20 sure that you are aware of it. 21 MR. DAVIDSON: And if you would like-to 22 ask the balance of the-question, Judge Grossman, I'd be (.. 23 perfectly happy to entertain it. 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No, but, you know, I. (
' 25 don't know that it's appropriate to'take out part of an
- '18202
/4 1 anowar and have a respongo to it. There was c comploto ,
2 response that went over a page and a half. Now, -- 3 MR. DAVIDSON: To that one question, Your 4 Honor? l 5 JUDGL' GROSSMAN : Yes. Indeed it-did. l l MR. DavIDSON: I'm not sure that's
]
7 correct. 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: There was an interruption ' 9 in the answer, and a continuation of the answer and ther ! 10 there was some further colloquy, all with regard to jj that one question that was asked. 12 So, you can handle it whichever 13 way you want, and the Chairman will rule on that, -- 14 MR. DAVIDSON: Your Honor, I would like 15 you to do so. 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- but if you want us-17 to give complete weight to what's being said,- you should 18 take that into account. 19 MR. DAVIDSON: Your Honor, I think if 20 that's-a matter that troubles you, the Board has never j 21 been reluctant in the past'to raise a. question that 3
-1 22 troubled it or to seek a clarification. I think if
( 23 .this is a problem that is causing you trouble now,'I i 24 invite you to interrupt my examination at this point -- l
. (L-. !
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No. No. i
\
-)
4 _ - - - . _ _ - - - _ _ - - - _ - . - - - - . - _ - - - - _ - - - - . . - - _ _ - - - A
,. 18203; /5 1 MR. DAVIDSON: -- and resolve it.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: What I am pointing out 3 is it may cause you trouble later on, so I'm pointing it
-4 out for you.
k 5 MR. DAVIDSON: I see no trouble. All I 6 see is solne testimony that is inconsistent. 7 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 8 G May I turn now to Transcript Page 14553, 9 and this is a part of the discussion in which the 10 Witness F is explaining why he could not determine from 11 London Exhibit 7 that the alarm could not work. And 12 at Page 14553 I call your attention to the answer of 13 the witness at Lines 12 through 15. 14 And you see thewitness says, "Right. 15 There may be a set of auxiliary contacts.on 4-CB," 16 which I think you earlier" identified, Mr. London as i 17 the circuit breaker, "which are not shown on- this 18 diagram, which may be shown on the actual print for , i 19 the plant setup." 1 20 Is that a possibility, Mr. London? i 21 A No, it is not a possibility, because j i 22 Westinghouse prepares their drawings showing auxiliary ; k 23 contact for the devices where the auxiliary contacts 24 are on the same drawing as the device'itself. (_' 25 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm sorry. I didn't quite
- i
T 1S204 4/6 1 understand the lengucge. The word "whore" ic what 2 confused me. I don't think Mr. Davidson understands {~ 3 my point though. 4 Mr. Davidson, the Board was k. 5 confused by the witness' answer, but I don't think 6 you got our explanation. I don't think you heard his 7 answer, either. 8 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm sorry, Your Honor. 9 I'm afraid I didn't hear it all. If the reporter would 10 be good enough to read it back to me I'll be able to 11 get my train of thought. 1 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, it doesn't take time, l I
)
13 why don't you reask the question, and see if you under- ' 14 stand the a'nswer. i 15 MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you, Judge Bloch. 16 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 17 0 What I had asked you do, Mr. London, was 18 to consider this answer that is found at Transcript i 19 Page 14553 at Lines 12 through 15, in which it is j 20 indicated that one of the reasons that the witness : 21 believed he could not determine that the alarm would 22 not work from London Exhibit 7 was because "There may (_- 23 be a set of auxiliary contacts on 4-CB,.the circuit 24 breaker, which are not shown on this. diagram, which 25 may be shown on the actual prints for the plant setup."
15205
/7 1 And my quantion to you is: Is that a 2 possibility and is that a correct statement?
3 A That is not a possibility, because the 4 auxiliary contacts for devices are shown or depicted
- k. j 5 on the same sheet of the drawing on which the device i 1
6 appears. ; 7 MR. JORDAN: And by "the device" now you j f 8 are meaning the circuit breaker; is that right? 1 9 THE WITNESS: Yes, the device in this 10 case being Breaker 4-CB. 11 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 12 O Now, the next part of -- 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Wait. So that all auxiliary ( 14 circuits related to all the devices shown on this 15 diagram would have to be shown under Westinghouse 16 Practice? 17 THE WITNESS: I think it's auxiliary 18 contacts, Your Honor. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: All auxiliary contacts 20 relating to all of the devices on this diagram would 21 have to be shown on this one drawing under Westinghouse 22 practice; is that right? 23 THE WITNESS: Any auxiliary contacts 24 associated with devices on this drawing would be shown i k-25 on this drawing, yes.
(18206
/8 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you,
{' 2 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 3 4 All right.,The next part of that. answer
,e 4 appears at Lines 16 through-18 of the transcript page
(, 5 that we just cited. It says: "Okay. Which Engineering 6 modifies these drawings, but in some cases never goes 7 back and modifies the actual ve'ndor drawings." 8 Is that a correct statement? 9 A That is an incorrect statement.' Engineering-i 10 frequently issues design changes to field wiring to 11 modify control circuits. 12 As a matter of course and a matter of 13 necessity they also have to modify vendor internal 14 wirings to make the control circuits function per their 15 design intent. 16 So, when they issue a DCA to the field i 17 they will also come back and issue a' design change ) i 18 authorization for the vendor internals. I 19 Additionally, I actually verified in the l 20 field that the alarm relay was indeed connected in. I 21 accordance with the diagram that you characterize as 22 Exhibit 7. 23 % Could Witness F have verified that in.the 2d field when he performed the test? I' - 25 A Yes, he could have. I
18207
/9 1 JUDGE BLOCH I'm sorry, verified what 2 in the field when he performed the task?
{~ ~ 3 THE WITNESS: He could have verified I ( 4 that the alarm relay,-Device ACL, was indeed connected ( 5 in accordance with the schematic diagram. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. 7 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 8 G Could he have verified'that.there-had 9 been no engineering modification of it? 10 A Yes. He could have verified that1there 11 had been no engineering. modification by review of out-12 standing design change. documentation that would have 13 been written against the vendor manual or the vendor-
'~
14 drawing. 15 G Could he have verified simply by looking 16 at the device in the field against'the. diagram? 17 A Yes, he could. 18 G Now on. Transcript Page 14554 -- 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Excuse me. 'Was one step 20 in the procedure to look at.the diagram in the field j 21 and verify that the wiring matched the diagram? 22 THELWITNESS: Excuse me, sir. One step i s. L 23 in which procedure? 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Thefprocedure being used by
^
25 the'STE. 0
18208
. /10 ' 1~ THE WITNESS.: -No . It~was not aistep-
{ 2 in the preoperational test PT-0202'to review ~the' vendor 3 diagram. { 4 However, it is'a matterLof-adminis- ' 5 trative procedures and responsibilities for the system-6 test engineer to review-all appropriate documentation, 7 be it vendor manuals, FSAR commitments, technical. 8 specifications, prior to his performance 1of the pre-9 operational' test. This insures that the test is indeed 10 performed and the system operates as it is installed.in-11 the field, and to FSARLrequirements. 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay, but is he.also
- 13 supposed to check it against the hardware.to make1sbre I 14 that'the hardware matches the diagram?-
15 THE WITNESS: :Thefonly -- No. The check ^ 16 made against the hardware is a: pre-requisite test, and 17 the individual STE merely needs to verify that-the 18 pre-requisite testing has been performed onLa component-1 19 prior to starting his pre-operational. test. 20 BY MR. DAVIDSON:- 21 O Now on Transcript Page 1455'4 you'see'at: i 1 22 Line 2 there is another' answer supplied in connection t 23 with the discussion of the London-Exhibit 7 diagram. l 24 JUDGE BLOCH:. Mr. Davidson,1especially- j
* ..'-' 2h f,
when you are away from the mike I'm afraid'.you have to l
'I 1 + i 1
1_________________:_______1.___.___________ _ _ _ . _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ . _
-18269
/11 1 cpeak up.
~
2 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm sorry, Your Honor. 3 Let me see if I can purchase some of the witness' j J 4 microphone. 5 BY MR. DAVIDSON: I 6 0 You will see on Transcript Page 14554 7 at Lines 2 through 6 that another statement is made by l l 8 the witness in respect to London Exhibit 7, and . that . 9 says: "By there being more than this, this drawing 10 here only shows one alarm status or one alarm contact., 11 and so it even neglects to show what I think possibly 12 might be a second or even third alarm in there." Do 1 13 you see that? 14 A Yes. I see that. 15 g Would you need to see if there were any 16 second or third alarms in there in order to make the 17 determination whether this diagram shows that the AC 18 output loss alarm cannot function as intended? 19 A No. You would not need to be concerned 20 whether_there are other alarm contacts associated with 21 different abnormalities on these inverters to determine 22 if the loss of AC alarm would not function. 23 In fact, if this were the only contact 24 that were wired up to the annunciator, it couldn't l- 25 function. So it's immaterial what other contacts are
L'18210 1/12 1 wired in with this circuit. 2 G Mr. London, have you' looked at the other {~' 3 wiring diagram of the static inverters of the Reactor R i 4 Protection System? 5 A Yes, I have. 6 JUDGE JORDAN: Clarification. You mean 7 the other. channels. 8 MR. DAVIDSON: .No. I think I mean the- l 9 ' wiring schematic for each of the inverters. I believe ! 1 10 that they are four identical inverters, are they not, j 11 Mr. London? 12 THE WITNESS: Yes, all four inverters are identical'. ) 13 ' f~ > 14 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 1 15 G And the schematics that you review are lI 16 a set of wiring diagrams that show the. wiring of each 17 of the inverters. i 18 A The vendor manual is generic and 19 identical for each of the four inverters. ! f 20 0 Now earlier when we had.an-off-the-record , 21 break you reviewed certain documents and. schematics. I 22 would appreciate it if you would identify these j v 23 documents and tell us what they are. I 24 The document package that I have in my { 25 hand consists of four numbered sheets with the
' 1
-C'19211 .
1
/13 1 'Wastil.ghouse. Electric Corporation ncma and logo on it.-
2' They are -- Well, I think I best allow the' witness to_ 3 tell us what they are, as'well'as:two large sheets 7here. ! 4 Could you just;tell-us what each of : Lk .! I 5 .these documents are and describe it as fully as you can. 6 And then I'm going to ask you'if those are the documents i 7 that were reviewed in connection with the' inverter i
'8 wiring aystem.
t 9 THE' REPORTER:- I'm sorry, Mr. Davidson, 10 I cannot hear you.
- 11. MR. DAVIDSON: 'I'd-like you toLreview 12 all of those documents and then describe them-as
- i 13 carefully as you can for the record, and then'I'm going. j 14 to.ask you whether those documents are the ones that 15 you reviewed as being wiring' diagrams.of the. inverters.
16 THE WITNESS: These four~ sheets are 17 schematic diagrams directly out of the Westinghouse-18 vendor instruction manual. Thefschematic diagram 19 primarily consists of three sheets, the first beingfan j 20 overall block diagram representation of the7 inverter
.21. system. i l 22 The second schematic diagram'is_ i
' I L 23 :primarily a. schematic representation'of the input-q 24 section of the inverter.
t b-25 JUDGE JORDAN: -I caution you, you'say
. i .- i 1
18212-
/14 1 "tha first diagram." These will probably go intofthe ;
i {. 2 record. You need to identify it by some kind-of a- i 3 . number so we can recognize when we read the transcript 7 which diagram you are talking about.
.( 4 i
5 MR. DAVIDSON:
~
I think that's an j 6 excellent suggestion, Dr. Jordan. 7 If I may, I'd like to propose'since - B we are dealing with.this in the context of London ) 9 Exhibit 7, if we-now make these additional pages q l 10 London Exhibit 7-A, -B, -C, and so forth, so that they 11 can all be bound together and to be a part of the 12 record here. l 13 JUDGE BLOCH: That's' acceptable. I had 14 assumed the opposite of Judge Jordan, that'since you l 15 had no copies you didn't intend to introduce it. i 16 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, I think that the 17 Board had requested these d'ocuments, and, therefore, 18 I intended to have Mr. London. testify about them. 19 It was my intention to have them 20 made a part of the record and be bound in. 21 JUDGE BLOCN: Okay. Do you understand 22 that it's part of our procedure that anytime you are j s. 23 going to use documents you provide them to opposite 24 counsel as soon as possible? k. 25 MR. DAVIDSON: I understood that, Your
- ~18213 i 4/15 1 Honor, but we were-'not cble to get --
I did not get 2 these documents until today. {- 3 JUDGE BLOCH: I know. That's always 4 what happens with documents in this case. 5 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, that' is because:the 6 document demands keep coming, and it -- I 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, that's one reason,
- 8. but another reason is --
{ 9 MR. DAVIDSON: We cope with them as best' 10 we can. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: -- there doesn't seem to i 12 be any very high priority on getting it two days.before 13 the trial instead of the day of the trial It's not f C 14 possible, I think, to have a document system that only H 15 produces documents on the day of trial, no matter how f l 16 overloaded it is. It.doesn't seem possible unless 17 there's a commitment, only to get things at the day of i 18 trial. The commitment should be at.least a couple of i 19 days before trial. .) j 20 JUDGE JORDAN: I have one other question. 21 I guess Judge Bloch's remarks were not questions. I have 22 one question. 23 Did we ask for these documents? 24 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, I believe you did, 4 25 Your Honor.
7
;.18214
/16' 1 JUDGE BLOCH: JWe did, because.Witneco F. I had stated that he'needed..the, package.'to be able to
{ 2 3 ascertain whether cn: not the diagram was adequate. L JUDGE JORDAN: I see, and we do.need { 4 5 these other diagrams now in. order to-be able to fully 6 understand.the system; is that correct?
~
7 MR. DAVIDSON: If you are. asking me, i 8 Dr. Jordan, the. answer is no. I-think that ultimately. Judge Bloch got Witness F-to a'dmit the document was 9 10 sufficient on its own to make the determination. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: No,-he did not say that. 12 MR. DAVIDSON: No, he did. g- 13 JUDGE BLOCH: He said~if-it was sufficien t ( 14 by itself t' hat it wouldn't work. 15 MR. DAVIDSON: No, if it was accurate. 16 He said if it was accurate and complete. 17 JUDGE BLOCH: [ Accurate and; complete. 18 MR. DAVIDSON: And we 've 'already --- 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Complete means:that the 20 other diagrams didn't-affect it. 21 MR. DAVIDSON:;That's right. And what we 22 are doing note is showing that the other diagrams' don't l N .- N 23 affect it. That's exactly what we're showing. ! 24 JUDGE BLOCH: -Okay. I havela feeling I
, /
\- 25 that it would he sufficient if you had testimony on
~!
- 18215 l y
i 4/17 1 thoso documento and they woro turned over as a discovery . j 1 I 2 matter, so that the Interveners could have'their witness {' 3 examine them. If that's the case, and they don't have { 4 any further testimony-that the other documents'are' 5 necessary then I would think we wouldn't need these in . 6 our record. 7 If they think that they are 8 necessary we can admit them at that' time. 9 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, I think since.the 10 Board requested them and since we now have them here, 11 we might as well get whatever testimony Mr. London has 12 to offer on them. I'll make it brief, however.
- 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Let's go ahead. He 14 should definitely testify about the relevance of the 15 documents.
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Judge Jordan. 17 As you previously mentioned Sheet 2 of the four sheets, i 18 Drawing No. 4950-C-67, Westinghouse Electric Corporation i 19 logo on the drawing, is a rough' schematic diagram 20 showing the whole inverter system in a block diagram 21 form. 22 Sheet 3 of the drawing by the same. ( l (- i 23 number is a schematic diagram of the input portion'of j i 24 the inverter. The input portion including the loss of 25 AC input relay, and a TAP changeable transformer, and a k l
--__:________._________. . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. N
-/18 1 rectiflor. O' 2 JUDGE JORDAN: Does that show up in this 3 other diagram?
i 4 THE' WITNESS: Does what show up? 5 JUDGE JORDAN: Is_thisidetail indicated 6 in the diagram that we have been looking at previously? 7 THE WITNESS: No, sir. You can note on 8 the diagram,:which is London Exhibit 7, which bears the 9 same drawing number with the exception of.its -Sheet 4 10 it says at the top of the drawing "See Sheet" -- I'm 11 sorry. It says to see Sheet 2, but the' input -- Excuse 12 me. Judge Jordan, could you rephrase that question. 13 JUDGE JORDAN: I just wondered is this 14 detail, this part here, shown on the other diagrams of 15 London Exhibit 7 or not. 16 THE WITNESS: No. This detail is not 17 shown on London Exhibit 7. { 18 JUDGE JORDAN: All right. 1 19 MR. DAVIDSON: I don't wish to cut off )1 20 any of the questioning that you have, Dr. Jordan, but 21 I'd like to just get one question I think that all of 22 us would like to have the answer to, which'is: i
'~
23 /// 24 /// (_' 25 j i
- I i
" 18217-
*- 1 1 BY MR. DAVIDSON:
pe( - 2 O Having looked at all those schematics 3 of the inverter. system, would any of those other documents be necessary to determining whether or not { 4 l 5 the AC output loss alarm could . function?- 6 JUDGE BLOCH: ~ For overload. 7 MR. DAVIDSON: I think it's actually -- 8 that's one way of simulating and causing the 9 breaker to trip, but the issue is output loss, not' s 10 over-current. ! 11 JUDGE BLOCH: It could function at all.. 12 THE WITNESS: It could not function 13 for loss of AC at the output breaker. 14 JUDGE BLOCH: We lost the question. 15 The question was: Do any of the other documents help j 16 you to make that determination? 17 THE WITNESS: No, they do not. . ! i 18 JUDGE BLOCH: Do-any of them change ' 19 your opinion about that determination? I 20 THE WITNESS: No, they do not. 21 MR. DAVIDSON: Dr. Jordan, I didn't. 22 mean to cut you off. Please ask any questions-you v 23 have. 24 JUDGE JORDAN: Have you finished?
' 25 MR. DAVIDSON: I just wanted to ask that
2 182is 5-2 1 one question, b3cause I think it was the fundamental f ( 2 question I believe that Judge Bloch and perhapstother 3 members of the Board wished to ask, and it was the
/ 4 question I frankly wanted to get to.
( 5 But I have no desire to cut off your I I 6 inquiry into the schematics. 7 JUDGE JORDAN: No. I understand. I got 8 the answer that I was asking for. 9 MR. DAVIDSON: Fair enough. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Are you finished with this 11 part of the testimony? 12 MR. DAVIDSON: I am finished dealing 13 with the completeness and accuracy of London Exhibit 7 14 as a diagram sufficient unto itself to determine that 15 the AC output loss alarm could not work. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. I have a few 17 questions about the test deficiency report. 18 BOARD EXAMINATION 19 BY JUDGE BLOCH: 20 0 Would you look at London Exhibit 8. Do 21 you know whether that is the test deficiency report 22 in which this condition was described? 23 A Yes, sir, it is. 1 24 0 Do you know whether there is any other 25 test deficiency report or nonconformance paper of any
~'18219
.- 3 1 kind related to the same condition?
2 A To my knowledge, there is noLother ( 3 -paper relating to the same condition. ( 4 G I infer.that there may be one about '{ 5 Witness F. Is there any nonconformance paper relating 6 to Witness F and the need to re-examine other things 7 that he inspected? 8 A No. 9 0 Is there any nonconformance. paper in 10 which the problem is described as a deficiency in 11 designing a circuit properly? 12 A Not that I'm aware of. 13 0 Do you have some concern that there 14 should be a followup to find out why the design 15 deficiency occurred here?. 16 A I feel that Westinghouse supplies its 17 equipment to plants as specified by the purchaser of 18 those plants. 19 In this case, with the alarm relay being 20 connected simply on the output of the Ferro resonant 21 transformer, rather than on the output of the circuit i 22 breaker, I am not sure whether that's-a standard 23 Westinghouse design or not.. ! 24 So I would have to review the specifica-G 25 tions. t
?18220
-4 1 O But tho probicm-with it waan't that
{ 2 Westinghouse would have been in the design organization 3 that specified that circuit,-wouldn't it? 4 MR. DAVIDSON: If you know. 5 BY JUDGE BLOCH: 1 6 0 I mean, it had to be somewhere, either 7 in Westinghouse or somewhere else, didn't it? 8 A Well, Westinghouse could very well 9 just supply a standard inverter. I am not aware of-10 where the design problem originated, whether-it was 11 specified or whether it was Westinghouse. 12 O If other circuits at the plant were 13 designed so that they weren't going to perform their design function, would that concern you? 14 15 A Yes, it Would. 16 0 And isn't it true that this was a 17 circuit that was not designed properly'to perform l- 18 its design function? 19 A Yes, that is true, but had the pre-20 operational test been performed properly the first 21 time, that problem would have neen discovered and l 22 subsequently remedied. , (_. ! 23 That is the purpose of the pre-operationa l 24 test program, to insure that equipment operates _in
. i l
' 25 accordance with appropriate FSAR requirements,
- " 18221
-5~ 1 Rogulatory Guidos, and commitments in the technical
'2 specifications, and to bring such problems to light.
{ 3 O How did you come to discover.this problen 4 in the circuit? Was it.a retest that was done at the 5 time the inverter was put in the second' time? Is 6 that what happened? 7 A Yes, we discovered that it was-in fact 8 a problem the second time we performed the pre-operationa] 9 test. 10 0 And was it some action you took that 11 resulted in re-inspection of Witness F's work? 12 A In February of '84, as a result of 13 issues that had been raised with regard to the C 14 Ferro resonant transfo,rmers in these reactive.protectic a 15 system inverters, I made a decision to'reperform the 16 pre-operational tests about these inverters. 17 O That's not the question. 18 My understanding is that at sometime ' 19 subsequent to the time that you found this wiring 'j
~
l 20 problem, that there was a decision made to retest;all j 21 the equipment that had been. tested by Witness F. Are ] i 22 you aware of that? - 23 A We have reviewed work performed,.but 24 there has been no decision to retest anything. ' 25 0 Okay. Did your review show.that in other 4 l
L'18222-1;- . respects Witness F's workLwas adequato? 2 A .My review at.this time is.not. complete,- (~. 3 so I cannot say whether it was a111 adequate-or not. 4 G Have'you at this' time.found other; 5 inadequacies in Witness.F's. work? 6 A. .I haven't found any inadequacyfof the 7 significance that we have been discussing'this morning. 8 In other words, there.mightfbe cases' 9 where he lined through'a.date.and'didn'tLini'tial that 10- date, that type of' clerical-type error. 11 I haven't found_anything so far. 12 0 Have you examined them from the 13 possibility that he might.have been deceiving.the ja quality technicians with respect to.what he actually 15 did? That the test results were made up, in~other-16 words? 1 17 A That is a' difficult'-- I cannot speculate i 18 whether he was trying to deceive quality assurance, 19 Judge Bloch, because I wasn't present at the time that i 20 he was performing-those tests. l
.i 21 4 But you say the light:couldn't have~come. l 22 on, don't you?
~'
23 A That is true. The light could not-have 24 come on. t
^-
i -25 G Counsel has suggested to us that the' l i
0 18223 i-7 1 explanation of that was-that'ha was;dsceiving quality. {' 2 technicians. Does that concern you in terms of the. 3 nature of the rework to be done on Witness F's work? 4 A Yes, it concerns me, although there was
.('
5 not a significant ~ amount of safety-related testing 6 Performed by Witness F. 7 0 Well, then it would be easy to retest ~ B it, wouldn't it? 9 A Yes. 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. What was 11 the item that brought this improper test to your mind? 12 Was it a review of the documents? 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Just a moment, please. 14 (Bench conference.) 15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The question was 16 complete. Was it a review of the documents involved 17 that -- 18 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, sir. Could you 19 repeat the full question without interruption?- 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:' .Okay. ~What item was 21 it that brought to your attention what is alleged to 22 have been an improper testing in the first place?. l 23 Was it a review of the documents or was it the l l 24 running of a test or was it something else? l 25 THE WITNESS: I.became aware of the
S8224;
. i- 8 ' i- deficioney with the alarm window when the~ pre-operatiot al:
2 test was reperformed. 3 However, in mid-March'of'1984, prior 4 to Witness F's departure, I had'been-notified by an 5 employee of mine;that Witness F had at one point in 6 November of 1982 jokedr and bragged.and' laughed about 7 his ability.to fool,a quality-assurance' inspector'or 8 quality. assurance technician during the performance 9 of a pre-op. 10 Mr. Jamar, the employee that brought-11 that to my attention, relatedLthe' story.to me. 12 Mr. Jamar related the story and saidLthat uponLhearing 13 that Witness F had this attitude and was talking about. 14 this, he went immediately to my predecessor, 15 Mr. Harold Cheatheami to'-discuss-the-s'ituation'Nith 16 Witness F. 17 My understanding of -- 18 JUDGE BLOCH: Witness F, please, not 19 Mr.... 20 THE WITNESS: Excuse me,' Judge Bloch.- 21 JUDGE BLOCH: That's okay. l L 22 THE WITNESS: My understanding.was 23 that Mr. Cheatheam had admonished' Witness F for f6oling 24 the. quality assurance specialist,.had told h'im it1had 25 better never happen again, but since he was going to l-
;18225 ,
.- 9 1 ba -- ha was a relatively short-term employoc,-ho 2 had only been there a couple of months -- that he
( 3 was going to give him a second chance. 4 Mr. Cheatheam, according tb:.Mrr : Jamar,. tc 1d k' 5 Witness F that he.had better fix the problem, and 6 never ever let it happen again. 7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: This all occurred in 8 mid-March of 1984, your being informed as'to all of' 9 this? 10 THE WITNESS: Yes,' sir. 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And then you 12 immediately began an investigation of all the tests 13 that -- were you aware of which particular test that-C 14 was that was performed? Well, you'must have been. 15 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't immediately 16 begin an investigation of the testing he had 17 performed. I 18 I was aware of the test he hadLdone, 19 but I did not immediately begin an investigation.. I 20 Mr. Jamar had informed me that 21 Witness F had promised Mr. Cheatam that he would fix 22 the situation. 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well,.if the situation 24 was improper because of the engineering involved,. 25 how could Witness F fix the situation? D
.i 1
l - _ _ _ _ _ _ 1
-_7_ __ - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _
- '.18226
-10 l~ MR..DAVIDSON: = Judge Bloch, may I--
I 2 object to the question.- I,think thatLthe' situation .[ (~l 3 was not....
~(Bench conference.)
~
4 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN . Excuse:me, Reporter.-
-6 Was there a pending question at the time?
7- THE REPORTER: .You had finished asking 8 it. 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's okay. Letime 10 start again on that. 11 If I understand what we've answered so-12 far, in mid-March you were informed that there was an 13 improper test that performed by Witness F, and you C 14 knew the nature of that test. 15 At that. time -- I believe you also 16 testified you did not investigateLthat test, is that 17 correct? 18 THE WITNESS.: Yes. 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:- . When is thelfirst time,. 20 then, that you actually.re-examined that' testing. 21 procedure? 22 THE WITNESS: I didn'tsinvestigateithe-
/
23 situation any further in March, because I knew I was 24 going to re-perform the pre-operational test.. CL 25 The first knowledge.that I'had that the
l-18227
-11 i situation hcd not boon corrocted was in June --.at j 2 June 28th when the second reperformance of the pre-op 3 came about.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I believe there k 5 was a pending question on how you expected Witness F 6 to. correct the situation, if there was an engineering-7 design problem with the' system? 8 MR. DAVIDSON: There is no testimony that _ 9 at that time, Judge Grossman, that Mr. London knew. 10 what the problem was. jj All he knew was a report that test 12 results had been falsified. He didn't know what the 13 problem was or how they were falsified. k ja The only reason I point this out, 15 Judge Grossman, and I do so with all due respect, is 16 that there has been extensive testimony inLdirect on 17 these very points. I am mindful, and perhaps I haven't 18 been as succinct as the Board would'like, but I am 19 mindful that we are trying to deal only with the 20 issues of test deficiencies and not go into 6ther 21 areas that are not open or in dispute at this point or 22 unclear. 23 JUDGE BLOCH: I t w a s M r . C h e a t'h e a m w h o 24 asked Mr. London. k_.. 25 JUDGE GkOSSMAN: That's fine. I don't
. e 9
1
- ' 1.822S i-12 1 havo any further questione.
(~' 2 MR. DOWNEY: Excuse me. May I report
\
3 something to the Board? I 4 Mr. Norris has had, within the last { 5 half hour, to return to Houston because of the 6 excessive rainfall. They have had a foot of rain 7 or something. 8 At least his boat and perhaps'his 9 home is in jeopardy and he left his documents with 10 Mr. Watkins that werenunder subpoena and has agreed 11 to return at the earliest convenience for the Board. 12 JUDGE BLOCH: That would be in the 13 next session, I assume. 14 MR.,DOWNEY: Whenever it is convenient 15 for the Board, but he was called back this morning 16 for that emergency. 1 1 17 JUDGE BLOCH: I would like to clarify 18 something Judge Grossman began asking.about. 19 BY, JUDGE BLOCH: 20 ' O. . When you began doing.the pre-op 21 test the second time, was it your responsibility to 1 22 review the wiring diagram before you did the pre-op ] (.' 23 test? I i i 24 A I did not perform the pre-operational
^
(_ 25 test the second time. However, the system test j i
.i l
1
"'58229 i-13 -
1 engincor who did perform the pre-op, Mr. Dick Siegel, 2 (~ .. it was his responsibility to review the wiring ( 3 diagrams, and he did. { 4 O But if he had reviewed it properly, he 5 wouldn't even have bothered to do the test, would he 6 have? 7 A Could you rephrase the question? 8 g If it was his responsibility to review 9 the diagram before he did the test to see if it was 10 proper to do the test, wouldn't he have discovered the 11 same deficiency that you 'say Witness F- should have 12 discovered?
- 13 A It is possible that a review of the 14 documents could lead to an oversight of whether the i 15 alarm would work or not.
16 However, I don't feel that the -- I 17
-i feel that the problem is the fact that the. test was l l
18 written and the step did not work as specified in the 19 test and nothing was done about'it the first time. 20 Although Mr. Siegel missed in his review 21 the fact that he would not get the alarm in this 22 particular step, when he performed the stepuand noted - k- 23 that it did not operate as specified.in the step, he. 1 24 initiated' the test deficiency report, and we have since ;
'- 25 corrected the problem.
18230
-14 1 0 So if I undarotood, the purpoco of the J 3
(' 2 STE's review of-the document beforehand was to make 3 sure that the test will actually demonstrate what it 4 is supposed to demonstrate; isn't that right? 5 A Yes, that is the purpose of his review. 6 0 And he is supposed to pick up flaws 7 in the wiring at that time so that he can decide 8 whether or not the test will work the way it is 9 supposed to? 10 - A That~is.the' purpose of the review. l 11 O And though' Mr. Siegel.found-the problem 1 12 this time, he did a test without understanding'the . l 13 wiring diagram, didn't he?-
. . I 14 A I feel that Mr. Siegel understood the 15 wiring diagrams.
16 0 Why did he bother to -- 17 A This is a-fine point that he apparently 18 overlooked, as Witness F did, if Witness F had ever 19 at all performed a review of the drawings prior to 20 performing the test. 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you have other parts i 22 of his testimony?
~'
23 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, I did have a couple 24 of points to clean up. 25 ///
FURTHER DIRECT' EXAMINATION' 6-1 1 BY MR. DAVIDSON: he 2 0 I believe you testified that you were-(~ 3 in the midst of a review of Witness F's tests and r 4 that you had not completed it, is that-correct? ( 5 A That is correct. 6 G Will you re-test those devices that 7 Witness F worked on if you're not satisfied with 8 your review of F's test. documents? 9 A If I feel that.his test documentation 10 is not satisfactory, and the test on a critical 11 safety-related system is warranted, it will be re-12 tested, but that will be pending a' technical review 13 of the testing that he1has performed. 14 0 I believe,-Mr. London, you'also 15 testified that it was your intention and-your. decision 16 to re-test, or that is to re-do the pre-operational 17 test of the static inverter, and that you made that-18 decision in February, is that correct?' 19 A That is correct. 20 0 What was the basis for that' decision? 21 Why did you decide-that the pre-operational 1 test had' 22 to be re-done in February?. Because I have-noticed k, 23 your testimony says that you didn't learn about the 24 problem in the pre-operational. test-that was earlier 25 done until March, why did you decide to do that in J L______-_, - - _ _ _ _ _ . - _ .
~
- 18232
'6-2 1 February?
(~ ~ 2 MR. ROISMAN: Objection. I think-3 that's asked;and answered in the direct of the (' 4 witness. I think it's rather clear. 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Would'you restate the' 6 question? 7 MR. DAVIDSON: I believe that' 8 Mr. Roisman is correct. 1In fact, it.may even be 9 that he stated that he.had decidedDto do that because 10 they were going to replace.the ferro-resonant 11 transformers and the inverters. 12 I believe that is the testimony, isn't 13 it, Mr. Roisman? 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay.. I think-you had a 15 right to clarify the record, but you've just done it 16 through testimony of yours, so let's go ahead. 17 MR. DAVIDSON: All right.- Well, the ! 18 only question I was going to ask is:
]!
19 BY MR. DAVIDSON: I 20 0 Did you intend to do'the pre-operational 4 l 21 testing af ter the new f erro-resonant transformers were 22 installed? L 23 JUDGE BLOCH: As of when? , 1 24 MR. DAVIDSON: .Well, I want-to say, (_ 25 he formed a decision because they were going to i
)
sc .
- ~18233 6-3 1 install new ferro-resonant transformers he was going.
{~ 2 to have to do the. test, so my question is: 3 BY MR..DAVIDSON: 4 0 When did you.want to perform that. pre -- k 5 re-do that pre-operational test? 6 A We would' schedule the pre-operational 7 test after necessary procurement had taken place to 8 get the transformers on site and to have them f 9 subsequently installed. 10 0 When were they on site and installed? 11 A They came on site iniJune, I believe_,. 12 and they were installed in accordance'with start-up 13 administrative procedures in mid-June 1of this year. 14 g Did you then have the. pre-operational { 15 test re-done in mid-June? 16 A Yes, late June. I 17 JUDGE BLOCH: But there.was no require-
- l 18 ment that that be re-done, was there? -i l
19 I mean if the overload circuit' worked, i 20 it would work regardless of whether'they'-replaced 1the 21 ferro-resonant transformer, wouldn't it? 1 22 THE' WITNESS: There was - . overload 1 kb circuit aside, Judge Bloch, I felt.that since we had ' --- 23 24 there had been a decision reached to replace.all of -), l ! 25 these transformers, the ferro-resonant transformer -j i l e 1
1) 7q - 3 6 '4 1 'being a. critical _part of.the output weight. form of-- f 2 the inverter,'I felt that we should re-perform;the
.i 3 pre-op'to verify that the output was.indeed. '!
( ~4 continuous in the-various modes of; operation. ( 5 JUDGE BLOCH: And would you have done , 6 that if you didn't have the information about 7 Witness F?. 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. 9 MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you, Judge Bloch. 10 I.would11ike now to turn to a question 11- that I think deserves some: testimony, and'that is, I 12 would like,to have the. witness explain how=the: alarm' 13 system in the control room works, that is, how it 14 works and'what is seen in the control room, whatiis 15 seen and heard, I think that'would be very useful 16 testimony. 17 Is that a permissible area of. inquiry 18 at this point? 19 JUDGE BLOCH: I think Judge Jordan is 20 quite interested in that. 21 BY MR. DAVIDSON- 1 1 22 g Mr. London -- 23 MR. DAVIDSON: I would, by the way, at. l 1
.1 24 this. point, like to ask that all of the schematics k_
25 and diagrams that we produced here today be bound'into
~'-
i18235 6-5' 1 the~ transcript 1at this point.incMr.. London's testimony
. (~ "2- or at.the appropriaterpoint. j 3 -MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, unless and f 4 .until the red pen marksmand the yellow highliner
(; 5 marks on them are explained, I'm not sure whatfthey 6 are, if they'are to. represent the drawings as they 7 exist at the plant site and that they are -- these' 8 are then originals, and since it appears.to be-9 original. yellow highliner'andLoriginal red pen marks, to I' d like1 some explanation.-f rom the. witness 1of- what 11 all that is on there so we-know what we're getting) 12' in evidence. 13 MR. DAVIDSON:- I think that's'a fa'ir 14 ' request. 15 JUDGE BLOCH: We needLto take a'seven-16 minute recess. g 17 (A short ~ recess was taken.). 18 JUDGE BLOCH: The hearing will come to 19 order. 20 MR. DAVIDSON:' JudgefBloch, just% prior l j 21 to the break Mr. Roisman indicated-that heofelt~that 22 if we were to have.the schematics- on which there was: j L L k- 23 some-earlier testimony made a partLof'the; record'that-
)
l
.I 24 he would like some' explanation made of wh'at the red' ,j 25 markings and yellow highlighting-was,.and.ILhad'
^!
l
l 5-6 1 indicated'I thought that.was a fair re'uest, q and'I. (~ 2 think that we ought to, if we may, ask the witness 3 at this time if he knows what-those markings 4are and
/ 4 can explain them.
( 5' MR. ROISMAN: My request was not to 6 have'it done marking by marking'but just to know, 7 assuming they're all of the same- type, .just what are 8 they and is it part of the original plant documen-9 tation or not. I 10 THE WITNESS: The vendor drawings 1with 11 the red notations on them denote primarily where 12 various equipment was hooked up in various steps of 13 the test procedure. 14 As you see here, Dr. Jordan, we say 15 Step 7.1.32 and 7.1.31 with a recorder hooked around 16 to the end. So the procedure body ~itself - specifies 17 to hook it up there, so it's just a-notation -- ' 18 JUDGE JORDAN: Are you saying that these i i 19 are vendor drawings that come with red marks? j 20 THE WITNESS: No, sir. 'These are vendor 1 21 drawings with the red marks added. 22 JUDGE JORDAN: By? 23 THE WITNESS: I'm-not sure who added l 24 these. It's not my handwriting. l-(_ 25 JUDGE JORDAN: Somebody , . though , in your
> l 8 - _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ . - _ - . - - _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - - .- - - - l
- . =
, .ww +
M8237;
'6-7r 1 ' division,m inTyour department?
(~ '2 MR.uBLOCH: If.you.know'. 3 THE1 WITNESS: I don't know who'did it. :
'A MR. ROISMAN: Is that true - .-
5 May I ask the quest'ionf- .may.I just;- 6 ask him the question?. 7- Is that true for all the red marks
- 8. there, that is,'that it's something ' that was 1 added 9 by'some people at CPSES,-it's not'part of the. original-10 vendor drawing?
11 :THE' WITNESS: Yes,.it'sinot_part of
~
12 the original vendor, drawing.
, I n f a'c t , : looking:at the handwriting, p 13 t- 14 it looks like this: is-the handwriting of-Harold 15 Cheatheam.
16 JUDGE JORDAN: But are these.the:only 17 drawings that have the red marks ~on othem?" Do the. ) i 18 drawings that the test engineers have1also' the red I 19 marks? 20 THE WITNESS: No, sir. iThese would be. A 21 the only drawings with - these particular -red marks ion' t , 22 them. j l (_- 1 L 23 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. I think.we~should ! 24 have in the record'the ones withoutLthe..redsmarks, (} 25 since the purpose is to.show.what:the eng1neers had.- I e ~!
- l n
-18238 6-8 -1 MR. DAVIDSON: I agree with Mr.-Roisman.
- 2. I think that we should. supply copies th a t do not 3 have these red markings or yellow highlighting 4 unless they are part of the origina'l drawings.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Then we will have to bind 6 them in subsequently, then. 7 MR. ROISMAN: And what about'the. yellow 8 h'ghliner? i 9 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 10 0 Mr. London, could you address.the 11 yellow highliner? 12 A The yellow highlighting was -- is not a. 13 Part of the original vendor drawing. It was added 14 on site, and again I recognize Mr. Cheatheam's hand-15 writing on notes that he has on the documents. i 16 MR. DAVIDSON: Once again, Mr. Roisman, 17 I think that what we would like to do is see to it 18 that the document that is placed in.the record is i 19 the vendor drawing, the original without notes made. 20 by Mr. Cheatam or otherwise. l JUDGE BLOCH: 21 I actually wouldn't care, 1 22 except it's going to be almost impossible to duplicate
\' them in that form.
23 24 MR. ROISMAN: And I think it would be -- 25 might be very difficult, once you've duplicated it, e
- . n.
'18239 6-9 1 it. won't be read Gnymore Gnd then you'd -- it'll be 2 harder to tell which linestare which.
(~ '. 3 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, I think that's (~ 4 right. ( 5 JUDGE JORDAN: So therefore, we will 6 have to be careful when we describe the drawings 7 today so as not to refer to the yellow section or 8 the red section. 9 MR. DAVIDSON: That is correct, 10 Dr. Jordan, and I would commend to the witness' 11 attention His Honor's remark. 12 Try to -- if there's further testimony
- 13 where_you make reference to these diagrams, to talk
(~ 14 about what the vendor diagram shows an'd'do not rely. l 15 upon these additional markings because-they will not 16 be part of the record. j i 17 THE WITNESS: I. understand. 18 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 1 i 19 G Now, turning to where we left'off, 20 Mr. London, I had asked you if you would describe 21 for us how the annunciator system worked, and that.is, ; 22 what it is designed to do and what is seen in.the ss 23 control room. Would you do that for us?L ! 24 A Yes. The annunciator. system is. designed ! l
~
25 to alert the operator in the control room th'at an l i [e
..' 18240" 6 1- abnormal condition exists with equipment in~the 2 field.
3 The system operates by monitoring 4 contacts for various devices or components in the 5 field to determine'what state they are in. 6 .If the contact in the field is in a y normal non-alarm state, and a parameter subsequently 8 changes that causes that field contact to go to an 9 alarm state, the annunciator window in the control 10 room will go from no illumination state to a state ti of-fast. flash type illumination. 12 In addition to the fast flash, there
- 13 is a distinctly audible tone that is-generated-when 34 the field contact goes to an abnormal state 15 The operator, once he hears the alarm, 16 would scan the control boards, and I might mention 17 that there are approximately 1,500 of=these type 18 windows in the control room, he would scan the control 19 board and look for the fast flash that is associated 20 with the alert audible.
21 Once he determines the location of that 22 fast flash, he would go to the appropriate. control (i 23 station and acknowledge the alarm. 24 He does havs capability, rather than 25 simply acknowledging the alarm, to simply silence the _______________________________________m
1824% 6-11 1 clarm. .This,would loavo the clarm window in the feet (' 2 flash state and merely silence the audible . 3 If he acknowle'dges the alarm and the { 4 abnormal condition still exists in the field, the-5 alarm window would go to a state of constant 6 illumination, no flash, and the. alert audible would 7 be silenced. 8 When he recognizes what his ~ alarm is, '{ l 9 he would send an aux'iliary operator out into the ) i i 10 plant to try to determine what the problem is with. ; j
' 'the particular piece of equipment.
11 12 Once the problem. is identified and 13 corrected, the field contact in the -- the field 14 contact would return to its.non-alarm state. l 15 Once that happens, with the field 16 contact in the non-alarm state, the annunciator l 17 system notifies the operator that conditions are .l I 18 again normal by coming back with' a slow flash, one , 19 distinctly different from.the initial fast flash i 20 and a ring-back audible, again a. tone that is l i 21 distinctly different from the initial tone that was i i 22 heard.
'w/ l l
23 So'in this manner the operator can be
'l 24 made aware of abnormal conditions.in the field and 1~
25 can take whatever appropriate-corrective action he
. i
h24@-
' 6 1 feels necessary to.get the equipment back in service.
Was-the system, annunciator system that' { ? G 3 you've just described, and the way.in which it operated, was that the kind of-annunciator system { 4 5 that was used as'the alarm in the static converters 6 for.the reactor protection system?- 7 A Yes, it was.. 8 0 Could you explain how the annunciator. 9 . system was designed to work for the staticzconverters? 10 And I don' t mean for . you to repeat aboutLthe fast 11 flash and then the solid'and then the slow flash ' and 12 the audibles, but what -- how that was set up in this 13 system. 14 JUDGE BLOCH: And which signals'would-15 cause the annunciator to go off.. 16 MR. DAVIDSON: That's what I'm asking, 17 Judge Bloch, yes. . 18 THE WITNESS: The particular inverter 19 signals that would cause the annunciator to go'off 20 in this case included a loss of AC input to the 21 inverter, a loss of DC input to the i n v e r t e r ,: a high 22 DC bus voltage on the inverter and also a loss of AC ! (_ 23 alarm. 24 JUDGE BLOCH: But this is all one. alarm, {-~ 25 though, isn't it? I e
218243 6-13 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. Any ene of those. {7 2 four abnormalities would cause the alarm in the 3 control room to annunciate. 4 JUDGE JORDAN: Which one of those, or 5 are all of those shown on-London Exhibit'77 6 THE WITNESS: No, sir, they -- only y the AC, loss of AC alarm contacts are shown on I 8 London Exhibit 7. 9 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 10 0 Mr. London, I was going to ask you -- 11 MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you for reminding 12 me, Dr. Jordan.
- 13 BY MR. DAVIDSON:
14 0 -- is there a document that we've been 15 discussing here, in other words, of the group of 16 schematics, which would s how the four conditions 17 that cause an alarm for this annunciation system? 18 Is there a document that shows that? 19 A Yes. In addition to-the vendor 20 schematic diagram which depicts all four of the alarm 21 contacts wiring series on Sheet 1 of Drawing 4950C67, 22 .there is a schematic diagram that was prepared by'the-23 architect engineer, Gibbs' &-Hill, in New York. 24 This drawing is numbered 2323E10076, {- 25 Sheet-15, and I do not have.the revision number __ _____._______m
218244-
~
6-14 1 because it's blanked'out, but.ittis.a recent revision
'("'-
.N 2 and it's entitled,.AnnunciatorLLamp CabinetElALB10B 3 Schematic Diagram, Sheet 3.
G Now, Mr..Roisman.has prompted _me to {- 4 5 ask you, M r '. London,,on this schematic,I' notice that
, 6 there'are'four, I! guess,. circuits here'that have been 7 highlined-in yellow, can you explain-what that 8 yellow highlining is all about?~
9 A Yes. 'The yellow highlightingEis -- has. 10 been done to merely signify the4- each alarmLwindow; 11 associated with 'a reactor. prote'ction . system? inverter . 12 trouble annunciator window, simply.for clarification 13 of what windows we were discussing. 14 - O' We're-not going to have that: yellow 15 highlining, however, in the. record, so is there.some-16 way you could identify.these'four -- wouldiyou call 17 them four circuits? What wouldi you : call those? - 18 A I would call them four' circuits'. i 19 0 Is that for each of-lthe invetters? i 20 A There is an annunciator' circuit ~for. 4 21 -each inverter. 22 G And-does that circuit show;here for ! r. l %d . .. l! 23 each of the four conditions it'sJsupposed to monitor?- l 24 A Each circ'uit monitors'each of the four-q~ - { - 25 conditions that I previously discussed. 4
'18245; L6-15 1 O Wow, if you' don't'have this yellow
(' 2 highliner, how are you going to locate for the record; 3 where those four circuits are on this-schematic? 4 A In' order to locate the circuits on- {~ 5 the schematic, one would have to refer to.the pre-6 Operational test procedure PT0202, and as I recall, 7 it was Step 7.1.21, .2.21, .3.21 and . 4'. 2 1 , in which
~
8 a particular.ALB10B.16, for example, was noted. 9 If you look.at the top of the drawings, 10 the window is labeled.as 1.16 and'the title block 11 for that window is Channel 1 inverte?: trouble'-- no, 12 118, excuse me, 118 volt Channel 1 inverter trouble,.
- 13 that is the engraving of the window itself.
14 O So if we look for that. labeling, we'll' 15 be able to identify the four circuits, and they'll be 16 1.16, 2.16, 3.16 and 4.16, is that correct? 17 A That is correct. 18 0 Now,'Mr. London, you mentioned that i 19 there were four conditions that were monitored by 20 each of these alarm windows for each of the. inverters. I 21 I think they were loss of AC output, loss of AC input, 22 loss of DC input and DC bus load. Have I got the 23 four? i i i 24 A The first three were correct. The 25 fourth is high DC bus voltage.
T
- 3824s~
6-16 1
'S I stand corrected.
I ( 2 JUDGE.' JORDAN: Could I ask a question -- 3 'MR. DAVIDSON': Of course, Dr.fJordan. d' JUDGE JORDAN: -- right.there. { 5 Any one of the f our gives the same 'q
. i
~ '
6 alarm, the same' annunciator indication, is thatinotL 7 correct? 8 The annunciator does not try-to 9 differentiate as to which one of the conditions has 10 resulted in the illumination of'the window? 11 THE WITNESS:- That's correct'. The 12 annunciator window-is entitled, Inverter Trouble, and-13 it will annunciate on any.ofothe'four separate 14 abnormalities. 15 --- 16 17 18 1 19 20
)
21 r. i' 23 i 24 25
')
18247 j 7-1 1 BY MR. DAVIDSONt . 2 0 Taking the -- strike that. Jo(~ 3 Mr. London, do you have a diagram there, 4 a wiring schematic that depicts the AC input loss 5 alarm? 6 A Yes, I do. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Are you sure that's 8 relevant? 9 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, sir, it's directly 10 relevant. 11 THE WITNESS: The alarm relay for loss 12 of AC input is depicted on Sheet 3 of Drawing 4950-C-67 . 13 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 14 0 My question is a simple one, Mr. London. 15 Can you tell from looking at that diagram whether the 16 AC input loss alarm would be triggered upon the i 17 tripping of the breaker for the input? f ( 18 A Yes, I can see that the contacts would j 19 change state upon tripping of the input breaker I i 20 because the alarm relay itself would be de-energized. 1 21 JUDGE JORDAN: Well -- 22 MR. DAVIDSON: I have a specific C 23 question, Dr. Jordan, that follows that. 24 JUDGE JORDAN: Go ahead. 25 I l l l l L__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1824S F-2 1 BY MR. DAVIOSON: ' ( 2 0 Mr. London, do you know whether the 3 pre-operational test of the static inverters requires 4 a procedure that tests the AC input loss alarm? 5 A Yes, it does. 6 -Q Do you know what step that is? 7 A I don't recall without looking at the 8 procedure. 9 0 All right. Let me show you what has 10 been marked as London Exhibit 5. It is the test i 11 package that was prepared by Witness F. 12 I am showing you Step 7.1.13, which is 13 a step performed on Channel 1, which I guess is the first inverter. Do you see that? 14 l 15 A Yes. i 16 G Would you tell us what that says? 17 j A It says, " Approximate 1.y five seconds 18 after starting the recorded, simulate a high DC bus
. l 19 voltage condition by momentarily closing the single- {
I 20 pula, single-throw switch installed in Step..." and 21 there is a line out on the original procedure. 22 It is " Step 6.1.12" in handwriting. L 23 0 What would happen to the inverter input -- I 24 I guess -- is it DC input, I don't know. What would
. I * \~ 25 happen to the inverter if you performed that simulation l 4
~
' 18249
'3 1 in that step?
2 A Well, in reviewing-Sheet 3 of Drawing (~' 3 4950-C-67, the installation of a single-pull, single-4 throw switch around the HV contact at the top of the 5 drawing would cause a shunt trip of the input circuit 6 breaker. 7 G And if there was a shunt trip of the 8 input' circuit breaker, what would happen? 9 A It would have a --- you would ;get a loss 10 of AC input _to the inverter and the relay, it appears 11 to be -- it is 1ACL. 12 This relay at the top left portion of
- 13 Sheet 3 would be de-energized.
14 G Now, I call your attention to Step 15- 7.1.15. You see, it says,." Observe loss of AC input 16 alarm on 1ALB-10B-1.16. Do you see that? 17 A Yes, IHdo. l 18 G Witness F has signed off on it. ~ 19 Based on your understanding of tis . 20 diagram, would that condition that's.been simulated, 'l j I-21 the shunting of that trip, would that.cause the AC ', I 22 input alarm to go off'in the' control room? l i 23 A- It would give an inverter, 118-volt AC , 24- inverter trouble alarm on Window 1.16. l' (- .i
' 25 0 And the way the alarm would be. transferred. l h i
.l l
18250; l
--4 1- upythere.io the way you. described.tha; annunciator-
'2 system working?. In-other..words, that's what,w'ould.be-3 seen and heard?.
e 4 A Yes. You would see a. fast flash with 4 5' an alert; audible. 6 MR. ROISMAN:. Excuse me.- 7 MR.'MIZUNO: . Excuse me.- That was 8 Window-1.1C7' 9 .THE WITNESS: 1.16 7 10 MR. MIZUNO: 1.16, thank you. 11 MR. DAVIDSON: I"think.the windowsLare 12 1.6 -- or 1.16, 2.16, 3.16 and 4 .16 . . , j 13 MR. MIZUNO:' Thank' you.
~
14 JUDGE JORDAN: One point-of 15 clarification'only. 16 This relay which you said wouldEbe ! 17- tripped on loss of..vo'1tage -- or, rather, the coil 1 18 would be energized on loss.of voltage,'is?that correct 1 19 THEIWITNESS: Excuse meJif -- The' i 20 coil would be de-energized-on loss'of-AC. voltage.- 21 JUDGE JORDAN: Yes, and when that > '
)
22 becomes de-energized, does that,'then, operate'on ] 23 the same relay. contacts th'atfwe were. describing: q I i 24 before on London 77- 'I i 25' THE WITNESS: No,-sir. . The rel'ay la I
'l' ._~__-_---_-_-_____ _.. -l
- 18251
-5 1 contacts that would be operated upon that loss of AC input are depicted here on Sheet.3 as contacts;IACL
{' 2 3 for -- and entitled " Input AC Loss." 4 JUDGE JORDAN: So there is a means, then, 5 whereby operation of.the contacts on London.7 causes 6 the light to come on; operation of the contacts on. i 7 this Sheet 3 causes the light to come on? 8 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct. 9 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, now, wait a minute. 10 I think there may be some' confusion here. 11 We have testimony and we have 12 established --
- 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Wait a second. Ask 14 questions of the witness. Doh't explain it.
15 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes. 16 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 17 g Did you mean to say that London: Exhibit 18 7 with that contact could make the alarm go off~and- _. 19 annunciate in the control room? 20 I understand it'was intended to, but 21 based on the way that's wired, would that work? q 22 A The contacts for the-loss of AC output (~ 23 alarm would not be actuated simultaneously with the , i 2d contacts from the loss of AC input alarm relay coil. l k_~ 25 g They are separate? _- _ _-_ a
11S252
-6 1 A .Yes, they are totally separate.
{ 2 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, but the annunciator 3 would operate anyway, wouldn't it?
- 4- MR. DAVIDSON: In both cases, or in 1..
5 one case or the-other? 6 JUDGE BLOCH:- Regardless-of which one 7 was touched off. 8 MR. DAVIDSON:- I think:the testimony, 9 Judge Bloch, is that you couldnt actuate the 10 annunciator for AC output-loss; 'you just couldn't. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: That doesn't matter. 'The 12 point is that you could operate itofrom some other 13 of the signals and get the. control room response. 14 MR. DAVIDSON: I think his testimony is 15 that you could trip that alarm and get the function 16 as he has described it on the.AC input. loss. Ifthink 17 that's right. That was the point I was-getting at. 18 JUDGE BLOCH: I think-that was his 6 19 testimony. I 20 MR. DAVIDSON: Now I have a fartherL i 21 question. 22 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 23 0 You see 7.1.187 l L Yes. 24 25 0 It says, "Close AC input breaker." What I
11S253 would'that do:to the' trouble alarm't' hat-was being
-7' 1
,{ 2 received in the control roomifrom the-loss of.AC. input 1 4 3 . JL The alarm-in the control room, having
-4 been operated in accordance with-the scenario'I have-
- 5. previously described,-would be in a state oficonstant 6 illumination..
7 Upon closing the AC-inputibreaker, 8 relay lIACL shown on Sheet /3'ofLthis drawing would-be-9 re-energized and its' contacts would subsequently 10 change back-to the non-alarm state, which would' 11 result'in a slow-flash illuminationiof the window:
~
12 along with the totally different audible, the ring-13 back audible. 14 0 Mr.. London, I would-like to turn your 15 attention to Transcript PagesJ14567 through 14569. 16 I would'like you.to read.from'Line 14
' ~
17 on Page 14567 through to'14569. e 18 . MR. DAVIDSON: I'd like to make a-1 19 proffer, Judge Bloch.- This two-page statement,~this
'! L 20 testimony was offered by Witness F to explain how 21 he might have been advised by.the personistationed-in 22 the control room.that theJalarm_for AC output loss 1,
23 came in. 3 24 In that testimony, the Board willisee,- i
' k 25 the witness says: "I'just performed the AC-input loss 1
____U..__.____ _ _ -
1S254
-8 1- elarm test," and he says that, ."Maybe they didn't 2 pay attention and the alarm was'still flashing from
{ 3 that one." 4_ What I intend to explore with the 5 . witness is whether that is a possibility. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: All-you've got to,do is 7 ask him whether the breaker was-closed. 8 MR. DAVIDSON: Well,-I want to go-into 9 it because I think there's an explanation there. 10 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 11 G Have you completed ~your review of that 12 testimony? 13 A. Yes. 14 0 Mr. London, is that a possible scenario? 15 Could the testing of the AC input loss alarm have 16 confused the people in'the control room and'the light-17 been left flashing even after?the input breaker had 18 been reclosed in accordance with the test',' left 19 flashing so that it could be confused with the test. 4 20 that followed, the AC output alarm test? l 21 A I feel that it is a remote possibility i 1 22 that the alarm window would have remained in the (J 23 flashing state, primarily due to the~ training that .; I 24 the operators receive. I t '
' 25 When they get an alert audible in the , I i
l
18255
-9 I control room, they know to acknowledge that audible.
(' ' 2 If he-acknowledged the audible, the 3 window would have been in the solid illuminated state 4 and no -- with no horn. { 5 When the AC. input breaker was closed, 6 the alarm would clear and be in the'previously dis-7 cussed ring-back mode. 8 Now, if for some reason the operator
'9 had merely silenced the: original a3 arm,.that would to have silenced the audible and left the alarm window 11 in the fast flash mode of operations.
12 Subsequent closure of the AC input g~ 13 breaker would have resulted in the ring-back audible. 14 So, therefore, the operator-in the control room and' 15' the individual at the other end of the phone I 16 communications with Witness'F should have noticed that 17 something was wrong. 18 0 Well, could.the person'that was on.the 19 other end of the earphones with Witness F, could he 20 have pushed a button to silence the alarms or to 21 otherwise turn them off? 1 22 A No, not the person-on theTphones. Only l
.(_ i 23 the operator can operate control switches on the .i l
24 control boards at Comanche Peak. _!
/ 'l
' 25 0 When you say "the operator," whom do you' f i
y
1 18256
-1
'- 10 1 mean? .;
c 2 A The operator is a' licensed individual { 3 that is employed by Texas Utilities' Generating Company. 4 G Could the operator have turned off all { 5 the-alarms so that they wouldn't ring? i 6 A .No, that is not possible, without 7 totally de-energizing the annunciator system.
. 8 -G So it would have taken two people not- )
9 payirt7 attention and not.following procedure to 10 have mistaken the ring-back mode for the fast flash 11 that would have normally been activated for an alert? 12 MR. ROISMAN: That's a little leading. . I 1 e 13 MR. DAVIDSON: It;is. If you wish, I'll
]
14 rephrase it. 15 MR..ROISMAN: It's a little late now.' 16 BY MR. DAVIDSON: I 17 G Mr. London, you canLanswer'the question, j 18 I guess.
- d 4
19 A Yes, it would have~taken.two people to l-20 make the same mistake, but I find it'even more 21 difficult to believe.that those two people would
, 22 make the-same mistake four different tines.
23 /// 4 24 /// 25 1 _-- _-____ -- a
' 8-l ' 1
~
BY MR. DAVIDSON: 18257 he 2 G. When you say.they'would'have had to (~ 3 make the mistake.four different. times, what:do you 4 mean? l N l 5 A- Because during the: performance of pre--
.6 operational test PT02024there were-four separate 7and' 7 distinct alarm windows in'the control room that were 8 supposed'to operate,fone for each' separate inverter.
9 0 Well, can you ' tell"by looking at 'the 10 Pre-operational' test form that we have before:you,- 33 that's London Exhibit 5, whether. Witness'F signedLoff 12 on each of these alarms? 13 'MR. R O I S M A N :;- We'll stipulate that.the-ja document so shows. 15 MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you, Mr.--Roisman._ 16 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 17 G. Mr. London, I'd like to direct'your. 18 attention to. Table 11 of the report form that'is-19 London Exhibit 5. Can.you' locate that?
, 20 A Yes. That is Table 1..
21 0 Now, I see'on Page 2426, which is the)
.22 first page of Table.1, that one ALB10Bl.16, which:is
\'
23 l' i one.of the four alarm windows about which we've been-24 talking, has been listed as having been~X'd and' 25 circled against an item called EE12', and on operabilit) .' a 6 4 E_ -____'___ ______Ii_-____
~
18258 8-2 1 Do you see that?
'2 A Yes.
.(
3 0- What does this table show us? What 4 does that indication mean? k 5 A The table is signifying that the: 6 prerequisite test known1as annunciator operability, 7 XCPEE12~ has been performed:for this particular alarm 8 window. 9 0 Mr. London, could you tell us what 10 XCPEE12 is? 11 A EE-12 is a prerequisite test instruction 12 in which the interface between-field schematic
- 13 connection of alarm contacts and the alarm system 14 themselves -- itself is-verified to operate in 15 accordance with design.
16 0 Is that a prerequisite test? 17 A Yes, I've stated.it is a prerequisite 18 test. l l 19 0 Would this assure that the annunciator 20 could be operated for the various prescribed st'eps 21 in the pre-operational test, such as could this --
)
22- would this guarantee or at least give some evidence-(_. - 23 that the AC output alarm should work as intended?. ' 24 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, could' (~ 25 Mr. Davidson get another instruction unlead$ng, please. L_-_-__-. _ - . . - - .
18259
'8-3 1 JUDGE.BLOCH:' Mr. Davidson, you do
{} 2 understand what a-leading question.is, don't you? 3 MR. DAVIDSON: Sometimes I do, Your 4_ Honor, but I guess. occasionally I slip, and.I'am {'
- 5. appropriately chastened.
6 THE WITNESS: Can I answer the question? 7 MR. DAVIDSON: I think that maybe I 8 best rephrase it. 9 Would that be acceptable to the Board?. 10 JUDGE BLOCH:- I think the witness may 11 answer on this question. 12 MR. DAVIDSON: Thank.you, Your Honor.
- 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you remember the 14 question?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 16 EE12 does not give assurance that'the 17 AC loss relay would operate as desired for the pre-18 operational test scenario that was performed. 19 This is primarily due to the fact that 20 the procedure allows two jumper contactsDin the field 21 when the actual alarm condition is impractical to l 22 achieve. b 23 EE12 does' provide for simply schematic 24 verification tr.st open contacts are open and that 25 jumpering same would lead to the proper response of
l 182GO 4' I the' alarm window. I i
.(
2 BY MR. DAVIDSON: ! (~' 3 G Does the circled X under EE12'and 4 against.lALB10Bl.16 and the. signature of Mr. Young,- { 5 of Jerry Young --- 6 THE REPORTER: . I.can't hear you, sir'.
-7. JUDGE BLOCH: 'Mr. D' avid so n , you're
~
8 talking very quickly-and not into:the microphone. 9 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm terribly sorry. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Are.you going to ask him 11 what it means? 12 MR. DAVIDSON: I am. e 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Does it-mean such~and 14 such? 15 MR. DAVIDSON: No. I'm going to ask.- 16 him what does it mean. 17 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 18 0 Do you see the marking here and you see-19 Mr. Young's signature, dated November.16th, what does 20 that mean, if you know? , 21 A .That signifies that Mr. Young.had: 22 reviewed the. prerequisite. test data sheets for'that ) is ! 23 particular component and verified that they1are.in ' 24 fact in start-up records and that'the test was- ! k_' 25 satisfactory. 4 l
1 182G1 i 8-5 1 It does not signify that Mr. . Young 2 would have actually performed the prerequisite. test (~ , 3 EE12 on that annunciator window. l 4 G Now, you explained the EE12 procedure. [ 5 I have a copy of'a document that is labeled XCPEE12. 6 Mr. London, you've explained.what you 7 understand'to be the EE12 procedure. I have a copy 8 of'a document that is labeled prerequisite test 9 instruction XCPEE12. ~I'd like to-know whether you 10 can identify that as being the document so labeled 11 and whether it was the document that was.in effect 12 at that time.
- 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Davidson --
14 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, I don't-think 13 that's leading. I think there's no other way.-to 16 describe the document, unless you say here's a piece 17 of paper, now tell me what'is it. , 18 MR.-ROISMAN: That sounds pretty good. . i 19 to me, but on top of that we, of course, have never l l 1 20 seen the document. No copy is made available to'us j 21 at this moment. ;
'l 22 M R .. DAVIDSON: I think you're following j
- t. u 23 furrowed ground, Mr. Roisman. You made'that point' j
24 early in the proceedings and -- P { 25 MR. ROISMAN: This is the first' time I i I a l i j
18262
~
6 1 even saw this document. I've had a break since that ( 2 time. .You didn't offer it tofme then, Mr. Davidson.. 3 Did.you know you had it then? ( 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you have other 5 documents to give.to~him? 6 MR. DAVIDSON: Your Honor, I'll'be 7- happy;to take care.of this. I think:now we're on 8 the record and we ought to get testimony. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: But first, any documents 10 you're-going to use from here.on out should be' handed 11 to counsel immediately. 'He's entitled to have 12 advance notice of the documents you're going to use. 13 Do you have any other documents, other 14 than this one? 15 MR. DAVIDSON: He had advance notice. 16 He didn't see'a copy of'it, but he requested this 17 document, Your Honor. 18 JUDGE BLOCE: He's supposed to have ~all 19 the' documents you're going to use, not notice you're 20 going to use them. 21 MR. DAVIDSON: I understand, Your: Honor. 22 We understand that, but you. understand the handicap G 23 we've been laboring under here. We discussed this. 24 before. I don't see how this adds anything further- l 25 to that.
7
- l 19263 j 8-7 1 1 -JUDGE BLOCH: Do you?have any other j
{ 2 documents you're going.to.use? :I'would like_you'to 3 hand them to Mr. :Roisman. right _ now, all'the.docu- a l
-(:
4 ments you're. going to use'right: now.
-5 MR. DAVIDSON: You mean we should just 6 take a break so I can.go through them with.him?'
7 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. 8- MR. ROISMAN:- LYou don't'have to go 9 through them with'me, just give them.to' me. I don't 10 need your explanation. I just need to look at them. 11 .MR..DAVIDSON: .All right.. 'Then I' 12 think we should take a' break.
- 13 MR. ROISMAN: Well', I don't need.a 14 . break in order to'look at them, but.I do'need you to 15 . hand them to me.
16 MR. DAVIDSON: Well,.yes, but I only-
~
17 have one copy. I'd like to give them'to'you, answer 18 any questions _you may_have and -- 19 MR.'ROISMAN: I'm'not' going to ask you, l, 20 any questions. Just give'them tofme, please. Let's l 21 not take.a break. I do not wish the break.- 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Hand him'the document.- (- 23 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm'sorry, JudgeiBloch. 24 I'd be perfectly happy to do over the break,'and I'm
~
25 requesting one. Either that or I'm going to' examine-4
182G4 8-8 1 tho witnesa I can't do two things at once. I ron11y 2 think this is an unreasonable request. I don't {~ 3 understand it. 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, you have enough of 5 a break to walk to the -- ! i 6 MR. ROISMAN: He can examine him on ! y that document and give me the others, please. That's 8 my request, without a break. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Just hand him the I 10 document. l l 11 MR. DAVIDSON: I must say that I find ) i 1 12 this an extraordinary procedure, that counsel cannot 13 have a break when requeted. Other witnesses have 14 been given that courtesy. I'm sorry. 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, I think the extra-16 ordinary procedure is that you're using documents 17 without giving them to opposing counsel, and that's 18 the reason that you're being asked to -- 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do you need a break, 20 Mr. Davidson? We were operating on the assumption 21 that perhaps Mr. Roisman needed a break and he says 22 no. If you need a break, that's another story. Do k 23 you? 24 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, I think it's
/
25 really the most expeditious way to handle it. I'd
182cs l 8-9 1 like to take my documents back. I have them in 2 order. I really -- I don't understand why I ' la (~ 3 causing a problem. ] { 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Ok.ay. Let's have-a
'i 5 five-minute break.
6 (A short recess was taken.) - 1 7 JUDGE BLOCH: The meeting will come 1 8 to order. 9 MR. MIZUNO: Mr. Chairman, before we 10 begin, I would just like to request that whatever 11 documents that we're going to be using be bound in,
, 12 since we only have one copy right now, and they'd 13 be bound in, I guess it will be in the next set of 14 hearings, I guess.
15 MR. ROISMAN: And I would like to 16 request that we be.given copies of them, in addition 17 to them being bound in. 18 MR. DAVIDSON: And I agree to both 19 suggestions. 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. So the documents I 21 will be bound in. '.All we have to do is indicate the J 22 appropriate place for each document. ( l 23 I take it that actually CASE is going 24 to stipulate that to the extent these are plant (' l 25 documents they do not need to be verified by the i
. I I
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ I
- 182G6 10 - .1 . witness. Is'that correct, Mr. Roisman?
2 -MR. ROISMAN: That'is correct. I 3 MR. DAVIDSON: And with that under .
- e. taking, I also made an undertaking.off the record
( 5 with Mr.'Roisman that there would not be extensive
- 6. questioning, that.the purpose was merely.to get these 7 documents into the record.
8 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay.- So-let'sLcontinue.- 9 MR. ROISMAN: Let the record ? show' I: 10 Put the documents back on.Mr. Davidson's desk ~ .
~
11 MR. DAVIDSONs I appreciate that, 12 Mr. Roisman, and - in connection ~ with .the - copies ,.- we 'll 13 see if we can't have those made for you by the close C 14 of business today. 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Off the record. 16 (Discussion off'the record.) 17 MR. DAVIDSON: Certainly, Mr..Roisman, : 18 in respect to your request for~ copies, we will do 19 our level best at the' conclusion of'this testimony-20 to see to it th a t they're'given to ylou today. 21- MR. ROISMAN: 'That kind of speed:is 22 unnecessary. I'll be perfectly happy to-have'them' (_- in Washington next week. 1 i 23 24 MR. DAVIDSON: There will be no. question j _~ 25 about that. ]
'l
-i
19267 8-11 :1 MR. MIZUNO: Mr. Davidson,.do you {' 2 think you could offer meitheisame -- 3 MR. DAVIDSON:' Yes, Mr.'Mizuno, 4 absolutely.- I'm terr'ibly sorry. Of course. 5 MR. MIZUNO: I:didn't make~the request 6 earlier. 7 MR. DAVIDSON: 'It goes'without saying. 8 MR. MIZUNO:- Thank:you. 9 'BY MR. DAVIDSON: 10 g Mr. London, just. prior to the1 b'reak , 11 you were looking at a' document that was. labeled s 12 .XCP-EE-12. 13 Have you looked at it and have you i ja familiarized yourself with its contents? 15 A Ye s', I'm familiar with~its contents.: 16 G Is that'the procedure to which you made 17 reference and was that ' the one ' that was h in' ef f ect at-18 the time of the pre-operational test:that Witness'F. 19 conducted?
-l 20_ A From the revision date,.it appears that j 21 it was the procedure that was in effect at.the time. .
22 However, there is a. possibility;there i 23 was a subsequent revision prior to Novemberi16th, '82, -! 24 the date on which Mr.1 Young 1 signed that the pre-- . i
'. (.' i' 25 requisite test had indeed been completed.:
i m_i__'________.' _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _
162GS , 8-12 1 S Could you show:us where in th a't ' 2 document' the procedure that you . described /for EE-12 {l-3 is stated? . In other7 words , for the prerequisite' test ( 4 that you described earlier..
~
5 A Could you rephrase that. question? 6 0 Well,.I was just trying to-get you to 7 point to where11n-the test -- in this procedure'it'- 8 explains how EE-12 was done.
- 9. A .I understand ~. It explains in the 10 procedure how it is done in Section 7, whichLare the 11 instructions for performing the annunciator verifi-12 cation.
13 0 Turning once.again to Table 1, . 14 Mr. London, I see that there's another circled X 15 under EE-8 against the inverter and also signed by 16 Young. Do you see that?- 17 A Yes, I do. 18 - __ 19 . 20
]i 21 22
(. .l i 1 23 i 25 i 4 1
q
-1S269 i ' /1 - 1 BY MR. DAVIDSON:
{, 2 g Do you know what that signifies? l 3 MR. ROISMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Chaicman, j 4 I'm sorry to interrupt. If what going to happen here 5 is that the witness is going to be asked as to each of 6 those tests, the result of the tests is going to be put 7 into evidence and the test procedure used to do the B test is going to be put into evidence, I'd like to'just 9 stipulate now that the documents that I looked at appear 10 for the most part to be those things.- 11 Let's just put them in right now. 12 Agree that the witness would identify that each of the 13 procedures that says on it that it's the EA test is the 14 EA test, that the copy that says the test was done is 15 the copy of the test that'was doae,and it's in. - 16 -MR. DAVIDSON: I think that's an 17 excellent suggestion. o 18 JUDGE BLOCH: Granted. They shall be 19 bound in at this point 20 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, Your Honor. 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Which' specific document?- 22 MR. DAVIDSON: All right. We would be (_/ 23 putt:.ng in XCP-EE-12 and XCP-EE-8 at this point, and we 24 would also be putting in the data sheets for the pre-( ~ b- 25 requisite tests done pursuant to XCP-EE-12 and XCP-EE-8, 4
'1S270 9/2 -j. which I beliova you have soon, Mr. Roicman..
2 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Davidson, could.you 3 give those to the reporter now, as she'is indicating I e 4 she needed them at this-moment. 1 Q 5 MR. DAVIDSON: Certainly. 6 Mr. London has now helped me put 7 the documents in order. 8 The first document will be a 9 stapled multi-page document labeled XCP-EE-12. jo The second one'would be another jj multi-page document stampled that's labeled XCP-EE-8, 12 Then there will be nine single 13 pages of test data sheets that are in both chronological ja order and in order of the channels; that is, the 15 specific inverters, the four of them. 16 (The above-referenced-17 documents were. numbered and i 18 bound into the record as 19 follows: 20 21 22 Na 23 24 k- 25 4 u_. -__._--________. ____m__m u__ _____a_ _ . __.._..___-.__._._.,___:__.2 _ m _ _ , , , _ _ _, ___ ,_ _ _ , _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ , , _ , _ _ __ , _ _ _ _ , _ , ___ _, m y
18271 CPSES PREREQUISITE TEST INSTRUCTION s, .
,I
[ ,
\
i "N XCP-EE-12
.5
./ ,'
/ , . '* //
/ , , I ', ,, //
y j--l ~7; 4
, ANNUNCIATOR / MONITOR LIGHT BOX i ./ ,*
- V' ' / OPERABILITY TESTING f / ,
9 gQS i < ;
~
,' N, . ,
\ .
Prepared By: Harold J. Cheatheam N'N %, '.:
- s x./
i, s
)
i i t : I REVIEWED BY API' ROVED BY , LEAD WCCO QA .MANACER I
^ NUCLL\R OPER$TIONS DATE STARTUP ENGINEER g SUPERVISO,R g , 6 hhh,f ff W k l f, je.] ,
1 / 1 i L., i e SAP-7-1
. .~.
18272-XCP-EE-12
. Revi 6 P y0 .9 50 ANNUNCIATOR / MONITOR LIGHT BOX OPERABILITY TESTING
.7 L'
1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this instruction is to ensure that initial. testing and' energization of annunciator circuits and monitor light circuits are
. performed in a complete and consistent manner and to provide a means'of' documenting the test results.
2.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 2.1 Annunciator systems shall monitor field input signals and' annunciate abnormal conditions as, designed.
- 2. 2' Monitor' light systems shall monitior field input signals and indicate status as designed.
2.3 Abnormal conditions to be indicated at the appropriate alarm window and the alarm window shall be labeled as shown by the design documents. 2.4 The operating time of time delayed alarms shall be within +10% of~
' the specified time of the design documents.
L
3.0 REFERENCES
3.1 CP-SAP-3 Custody Transfer of Station Components 3.2 CP-SAP-4 Custody Transfer Tagging 3.3 XCP-EE-8 Control Circuit. Functional-Testing i 4.0 PREREQUISITES ) 4.1 The equipment to be tested'shall have been released to etartup custody in accordance with CP-SAP-3 and custody tagged in accordance with CP-SAP-4. 4.2 Verify that the field contacts are isolated from the logic circuitry. _in the case of Panalarm Systems, this. involves'- j disconnecting the individual point logic cards. For the monitor light and the Beta Systems, the' field wiring can be de-terminated .{ in the termination cabinet or the field wiring can be terminated' I with plastic screws and washers. 4.3 Verify that the annunciator or monitor light system is l operational. 4.4 Verify that the field alarm circuit has been tested-and the appropriate annunciator or monitor. light schematic diagram has -! been highlighted in accordance with XCP-EE-8. 1 4 I
18273 XCP-EE - R:visio 6^s 3 Page .qgiv 5.0 TEST EQUIPMENT Q 5.1 Simpson 260 voltohmmeter or equal 7
- t. 5.2 Stopwatch 6.0 SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS 6.1 Care should be taken when operating field contacts not to disturb interlocks relating to operating equipment.
6.2 Care should be taken not to energize field contacts'or cable on which construction or startup personnel may be working. This precaution particularly applies to multipoint_ annunciator circuits. 7.0 INSTRUCTIONS 7.1 Annunciator Verification The following sequence is intended to verify satisfactory unit performance. Refer to Table'I for operational sequence descriptions of the three most common types of annunciator systems to be tested at CPSES. Some Local annunciator systems will have different operational sequences than those listed. In such cases, f refer to the vendor manual to verify proper operation. (_ 7.1.1 Verify applicable prerequisites of paragraph 4.0 complete. 7.1.2 Record the appropriate design drawing numbers' panel number and window location on Data Sheet 1. 7.1.3 Record the window engraving on Data Sheet 1. 7.1.4 Verify that the annunciator logic card (and as applicable. 2h multiple input or time delay cards) is set up to knnunciate for the designated alarm condition, i.e., normally open or normally closed. Note Beta logic cards driven by multi-pie input relay or time delay. l circuits must be set up NORMALLY. OPEN. 1 (_, 7.1.5 Energize the alarm circuit.
-j I
u
134/4 XCP-EE-12 Ravision-Q
\
o Note s Oss-For the Beta Alarm circuits .
- energizing involves terminat-ing the field virin.g_in the-termination cabinet or replac-ing the plastic termination screws and washers with metal screws. The Panalarm circuits are energized by inserting the logic card into the connected position.
7.1.6 Set up the field alarm contacts in the " normal" state and verify that the panel vindow is CLEAR. 7.1.7 Actuate the field contact to the " alarm" state and-verify that the designated panel window FLASHES and an AUDIBLE alarm is' received. Verify that time delayed alarms operate properly and record time delay on Data Sheet 1. Note If the field contact cannot or should not be actuated, simulate abnormal conditions by lifting a f( { wire or with a " jumper" on the field contact side of the terminal block nearest to the field contact. 7.1.8 SILENCE the annunciator and verify that the AUDIBLE alarm stops. ACKNOWLEDGE the annunciator and verify that the l the FLASHING window goes to steady lighting. 7.1.9 Return the field contact to the normal state and verify the appropriate following step:
- a. Panalarm System - The alarm window stays on steady light until the annunciator is RESET when the window goes to no light. ;
I
- b. Beta Alarm System - The alarm vindow goes to R1NGEACK j flashing status and the RINGBACK sudible alarm sounds.
. SILENCE and RESET the annunciator to stop audible alare l and clear the RINGBACK flash. l l i As s 7.1.10 Repeat steps 7.1.7 through 7.1.9 several times to'eneure l that the alarm circuit is operating properly. ;
I 1 q
-l 4
1
~ ~
ISEP75 XCP-EE-12 , O Revis4cp q Page 5 7.1.11 If the alarm circuit is composed of multiple contacts, repeat steps 7.1.7 through 7.1.10 for each field contact. Also verify, if appropriate, the REFLASH feature (multiple
, input alarms) where subsequent alarms come in before the i first alarm clears by maintaining the first alarm in alarm status and initiating or simulating subsequent alarms.
Note For cultiple input alarms, the RINGBACK feature will occur only when all input contacts have re- - turned to the non-alarm condition. 7.1.12 When the circuit testing is complete, record the satisf actory operation of the FLASH, ACDIBLE, RINGBACK, CLEAR and REFLASH as appropriate on Data Sheet 1. Also list each field contact device and how that part of the alarm loop was tested. 7.1.13 Indicate as applicable the extent of the checkout of
" multiple input alarms" on Data Sheet 1. Check that the testing was " partial" if all the input circuits were not verified.
7.1.14 If the . alarm system is a remote system and has re-transmit capabilities to the Main Control Room Annunciator, verify the re-transmit circuitry. I 7.2.15 Leave the alarm operational or as directed by the System Test Engineer. 7.2 Monitor Light / Trip Status Verification 7.2.1 Verify applicable prerequisites of paragraph 4.0 complete. 7.2.2 Record the appropriate design drawing numbers, panel number and window location on Data Sheet 2. , 7.2.3 Record the window engraving en Data Sheet 2. l 7.2.4 Energize the field circuit by terminating the field wiring in the termination cabinet or replacing the plastic screws jg with metal screws as appropriate. 7.2.5 Verify that the monitor light / trip status panel window (,/ lights to indicate status in accordance with the design drawings and verify that the panel vindow clears when the field contact (s) is placed in the opposite condition. I
1S276- xcP-tz Revision 6 Page p fy0 g$ If the field contact cannot or should not be actuated,
,. simulate abnormal conditions.with a'" jumper" on the field
( side of the terminal block nearest to the field contact.
'When the field circuit is composed of multiple. contacts, test each contact separately' to verify that every cop +,act functions to indicate status.in accordance with the design drawings.
7.2.6 When the circuit testing is comp 1ete, record the-
, satisfactory operation of the LIGHT and CLEAR on Data Sheet
- 2. Also list each field contact device and how.that.part-of the alarm loop was tested.
7.2.7 ' Leave the' monitor light / trip status point operational or as -
~ directed by the System Test Engineer.-
1
\
u; l
]
i 1,
- . g .
1 3 ,9 p XCP-EE Revisio O Pa o TABLE I ANNUNCIATOR OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE DESCRIPTION BETA'1000 - Main control' Room Annunciator BETA SSII - Safety System Inoperable Indicator Panalarm - Remote Plant Panalarm Annunciators b. CONTACT OPERATOR BETA 1000 BETA SSII PANALARM
, CONDITION ACTION LAMPS AUDIBLE LAMPS AUDIBLE LAtiPS AUDIBLE NOR!iAL ---
0FF .0FF OFF OFF' 0FF OFF ABNORMAL- --- FLASH
- ON FLASH <ON FLASH ON ABNORMAL SILENCE FLASH * ' 0FF FLASH OFF FLASH OFF~
ABNOR!!AL ACK ON OFF- ON OFF ON OFF NORMAL ---
. FLASH ON** ON OFF ON OFF NORMAL RESET OFF OFF OFF- 0FF OFF OFF
- FAST FLASH ** RINGBACK AUDIBLE-4
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .i______._______ .._ _
~ '
' 1827S 'AO DCN: VTPREQ Proc. No.: XCP-EE-12 Peg 2: 8 Rev. 6 XCP,E MSC: P1EP** Tag No.: $ sp ;
Date Approved: Organization: TGS 1 Doc.
Title:
ANNUNCIA70R OPERABILITY f DATA SHEET 1 ARMS I PANEL NO.: WINDOW NO.: SYSTEM NO.: j [ i REFERENCE DRAWINGS: l l Schematic: R ; Window Engraving: R 1 Applicable Prerequisites of Paragraph 4.0 ; Are Complete Date: { WINDOW ENGRAVING: i Line 1: Line 2: Line 3: Line 4: ANNUNCIATOR OPERATION: FLASH SAT UNSAT AUDIBLE SAT UNSAT
\~- RING 3ACK SAT UNSAT N/A CLEAR SAT UNSAT REFLASH SAT UNSAT N/A CONTACT DEVICES TESTED:
Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A i Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A l Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A TIME DELAY: Design Setting Sec.; Actual Setting Sec.; N/A Stopwatch Ident. No. ; Calib. Due Date (_,- MULTIPLE INPUT CIRCUlTS CHECROUT: Complete Partial N/A REMARKS: ~ \ 1 l , Data Recorded By: Date: Witnessed By: j Test Results: SAT UNSAT Reviewed By: Date: System Test Engineer Approved By: Date:
,S-.
I DCN: VTPREQ Proc. No.: XCP-EE-12 Pcg2: 9 R;v. 6 XCP-EE-1$ \ MSC: PIEP** Tag No. : __ Rc .i $.Y 6 Organization: TGS 9 j Date Apptoved: 1 Doc.
Title:
MONITOR LIGHT / TRIP STATUS BOX DATA SHEET 2 ARMS i d WINDOW NO.: SYSTEM NO.-
- PANEL NO.:
# I REFERENCE DRAWINGS:
Schematic: R ; Window Engraving: R ( i i Applicable Prerequisites of Paragraph 4.0 Date: g Are Complete 1 WINDOW ENGRAVING: Line 1: Line 2: . Line 3: Line 4: MONITOR LIGHT / TRIP STATUS OPERATION: {' LIGHT CLEAR SAT SAT UNSAT UNSAT CONTACT DEVICES TESTED: Actuated Ju=pered Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A i Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered { Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered -Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A , l Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A Actuated l Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A i Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A !
' Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A 1
REMARKS: k-Data Recorded By: Date: Witnessed By: - Test Results: SAT UNSAT Reviewed By: Date: System Test Engineer Approved By: Date: , I l-
18280 I CPSES PREREQUISITE TEST INSTRUCTION i r I XCP-EE-8. CONTROL CIRCUIT FUNCTIONAL TESTING FOR INFO ' - Revisten:- s ONLY
. Prepared By: 3. t. rertescue k
Reviewed By: Le d feartup Engineer Reviewed By: ~. .e TUGC0 QA Startup/ Turnover surveillance Supervisor l Reviewed By:
Title:
kevieved By: ,
/ _
Title:
Approved By: )5 82u *
, Date:
nager S Start [ . 4 Cs i ! Sir-7-1 l
ICP-EE-8 R; vision 6 19281 Pcg2 2 cf s'
. 0 9
CONTROL CIRCUIT FUNCTIONAL TESTING I I 1.0 PURPOSE e k- The purpose of this instruction is to describe the requirements for performing initial testing of control circuits and to provide a means of ) documenting that initial testing including design changes affecting the circuits to be tested. In addition, design changes issued during-or after testing has been completed will be tested in accordance with this ]' procedure. f 2.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA .. Each control circuit shall be installed and operates as shown'en the design drawings and design changes issued against the drawing which affect the circuit being tested.
3.0 REFERENCES
3.1 CP-SAP-3 Custody Transfer of Station Components 3.2 CP-SAP-4 Custody Transfer Tagging
. 3.3 CP-SAP-5 Safety Taggins Procedure
(,, 3.4 CP-SAP-ll Review, Approval and Retention of Test Results 3.5 CP-SAP-13 Temporary System Modifications 3.6 ICP-EE-1 Megger/H1 Pot Testing 3.7 ICP-EE-3 Relay Calibration 3.8 ICP-EE-14 Molded Case Circuit Breaker & Thermal Overload Relay / Heater Testing 3.9 ICP-EE-15 6.9KV & 480V Air Circuit Breakers 3.10 STA-605 Clearance and Safety Tagging 4.0 PREREQUISITES 4.1 The components of the control circuit to be tested shall have been released to startup custody in accordance'with CP-SAP-3 and custody' tagged in accordance with CP-SAP-4 (s' 4.2 The latest revision of the drawings required for the control circuit / cable testing shall be stamped with the " Test Record Drawing" stamp as shown by Figure 1. 4 4 . .g _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ______m. . - -
XCP-EE-8 R';vicita 6 . 18282 Pcg3 3 cf 8' T
.s Notes 4O
@g\o@Q (1) When the latest revision of a.
drawing does not reflect the actual-status of system equip-( ment due to unimplemented design changes in the field,-it'is permis-sible to test the equipment to a-
~
superceded revision that reflects actual system conditions. When-this is done, the STE shall make f an entry in the MSP to state that a design change has not been , implemented or the latest drawing revision has not-been implemented in field equipment. Reference specifie.DCA's, drawing revisions, etc. MSP Entry Descritpion-Example: DCA-13682 not incorporated in MCC~ IEB4-4, compt. 7F (DG Fuel 011 Transfer Pump 2A). Ref: El-0067-15 Revision 3.
~
/ (2) "For Information Only" drawings
\ may be used.
4.3 Verify that all DCA's ou standing against the drawings are listed on the drawings. DCA's shall be used during circuit / cable testing as follows: 4.3.1 The DCA's that affect the circuit to be tested may be drawn-in j on the affected drawings using RED for additions and GREEN for j deletions and highlighted during testing, or ' Note The design change number (DCA, i CMC, etc) shall be indicated l beside changes that are drawn ! in on the Test Record Drawing. l l 4.3.2 The DCA's may be' highlighted during testing and attached to th'e Test Record Drawing. C 4.4 Rotating equipment of other components such as air operated valves associated with control circuits should be disabled during energized-testing by means such as; lifting power leads, removal of thermal ; overloads, racking breaker out or to test position or isolation of ' motive air. s ' I
J' ICP-EE-8. Rsvicica 6 18283 Pda 4 ef a Note pk In cases where the overload- NO heaters are removed, ensure that the heater retaining screws are lugged tight when {- .the. heaters are replaced. 4.5 Prior to performing energized functional testing,' verify the following: 4.5.1 Molded case breakers that i-ill be included.in the test have been tested in accordance with ICP-EE-14. 4.5.2 Air circuit breakers- have been' tested'in accordance with XCP-EE-15, except that the calibration of. direct . acting trip or protective relay-devices is not required. 4.6 The responsible STE shall review with the test technician (s)- specifically the control circuit / cable testing to be accomplished on each drawing, including applicable DCA's. When only a portion of a drawing will be tested, that portion may be identified by circling with a pencil or black ink, for clarification. 5.0 TEST EQUIPMENT 5.1 Simpson 260 multimeter or equal 5.2 continuity tester 5.3 Torque Screwdriver 6.0 SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS 6.1 All safety tagging shall be in accordance with CP-SAP-5 or STA-605. i 6.2 The use of jumpers should be' minimized. Contracts / switches should be v manually operated where possible.
)
Note Jumpers that are left unat-tended or will remain in place beyond the and of the shift shall be identified and logged i per CP-SAP-13.
.(, 6.3 Leads shall be 11 fed as necessary to isolate the section of circuit' ' V being tested. 'Upon completion of check out on that portion of the l circuit, they shall be promptly reinstalled.
j s' i 1 m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . ._ .._._.._._-.m. . _ _ _ _ _
ICP-EE-8 Revisica 6
~18284 lPtsa 5 ef 8' Note Lifted leads that are left un-attended or will remain lifted' N.Y/
O ON
, beyond the and of the shift
,l- -
shall be identified and logged 1 per CP-SAP-13. 6.4 The applicable drawings should be reviewed to identify any devices interlocking with circuits which may be in service and special precaution taken to not initiate undesirable action in adjacent system components. 6.5 Use caution to not-overtighten the contact cartridge terminal' screws on Westinghouse type AR' auxiliary relays as overtightening will deform the stationary contact assembly. If change of the contact cartridge or terminal wiring is required, the relay contact connection screws shall be' tightened to 9.5.r 0.5 inch / pounds per memo TBI-M-513' dated' August- 11, 1980 in accordance with CP-SAP-6.- 70 INSTRUCTIONS 7.1 Verify that the applicable prerequisites or paragraph 4.0Lare complete. 7.2 Verify that the circuit to be. tested is de-energized. t Note Q Steps 7.3 through 7.7 may be performe.d concurrently. 7.3 EC7m' W e e)the conductor terminations to the appropriate drawings to verify that interconnecting cables are terminated correctly. d 7.4 Check each cable for the correct cable tag and correct color. 7.5 Check each conductor to be landed on the proper terminal and-the termine. tion screw to be lugged tight. CAUTION Observe special precaution 6.5. 7.6 Highlight satisfactory cable terminations'on the appropriate . i connection Test Record Drawing (s) with a YELLOW permanent felt.tip marker. Also highlight the cable number on each conductor-
- identification sleeve (located near the termination lug). Use caution '
(,. as "over-marking" will cause the cable. numbers to smear. 1
- w. 1 g i 1
1
^XCP-EE-8
.R:vicirn 6 Pcg1 6.cf 8 18285 ,/hqo Note !y At the'STE's discretion, point-to-point checkout of internal circuitry of vendor supplied 7 equipment may be waived. As a
'(. minimum, a visual inspection shall be made to determine any missing equipment, unterminated wires, loose terminations, or damage to wiring and equipment.
If the internal circuitry or vendor supplied' equipment is verified point-to-point, high-i light the vendor, wiring or
, elementary' diagram.
7.7 Check size, ratings and connections of circuit elements such as relays, fuses, resistors, ' indicating lights, position switches, control transformers, etc., to be-in agreement with-applicable'
, drawings, 7.8 Functionally test the control circuits;to verify that'each component-functions in accordance with the design drawings. Prove each component to be properly located in the circuit and.to operate
~
., correctly. Install temporary jumpers, lif t wires' or block relay contracts to simulate conditions which cannot be set up otherwise. As
{' the circuit components are verified, " highlight" the applicable schematic / elementary Test Record Drawings. Notes (1) Energized functional testing of control circuits is desirable; however, if the STE deems this impractical, de-energized funct-ional testing will' suffice. (2) Do not break the calibration [ seal on protective relay' cases to verify internal' relay cir-cuitry. Verification of pro-tective' relay internal cir-
' cuits is performed under pre-requisite test procedure ICP-EE-3 but is not a prerequisite to this instruction.
l l s_s 7.9 Restore the circuit to its pre-test condition or as directed by the STE by de-energizing, removing jumpers, reterminating ~ lif ted wires and
; unblocking contacts.
w# I
* ~
ICP-EE-8 Revisira 6, 182gg Pcgg 7 (Ji
.'f b Notes (1) Work associated with retorquing connections after testing shall
.( '
be controlled in accordance with CP-SAP-6. (2) Observe special precautions 6.5. 7.10 Restore the control of associated rotating equipment and.other. components disabled-under stap 4.4 to their pre-test status or as directed by the STE. 7.11. Leave the control circuic/ cables de-energized or as directed by the STE. 7.12 The individual that performed that test shall signify. completion of the test in the space provided_by the Test Record Drawing Stamp. 7.13 The responsible STE shall review the Test Record Drawing to determine if the testing is complete and satisfactory. 7.13.1 If the results are satisfactory, he shall signify hisl review -in. the space provided by the Test Record Drawing Stamp and forward the drawing (s) to the Startup Group Drawing Clerk fcr filing. k_ 7.13.2 If the results are unsatisfactory, he shall resolve the discrepancy and perform retest as necessary. Note Review and retention of Test Record Drawings is described by CP-SAP-11. j i j f l
)
i i __m________________ _
. , 'XCP-EE-8 ~
Rr,visitn 6' 18287. Pcg2 8 ef 8
./-:-
TEST RECORD DRAWING
-} -90'%7%c TEST INSTR. No. 'sys. No.
TESTED BYlDATE WITNESSED BY/DATE REVIEWED BY/DATE Figure 1. " Test Record Drawing" Stamp , i
'I i
k I -(, i
,/
!!d&II L351s' Jt, 7 oC :: T:'F.En Proc. ..o.: NCP- :.':- l ' ?we: 10 nev.: ~3 -XCP-F.C- j 2
.'!S C : P / - (~ ,F *
- Tar. No.: C#/-/C E dA-// fic vis i nn ') i Date Approved I ~,?/Of0(/ Organization: TCS Panc 10 of 1 Doc. *itle: A';:!U:lCI ATOK O? r,g g g g t,1 y .j l DATA SHCF.T I ARMS 3l
/ 1
(' SY STE.'l DESCRIPTIO!!: p-'2 A,,0 'M //cyr'crevd .Z)dt-6Cc6Y STEtt 110: O 2 As-Reference Annunc. Oneration* SAT Drawings- Panel Window F A RB C RF Verified By- Date
.6 / w p C . /.g"~
4*/0080- o / E / 0 0 6 0 ~ 4 Z- /DB ), si, .9t* SM .fer".Sh" Q . [ ZAr///
//w'?& - d g/a:;ge o/ '
4/ DM 4 - Z 2.- /df .1" /4 ;Q(*b & SN* h _Y-- w id/2,/!?/ A
,/ r.
.* .4 &
,r yp , ,
.<>.;l.
#d ,
,/
- b. '
~_ . . .
. . . . . . . . . - - . .. . . . . . . .... .,. .m. , .., ;-, ._ ,
- F - Flash A - Audible R!! - Ringback C - Clear RF - Reflash RE!1 ARKS :
1
-1
! Witnessed By: ----'
Date-
%, 1 Test Results: SAT UNSAT Reviewed By: d_
System Test F.ngineer
</w Date: //f /p/ -
// J
; E'/*
Approved by: e, U[/t2' M ((/ M ".- Date: 8
//
l// 1
. .. ..,...;_...~_ *
. ...,.. - .>.,.w . _a a w ;
l 1S289 l DC:': '!TPREO Proc. :;o. : \CP-*.E-12 Page: g
~
137s2 P.e v. : J g g // XCP-EE-12 7p9 MSC: P / E~ 8 *
- Ta u/ -pe Ax c/ -// Revision 3 {
Oate Approved: ~)?Mfo8;; :.o. : Organi::stion: TCS Pap,e 10 of 11 - ' Coc.
Title:
A':ECI ATOR OPF.RABILITY DATA SHr.F.T . {
/- A l-l3 ' /0 A 2*U ARMS 1 4
l N. l SYSTEM DESCRIPTION: 74.4,0 N'$r/c;-aJ D./fe;-Y.5 SYSTEM UO: d2A/ l I Reference Annunc. Operation
- SAT '
Drawings Panel Window F A RS C RF Verified By Date
//-C07fa - / $~
// 6-Zt /dA 2. /fa $A7"WW & & &' Y 6l&lAf f/007G- d f ~22 /d2 Y/L g <;GCg~.$tt .&.t" M W W U~ o)
'L
,/px07'6?:?.
c;' V . L.
. - - -- - . . . ....., , , ,,, . 3.m... . ,,, ,,,wmmyy
- T - Flash A - Atidible RB - Ringback C - Clear RF - Reflash REMARKS:
.l l
'- Witnessed By: Date:
{ Test Results: / SAT UNSAT Reviewed By: Date: a 4 ffe / ff System Te(t Engineer / (J' ' Approved By: . , M/V Date: v /
// ;
l e i
.. 6 J
\
0 ? 5 dKCP-EE-12
}\ l
~
XC F-EE- l Z_ F0$s: 5 Rav.: ~= 18290: DGN: VTYKLQ Froc No.: ~ Revisica 6 11SCA~~ P 1 E P *.C' Tag No.I C.P 1 -F.CPRCB- f 1 Date Ap rovedI ~ #Td2 . - Organization: TCS Page 8 of- 9 33*005 Doc. ' Tities ANtf0NCIATOR OPERABILITY DATA SHEET 1 ARitS . WINDOW NO.: 1.16 SYSTE!! No. : ~> 2 Af 5 PANEL NO.: 1-ALB-10B RY.TERENCE DRAVINCS: l lt 7 ; Window Engraving:. E/-co pj_n -R f i Schematic: fl-CC 74 - /6 Applicable Prerequisites of Paragraph 4.0 2 ) Icb B~h Are Complete I c "Tks- Date: WINDOW ENCRAVING: 1 Line 1: Il8V Line 2: CRAN 1 INV -
-{
j Line 3: TRBL -f 9 Line 4: 3 6 ANNUNCIATOR OPERATION: 3 "%
. O i SAT -
UNSAT
's .
TLASE AUDIBLE SAT UNSA g! { RINCRAM SAT AT N/A h CLEAR UNSAT ' RETLAS _ SAT UNSAT N/A g
. CONTACT DEVICES TESTED:
Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted Actuated Jumpered -- Wire /A Actuated Jumpered a Liftad N/A ']" Actuated J Wire Lifted N/A Actuated -
~
pared ~ Wire Lifted ~ N/A i Actu 4 Jumpered ~ Wire Lif tad N/A l usted Jumpered _ Wire Lifted N/A Actuated ~ Jumpered ~ Wire Lifted ~ N/A l
/ Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A
' Actuated Jumpered Wire Liftad N/A ;
TIME DELAT: Design Setting Sec.; Actual Setting Sec.;- N/A Stopwatch Ident. No. ; Calib. Due Date MULTIPLE INPUT CIRCUITS CHECKOUT: Complete _ Partial /A i RDiARKS: Engravings per Human Factors Layout. Data Recorded By: .- eA Date:2)T,bt.3 Witnessed <- By: - - Test Results: / SAT UNSAT Reviewed By:, . Date: ".F -2 / - M Systes?Iest Engineer Approved By: Date: 3M.2 /B s i k
XGF-EE-14 Fego: 5 Rev.: ~~e Igg a w XCP-EE-12
== wuv pcN:- U FRAQ Fruc. No.: ~
115C P1EP00 Tag No.: cp1.repsen.1i Revisisa 6
~
Dato ApprovId7 ~8#O L Organization: TGS- Page 8 of 9 Doc.
Title:
AN!!UNCIATOR OPERABILITY ggggi-DATA SHEET 1 AR115 PANEL No.: 1-ALB-103 WINDOW No.: 2.16 SYSTE!! NO.: o ~r 4V k REFERENCE DRAWINGS:. Schematic: FI-OC 7i- / 5 1 7; Window Engraving: B-d]O 71 -23 15 Applicable Prerequisites of P.5J graph 4.0 g Are Complete It- 1 4- Deto: 2 ) fe h E*$ WINDOW ENCRAVING: Line 1: 118V Line 2: CHAN 2 INV s "~.., , , , . _Y
';9,g'j.T ' ' Line 3:
TRBL y Line 4: - ANNUNCIATOR OPERATION: 6-TLASE SAT ~ UNSAT Bd L EE AUDIBLE SAT . b RING 1ACK~ CLEAR S AT UNSAT UNSAT N/A I'T O$> R pE SAT UNSAT _ N/A PO> CONTACT DEVICES TESTED: J Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A J Actuated Jumpered ~ Wire ed, - N/A Actuated Jumpered re Lifted ~ N/A Actuated Jun Wire Lifted N/A Actuated ered Wire Lif ted - N/A
~
Actua Jumpered ~ Wire Lifted ~ /AN ! usted Actuated Jumpered Jumpered _ ireW Lifted: [N/A Wire Lifted N/A l ~ l / Actuated Jumpered ~ Wire Lifred _ N/A I y TIME DELAT: Design Setting -Sec.; Actua.1. Setting Sec.; N/A Stopwatch Ident. No. ; Calib. Due Date j MULTIPLE INPUT CIRCUITS CHECKOUT: Complete Partial - I/A l 1 REliARKS : Engravings per Human Tactors Layout. Data Recorded By: ,. & Date:2)F4ts Witnes.ed By:
- l t~ -
Test Results: / SAT UNSAT Reviewed By: Da t e G - 7 'i -f*J
~ Approved By: : s ate _3 MU
'M U \ l n!N'l$N = !
1
U 18292 DGN: VU REQ Frue. Na.: XCP-EE-12 Pcga: 8~ Re v. : ~i \ lull 1A[P-EE-12
'X
!!SC: P1EP0 0 Tag No.: CP1-EcPRcB-11 Revisien 6
/#7 -3 L-D3t3 Appr$v;d: Orgnnicatient TCS Pago 8 of 9 Doc.
Title:
ANITUNCIATOR OPERABILITY 31004 l DATA SHEET l_ ARitS .,,i l PANEL NO.: 1-ALB-10B WINDOW NO.: 3.16 STSTEli NO.: 6?#5 I l b RITERENCE DRAVINGS' Schematic: F/-CO'76-/I 1 7 ; Window 7.ngravings f/-of77-23 R6 Applicable Prerequisites of Paragraph 4.0 Are Complete ko "I k t Date: 2 \ bh T:6
. WINDOW ENCRAVING:
Line 1 IIBV Line 2: CHAN 3 INV l
/ O- Y
,q*h ( r Line 3:
.' TRBL -r g
a Line 4: < l-ANNUNCIATOR OPERATION: 9 %y TLASE SAT UNSAT
~
AUDIBLE SAT U {~ RINCBACK SA UNSAT N/A DD U CLEAR AT UNSAT O RE SAT UNSAT N/A Vh MQ CONTACT DEVICES TESTED: M. Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/1 ,
, _ Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Ju=pered ~
Wire ed N/A Actuated Jumpered re Lifted N/A , Actuated - Jumpe Wire Lifted N/A j Actuated i ered Wire Lif ted N/A Actua - Jumpered Wire Lifted- N/A
. ated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A j Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A 1
.f Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted ~ /A N I TIME DELAT: Design Setting #
Sec.; Actual Setting Sec.; N/A Stopvatch Ident. No. ; Calib. Due Date 1 1 l MULTIPLE INPUT CIRCUITS CHECKOUT: Complete Partial N/A RE!! ARKS: Engravings per Human Factors Layout. Data Recorded By: r- r-S~ Date:2)R b D Witnessed - By: 3 Test Results: VtAT UNSAT Reviewed By: _ Date:7.?'s- f2 Approved By: .
/ te ~7 N.
MUA. l
DGN: VI rM.Q . Fruc. No.a AGP-EE- 12 Fogo: 5 NMhM .
"O-MSCt.P 1 E F # # Tag.Ns.: cyl.mperm 11 Rev.: 4 *XCP-EE-12 ~ .
Revisisn 6 31003 Dato Approvad: [_,WJ- 2 Organizations- TCS PS30 8^*
- Doc. TitIst AN!!UNCIATOR OPERABILITY FOR INFO DATA SMEET 1 ONLY ARMS ,
~
PANEL No.: 1-ALB-10B WINDOW N0.:' 4.16 SYSTEM NO.:. C24/ RETERENCE DRAWINGS: Schemetic: [/-00~4--/5 1 7 i Window Engraving: 6 /-CO 77 -23 15 Applicable Prerequisites gof Paragraph 4.0 Are Complete - l e- 7 b ba 'Dete: 2 )' b h D WINDOW ENCRAVINC: , tin 1: 1187
- *Z Line 2: CHAN 4 INV- ud
. ' ..A.i e
/ ,. q v; i s
*(. - ) / Line 3: TRBL --
Line 41 - 9 ANNUNCIATOR OPERATION: 8 . L m PLASE SAT UNSAT 'D D AUDIBLE SAT UNS O ( RINCBACE _ SAT CLEAR SAT _ N/A V. _ _ UNSAT F O. RI SAT UNSAf N/A H CONTACT DEVICES TESTED: Actuated Jumpered Vire Lifted N Actuated ~Jugered - _ ira Lifte W /A . _ Actuated Jumpered Wi ted _ N/A-Actuated Jumpered ire. Lifted . W/A Actuated - J e ~ Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered Wire Liftad N/A ed i5 Jumpered Wire Liftad- N/A Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A. f Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A TIME DELAY: Design Setting Sec.; Actual Setting Sec. ; N/A Stopwatch Ident. No. ; Calib. Due Date y HULTIPLE INPUT CIRCUITS CHECKOUT: Complete Partial /A RDiARKS: Engravings per Human Factors Layout.- DataRecordedBy:ka- b c.- Date:2) R b $$ Witnessed By: %
, j
~ .
Test Results: / SAT' UNSAT Reviewed By: Date: 3!21/f3 "Tyahiin Teat Engine Approved By: /[U Date: J'/n M?_ , h
iS234! DCN: VTPREQ . Proc. No.: . XUP-EE-12 MSC: P I E P *-*
.Page: 8 Rev. 1 IChEE-12 Tag No.: /- Ar/1, /o A Date Approved: fllVOgd*J Revision 7
. Organization: TCS Page 8 of 9:
Doc.
Title:
ANNUNCIATOR OPERABILITY DATA SHEET iS E 7 PANEL NO.: k /- #2 8- /0 ( WINDOW NO. : / / (, SYSTEM NO.: OI45 REFERENCI DRAWINGS: tv .L
- Schematic: E/- 00 7(, /S R+; Windov Engraving: (/-00 77 dJ R rr- .d.--
f. 2u M4+ f;2. S.c s'+ Applicable Prerequisites of'I'aragraph 4.0 Are Complete #VM d _,, Date: C r- r / WINDOW ENGRAVING: Line 1: //T V - 1
.Line 2: C.// Al A/ / /AlV une 1: rR 8 L - RETEST 7o, gyg Line 4: h)/J.
. gg g
,,,,, CIATOR OPERATION: . .
?
(h', /{ - i
'* FLASH AUDIBLE RINGBACK'
# SAT
-V SAT 7 SAT UNSAT UNSAT UNSAT N/A 4 CLEAR 7 SAT UNSAT REFLASE SAT UNSAT # N/A '
{ CONTACT DEYICES TESTED:-
~
/pp' Scz TA4 W "A A" Actuated Jumpered / Wire Liftad.
NU TF O vaA A- Actuated ( N/A Jumpered / Wire Lifted' -( N/A Actvnan/~ar Actuated Jumpered V Wire Lifted V N/A 1A ct rf AW'A A " Actuated Jumpered v/ Wire Lifted VN/A - m h-Actuated Jumpered Wire Liftad N/A Actuated Jumpered ' Wire Liftad N/A Actuated Jumpered _ Wire Lifted l N/A Actuated Jumpered, Wire Liftad-N/A Actuated Jumpered Wire L1fted. N/A
- i -
W Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifred N/A-TIME DELAY: Design Setting Sec.; Actual Setting Sec.; # Stopwatch Ident. No. N/A
; Calib. Due Date k' ,
MULTIPLE INPUT CIRCUITS CHECKOUT: Complete Partial VN/A i REMARKS: tu t R E LifrfD AT T IV 1 76 / 17"8 - a f l Data Recorded By: c~- Date: k fY Witnessed By: NL4-
" Test Results: g SAT UNSAT Reviewed By: de m L / J Date: @4/A l .. ip, roved ny: dA4
[SystemTestEngineer Date: 6/v/w ,
18295. DCN: VTPREQ Proc. No.: XCP-EE-12 Page: 8, Rev. ], ICP-EE-12 MSC: P1EP** Tag No.:- /- A/ B- /o 2 Revision 7 Date Approved: 8/dd*7 Organization: TCS Page 8 of 9 Doc.
Title:
ANNUNCIATOR OPERABILITY DATA SHEET 1 3}{h PANEL NO.: /-A4 A - /0 A WINDOW NO.: 3 1 (, SYSTEu 'no.: o e 4 s RE ERENCE DRAWINCS: MA ' VA
'I/-OO 74 - /f R-9; Window Engraving: E/ 00 7f 23 R 6--
Schematic: 07/'i+r4 t"J.t. c.r-rsf Applicable Prerequisites of Para Are Complete w h//5u. 4A [ Date: .d f-PQ WINDOW ENGRAVING: time 1: // f v - tine 2: CN # A/ 3 / A/ V o une 2: rp s i. . RETEST Line 4: ToRSWA (g to/h-x /2460
\ ANNUNCIATOR OPERATION: . .
FLASE 7 SAT UNSAT L. AUDIBLE / SAT UNSAT RINGBACK - SAT UNSAT N/A CLEAR V SAT .UNSAT REFLASE SAT UNSAT /N/A CONTACT DEVTCES TESTED: M pj
~
Det TA e ;d "4 4 " Actuated Jumpered / Wire Lifted V N/A w r e s /Ai "A A ' Actuated Jumpered v Wire Lifted 4" N/A A t L 7 B a ul % A a Actuated Jumpered v Wire Lifted k- N/A I A c t Thp 'M 4 a ' Actuated Jumpered / Wire Lifted V N/A a* Actuated Jumpered- Wire lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered ' Wire Lifted. N/A
;Actusted Jumpered _ Wire Liftad! N/A ,
- V Actuated Jumpered ~I Wire Lifted N/A'-
TIME DELAT: Design Setring: Sec.; Actual Setting Sec.; V N/A', Stopvarch Ident. No. ; Calib. Due Date , t Q.. l MULTIPLE INPUT CIRCUITS CHECKOUT: Complete Partial # N/A REMARKS: u/iff L r Frs?) Af '?" I ll / 7~C 3 / 7'E .2 5~ Data Recorded By: - Date: N/!#"MWitnessedBy: bW rTest Results: g SAT __,UNSAT Reviewed By: u& - L #b/ Date: #4/Abr
'* ystem Iest Engineer ' 5 Approved By:
Datet 6 ' N /# /
/=
18296' DCN: VTPREO Proc. Fo.: XCP-EE-12 Page: 8 Rev. 7 ICP-EE-12 i MSC: PIEP** Tag No.: /- /91 A - /c /r ! Date Approved: ~ [4'O M Revision 7 ; Organization: TCS Page 8 of 9 Doc.
Title:
ANNUNCIATOR CPERA31LITT DATA SEEET 1 APJ'.S . 315 B i { PANEL NO.: /- /// A -/0 8 WINDOW NO.: Y * / (o SYSTEM No.: o z A t/ l RITERENCE DRAWINGS:
~
(~f.f. (/ $- Schematic: E/- 00 *74' - /S' R -fL-t Window Engraving: A-oopt- tj R - sw. as. a f P.cs - ;- a w Applicable Prerequisites of Para - 4,4 Are Cc:nplate /d - t/ Date: i~ #-If/- i WINDOW DiGRAVING: Line 1: // I / -
, O Line 2: C NA A/ M / A> V g
'O[ Line 3: T R A 4- ~
FOR.sWA Line : IU lk , jQ[{0 ANNUNCIATOR OPERATION: . . TLASE - SAT k AUDIBLE v SAT UNSAT UNSAT RINGBACK - SAT UNSAT N/A CLEAR v SAT
~UNSAT RITLASH SAT UNSAT VN/A 4 CONTACT DEVICES TESTED: 'I f jfy
~
Q p rg4,s"ss" Actuated Hv rRa,v s ea Jumpered / Wire Lifted N/A Actuated _Jumpered a' Wire Lifted +4 N/A i A c. L TR n sa n n - Actuated Ju=pered L Wire Lifted v N/A { I4dt vA A M "5E* Actuated Jumpered / Wire Lif ted W N/A l __ Actuated Jt:mpered Wire Liftad
- N/A Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A i
Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A j Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted """" ~N/ A ! Actuated Jumpered Wire Lifted N/A Actuated Jumpered ! Wire Lifted N/A TIME DELAY: Design Setting Sec.; Actual Setting Sec.;- V Stopvatch Ident. No. N/A
-; Calib. Due Date i C -
MULTIPLE INPUT CIRCUITS CHECKDUT: Complete Partial V N/A RD'JRLS: wopt 4 i f ra h #7 1 r2 4 ~r B .2 f Data Recorded Ey: s Date: /,h7( Witnessed By: O M-i rTest Results: / SAT UNSAT Reviewed Ey- L. ) Date: 4/4/,ca
- y System Test Engineer #~
Approved By: ,A_ i _ Date: 6 A /ps./ ' s ( <
1S237-
/3' g ' MR . DAVIDSON: Your Honor, I am now 7 going to call to the witness' attention a document that 3 .was previously marked in his evidentiary deposition.
4 It is the'TDR on the voltage readings'taken during the 5 performance of PT-0202. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you know the exhibit 4 7 number? 8 ;MR . ROISMAN: 6. 9 MR. DAVIDSON: That is correct, 30 Mr. Roisman, Exhibit 6. 33 -BY MR. DAVIDSON: 12 O In conjunction with that documentLI-13 want to call your attention to testimony appearing at 14 Transcript Page 14755. 15 As you see, Mr. London, the TDR'says 16 that the voltage readings taken during the performance 17 of PT-0202 and recorded on Data Sheets 1 through 4 were 18 not within the acceptance criteria of ll8 VAC plus or' 19 minus four percent. That is what the deficiency has. I 20 been written on. t 21 Witness F in his. testimony, starting 22 at Page 14755, Line 7, says: "Now where are we' coming 23 up with 118 volts plus or minus four percent? If1we 24 look at the acceptance criteria at: the beginning of the 25 test procedure, which is on Page-3, which says: I e
18298 9/4 1 'Acceptanco'Critoria I baliove no;placoJin'that {l 2- Acceptance Criteria does it say:that the_-inverters'have 3 to be operating at 118l volts.plus'or minus four percent. 4 It specifies'on-2.3 that ' t h e'..s t e a d y s t a t e ' v o l't a g e : 5 regulation sha11Lbe plus or minus.four percent' but'it 6 does not, state that-the voltage has.to be within.118 7 plus or minus four. percent." 8 At'the time Judge Blochlindicated tothe-9 witness that he was not there to:ask. question','he:was to there to answer them, but I would like to?ask you~the 11 question that the witness' asked: WhereLdo you get.the 12 1187 13 A Steadyz state voltage.. regulation is , 14 defined as the_ voltage at no load:minusethe volta'ge' 15 at full load over the voltage atifull-. load, is alsoL :j l 16 expressed in a percentage so you> multiply that quantity ] 17 times 100 to get the percentage. . 18 Voltage regulation must have a base 19 value for which to compare. He could have in his test 20 gotten plus or minus1four percent. voltage regulation 21 with voltages on the order of-240. volts and1 voltage; . 22 regulation within four percent of.240= volts, but:the
, :(*' i l' 23L base value for voltage regulation in this test isias ;
24 specified on the. test itself, which is a preoperational l (' 25 test for the'118 volt AC Reactor Protect' ion System v- i i ________.____________._________..__E.
18233:
/5 1 inverters.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: Is there'anywhere in the
]i 3 procedure.that.would have made' Witness F know'that?,
4 'THE WITNESS: Page-3Ioffthe procedure, 5 the acceptance? criteria which he referred.to earlier, 6 says at the very top of the'page that'they a r e. 1'1 8
, 7 volt AC Reactor Protection System inverters. .
8 ' Additionally, referenceEdocuments 9 .in the procedure, and I believe'that th,ey'are on Page.2, --- l 10 excuse me. Reference documents' listed on Page 4 of the 11 Westinghouse' vendor manual specifies that-the inver'ter 12 is to operate at 118 volts AC.with a regulation of'plus 13 or minue four percent.- i 14 , This would give a maxfvoltage 15 value of 123.72, and a minimum'of I believe 113.26.. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Where in the test reports. 17 does the mistake in calculating voltage. occur? 18 THE WITNESS: Judge Bloch, I - d o n ' t'~
; 19 believe I understand the question,'because. voltage is I , 20 not a calculated quantity.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. . Calculating voltage. 22 regulation. ( 23 MR. DAVIDSON: Judge Bloch, perhaps?some !
- (
24 of the difficulty the witness is~having.is"that the- H i k~ 25 TDR was written on the voltage readings themselves.as I
1 1 18300 1 ( l
/6 1 bsing outside the acceptance criteria, so it wasn't a
{~' 2 calculation that is said to be in error in this TDR, 3 at least in the section we are dealing with now. (' 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay, but where is the 1 5 alleged error? i 6 MR. DAVIDSON: Oh, where are the outside 7 tolerance criteria recorded? 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. 9 THE WITNESS: The values of voltage 10 recorded on Data Sheets 1, 2, 3, and 4, Pages 32 through 11 36 of the subject procedure demonstrate that there are 12 several readings that are above the 118 plus four per-13 cent value that I previously stated was 123.72 volts. 14 (Bench Conference.) 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Now assuming that you are 16 correct for the time being and that these are outside 17 range, first of all which, -- I have the data sheets in 18 front of me, I think -- which readings were outside 19 range on Data Sheet I? Anything higher than what? 20 THE WITNESS: Any value in the first four i' 21 lines of that page, that is above 123.72 volts is 22 lbeyond, is out of range of 118 volts plus .4 percent. 23 JUDGE BLOCH: So 123.8 on Data Sheet 1 24 is outside range? 25 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's outside, j*
19301
'/7 j JUDGE BLOCH: And 124.35 on Dato Shoot 2, 2 and 124.3, also?
{~ 3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
- 4 JUDGE BLOCH: So there are numbers out-(
5 side range. 6 Now, to what extent did the QC l 1 7 sign-offs on this document relate to a review of these a data sheets; can you tell me that? 9 THE WITNESS: I don't know what extent 10 the Quality Assurance sign off of those steps or review 11 of those steps was. 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Can we tell from the 13 form? A 14 THE WITNESS: Are you asking if we can 15 , tell from Data Sheet 17 i l 16 JUDGE BLOCH: No, from the official 17 test copy that's London Exhibit -- 18 MR. DAVIDSON: I believe it's London 19 Exhibit 5. 20 JUDGE BLOCH: -- 5. 21 THE WITNESS: Well, from the data sheet 22 I can't tell what the extent of Quality Assurance 1 23 review of those voltages are. 24 JUDGE JORDAN: Somewhere we did see a 25 sign off by Mr. Eddie with his signature, saying that I t
'l
18302 l 9/8 1 ho hed verified steps from so and so to so and so. l l JUDGE BLOCH: {' 2 Certain steps that the l 3 Quality Technician had to verify, and the question is 1 4 whether this is within one of those steps. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. For example, Item 6 7.1.7, output voltage on Data Sheet 1, it refers back 7 to Step 7.1.7 on Page 12 of 36. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. So Mr. Eddie when he 9 signed on Page 13 of 36 was verifying the step that 10 , included this calculation; in fact, the particular data I 11 ' sheet that included the out-of-range voltage. 12 /// 13 /// (- k 3, 15 16 17 18 l 19 20 21
! 1 22 i i
' I k-1 1 24 1 . 25 1 e i l _j
18303 0-1 1 THE WITNESS: As I read this, sir, Mr. EBdie was verifying that Witness F merely recorded e {' 2 3 output voltage and frequency on Data Sheet 1. 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that the practice at 5 the plant that independent verification means just 6 seeing that the person has done the things, and not 7 whether they are done right? g MR. DAVIDSON: Your Honor, I think -- 9 JUDGE BLOCH: I would like to know the 10 plant practice. I hope you won't lead the witness. 11 MR. DAVIDSON: No. As a matter of 12 fact, I was going to respond to Your Honor by saying 13 that Mr. Eddie is a scheduled witness. k- ja JUDGE BLOCH: I know. I would like to 15 know what the plant practice is. Does independent 16 verification mean that they just look to see that 17 things are being done, or do they actually check 18 to see that they are done right? 19 THE WITNESS: Independent verification i 20 is defined as an act of confirming, substantiating 21 or assuring that a particular step or action has ! 22 indeed been performed. 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay, so -- 2a THE WITNESS: The independent 25 verification does not require the quality assurance i l i
'18304" 0-2 1 reproacntative to,cpocify a valua of the output' 2- voltage recorded by Witness'F on-the: data sheet.
].
3 JUDGE'BLOCH: You think all he is r- .4 verifying by plant practice.is that the voltageL has.
.k. ,
~5 been --'the' output voltage and: frequency has:been-
-6 recorded on~ Data' Sheet 1. That is in Step 7.1.11,
- 7. which he' independently verified,'and it was g recorded on Data Sheet:1?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.. 10 JUDGE ~BLOCH: And any. numbers at.all' 11 on that page would.have'been satisfactory for 12 independent verification? 13 THE' WITNESS: Yes. .The Step 7.1.7 did 14 not instruct the quality assurance representative 15 to insure that the value recorded on-Data Sheet l'was-16 within a given range. 17 It merely says for him to verify-the 18 recording of the output-voltage on Data Sheet 1, 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. I understand!the l 20 testimony. 21 MR..ROISMAN: .Mr. Chairman, could I be-22 allowed just one question ~of clarification. . I 'j us t.
~
23 want to ask him to explain one other line., 24 On the bottom of Pages 32, 33, 34 and 35 4 i 25 of London Exhibit 5, there's a signature.line H,
18305 !
.0-3 1 recorded by, it looko like, Witnoss F, cnd thsn 2 reviewed by, and it looks like Anthony S. Jamar.
(~ 3 Can you explain to us, what does the c 4 " reviewed by" refer to? ( .4 5 THE WITNESS: As a course of pre-opera-6 tional test procedures, the individual that records 7 the data signs " recorded by" and another individual 8 performs a review of that data. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Was he supposed to tell 10 whether something was out of range? 11 THE WITNESS: As a part of that review, , 12 he should review the acceptance criteria and insure 1 13 that items are within acceptable range, yes. 14 JUDGE BLOCH: And the testimony we now 15 have from Mr. Jamar was that after Witness F did the 16 testing, he boasted that -- I guess you would have no 17 answer to this, but I guess I have a concern that 18 has to be addressed sol..ehow. He was actually boasting 19 about this test being rigged, and yet the witness who 20 says that has actually signed off that he reviewed 21 the test, whien is a little hard to understand. 22 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, I think 23 there's a -- I believe that what the record shows 24 is that Mr. Jamar's testimony related to the 25 annunciator [ight part . of . the test. 4
d 18306 l c .0-4 1 I don't know how clear it:-:is, but I {' 52 .think that it wa's purported to be related1to that,. 3- and that the documentation that's on Data-Sheets.1 (- 4 through'4Lis related to a-different.part'of theftotalL x , S test than what Mr. Jamarlalleges in his-testimony.- n I 6 JUDGE BLOCH: I agree. . I guess'my' 7 _ concern.isithat you would think once:he heard the 8' witness boasting about that, he would have looked 9 especially carefully at the things'he was reviewing 10 with respect to that test. 11 MR. DAVIDSON: I.have a question for 12 the witness on that point,. Judge Bloch. 13 By the way, I have to endorse L-. 14 Mr. Roisman's understanding of theTtestimony. It~is 15 also mine. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: It's mine as well. 17 'BY MR. DAVIDSON: 18 G Mr. London, did you counsel Mr. Jamar. 19 'about this review that-he is alleged ~or -- or is I proposed to have undertaked of-these data. sheets? 20
. .i .
21 A No, I did: not counsel Mr. Jamar, because i-22 I was not present at the time that Mr. Jamar. dis-o 23 c' overed the problem and brought it to Mr. Cheatheam's 24 attention. ! {' 25' O I think you misunderstood my question;
18307 0 i When it came to light, as-the TDR that. l 2 was filed here indicates, that these readings were out 3 of acceptance, without the acceptance-criteria (and.
.,- 4' obviously, you have to look at the data sheet and
( 5 see that Mr. Jamar' signed it,.because Mr. Roisman 6 n ticed it and so did Judge Bloch)', did you7 cal 161n. h
, 7-
'Mr . Jamar and counsel him about this.
I 8
.That's my question.
. 9. JUDGE BLOCH: Do -you understand the I
~l-
' 10 word " counsel"? Does.that have any meaning?
11 THE WITNESS:. Yes, sir. 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. It might not have. 13 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.- When I dis-j4 covered th'at the voltage readings were indeed out of 15 spec, I discussed the matter with Mr. Jamar and ,
.)
16 said, "How can you let an item like this go?" 17 There were obviously greater than I 18 four percent above-118 volts.- l l 39 As I recollect, Mr. Jamar'said that -- 1 1 20 MR. ROISMAN: Objection. We are about i 21 to get hearsay. I would like to know whatothe. hearsay. t 22 is going to be for, for what he heard or for the i i i 23 truth of what Mr. Jamar's-explanation -- ! 24 JUDGE BLOCH: The question was~just:- # 25 Did you counsel him? j
\
l l
- l l
l 3
18308 0-6 ' l' THE WITNESS: Yes, I counseled Mr. Jamar 2 and cautioned him to1be more thorough in his. review {~ 3 in.the future. { 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you at that time.make 5- any vaview to ascertain whether Mr. Jamar had made 6 similar mistakes in the past? 7 THE WITNESS: No, I'did not, because I 8-~ generally review Mr. Jamar's work. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: No. I said "in the past,"- 10 before you got to the plant. 11 Mr. Jamar has br.en 'doing things for 12 a long time at the plant, and one of the things he 13 did indicates that either he wasn't thorough or he 14 didn't understand the deviation fromLvoltage. 15 requirements in a similar wcy to Witness F?
~
16 THE WITNESS: I have',been at the projact 17 for five years and Mr. Jamar has been working either l 18 directly with me or under my supervision for the past
. 19 tnree.
i 20 JUDGE BLOCH: But he was working at 21 one time under Mr. Cheatheam's supervision? l 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. 'l i
' i 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you at-some point !
24 instruct him so that he learned the difference between' i
' 25
, these requirements and the ones that he approved here? j
18309
.0-7 1 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I discussed
(' 2 with Mr. Jamar the voltage regulation. I asked him 3 what the formula for voltage regulation was, and ha 4 explained that it is no-load voltage minus full-load 5 voltage over full-load voltage. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Witness F told us the 7 same thing, but they didn't do it right. g THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I am unable 9 to explain why they didn't do it right.
'10 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay, but my question was 11 ,
whether a review was undertaken to see whether in the I 12 past they had been laboring under the wrong assumptions 13 in the tests they did. 14 I think your answer is that that has not 15 been done. 16 THE WITNESS: That is correct. It has 17 not been done. However, this is one of the only -- 18 this is the only test, to my knowledge, where we 19 calculate the percentage voltage regulation for a 20 component. 21 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 22 0 Mr. London, in your review of Mr. Jamar's 23 work, have you uncovered any other oversights of this 24 character?
'- A 25 Only minor clerical-type errors, omission
;18310
;b-8 il of initials byfline-outs, thatisort'of1 thing; nothing-
{ 2 particularly?lackingfin technical review capability. .
.3 4 Do you regularly' review 1Mr.-Jamar's work 1 f(( -4 A 'Yes, I review it quite-frequently.-
5 MR. DAVIDSON:. .I.have' one other. point 6 before I leave this topic.' 7 _. JUDGELBLOCH: Okay, but' Judge: Jordan B has_ questions as'to whether1Mr. LondonLin'fa'ct-.is 9 calculating: thervoltageiregulation properly.. 10 MR. DAVIDSON: That's what I wasJgoing: 11 to ask,'too. 12 I took my pencil out, lt'know Mr. London 13 did this in his head, but I took my pencil out and 14 I took 118 and took'4 percent calculation, and the 15 number I came up with wasinot the one'I think.he was 16 using, but 122.72, not 123. 17 JUDGE BLOCH:: That-wasn't-Dr.-Jordan's t 18 problem. We will.take whatever that-. calculation is-19 and do it ourselves. .) i l 20 MR. DAVIDSON: I.just wantito ask-l 21- Mr. London if my' calculation,~mylarithmet'ic, is off. . 1 22 MR. ROISMAN: You-could tell'him.that=at
... 23 lunch. !
24 MR. DAVIDSON: I just want.to be-clear-j - / I 4- 25 - on_the record. That's all. ! I don't:think a--man's i I I w _ - - - - - . _ . . - - - - - - - - -
18311
-l
' L O 1 sworn testimony should be subject to guessing cur error l 2 JUDGE BLOCH: It's'122.72.
{ I'll'take. 3 official notice. Let's go on to the next area. 4 MR. DAVIDSON: :Okay. Dr. Jordan,LI 5 think you'had questions. 6 BY MR. DAVIDSON: y G Mr. L'ndon,.you o accept Judge.Bloch's 8 calculation, do you~not?'. 9 A Yes, my original testimony was off by-10 one volt. 11 MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. Dr. Jordan, would 12 you please ask your questions. 13 JUDGE JORDAN:' It is not" clear to me k 14 that the procedures themselves are clear that the 15 118 volts is the number that you've1got to use.
~
16 Now, it seems to me that there areftwo 17 things involved here. One is whether it's within
, 18 tolerance of the 118 volts, and the other is the i
19 regulation. 20' You gave us the formula for the 21 regulation. Insofar as the regulation:is concerned, 22 these data meet that formula.readily; but so far as' 23 the 118 volts is concerned, theyfare not within:four 24 percent of 118 volts, and neither do I see in the [ ~ 25 test procedures that that is required. o l
]
u
18312 l 1
.0-9 1 I don't cao any such statomont that-the test engineer has to go back'and show that those
] 2 3 voltages are within plus or minus of four percent 4 of 118.
5- Is it plus or minus four percent of 118,. 6 because that would be eight percent regulation, if it 7 were? 8 THE WITNESS: Y e s ,' it is plus or minus 9 four percent of 118 volts. i 10 JUDGE JORDAN: Okay, so voltages between 11 any of those two places would be -- that is, if I had 12 a plus four percent and a minus four percent for. 13 two different voltages, then that would be an eight C 14 percent vo'1tage regulation, and it.would still be 15 out of' tolerance with respect to a voltage regulation. 16 So that there are two requirements here, 17 that the voltage regulation between full load and 18 partial load, whatever it was, be within four percent, 19 and that the -- you yourself gave us the definition -j 20 for voltage regulation and so let_me finish -- and 21 that the voltage itself be within'plus or minus four 22 percent of.118. And I don't see that latter figure, f 23 that latter requirement listed anywhere in the test 24 specifications. ! 25 THE WITNESS: The acceptance criteria of
)
L18313- . 1 1 -the test specifies that stondy-stato voltage,.regula-LO-}0-2 tion is.plus or minus four. percent:from two-thirds: [~ 3 load to full load, f 4 JUDGE JORDAN: Right,-and that'-- (. 5 THE-WITNESS: That,.I agree, gives you 6 a tolerance of eight percent on.the voltage 7 regulation. 8 In other words,'at no load ~the. voltage 9 could be the maximum value and'at. full-load value the 4 10 voltage.could be at the-minimum value, and the l- . . 1 1 ij equipment would be' operating within the specifications. 12 Although'the acceptance criteria 13 paragraph does not specify the operating range of 14 -the voltage -- in other words, the base value, it has-15 to be taken from the' vendor manuals.and'the veryffact 16 that the title of the test is for.ll8-volt AC system. j 17 /// 1a /// ; 19 20 21 :l 1 22 i 23 a 24
' (' 25 l
i 1 i. i I
18314 11-1 .1 . JUDGE' JORDAN: It.cortainly~makes.conse (" 2 that the' voltage be.within~a certain boundary of the
'3 . nominal output voltage, but I do not see the' require-(E 4 ment in the test procedures that says'that that's-the 5 case. All I see is voltage numbers written down 6 from which voltage regulation calculations were made,
-7 and those voltage calculations for ---I mean those 8- calculations'for regulation were'okay, but I don't 9 see the place where it says that,there has to be a-,
10 hundred'and eighteen within a certain tolerance. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: 'Could we discuss 12 Mr. Siegel's calculation of voltage regulation? I 13 understand f rom the prior testimony of Witness F that 14 he thinks th a t Mr . Siegel used a calculation that 15 showed he was right. 16 Do you know where Mr. Siegel's 17 calculation is? Do you have a different copy?- 18 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, Your Honor -- 19 THE WITNESS: Could I be allowed to 20 respond to Dr. Jordan? 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay.. Respond first, 22 of course. ( 1 23 THE WITNESS: The very fact thet a 24 regulation is specified for this equipment is due to (_- 25 the manufacturer realizing the tolerance, voltage l! i K-,a_ _ . - - - - - _ _ - - _ - - - - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - ' - -
18315 l 11-2 1 tolorences within which the equipment that is powered j l ( 2 by this inverter can operate. j 3 Westinghouse has a -- their reactor (~ 4 protection system equipment, analog control systems, 5 various nuclear instrumentation systems are specified 6 to operate within plus or minus five percent of a 7 hundred and eighteen volt AC. 8 Therefore, Westinghouse supplies their 9 inverters to operate within ranges that are com-10 mensurate with that. 11 If the inverter, as I testified before, ! 12 if the inverter were operating with an eight percent 13 voltage regulation at 240 volts it would obviously 14 damage the Westinghouse equipment to which the -- 15 which are loaded off of it. 16 JUDGE JORDAN: You are agreeing with me, 17 actually, but it seems to me that there should have 18 been a test which specifies the voltage, that the i 19 procedures themselves should test not only for 20 voltage regulation but for tolerances with respect 21 to a hundred and eighteen, that that's an important 22 item to test and I don't see it, but whoever made out s 23 the test sheet, I can't see that he put that in the 24 test sheet so that the test engineer would be required C 25 to demonstrate that they are. I just don't see it in ~ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
L ! 1 i
'18316 l 11-3 I the test requirement. ]
'2 .THE' WITNESS: I have to agree with yov i 3 that it is not specified in the acceptance criteria j 4 step per se.
. {. .
5 H o w e v e r', an individual'with.the proper 6 experience and knowledge of the system and the inter-7 actions with those systems associated with this 8 should know that the voltage should be within plus. 9 or minus four percent of a hundred'and eighteen volts. 10 JUDGE JORDAN: Where does that four 11 Percent of a hundred and eighteen come from?. Is that l 12 in the criteria, in the test procedure? l l 13 It just says that the voltage regulation l E ' 14 would be within four. percent. 15 THE WITNESS: It says voltage r e g - -- 16 steady state voltage regulation will be within plus 17 or minus four percent. 18 JUDGE JORDAN: That's right, between 19 full load and two-thirds load. That's all it says. 20 It doesn't say what the voltage is. 21 THE WITNESS: I. understand it-doesn't 22 say what the voltage is, but again, voltage regulation
~
23 has to-be taken on a base. The manufacturer specifies . 24 this equipment to operate at a hundred and eighteen l< ..
" 25 volt AC. That is the base value that the equipment e
x,
~
- 1S317 L '
l i
. 11-4 1 .must operate around. )
2 JUDGE JORDAN: Okay'.' Fine. But!that 3 does not appear in the test. k 4- MR. DAVIDSON:' Could'.I'ask a question. 5 on that' subject, Dr. Jordan',1because I~ understand, j 6 I think, your. concern. ! 7 JUDGE JORDAN: .Y e s'. 8 BY MR.-DAVIDsON: 9- 0 Mr. London, earlier yountes'tifiedithat.
~ 10 on'Page ~ 4 of_36, under-Item 3.2, that vendor manuals 11 were part of the reference materials'for this' test, 12 is tha t -- correc t?-
- 13 A (No response.)
' 0 - My question is very simply this: Would' 14 15 y u find what Dr. Jordan is looking'for in.the~ vendor 16 manual?
17 A (No' response.) 1 18 0 Would you-find plus or.minus four
'I 19 percent of a hundred and. eighteen volts in.the vendor J. 20 manual?
21- A- .Yes, sir. 22 JUDGE JORDAN: So it_seems to me,- ( 23 therefore, particularly important'that the tests:that 24 are being run the checks reflectithat~. 25- MR.)DAVIDSON: Dr. Jordan, I think'you k f n , i
18318 11-5 l' need to get to a' microphone. 2 -JUDGE JORDAN: No, I don't. That's 1 {' 3 just a statement. That's not a question. 4 THE WITNESS: .Yes, _ sir, I agree with { l 5 you. I have two problems with this matter. Number 6 one,: that the. test did not specify the hundred and' 7 eighteen volts in th e acceptance criteria, and; number. t-8 two, that Witness F, being a qualified. individual -- 9 excuse me, Witness F being a qualified individual, 10 as-he claimed to have,been, did not recognize the 11 fact. 12 JUDGE JORDAN That's right. Nor Mr. -- 13 MR. DAVIDSON: Jamar. 14 THE WITNESS: -Nor Mr. Jamar. 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Now, let's see if 16 Mr. Siegel did. Let's look at Mr. Siegel's calcu-17 lations.
, 18 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, Judge Bloch, 19 this is Witness F's calculations.
20 MR. DAVIDSON: Your Honor, in response 21 to a request that Mr. Roisman made, we have procured 1 1 22 a copy of the full PT-0202 pre-operational test per- ! {
-(. -l 23 formed by Mr. Siegel and we are going to make a full '
i 24 copy of this document available to Mr. Roisman, and C' 25- perhaps in pursuit of this line of questioning by the i ' l
' ^
L18319 11-6 1- Board,. -they might; want to - use l the f ull tes t rather
}N 2. than-just the.TDR which;has the data-sheet 1pages 3' attached to'it.
'4 ,
MR.-.ROISMAN: I~would suggest for-
- 3 clarity that we just use' London Exhibit 6,: since 6 Lthat's~in evidence, and I'm'not proposing thatethe
-7 document which Mr.LDavidson is holding, which11s.
8 obviously -- looks'like some 30 or.401pages.- - 9- MR. DAVIDSON: It is. 10 MR. ROISMAN: ---be put in . - I. wanted 11 to be able to look'at itLand-I appreciate'them having 12 it here, so why don't we go to-London'6,: it has the: 13 data sheets 1, 2, 3, 4 -- 14 MR. DAVIDSON: Fine. That is correct. 15 MR. ROISMAN: -- which'show Mr. Siegel's 16 calculations, and I think that's all~that'sJneeded 17 to answer the Chairman's' question. 18 MR. DAVIDSON: Agree'd,EMr.'Roisman. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: I-have7 verified that the j l 20 pages that the witness lis-looking'at are the-same ones 21 that are-in my. copy'of London-6. 'l i 22 THE WITNESS: In response to;your -'
- 23. previous request,' Judge Bloch, Mr.-Siegels made a. test. !
l 24 procedure deviation note in his test procedure-which 25 specified how he-was going to calculateivoltage
., 4
'l
'li
18320 11-7 1 regulation. (' 2 In other words, he said voltage 3 regulation calculated by using values recorded in (~ 4 Step 7.1.7 and 7.1.11, calculate using formula s 5 V two-thirds load minus V full load divided by V 6 full load. 7 JUDGE JORDAN: Is that not what every 8 one of us has said is the proper way to make a 9 regulation calculation? 10 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, it is. 11 JUDGE JORDAN: So he did it properly, 12 as everybody else has done. He did not use, in other 13 words, a hundred and eighteen in that calculation. ( 14 THE WITNESS: He used the values 15 recorded at no load and full load, that is correct. 16 JUDGE JORDAN: Which is exactly what 17 Mr. F did. 18 THE WITNESS: Mr. F never stated in his 19 test procedure how he calculated vo3tage regulation. 20 JUDGE JORDAN: Whether he said it in the 21 test procedures or not, we did calculate and check 22 that he calculated them correctly, exactly the same 23 formula. It*s my recollection that the record does 24 demonstrate that Mr. F did use exactly the same 25 formula tha t Mr. Siegel and you have said to use, and
18321 11-8 1 demonstrated'to us chat those. numbers were within 2' .the.four percent, as required. (? 3 THE WITNESS: I never stated that 7' 4 there was a test deficiency -with regar'd to voltage 5 regulation. 6 The issue at hand, that the test 7 -deficiency report was. written about, stated that 8 voltage was outside the allowable ~ maximum as'specified 9 by the vendor manufacturer. 10 ' JUDGE BLOCH: 'On Data Sheet l that 1; we've just been looking at, did you.have any dis-12 cussion with Mr. Siegel about the change from 123.0 13 to 122.6, an out-of-range value to an in-range value? 14 THE WITNESS: If you note in the remarks 15 at the bottom of the'page, it says, and'I quote, 16 " Voltage and frequency readings for Step 7.1.7 17 changed af ter inverter was allowed to warm up and 18 for readings to stabilize." 19 So he explains that in the remarks', 20 as he should have. 21 (Bench conference.~) 22 MR. DAVIDSON: Dr.. Jordan, did you.
'~
23 finish'your line of questioning? 24 JUDGE JORDAN: Yes. I will have some 25 other questions, but on this particular point I'm i __.__..___.___mm___..-_.mm_m-----.m_. .
18322 11-9 1 finiahod. 2 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 3 0 I just want to get clear in my mind, 4 Mr. London, what was the basis for the TDR, the test 5 deficiency report, that was written against these 6 data sheets that were prepared by Witness F? 7 A Are you referring -- 8 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, I think we 9 have evidence on that. It's also -- we have the TDR 10 itself, it's in evidence as London 6. Why should 11 the witness once again tell us that? 12 MR. DAVIDSON: Because I think there 13 has been some confusion here, and I think this could
}4 clarify th'at there was no TDR written on the voltage 15 regulation calculation, that the TDR was written 16 solely on the voltage output readins that were 17 recorded.
i 18 That is'the -- and I think that we can l 19 refer to the document. It happens to be a site ] 1 20 document. It can be a part of the record. It is 21 rec'ord evidence. But the TDR was not addressed to 22 the voltage regulation calculation and it says so i 23 on its face. That's all I wanted to ask the witness. j l J 24 MR. ROISMAN: If it says so on its face, ' 25 and the witness has just been told that's what it says i 4
18323
~11-10 1- on its face, I don't think we need to have the witness testify.
([ 2 3 JUDGE BLOCH: I would like a clarifi-cation of the witness' testimony on Page 135. He { 4 5 says, well, would you_tel1 us what each of them'was 6 one by one, talking about deficiencies in Witness F,'s y reoort. 8 He says the first item was'that voltage 9 data that had been recorded by Witness F during the-10 first performance of the. pre-op was not within the 11 acceptance criteria that I specified in Section 2 of 12 the pre-operational test. 13 Now, isn't it the case that you've now 14 stated it's not because of Section 2, it's because 15 of other documents that he was wrong? 16 THE WITNESS: I maintain that'Section 2 17 did not specify that.the voltage regulation was to 18 be within 'a hundred and eighteen -- to be - plus or-I 19 minus four percent around a base value of a hundred
^
20 and eighteen volts. 21 The vendor specifies that it is a l
; 22 hundred and eighteen volt system. I infer.from
(, ' 23 looking at the acceptance criteria"on Page 3'that
. 24 when the thing specifies plusoor minus four percent 25 voltage regulator -- voltage regulation and the 4
18324i 11-111 1. system has a hundred: andL eighteen volt < AC system,. 2' 'that'the. values were outside ofLrange.
- ([?
3 I'might add.that Mr. Siegel also , interpreted ~it the..same way-andlwrote a test I d
-(.
5- deficiency; totally independent'of:my-reivew1of the
~6 Procedure. ,.
7 MR. DAVIDSON: And,[ Judge Bloch,JI' B: would point' out' in further -answer to. thate same 'line 9- of questioning, the -witness on: Page 135 at ;LineE24: 10 says,.by-reviewing the acceptances . criteria.which' 11 are set forth on Page 3 of the report one can also 12 - . verify that by_ examining the vendor's manual 13 referenced on Page 4 of Witness F's 1982 test package, 14 the inverter output voltage is 118 volts AC plus or 15 minus four percent. This.means the acceptable. range 16 is 113.28 to 122.72 volts AC, and then it continues. 17- - - - 18 - 19 20 21 22-
~
23 1 28 25
-l l
'18325 :)
2/1 i l 2 (E~ ; 3 ' JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Back on the record.
, 4 So we have one last matter to
( 5 clarify with this witness, which is the way in which-6 the report covered the improper hooking up of the y equipment. If I understand, the' test wasn't done 8 properly. 9 MR. DAVIDSON: Oh, you.are. talking about 10 the visacorder test, Your Honor. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. 12 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, we have that matter. 13 of course, we also have the SWA procedure that Your 14 Honor inquired about. 15 MR. MIZUNO: Excuse me. Before -- 16 JUDGE BLOCH: We just want to have that 17 procedure. We don't need~ testimony about it. I 18 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, I think there was l 19 some confusion also about what' directives.were-given 4 1 1 20 and the implementation of the SWA procedure, based 21 upon the testimony of Witness F. 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Mizuno. 23 MR. MIZUNO: Yes. Before we go on to the
-t 24 SWA concern I thought there was still another-item that !
k 25 Mr. London testified to on Page 142 of his deposition, i . i
y
.i 18326 i
- 1
.2/2 1 which did involve an apparent erring calculation of the 7 2 voltage regulations.-
3 JUDGE BLOCH: Page 142. J 4 MR..MIZUNO: Yes. 5 MR. DAVIDSON: I didn't hear you,. 6 Mr. Mizuno. I didn't hear him, I'm sorry'to admit, 7- because I was wool gathering. 8 -JUDGE-BLOCH: He said!we should clarify 9 what's happening on Transcript 142 of the testimony. 10 MR. .MIZUNO: Yes,.and I guess it_ starts 11 on Page 142, Line 8, with the answer: "Yes,.upon reviewing 12 the data in the test for calculation of voltage 13 regulations at two-thirds load and at full load we were
' unable to duplicate any of the numbers that Witness F 14 15 came up with for the percentage voltage. regulations." i 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. We'll need a recess.
17 Mr. Roisman is taking a phone call. 18 MR. DOWNEY: He said to go on. 19 MR. MIZUNO: 'And there is~another answer i 20 further down starting on'Line 20, which says: "Well, 21 there was nothing in his procedure that said how the i 22 calculated voltage regulation through the utilization i
~
23 of the formula for calculating the voltage regulation
' J 24 by plugging in the data that Witness F-had'taken we were 25 unable to come up with the percentage voltage regulation s ,
4
^18327 ,;
2/3 1 that F'had specifiQd."
. 2 And I understood that,.the 3 testimony as indicating.'that with this; improperly- )
.4 calculated'the voltage regulation.
5 (Whereupon,-12:06 p.m., a recess was
'6 taken to reconvene at 1:06.p.m., the.same day.)
i 8
-9 10 11 12 13 R.
15 16 17 1 18 3 20 1 2i j l 22 j 1
, 23 24 C' :
i 25 j l i i
.- j j
18328' 2/4 1 AFTERNOON- SESSION' 2 1:06 P.M. {~' 3 JUDGE.BLOCH: Back on the record. ; 4 I have a question we discussed 5 over lunch. 6 Mr. London, has your-group ever 7 written any deficiency paper covering a design problem 8 in the plant? 9 THE WITNESS: No. As a matter of course 10 per administrative procedures, if we discover what'we 11 consider to be a design error or a design flaw we 12 process a TUGCO design change request. 13 A TUGCO design change request is 14 not a deficiency in the strict sense of the word. 15 JUDGE BLOCH: A DCR though, as.I under-16 stand it, would be trended as a design problem, I would 17 guess. You don't know that though, do you? l 18 THE WITNESS: I don't know'that it's 19 trended, no. 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. .It's your under-21 standing that the proper procedure is that if there's 22 a problem with the design or something that you discover 23 in a test you should write a DCR7 24 THE WITNESS: If during preliminary _' I 25 review prior to testing, or during the performance of : i I l
a i
-18323' j 3/5- 1; testing a discrepancy is noted we'would processia l 2 TUGCO design change: request, a TDCR.
{. 3 JUDGE'BLOCH:- A TDCR; is that different !
.4' from a TDR?
{ 5- THE WITNESS: Yes, , sir. . A TDCR, or 6- TUGCO design change' request, is a--request to engineering ] _j
,- 7 to make a modification.to the design that'was provided q l
8 or-specified by the architect / engineer Gibbs'& Hill.
-9 A TDR is an. acronym forjtest
. 10- deficiency report.
11 A test deficiency report-is.a 12 deficiency in the operating' characteristics, the test 13 documentation, or compliance with startup administrative (- j 14 procedures which renders-theLqua,lity of an item,:or a. 15 activity indeterminant or'in-question. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, didn't you.need the 17 TDCR in this instance with the alarm?' 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. A TDCR was required. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: 'And then=it was' written 20 THE WITNESS: -Yes. After'the initial 21 test deficiency report was-written the corrective l-
- 1. .
. 22 action of'the test deficiency report fwas toiprocess-a 23 TUGCO. design change request-to modify-the circuit 1to 24 . allow the alarm to function for loss of AC output of
( k-25 -the inverter. In-both cases of simply-de-energizing'the ' __ _.__._.m_._m____ ._m.____2 _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _
18330 2/6 1 inverter, and the other case <of tripping the' output (' 2 breakerldue to a overcurrent~ condition. 3 JUDGE'BLOCH: .Okay. So: there was
- -d . deficiency paper.generatedfon design, if I understand
-(. . -
5~ your answer right now. The TDCR -- well,.I guess.we. 6 don't know if that's classified as deficiency paper..
~
7 I guess the: Board is just-uncertain as to how that's 8 processed. 9 If it trended it's deficienc;(
'10' paper. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that at' 11 this point.
12 We may appreciate some appreciation i 13 of that, but that's.a matter of your own procedures. 14 That's all. 15 MR. DAVIDSON: I think we can handle 16' that, Your Honor. I'll make a note of it. 17 I believe when we--recessed'there 18 .was actually a question or series'of, questions pending: 19 with respect to the data sheets, if I' don't-mis-20 recollect. I don't remember now whether.theLquestion i 21 had been raised by Mr. Mizuno or they had been raised 22 by the Board, or that there had been.a question from
. '23 either or both.
- 24 JUDGE BLOCH: I think Mr. Mizunofgave 25 us the idea and then we cooperated on it.
1 __._____.__..m____._______ -
18331
.2/7 1 MR. DAVIDSON: I don't' remember the 2 exact wording,.but I'm open to any suggestion as to
{~ 3 how we should recapture that question.so that the 4: witness can respond. (. 5 ~ JUDGE BLOCH:' Do you recall the quotatior 6 from the testimony ~you gave-us, Mr. Mizuno?
-7 MR. MIZUNO: Yes. It's on-Pages 142 to-8 143 of Mr. London's evidentiary deposition.
9 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm sorry. Let me.give 10 him a copy of it. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: That's whereLMr. London 12 testified that, "Upon reviewing the data'in the. test 13 for calculation of voltage regulations at two-thirds 1 14 load and full load we were unable to duplicate any of 15 the numbers that Witness F came-up with for the-16 percentage voltage regulation." i 17 And the question is: Wherecare 18 those calculations; what was the problem?. 19 THE WITNESS:' As1I have testified I i' 20 previously, the calculation for percentage voltage 21 regulation is v no-load minus v full load over v-full 22 load times 100 to get a percentage. I 23 At the time we were unable to -l 1 24 duplicate any of Witness F's numbers for voltage l 25 regulations. I have taken the opportunity to calculate ,
18332
.2/8' 1 voltage regulations during the recess-and I find that
(~ 2 for Data Sheet 1 at Step 7.1.32 the voltage regulation 3 that is recorded'on that data sheet is 0.73 percent. 4 However, utilizing the-no-load' 5 voltage of:124.3 m'inus the full-load voltage of 123.8-6 -listed _there data spaces 7.1.7 to 7.1.11 my calculation 7 reveals that. percent voltage regulation is actually l I 8 .447.- 9_ JUDGE BLOCH: Which line in Data Sheet ~1 10- is this percent voltage regulation? 11 THE WITNESS: The numbers.used to derive 12 the percentage voltage regulation are the first two '
)
13 lines, Judge Bloch. 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. 15 THE WITNESS: And the number to which I 16 am referring, which is recorded as 0.173 percent on 4 I 17 the ninth line down, do not match the calculated value 18 that I arrived at. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: 'Okay. The correct calculation 1 20 is 124.3 minus 123.8 over 123.8? 21 THE WITNESS: Times 100, to-put it into l 22 a percentage basis.
\
23 -(Bench Conference.) 24 JUDGE BLOCH: All right. I get .004 times ) 25 100 is .4. i I
L18333: 2/9 1 . JUDGE JORDAN You have another i 2 significant figure.- 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I-have 0.447. 4 JUDGE BLOCH: And.he got 0.4. 5 THE WITNESS:- He recorded on the ninth 6 line down that he had 0.73 percent.
-7 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, I know he reported 8 .4 on 7.1.36.
j 9 THE WITNESS: Y e s', sir. That is' correct. 10- JUDGE BLO,CH: What's the~ difference l 11_ between the voltage regulation and .32, and'the voltage 12 regulation and .367 13 THE WITNESS: If you-will' refer'to 14 Step 7.1.36, on Page 14 of the-procedure,' the step'says' 15 to: " Analyze recordings 02-02-02 and 02-02-3 and fill 16 in required data on Data Sheet 1." , 17 At no point in that step does it g 1 J tell him to record no load or full load voltage. So I 18 19 assume from that step that he derived his percent 20 voltage regulation from a ratio method utilizing the - 21 traces obtained from the oscillograph. i 22 /// ) b I 23 /// 24 'A l l 25 . 4 4 l
18334
.3-1 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Whora do30 tha' form tall' g {^1 2 us what he was supposed to do on .32 and .36 on the 3 data sheet?
4 THE WITNESS: On the data sheet it says 5 simply " voltage regulation." 6 JUDGE BLOCH: But that's also what it 7 says on .35. They both say voltage regulation. What's 8 the difference? 9 How do you know from the form-or from 10 the instructions that go with the test? t 11 THE. WITNESS: You don't and one of the 12 fundamental problems I had with the method of him ' 13 performing the test upon this-review was that there 14 was nowhere he said how he calculated percent voltage J 15 regulation. ! 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that just his fault or 17 is it the fault of the person who made up the test? 18 THE WITNESS: I don't mean to place i 19 any blame on Witness F for the way he calculated,'for 20 the way he arrived at these numbers. 4 21 As I testified before, the personLwho H
; 22 originally prepared the test never specified it. ;
, 23 However, in his review prior to performing i i 24 the test, I think it would have been more appropriate-
' ' 25 to specify how he was going to perform the~ voltage 1
4' L .m-.____.-.______ _ _____-----__-..m__ _ _ - - - - _ - . _ - - _ _ _ - - _ -
183351,
.3-2 1 regulation calculations.
JUDGE BLOCH: When you were doing the ( 2 3' test over or Mr. Snyder was doing the test over, 4 did he execute'any TPD's in order to make up for 5 these deficiencies in the test? 6 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, that was 7 Mr. Siegel that reperformed the test. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Siegel. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: There were TPD's that~ 11 made up for these omissions as to what these lines-12 mean? 13 THE WITNESS: There wasia test; procedure 14 deviation written to explain how voltage. regulation 15 was arrived at. 16 Calculations'that I performed on the 17 remaining. data sheets again did not agree with the 18 values that were recorded by Witness F. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Of course, they agree with 20 one of his reportings, right? I mean, do they tend 21 to agree with 7.1.36? 22 THE WITNESS: Well, let me go over them l ' 23 one by one. 24 For Data Sheet 2, I calculate .97 percent. 25 voltage regulation from the two values'in Step 7.2.7 6 m . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
18336
.3-3 1 and 7.2.11. His recorded value for 7.2.32 is 1.35-(- 2 percent, a disparity of 0.38 percent.
3 On Data ~ Sheet 3, I calculate 1.05
/ 4 percent where his recorded value is 1.31 percent.-
( 5 On Data Sheet-4, I-calculate 0.78 6 percent and his recorded value is 1.09 percent. 7 (Bench conference.) 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's continue, Mr. Davidson. 9 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 10 0 Mr. London, in your testimony you 11 raised some. questions about visacorder tracings that 12 were part of the preoperational testfof the static 13 inverters that was performed by Witness F. t 14 (Pause in proceedings.) i 15 BY'MR. DAVIDSON: 1 16 0 What I had said was that the testimony-17 that was previously had from this. witness, Mr. London, j l 18 he had raised some questions about the performance j 19 of one of these specified tests in the preoperational, i i 29 namely one performed with a visacorder. j 21 During the course of Witness F's i 22 examination, he raised a question _about that earlier 23 testimony; and once again, I would like to get the 24 witness to answer the questions that Witness F was L' 25 raising. l l l _ __-___ _ ___ -_-_______-__ _ _ - _ a
18337
.3-4 1 I'm going to turn, Mr. London, to
( 2 Transcript Page 14764. I direct your attention on 3 that page to Line 23 and the succeeding comments that 4 go to Line 3 of the succeeding pager do you see those? 5 He says, "You know, what brings me into 6 question about this testimony..." He's referring to 7 your testimony, sir. ....as far as the fact that I 8 incorrectly performed this procedure would be that 9 here's ten signatures on this page. Why, you know, 10 if I incorrectly performed this procedure, why wasn't 11 it noted at the time?" 12 My first question is did you ever state 7 13 that Witness F incorrectly performed this procedure?
\
14 A I never stated that Witness F incorrectly 15 performed the' procedure. I merely stated that I felt 16 that his method of performing the test was inadequate. 17 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't understand the 18 distinction. Could you tell me what distinction that 19 is in your mind as to the difference between incorrect 20 and inadequate? 21 THE WITNESS: performed the 22 test in accordance with the steps delineated in the L 23 procedure. 24 However, those steps did not include (
' 25 hooking up the necessary inputs that one should monitor 4
18339.
'. 3 - 6 1 invartoro.
(' " 2 So rather than having only two; tracings. A.. 3 on the oscillograph recording, Mr. Siegel in his 4 performance of the test monitored four parameters. 5 g Do you know whether a TPD, that is, a
. 6 test procedure deviation, was written on those s t e p s ',
7 the ones which call.for the performance of:a. I , 8 visacorder. test to determine uninterruptible power l~ 1 l , 9 source? to A As I recall, Mr. Siegel, in his: review 11 prior to performancesof the test, stated that he 12 didn't feel the variables displayed on the'oscillo-13 graph tracings were adequate; and:I. told him, "Well, 14 let's write a TPD to include the AC input voltage and 15 the DC current," in his reperformance of the-test. 16 ~S Mr. London, I have just put before-you 17 a copy of the entire test package performed by 18 Mr. Siegel, and I would like you to just locate in 19 there where the TPD is indicated. 20 A (Witness peruses document.) 21 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't have any questions 22 on this. 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I have one or two 24 questions. l 25 This last matter that you are referring i e
183434 J-7 1
.to,-Mr. London, in which Mr. Siegel had actually putL
.J 2 'in a TPCD - - Is'that it?.
3 MR.'DAVIDSON: -I'th'inkuhe said it's 4_ test procedure' deviation,.TPD. 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, TPD, and which
,- 6 Witness F had1 originally; performed tests and didn't
; 7 put in any such' document.
., 8 When Witness F had. performed that
,, 9 test', had that occurred after'his experiences with-jo the Ferro resonant transformer.~and,the-cable trays; y do you recall that, the sequence of events?.
12 THE. WITNESS: No, Mr. Grossman', 13 Witness F's original' performance of PT-02-02 occurred (; M in Novembe'r of'1982, which was prior to the' issue 15 of the Ferro resonant transformers. 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And also prior to the 17 cable tray matter? 18 THE WITNEES: Yes, sir, the cable tray i9 matter, the alleged inconsistency between ES-100 20 and Reg. Guide 1.75 occurred on about December l'th, 6 -! 21 1983, a year and a month after the initial performance. 22 of the pre-op. 23 ///. 24 - /// 4 25 a f
18341 14-1 1 THE WITNESS: 'In-regard to -; he I (' 2 Mr. Davidson's -- 3 JUDGE BLOCH: YOu might remind us
.s
( 4 what the question is. 5 MR. ROISMAN: Heiasked him to' locate 6 the TPD on.which the correction'of this particular 7 item was made. 8 THE. WITNESS:- The TPD: for the correction 9 was TPD No. 3, which states, add the following steps -- 10 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, could'I 11 propose we just. stick it.in? Let's put in'the whole i 12 Siegel thing. I'just said no, but it seems to me it-13 does have some bearing on this discuss' ion that.we've 14 just been having.- Let's just put'i,t all in and save 15 the time of the witness reading that. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: It shall be done. l l 17 MR. DAVIDSON: I-think that's a good l 18 way to proceed, and then we can' move off this' point. 19 (Document referred toLis bound in 20 at the end.of this transcript.) ,
)
MR .- DAVIDSON: I think, Mr. London, ! 21 22 that we're going to put this~ document in, and you' _ l 23 needn't read.to us different portions of it.- l 24 JUDGE BLOCH: And the next matter? l ( 25 MR. DAVIDSON: SWA. j i i l'- ! l l 1
1S342'
'14-2 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Just do it. !
(' 2 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, do I under-3 stand that the Board had asked to'see the SWA 4 procedure,- that is the -- 5 JUDGE-BLOCH: That's all.we want to do 6 is see the procedure. 7 MR. ROISMAN: Then I. object to_anything 8- more than having you see the procedure,-and-I'll 9 stipulate that if Mr. Davidson tells me that that's 10 the procedure, it is, and if he wants.it bound in 11 the record, that's okay with me. But I object to 12 any questions on it. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Could you make an' offer ( 14 of why it is you need to.have someone testify about 15 what's in the procedure? 16 MR. DAVIDSON: Because I.think that 17 there was extensive testimony -- well, perhaps not 18 extensive, but there was some testimony by Witness F 19 with respect to what the SWA procedure was. . 20 And I think that there are some serious l 21 mischaracterizations, or at least some confusions in 22 the procedure. L ' 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, why can't=you just. 24 argue them from the procedure? ' (* I think, Your Honor,.that 25 MR. DAVIDSON:
18343' f4 1 the characterizations.come through~ statements as to 2- what directives were'made,1what statements were made {~ 3 by Mr. London'and I think'he really has both -- c.ot only the opportunity now but indeed I think it is a { 4 5 requirement forfthis record.to be adequate'and 6 complete th at lue set forth what the-procedure is 7 and he clear up those misstatements as well as explain 8 what was done in accordance with that procedure,.
, 9 because I-think there were. substantial -- 1 10 MR. ROISMAN: Mr.EChariman, I'believe 11 that the Applicant filed a piece-of paper with the 12 Board about a. week or ten. days ago. requesting that-13 this witness' testimony, that.the very. testimony 14 - we' re hearing now -not be held at all, and in that 15 document --
16 JUDGE BLOCH: No, Witness Eddie. 17 MR. ROISMAN: I thought it was both. 18 JUDGE BLOCH: I didn't think so. Was itR 19 MR. DAVIDSON: It did address both, r. 20 Your Honor. i 21 MR. ROISMAN: And they'said that it was
- l 22 not necessary, and I believe that they should-at least (s 23 be held to that with regard to any matters that the.
24 Board itself is not independently wishing to inquire i 25 of. I do not believe, and'I think the Chair has ruled B
-18344-14-4'
)
at on earlier timo ' tha't ounsel may not"take a 2 (positionandthenchange.-thatpositionmerelybecause L-f situations: that do not authorize that change. 1 3 4 No testimony on.this issue has been. 5 received since they.took the-position. I believe ~ that l the Board has the ball at this point. -If what you j 7 wish is the SWA procedure, it's here, and.I have no 8 bjection to it going in the record. Further- [ 9 questioning on it, I believe the Applicant has-10
"" V80*
g JUDGE BLOCH: We'll admit the SWA into evidence and questions about the meaning'of the SWA 12 J l need not be asked. 33 { ( s MR. DAVIDSON: May I speak to'this l y ] g point, Your Honor, because I'm disturbed that the j g Board is cutting off the record, particularly in view ' 37 of the procedure that has been chosen here. 18 Witness F, indeed all of-the Inter-
), venors' witnesses, did not go first, as is quite 20 typical where allegations are made and then a-1
~
rebuttal case is put forward. '1 21 22 Instead, by virtue of the procedure
' rdered by the Board, the Applicants' witnesses.went 23 24 first in an attempt to rebut allegations that-were 25 nt framed and evidence was not received upon.
e
183454 5 1 Mr. F was not here and did not' testify. 2 fully.until we concluded'his cross-examination.on {' 3 the week:before last. Therefore, this is really in 1~ 4 the nature of the only rebuttal we have had of his ( 5 testimony. I i 1
- 6 Normally, one : doesn' t rebut testimony ij l 7 until af ter the complete examination of the witness.
. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: The best evidence in'the-
-' 9 procedure is the procedure and so therefore you will 1
10 not ask questions about the procedure. That'a all 1 11 I'm barring you from. i 12 The interpretation-of the procedures-13 is'a matter you can argue to us from the procedure ~.. 14 MR. DAVIDSON: But I believe that mis-15 statements regarding the application of the procedure-16 and the manner in which Mr. London directed that'the 17 procedure be employed that were made:during the 18 course of the examination by Witness F, Mr. London-t
. 4 19 is entitled to rebut, i
20 MR. ROISMAN: What I've given the
.I 21 Board Chairman is a copy of the Applicants' in-camera 1
22 filing on the issue of having no further testimony-J
'(_ .
l 23 from Witness London and'Eddie and'I've directed them 1 24 to what I think is the penultimate page of the sub-b' 25 stantive portion of the motion. 4-1
18346 14-6 1 JUDGE BLOCH: You represented that the {' 2 testimony was unnecessary. We accept that. 3 MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you. ( 4 Does the Staff have a comment about 5 the ruling? 6 (No audible response.) 7 MR. DAVIDSON: Is it clear that ny 8 examination of this witness is to be limited, is 9 that it, Your Honor? You're going to eliminate the 10 rebuttal testimony of the Applicant from the record? 11 JUDGE BLOCH: On this portion, yes. 12 If there's some other portion that you want us to 13 consider, I'll hear why you need to have it. 14 MR. DAVIDSON: In that case, Your Honor, 15 while I respectfully except and dissent from your 16 ruling, what I would appreciate is at least the 17 opportunity to make an offer of proof on this 18 material. i 1 19 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't 20 believe that the Applicant even has the right to do 21 that. I believe a waiver is a waiver, but if they 22 wish to do it, let it be done in writing at another 23 time and let's get on with what we can do in open l' 24 hearing. ( 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, please do it in i m______._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
18347 14-7' I writing-promptly after the hearing.
.{ 2 Is'this the document we're admitting?
3 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes. s 4 JUDGE BLOCH: This' document is labeled
'( <
5 CP-SAP-6, Revision 9.- It's the star-up administration 1 6 procedure. This is the'SWA we've been referr'ing to. 7 It shall be admitted into evidence and' bound into 8 the transcript. 9 (The'above-referenced document l 10 was numbered and bound into the
'11 transcript as follows:)
12 - -- 13 (- i, 15 16 17 18 1 19 l
-l 20 1
21 22 24 , L - 1 (' i 25 - I I l l 4
18348 CPSES STARTUP ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE' l l
/
I (- CP-SAP-6 1 I CONTROL OF WORK ON STATION. COMPONENTS AFTER RELEASE FROM CONSTRUCTION TO TUGC0 l Revision: 9 Prepared By: R. E. Camp a w t - L l l Reviewed By: , e(r,9s.,,o Lead artup Engineer , l Reviewed By* Twnn _ d e/- t rtup/ Turnover Surveillance Supervisor l Reviewed'By: IM
Title:
/2/P $ k G S T kt. Reviewed By: ,m ( '
' /_
Title:
.J . ,
1 / H Approved By: [ . . Date: nag 10t , C ES Star p
-/
/ / \
s .
.- O Y r j0 f o rm a tlo 0niyn f SAP-1-1
1
, . CP-SAP-6L R2 vision 9.
18349- Peg 2 2.of 17 q i l
,1 TABLS OF CONTENTS-(.
SECTION TITLE PAGE-COVER SHEET 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
-1.0 PURPOSE 3 -{
2.0- APPLICABILITY 3 l 3.0 DEFINITIONS 3 J 4.0 PROCEDURE 3 4.1 General Requirements 3 4.2 Startup Work Permit. Processing 6 j 4.3 Startup Work Authorization Processing 10 ) 4.3.1 Originated by construction 10 j 4.3.2 Originated by TUGCO Startup - 12 L 4.4 Maintenance. Action Request Processing 13
- k.
5.0 REFERENCES
14 l 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 14 .j i l J 1 1 3 I I or Inforrna tion y Onl
a . 'CP-SAP-6 18350 Rwisicn O . Peg 2 3 of 17 Interim Change 10/24/83 CONTROL OF WORK ON STATION COMPONENTS AFTER RELEASE FROM CONSTRUCTION TO TUGC0 1.0 PURPOSE
.(
> The purpose of this procedure is to establish the methods to be used by TUGC0 to;-
1.1 Authorize work to be performed on structures, systems and/or components after custody has been transferred to TUGC0 per CP-SAP-3;
~
1.2 Ensure that adequate safety precautions have been taken prior to work being performed;' 1.3 . Identify required ratesting; and 1.4 Document satisfactory completion of work authorized and associated ratesting. 2.0 APPLICABILITY The requirements of this procedure apply to work performer; on station-components after custody has been transferred from constrnetion to TUGC0 l Startup. If custody of components or systems is to be returned to a I contractor for performanceof work, the requirements'of'CP-SAP-3'shall apply in lieu of this procedure. 3.0 DEFINITIONS 3.1 Startup Work Permit (SWP) - Document originated by TUGC0 Startup that specify step-by-step instruction for implementing work and identify inspection, retest and safety requirements. Issuance of a SWD-authorizes the specified work to be performed. 3.2 Startup Work Authorization (SWA) - Document that may be originated,by B&R to request authorization to perform work or by TUGC0 Startup to authorize work. > 3.3 Maintenance Action Request (MAR) - A standard TUGC0 document used to-initiate, control and document maintenance work and~ inspections which must be performed on station equipment by TUGC0 personnel. l 4.0 PROCEDURE 4.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS l 4.1.1 The System Test Engineer (STE) will be responsible for processing T4r*::. SWA's and MAR's in accordance with this procedue and to monitor and coordinate the associated worm activitie s, including requests for vendor assistance, equipment operatior. and placement of safety tags to get the work' complete.. In to rrn n i, ,
-CP-SAP-6
'*S'i'i"" '
18351 -Pega 4 of__17 Notes
. (1) A' SWP should ' generally be used when the work activity is in .
l- , itiated by startup personnel and'
~(' there are no existing Engineer-ing/ Construction procedures that can be used to implement the-work. i!
(2) A SWA should generally be used I when a system / component clear-l ance (safety tag) and: retesting
-is' required after the work is complete.- All work-authorized.
-to be. performed by a SWA_will be performed;in'accordance with ;
normal: construction and: inspect- .j ion-procedures. :{ j 4.1.2 If a quality characteristic of a component.or system will bel breached by work to:be performed and the quality characteristic i will not_be verified by subsequent:startup testing, l-reinspection will be ensured by issuing an Inspected-Item Removal Notice (IRN) per B&R procedure CP-CPM'6.10-1, a SWP or l MAR'in accordance with this procedure. -t (L I 4.1.3 To assure adequate werk control and material traceability .a SWP or a MAR will be processed in accordance with this procedure when the'following types of work'are initiated by' [] TUGC0 Startup: Notes (1) The instructions on- the back of
, the traveler form are not appli- 4 cable. I
- i l (2) If'the work can be performed and documented in.accordance with '
, norkal. engineering'or construct-ion procedures'it is NOT mandatory' s,
, for a SWP or a MAR to be issued
- also. However, a SWA may be re- ,
quired to authorize the work ! and/or document required ratests.- .
. <- l V :
I' 3
** i 1'
?Of l ~
Orma tion LOnly l
. *Rsvioicn 9-18352 '.rng2 5 ef 17 (3) A MAR shall not be used for work' associated with'ASME materials,. 1 NPT stamped items, or the instal-lation or removal of N-stamped- h items until after the piping
.(L . system has been certified on an N-5. Code Data' Report and.the NA- -l Symbol Stamp applied to the' system.- j 4.1.3.1. All work required to install, remove disassemble-or-
' reassemble; vendor supplied ASME-code' stamped ~ j equipment such as pumps, valves and heat exchangers 4.1.3.2. -Work performed to'make the installation-conform.to
. vendor drawings requiring the addition' of "Q .
d: materials. 4.1.3.3 Work performed'to_ implement a TUGC0 Design Change t . Request:(TDC2) requiring the' addition.of "Q": materials. 4
\
~l 4.1'. 3. 4 - Installation of gagging' devices on safety related /'
relief or safety valves. 4.1.4 A SWA will be processed in accordance with this' procedure for ! the following: b , Notes (1) Simple circuit' changes made by Startup or startup support: crafts to make the installation conform to' design documents-(not requiring addition of "Q" material) does not require a SWA; however a 1RN shall be r issued to ensure reinspection. .l i L,, (2) Disassembly Qf supports by l Startup or startup support j
,g craft personnel'for the pur :
pose of adjustments does not . ,
. require a SWA, however, a IRN I shall be issued to ensure = .;
reinspection.- R i 4.1.4.1 ~ Work'to be performed by contractor personnel'in-
~
- k. accordance with normal construction and-inspection ,
4 procedures as required toLmakeit he installation-J J conform to drawings or spec.ifications.which affects. ; 1' system of. component operability-(i.e.,"the' system or ! component;is required to be shutdown,' isolated - q deenergized, or:the work requires re-hydro or ,4 re-flushing).: m j . 1
'For Info -
rmatlon Oniv i
> CP-SAP-6
~18353 'Revition 9' Pcg2 6 cf 17) 4.1.4.2' Work to be performed in'.accordance'with travelers' issued by engineering or-constructionLdepartments"if
.the work affects. system operability.-
4.1.4.3 Addition _of welded attachments to piping _ systems.
'(; . . < v 4.1.5 Work that does not require retesting or safery tags.may be.-
performed by B&R personnel in accordance with B&R work and-inspection procedures without processing a SWA to obtain' authorization when'the work to be performed.is' observed'by a TUGCO, System Test Engineer. 4.2- STARTUP WORK PERMIT PROCESSING When TUGC0 Startup initiates a'SWP.La'Startup Work Permit (Construction Operation Traveler) Form Attachment A. . shall be processed as_follows: 4.2.1 Specify the equipment tag number, unit' number,.page.' number, work location (e.g., Turb. Bldg. .807',iAux. Bldg. 854',= south yard, etc.) and system by startup system number in the spaces-provided.- Note Attachment B shall be used for f continuation pagesLif; required.
\, .
4.2.2 Specify if the work 1s to be performed on's safety related or non-safety related component. 4.2.3 Provide a reason for performing:the work in the space provided. 4.2.4 Provide a step-5:'-step (operation sequence) description of work to be performed including _any reference to required procedures, design documents or-instruction manuals and_ designate department responsible for performing the work activity. Specify any special instructions such as; notifications required prior to. start or completion of work,~ cautions of potential hazards, placement of safety tags,_etc.,"as a part of the work sequence. Notes (1) If safety tags are not required so state as the first step of the operation sequence. in f o rnia tio n nh
.CP-SAP16; Rwisitn F .
18354 P ga;7 cf IF (2) If safety tags are required they. shall be placed'in accordance with CP-SAP-5 or STA-605 and the as-sociated authorization or' clearance number notated on the' traveler when the tags are placed. ( (3) If'the'affacted component has been released to TUGC0 Operations, as described by CP-SAP-3, system status changes shall be coordinated with the Shift Supervisor and safety tags placed' in accordance with STA-605, 4.2.5 Specify retest required to be performed to: demonstrate post-work operability.of the components affected by the work. Notes (1) When the specified retest is XCP-EE-8,,the drawings to be used to document the.reterting. will.be specified.by drawing number as.part of.the " Retest Required" step. (2) If the specified retest-is to be b performed by another TUGC0 depart-ment or project organization,.a copy of the SWP should be forwarded to the appropriate department. 4.2.6 Obtain a SWP travelcr number from the startup secretary'and enter the number in the space'provided. The startup secretary will enter the SWP traveler number and the. individual it was assigned to in the SWP Traveler Log Index.. 4.2.7 Process the SWP traveler in accordance with one of the following: 4.2.7.1 If the work to be performed does not. affect l safety-related equipment, proceed in accordance~with-paragraph 4.2.8. l. 4.2.7.2 If the work does' affect safety-related equipment 3 other than Safety. Class 1, 2, or 3 items, the STE- :
, v111' coordinate with the appropriate discipline-L construction' quality engineer to specify the required i quality control'(QC). inspections on the traveler.. .
After inspection requirements have been established, proceed with paragraph 4.2.8..
~.
O ' P r jnforma gionnvO i
CP-SAP-6-:
-R;visien 9 18355; Pcg2 8 ef IF 4.2.7.3 If the work affects Safety Class 1, 2,~or.3'ASME N-stamped components, the STE.shall:obtain'TUGC0 )
Operations QA concurrence that the work is to be j performed by.B&R; TUGC0 Operations QA concurrence shall ; be indicated by signature and date in the " Reviewed. , 7 Block" of.the traveler. l k , Note Work on ASME Code stamped components which affects the l validity of the' Code Data Report for that item must be authorized by TUGC0 Operations ; Maintenance Services. Work of '1 this type includes:
-(a) Welded repair to N-stamped component i pressure parts / mater-ial.
(b)' Replacement of N-stamped component pressure boundary parts / materials. k- (c) Work which may result in alteration of man-ufacturer set points on safety or relief valves. 4.2.7.4 If the work affects Safety Class 1, 2 or 3 ASME material, NPT-Stamped items, or N-stamped items which B&R is authorized by TUGC0 Operations QA to repair or maintain,'the.STE will coordinate'with the B&R. Quality Engineering Completions /Startup Group Supervisor, to specify the required Quality Control (QC) and, if applicable ANI' inspections on'the traveler. After inspection requirements have been established and reviewed by the appropriate Quality Engineer and ANI, as indicated by their signature on the traveler, proceed with Paragraph 4.2.8., 4.2.8 If applicable, attach a copy of the SAP-5' authorization or STA-605 clearance to the SWP. 4.2.9 Insert a copy of the traveler in the SWP open file and forward the SWP to the appropriate department for performance of the work. Por Informa' Oni g ion,
. 'CP-SAP-6' Ravicion 9
. 19356 . Pcga 9 ef 17 Interim.Changt
.10/24/83 Notes (1) SWP's for work on safety-re-lated equipment may be modified after issuance for work with ap-proval of B&R QE.
{' (2) SWP's for work on non-safety re-lated equipment may be modified with approval of the STE.. 4.2.10 After the work and all inspections.are completed, the SWP traveler will be returned to the originator. / 4.2.11 Upon completion of the work and retesting, the STE shall; 4.1.11.1 If applicable, attach the retest data sheets er ' drawings to the completed SWP. 4.1.11.2- Forward the completed SWP and attached retest data to an individual qualified as Level IV for review and approval.
/#
Note The safety tag authorization ( clearance may. remain attached k- to the SWP or be discarded. 4.2.12 Upon receipt of a SWP the reviewer shall; 4.2.12.1 Review the specified retest requirements-for adequacy and signify' approval in the space provided on the SWP form. , 4.2.12.2 Ensure that the associated retest data is reviewed and approved in accordance with CP-SAP-11. 4.2.i2.3 After review and approval of the specified retest and l retest data, the SWP and attached test. data shall be forwarded to the SWP. file' clerk.
4.2.13 Upon receipt of a completed'SWP, the SWP file clerk will; 4.2.13.1 Remove the SWP copy from the open file and discard.
4.2.13.2
~
l l Insert the retest data and-a copy of'the SWP in the
\/ closed SWP file.
4.2.13.3 Close the SWP in the SWP log index. 4.2.13.4 Forward the original SWP.to TUGC0 Construction QA for further processing and storage in the records vault.
~ I'Or Inf arrnanvtion O _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
Revision 9' , Paga 10 of 17l
'18357 Intarim Ch: nga
'10/24/83-4.3. STARTUP WORK 4 AUTHORIZATION ~ PROCESSING-4.3.1 Originated by Others:
g; When' personnel outside the'Startup' organization initiate a.SWA,- a'Startup Work Authorization form, Attachment C, shall be {~l processed las follows: 4.3.1.1 'Specify.the unit and startup system number. Provide , a description of work to be. performed, including' 'i identification of. components that will be'affected, reference drawing ~ number, work location, reason for: doing. work and. estimated time. required to: perform'the-work in the. space provided.
~
4.3.I'2: The individual; making.the~ request shall clearly-write
, or print name, phone extension and date of the request in the space provided.,
1 4.3.1.3 Forward the request to TUGC0 Startup. 4.3.1.4 If work is to be implementedLimmediately, the assigned STE shall; [--
- a. Place-the'affected component in a safe condition to perform the work and place safety tags,'if "
' required, in accordance with.CP-SAP-5 or STA-605.
Notes
- 1. If the affected component'has been' released to.TUGC0 Operations, as described by CP-SAP-3, the'STE-shall coordinate with'the shift.
supervisor for system status e changes and. placement of. safety-tags in accordance with:STA-605, 4
- 2. If the SWA is for a'TUGC0~ MAR, the TUGC0 department responsible
. for the work shall; ensure the
'affected components.are safety 1
s- tagged per STA-606. prior to per-
~
forming the work. .Therefore, j the~STE is not responsible for. ;{ safety tagging and shall. indicate 1 "N.A.".'on the'SWA form.
.. b.
.j
- b. If applicable,! attach a' copy of the CP-SAP-5 l
, authorization or STA-605 clearance to the SWA.- i
- c. Signify-authorization to' perform the required' I Work.
i . Por Informa t'On Qniv 1 l
Pega 102.cf 17 Intarim Chango 18358 10/25/83 d.-Forward the SWA to the appropriate construction personnel. . 4.3.1.5 If the work is to'be placed on hold, the assigned STE shall;
-/
_ /
- a. Signify that;the work is on hold in the: space-provided.-
I i
)
I 1 l
' ,l l'
- b. ,
4 l i
=.
l
'for lnforma g; '
On Oniv -
R vicion 9: Pega 11 of.17 Interim Ch*:ngs 18359 10/24/83 1
- b. Notify the appropriate construction personnel that . j the SWA has'been placed on hold and place the SWA l in the SWA hold file.
q Note k
.('
STE to track SWA's on hold and when plant conditions permit, authorize SWA's on hold to be implemented by removing the "on hold" copy.from the hold file and processing.in accordance with 4.3.1.4 above. - 4.3.1.6 If authorization to perform the work is rejected, the-assigned STE shall; .
~'
- a. Draw a line diagonally across the SWA and write the word " reject." Provide the reason for-rejecting the work on the face of' the SWA or.
attach a note to it.
- b. Notify the appropriate construction personnel of the reject status and reasons.
- c. Insert the SWA and' attached notes in the SWA reject file.
4.3.1.7 Upon completion of construction work required by the SWA, the SWA shall be signed in the space:provided to indicate completion of all work and returned to the STE that authorized the work. 4.3.1.8 The STE shall specify Startup retest required to be i performed to demonstrate post-work operability of the j l components affected by the work. 1 Note [I i SWA's that have been issued ; for welded attachments on l ASME piping that has been j hydrostatically tested, will be forwarded to the applicable g-l B&R ASME QA group for deter- i mination of hydro' retest
' l requirements. l l
l 1 ! For inform gio n Oniv
' Pego:lla of 17
'18360 Interim ch nga 10/24/83-4.3.1.9 The assigned STE shall verify the work to be complete, signify. completion of the work on the SWA, clear safety tags, if applicable and complete the required ratesting.
[ Notes (1) If retesting'must be deferred, the SWA will be filed in the SWA.
~
, retest file. The STE is respon-sible for.' ensuring retesting is
; completed.
(2) The safety tag authorization'or clearance may remain attached to the SWA or be discarded. L. (.. 1 e Information Oni v
CP-SAP-6 gg y y. R,vicica 9
'Pega 12 cf 17 (3) Safety' tags.placed for equipment /
personnel protection during the work process may be cleared any time after completion as deemed. appropriate by the STE. (4) If the.specified retest is to be. performed by another TUGC0 depart-ment or project organization, a-copy of the.SWA should be forwarded ~- to the appropriate department.. 4.3.1.10 Upon completion of the required retesting, the STE shall;
- a. Signify ratest completion on the'SWA.
b.- If applicable attach the retest data or drawings to the completed SWA.
- c. Forward the SWA and attached retest data to.an individual qualified.as Level IV for review.and:
approval. g 4.3.1.11 Upon receipt of a SWA the reviewer shall;
,f a. Review the specified retest requirements for
( adequacy and signify approval in the space provided on the SWA form.
- b. Ensure that:the associated retest data is reviewed and approved in accordance with CP-SAP-11.
- c. After review and approval of the specified retest and retest data, the SWA and attached test data
, shall be forwarded to the SWA file clerk.~
4.3.1.12 Upon receipt of a completed SWA, the SWA file clerk will insert the SWA and attached retest data sheets or originals of test record drawings in the closed-SWA file. 4.3.2. Originated by TUGC0 Startup When TUGC0 Startup initiates a SWA, a Startup Work , Authorization Form, Attachment C, shall be processed as follows: L.: 4.3.2.1 Enter unit number, Startup System Number and System: 1 L Title in spaces provided on form. i hff l - a
~
. CP-SAP-6T 183G2 Revision'9 Pcg2-_13 of 17
'4.3.2.2 Provide a description of the work to.be performed, including. identification of components that will be affected, reference drawing number, work location, reason for doing the work and estimated time for doing the work in the. spaces provided.
I k 4.3.2.3_ Clearly write or print name, phone extension and date of the regrest in the space provided. 4.3.2.4- If the'SWA'is to be' implemented immediately; the STE shall process the SWA in accordance with paragraph 4 . 3 .1. 4 '. 4.3.2.5 If the work is to be placed on hold, the assigned STE' shall;
- a. Signify work to be placed on hold _on the SWA.-
- b. Place the SWA in the SWA hold file.
Note STE to track SWA's on hold and when plant conditions permit, authorize SWA's on hold to be implemented by removing-the "on i hold" copy from the hold file and V processing in accordance with paragraph 4.3.1.4 4.3.2.6- Upon completion of construction work required by the SWA, the.SWA shall be_ signed by.a construction representative in the space provided to indicate completion of all work and returned to the STE that authorized the work., 4.3.2.7 Upon receipt of a completed SWA, the STE shall I process the SWA in accordance with paragraph 4.3.1.9 through 4.3.1.12. l 4.4 MAINTENANCE ACTION REQUEST PROCESSING
-When TUGC0 Startup initiates a MAR, it shall be processed as follows:
4.4.1 The originator of a MAR shall enter the following information: 7 4.4.1.1 Problem / Job Description including as much detail as V possible. 4.4.1.2 Equipment Tag Number and System identifier. 4.4.1.3' Location in plant, i.e., Unit number, building, elevation, room and any other location information.
~
or Informa tion Oni ,.
CP-SAP-6
""****'~
'183G3 Pcg2.14 of 17-4.4.1.4 Required completion date (if applicable).
4.4.1.5 Originator's name, signature and date. 4.4.2 Forward MAR.to Shift Supervisor for processing in accordance' with CPSES Station Administrative Procedure STA-606. 4.4.3 Coordinate with the: Shift Supervisor to ensure the proper classification.is assigned to the MAR. Note If a MAR is processed to cor-rect a Test Deficiency, ratest' [ for the work performed will be documented on the Test Deficiency Report (TDR).
5.0 REFERENCES
5.1 CP-SAP-3, Custody Tagging of Station Components 5.2 CP-SAP-4, Custody Transfer Tagging 5.3 CP-SAP-5, Safety Tagging Procedure t 5.4 CP-SAP-11, Review, Approval and Retention of Test Results b 5.5 STA-605, Clearance and Safety Tagging 5.6 STA-606, Maintenance Action Requests 5.7 CP-CPM- 6.10-1, Inspected Item Removal' Notice 6.0 ATTACHMENTS A - Construction Operation Traveler Example Form-B - Construction Operation Traveler Continuation Example Form C - Startup Work Authorization Example Form i I l u l or Inforrna tionv Oni i i
" A -
3 UNIT? NO. . Q4 QUANTITY Og. TRAVELER
.- . ...m..<. N.o W;WWFv ..m aRV;-;. Vg EQUIPMENT . e u , - c.v NO.;%c#+'s.
- . .c .'
W N/A -- V Aarl" O5 P
+
.. s ACTIVITY~ .D.E.S..CR.IP..T.
. ; . Startup IO. N.e Ucrk -m FWe Parm t*PW%9ip dt W e(b @ V REFERENCE DRAWINGS ,,See 3'elowe N 2JG Os SPEC .. /P. w ROC.. - /.ENG.
R."'%f^ O a v y, INST.u.'ly/A.-Ap5 vg wx.arec LOCATION , BR.ngi@n :v-. 5Y.$. TPd an w;. OO v .;S .YSTEM,
, ~~; w A.w$3g
. PitEPARED BY"**-*'#N*dt D ATE! * #*M"#*'"
- MDEPT. TUGC0 seattuo*N 4].[EVIEWED Nf
- #O #
i2 @E "D*## NNI9a[etyT1Ish 3
.r
- r:4 REvYEWN"W*t*m41W+"###~ **h+
- sAWuned P. . ON E 4.
a. a :.y :+pp mw m wm-aw f%eemmev1e.finroo%aA%A.m eV .e:w ~ a; & _vA m seeau ma)m_m,'-m
,,w.ywm note:.h%sm:,; mw e-3a &y!!p 2.upa
- k, _"A 3 hkikk, h og g -- . -
e 22 MP3
*W Yg J -
+'. n ,, 2+.,pqpsm
.r- m"$il:b-h n wg e m.%'p,-t&g%.,
.e
. *s.w r, k h~ .i, j3., 2 g,e
" ~
i., iiist "y . .'
- M Sirm,b'.'-@wk.'
- a -
M i. fc :$ .$. y}: .=g -l ly npT- R __, rif_C 0 pm$.'l
~ a'.Y.:s@4 m nk.g *rQa ]$U*W ff b'I. W..'- ? h & Br l .;%e.W f <r , .
nwe.srw -
. . , t jg . 1
.: ,[
@W.s
_a k " pg%=
.4 g . 9 k,7;p
- f. 5W1 m uj ;
i k, ar ** N 'h . g_.y;g*4A " . .x-s
, , . ,r. , <. . . .a . ,
.e hr -1 4
m$p: Dp [M n ,l # ., - f awn
; g &[ $ 6 f.ljf %z w @ww- f- EFDn!M i
ei
. ' , 4 y%gg gg4 ' 2
;wm. un . i
~
.. .. q te ~M?eqv%.fWMM +ht5_tQ:,.
p y t 9 n
. [ ugg$NIf Q
52, Q'FTMhW,n.wgn$
. c; , %(Nk!AN (d, ht e a wp+ - v,. ..
~~ * , . < a ,,.,Q.1 ., . . osme.-
c= r .?.c - n!"$y: g.
~
w> . .
$h h'? ?..N.MfQ y e -
(hh. d p ?bh
@.f,;;*Q h?5$h>..a MR5 z w .e s.
zw p#g. get s ,,y r+ W s h y 4l - cp y: m %g g+u x: nmv i?M$ o w WMF ww v s;.n.s a M y+
~
m M ;; .nMs4p m 4,iM y x,w . .a wt., w e Y M % .c & w y& h.ME @d L nBW:sny % Q,n;%g pig kqg b deGE G.m 'pt w w.s5. &%n@My%%;y9yg y w [ig =b Qgsg,
,y y w.w .w,wymm.s.s, w. ,g g ,pg
R ;,. ff i W&f[Q$jf. q'; .. Q &QQ, .gi:;fi $p;.:g War . % M Q M../?1636$ k y-
% 9 7
&;' RF T Y#p f&
$i.W"
}/pM.ki-gen fQffQ $f&&'d).Y.n* %jQf i-
. $g;,d,.,.ir- r
- 9 y
. [*y '
4 - [' .g dWEW~#O.-.ip3hg ir . .A NW.M. -
- - ~
MEW. %A-pS*W.W. .u. r AW - - ? f.h?.b g.,y-rW N. ... - ., m $~. F.is.<f4eA%ftA.e4'% CONSTRUCTION OPERATION TRAVEL.ER CONTINUATION 4". M' . 4* :'W [g'3f ' Y. .h. N f&sq.h,.(. :.. Q-8TM. .. TRAVELER NO
- i, P @Y5 M O N @ d. d( 4 W .b 4 f,Q)*'M MM M YNhY*M M D Nb' ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION PkGk,,.,,0 b kh. . s .k. g'$;..p ,, .
h,). $E E sk - TE W C'M ' h $ 1 f -'. ';^ mW>i%.un.p.,,seyw:.psyyppp:ims.gAWww.i REVIEWED BY CATE A c:a ' r ,
- qE5.:.~
%c,e%
w%w'. ,3&::-Q er 7 ,Qh M/bDT M NQ MWE8Ed.DW ; j.M[,$h$ ! h$m.-v- - ..
. O G A
-:~ v: .
. .?;;: .'... .
~ ': ;.
4s4,, ;y q.,t::4:t r Q :'"-)W.M" :'e&=n,#.W # * .!" .w ATIACHMENT
. . , -; CP-SAP-6 B .V & / ^ r-k e s _y
, v, . , , .
) ,
l g .. e.mp p. X .; i 9 an#nm MM 7.WMm %u y a .x
%el*
W W. .
. ;N-
~
p@D,>.My.
-,, . g
-,~..
.q,.,. ,:u/ . . g A.a. .r;;.r!
IM.: .sMn . e%. x.M nm. w$$h! .n
. . .g. 3 p , ,
M.~. . N.~ l .. . .
$h mu h>Mh;. my DE v'l-. SY l'* *
,, h
. Ast,, [' '.'l .v .. = ,n ::spk ' :, ., .% . . - .
v v. . , k;,.; .,
> ~e. *M l W' % .. q:-f' J't-d.'d . ..
.', . ag-Q M)$sa *.!f sW
.r~ .! * -N '4 - .i. !% ii .~;{7' s :..
;.4.:,a.&w}y*yj,.Ns' c"*
M*>h" g. m;[' M N .'i.K*. y ; Q .g,f'f ^*:f:l' ,s 4 Q .i- 3:;&+ ,'
% y a ,w f .
f}4 s c- . @& &w mm
>?LQR@maQi M
.w.w Q: @y
~. #fl?.'
m-ww.m w n.a . w. . ~ c Qt,f;G e n& 3:n xQ".Q:,,. m 5 W t:. m m 4xy.q.p.pfik C Q ,_ %Q3@+W'c:,j.%'X
- . in ..y.;;f, .'.:. h,.,L*
. .i j .M 7.; )
. . , WW gu.-.
n gs: y$,$ 3g; .m;u.w
#m M.w, % 9 fu . x &
.'(W.M,.[
?. I. h. * '
9Qu.W k%. 4 % Wj. O
-s Wg#~ MN ycn .h}M
$$q!'k,-Nkh b.. M~a:b bak n.. .
Ih.,r " M . /. u$.hfh Wx. X. C .'
%gA L 4 :%dP,i 4 ,
a {. ~ . . _ L W s ~qw.v.n$...fM sy< $ gt M. w y.. p,na e%gy "y&j I- : m, w:
.\"
m. 1
.yd ; - e -
% ,, a; s.*:s gs #g4*
n - , ,a ,%~.4 . q.p ;; {
~.- t '
- p _,. ,M5' .r -) v *N. f * - i L
m $;n,.4. m , .v9~ ~ 3.27 : :. ; m - .n - c. c*- I
&{,,h.&.m$5 h s. V MM.g."
.c .>.
L'A.k,.?.W j. ,: e. 0 ff. +*r. e*b .a.h. .W.. ? ~ ~.'
'if.
= , h_h.h N.p n nqw.hh u~ ,
h,ha%s.$$h*f m* M' g_.y.{ w w
.f: ggf.1;;.n;fieQ hllY x.u,:,.
. .~;,
i." " ; c~ '
.? hhk
- ,./ e-f;i.: ...
. p...
N.
,x,
~"
u r g}. 6 $M i ., . kn 5 &h..w?k $4..Y . M h., ,O NC h y 4..b $$$ !?h$.N . ;u s
$kN - h
'. o ~
m g.2h8h ~ ',gv4 m . y.wso- uw@. .?s' .., 0? i 7 Mb m %il M. Me '*' m: ' .Y.
@4n
-w 4,1. x .e n':$c5W . v.. . . ~ . .
m.c .J.e .%-JN*W.
- . 4, . N Mrc#
oy s.J .
.:# md' m@.a< s e w Sid J* v m:1' ; ,: .v.;. <. ., 4.s .~.- . %.r -
gy - e, . a . .
+.T . . ?, ..:a :e.1
.# y w-ot'%'f4 *,A,n4 , M. +.', ..f s .f .e...%.@ $. j raw'
%., :' T *. q%.w... w .5%,., 32):A1b M@w'W(*'w,7 .< ...$..< r"N. .sUr2
.y,<' -
7f, v e si. crn . ,a,, r W,w
. er. <w.j.
- > v.~
-t"~ .;
. ; ,. y o . c., .
y k y tiQ g.yV2 Q s* h Q .& - l .y y:f'.::M j..N f, :**[ W , -% .hs . .,. . hh .. lce$yYYY
- Y' .Y * ^
m:.: .~.:o n: 4 ,%$n.c .h:- ~..'
.x a-. .
}.
. ,~
n ~.n. r.c n.*n-.~. . . .
~' . ' ~
*h$.Ne:t,n, %w
- r*$n. w".._,v . m sf c w*pfo &. .' r &...
., **.,y.'- ', ~y. 3 y *WC%e ** ...-*e .,, \es. ,- . .
,% p .e WPsf.. h,q:if&. 4. . r' .,'VW
.??b
.n y @..D...&,A m'" 4.0QLsQ ,~*::,, ? *.:
&'?*T.'['.s .
- 1
~ - .
a sad /l *% sl,~ , * '."X ,,'.*g '. R"f r"' Risitf . g.fZ. 'yZ't ,}, l%},* $ .) -}y
*;; * *s .w _ , l ~
- - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - . _ - - - - - - - ~ _ _ _ _ .m ,.- - -,
,w,.. ,
~
Q TRA. V,ELER,N0. .#"fg&ga . . - -
$ *FA @.E.QUIPME_NT,NogwYr -. ^ 1@ UN.IT .
~ N1 .@ gnNT17Y >. @PAar.3. Fj .
hh7 2.N. W-65 h t h [r$ NN W'a - U" SIN 5NN
?G 8?"E"*Cd'8h' W Js @ >N @WE"JMITs% Win #0!M @$'81'."dai38M
.,,,,,,, w - - , m m u ,1 ,w - .e. m . ,,,,3 m co se, m v
[j[hlhDhW '#I fW k Mib 'E W #'N ((Ih"NI g crqw;&wass>=:=mwgiry.vnawanammm.g gags, a
- s. , . . _ _ _ _ - . - _ _ - _ - - - . _ - . - - - . _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ . - . . . . .
N / E S.
.y _w,;
ouTronwong g. u . , asym-w- .4 .m a:g 9). ew '1 3=+.r w e . i E7 w$'$ w c ?^s. ..#
"iEl$$$$$
' mm~ m*aw a s!
~p i gg o
~ '
4sigw% gegg' w%j t .
, a r.
g?g i T #j q" l .
,w n
, ]
v dy . v g e.r. - q .,7 ;L - - _ _ - '-
.<w ,,. g u,
% .1
. .y
', 9 rm - -
w . rang
~h i.1l*I @ Jg, j <
, 3p f
. m.r
*k y
i
. ?
~
w -c
.n.-e:. 1
.e-y hd 4.
~.41 e +
4 .k. e , re -.w
^
- s. . - A. '
., yf, em.m '.,n u .
n.. - ,
'b .-
-; 7Ek!.( f --
.b. .-
h y
.. ( " - - -
j ' .ggg"}. gA);
.y .
= -
- g, -
1 e ya
=p&eg (qn y 4
.; t n .
J ... 4g m.. e.
- g yc -
- 1 - .,.: -
p - a g
----_-_n_m _ mmm.
, =.
q -
'~'
syg gg rt" 5 g.gg
~
Mb?k ' qpygg$3sG%!.h d.3761 n
, 4
- p. :
sggygjy r,sa m. .7.r 7;.> p nL , a,,+., y . , . ..-m
.,n .
.? Yr Eh NNMW 4.W*7.4 Mk's b '*' .
j W.**EM44#A*?iACONSTRUCTION OPERADON TRAVELER CONTINUATION 4WVO'W'M ,$k . r
- ' A 5,jkTRavnsa* N. : ~7# cnviTycascRenomgderg;p#pdpgddh-53.gggga.
F'WF . 4WSk%!gilFK4M$s M iM PAotorJ TNg? .f'
- ,n <e -
sb e.m: ,,,cy ,,,, n,g;p p_., _r
=.= T : m g_g.. gggggs.
.m - ~ ~, syg;,;s- i h.y&,a;
( . Jg Q 495M @ s* W $4f@ M rI- C.C Q M M*dLW Whi @ i4 W ,. $ly' {Affy (- 2,#,, Mw? ".; s?f&p,.A) M OPERA O -
, . g4 ',g - q., .. M
- ~ ,
g....y g
,J /- 7 .' - ~"
ATIACEMEET 'B:,w CP SAP-6. ..,; -,< O :ts '.. . 3
*. Ia j;y. i :v.~~%^.
f[Revisiim"9M d:WC .% y f ' l
; N; f A h{y.r. f f'pj t o. m-
~m.m'$ls.w ' g:r n.c
, .. a,.
Ti}. p_
..v
$gM W.: . W
N
~
a$[GM,.y W . - 1 he.SY
@ N V
$5$ } @& M'{ h" Y g; .' y ,, @%QT % E~
ihj $] g[ g
.. 5g '[ %.. Mhh:$%g W
$3lyjg a.m [,%'> m[..hj
- h.
1 ) [ .j. ;,
}
$mf5t
@,w. #p&T s 91 e-
?'"
h .y ff elsp[h 4,. !!mw m e.?r A yk xq:. Jt m c g
.,wentg mgg:m gg:e d q q (e$
wm g c
; e n .>
p
, p
.. A.yygu4 . x. ".v. . .
g:. mz . w.a: g.
.1' f
f y n'r ' .. W f.~ C r e
*; g.rq(. .., $'. $ :s.y.
.w i .- ..Q 2 a-g b "
h - ' ',' ' . ' L. g.' y.. y y *g'fjgyd,.. d'Q+ -(Q*n.::. y ,g'.j.2 .v. s.,{ ts$
' ' d ke,.' '-
g ,.. s n:, , [-.;. Ap <. s@. . 7 (. ,@I .;7.my v
- v ' b
4 f' .;h - r 4'g.g.%g',i- '/M"M
'.'$-.$. . f.A . . dp 'C;"- i
~
;f J fe h
p a
% M e.
a x ~. .c. # #A5M r p s .. q, 7-YkhYhv.M
.nu - p-n ;g.4g g 4:ara - K' :
1 c;p.:+'p* :.:ca, .. wN'~. .e(Vui+y (n
- x;a 5, q
- rN W, %g g- * :i'.yy*. .T113 N[D.; . .v.w..~,h (d hN $ h-
_ lk[5.'-$4j 4: ,kln[ . >..
. / ", .:, .. ,.w
,g 1., ,
u .. , ..x. n g; kl f
~
f L
; ' m.-
A warunw.n :.Nk aA. . w .a: N "d;- 44 7 ,QM Z625 i I egw: Sk,$k idM@ m ; w A!h. ne- .~ e n : . Am .x. n
?
hi,. ' h.h.<[h"h[$v$[ k' ,h. ;. ; . g.,,.:y. c
. : g. % ..
S. r., br..ncw
. :. gm- , .
9 .. lW;.*l2;g
.a..
W.
~
- 5. o ' v?..a.4. % 50f J- !qt'4 5%pffy,w&w'f*
!Tn*3 n- SEA er
. ..+5%Ego ..- $~-l ..?. .l .l 2'f' ,e ..
N^b($hflg; .!K& .% 4 ON? W~ $ %. ~ i _,Jh.t{yn--diktAc,&sE$R Q< x M .nnewaamum.m h a. gy.. ,
,. , ATTACHMENT C CP-SAP-6 Revision.9 Startup Work Authorization Peg 2 17 of 17
. System
Title:
- 183G6 Unit No.: Startup System No.: Authorization No.:
Work Description (Include identification of components affected): Reference Drawings: Work Location (Bldg., elevation, room, area, etc.): Reason for Work: (i.e., DCA, CMC, NCR, etc.) r Estimated time required to complete work: Work Requested By: Name/ Phone Extension /Date 1 l Safety Tags Required: TES NO If Yes, CP-SAP-5 Authorization No.: STA-605 Clearance No: Work Authorized By: Placed on Hold by: ! STE/ Data STE/Date- All Construction . Work Completadt RETURN THIS FORM TO TUGCO STARTUP l Construction Department /Date 1 i Work 7erified Complete: .; Startup Engineer /Date ! i Ratesting Required: !
\-
Retest Complete: 1 Startup Engineer /Date 1 Required Retests and Retest Data Approved By: Date:
~ . .
f'C> r jn f o rm a tio n : OnIv:
t ISOG7 '; 14-8 1 THE WITNESS: :Your Honor, may I make~a-2 comment? 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Could you tell me what 4 you want to comment about? 5 THE WITNESS: The procedure that you 6 gave the' court reporter is not ~ an SWA. The procedure 7 is entitled control of work on station components-8 after. turnover from construction to start-up.. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. And'that covers the 10 use of SWA's, is 1that why we have that document? 33 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.. That is 12 correct.
~
13 JUDGE BLOCH: a Th'nk you. That.is a ja very helpful correction. 15 MR. DAVIDSON: Your Honor, may I-get'a 16 clarification. Is the witness entitled to. explain 17 the procedure in any way? i + 18 JUDGE BLOCH: We have tried not-toido 19 that in the other portion of the case at all on the
~
20 grounds-that people usually can~ read-these things and
}
21 figure out what they mean. i 1 22 MR. DAVIDSON: Well,.but I don't know t 23 if that'm entirely correct,.because one of the-central l i 24 incidents in this entire case involving Withess F is j l i 1 25 his handling of an SWA. .i I i
'l
183GS
'14-9 -l JUDGE BLOCH: And the procedure, is it
{ 2 sufficiently ambiguous that'we can't read it? 3 MR. .DAVIDSON: I don't think that it's L - l
, 4 just a question of his failure to follow the procedure,
\
5- I think it's also a question of some of the rather. 6 imaginative explanations that Witness F supplied 7 during his cross-examination for why he didn't sign it. 8; MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Ch a.irma n , Mr. Davidson 9 knew that fact when they filed the piece of paper 10 that they filed saying that this witness should not ti be called to testify, and I believe they should be 12 held to the letter of their representation, period. 13 MR. DAVIDSON: I understand Mr. Roisman's
point, and indeed when a record has-been closed there 14 13 is often reason for taking that rather stern measure 16 even though sometimes an adequate record is not made 17 when such Draconian measures are applied, but this 18 JUDGE'BLOCH: Witness F'sjtestimony --
19 MR. DAVIDSON: -- record hasn't.been 20 closed and we're here and we have a witness who can 21 do this for us. 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Witness F's testimony -- 23 MR. DAVIDSON: No prejudice results, 24 Your Honor. 1
' {- 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Witness F's testimony on 4
~
V 183cg a-14-10 1 . what the start-up work authorization procedure!was-s 2 is also not.best. evidence. We have thecprocedure. 3' You don't have to' rebut his statement about what'the
.4 procedure is.- . We have.:it'right here.
5 MR.,DAVIDSON: Well, there are at least 6- four points that I/see in his testimony thatLbear on-7 .this: is sue. - 8 He says-there.wasia problem - - 9 MR. ROISMAN:- Mr.fChairman, I object to 10 this.and;-- 11 MR. DAVIDSON: JAt leastLlet.me make 12 - my statement. k l 13 MR. ROISMAN: -- and I 1 object to his 7
\ i
delaying the hearing further. j 14
.15 MR. DAVIDSON:' Am I now being'under a 16 gag order? I don't understand.- I'm jus't'really..
17 trying to explain myself. ]
.l 18 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, wettold'you'we ;
I 19 didn't want you to make an offer of. proof'and now j
.'{
20 you seem to be making,an offer of.. proof. j 21 MR. DAVIDSON: You said I-would make. , 22 an offer of proof in writing, however.: j i 1
'~~
23 JUDGE.BLOCH: Yes. i i 24 MR. DAVIDSON: Then~I think.that's the 25 best manner to handle:it. s
-___._____E___.____.i_________.___.. - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
_1 18370
' 14-11 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Now,'if you want to
{' 2 explain'some ambiguityLin this,procedureEthat.you've-3 got to have testimony abouti we can do that. 4 MR. DAVIDSON: I'll go on, Your Honor. ( 5 I would, of course, invite the; Board 6' or Mr.-Mizuno to ask any questions they.might have 7 with respect to'the SWA procedure, since I apparently 8' cannot ask any. 9 In that connection, _Your Honor, you did' 10 ask, during the course of Witness F's testimony, when-11 he made reference-to an alleged directive with respect 12 to the consolidation of SWA's, for us to look for.that 13- document.. 14 Can I elicit any testimony on that? 15 JUDGE.BLOCH: . As to whetherLyou've 16 been able to find it, please, that'sfin response to 17 a Board -- 1 i 18 MR. DAVIDSON: Well,.I think the witness 19 is the person who could give the answer.to that 20 question. 1 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, in response to thel j 22 Board request you may produce. testimony. 23 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, do I'under- ) 24 stand the ruling is that the testimony is to be ! 2 25 whether or not iney were consolidated? - 1 i hm_.-__________.-___..____ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
l i 18371 i 14-12 ~1 MR. DAVIDSON: No,.no, there was ( 2 testimony,.and let's get the testimonya so we know - 3 -what the Board asked.. 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Why don't you ask4the i ( 5 question and let's see. I 6 How many questions do.you have here? 7 MR.'DAVIDSON: Three, four questions.. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's see whatLthe 9 questions are. Go ahead. 10 Oh, you have to find-your place.in the 11 transcript to ask the question? 12 MR. DAVIDSON: I've got the notation 13 here. I'm just leafing through the transcript. 14 The question arose because of this 15 testimony on Page 14627 in which Witness F stated 16 at Lines 6 through 12: 17 " ANSWER: No, we had been. informed ( 18 by the ' supervisory personnel that-l 19 if there's a possibility of having 20 to take the equipment down more than, 21 one time, if there was an additional. 22 problem someplace else or other s
'23 problems, then we were notEto sign-24 SWA's one week and turn around three 25 weeks later and'take the same piece
___..,__..___1__,________i_.___________m m____
'18372 14-13 1 of' equipment down."
2 At another point Witness F suggested
' {~'
3 that this might have been put in the. form of a. 1 i e 4 - memorandum and the Board requested that we make'a I (. - I 5 search to determine whether such a: memorandum existed, 6 and in aid of that I asked Mr. London-if he_would 7 perform that search and that he:could then in1his 8 testimony report back to us-what,the fruits-of that-
)
search had been and whether he. understood what-it 9 10 was that Witness F was talking about. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: A r.d . w e invited you'to 12 ask the questions. 13 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm ready now. 34 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 L 23 24
- (-
25
y 18373' 1 i 5-l' 1 BY MR. DAVIpSON: .
'Ofs. 2' G Mr. London, would you respond to that? ]
q 3 -Is there such a memo,randum and what is it.that Mr. F ] ( 4 refers to?
\
5 A And~ extensive search of startup memo 6 files and startup interoffice memo files did not reveal 7 any such' memorandum.
-- l' 8 However, I do remember a meeting between 9 Mr. Camp and the startup group leaders in which
? .
jc Mr. Camp expressed the concern that all outstanding 11 documented work should be performed on systems or I, _ 1 12 components at one time during one outage. __-)
. 13 The directive was -- the directive that ja I passed to the people-in the electrical startup group 15 was to make a concerted effort to identify documented 16 OPen work items prior to authorizing an outage on a 17 piece of equipment, so that all of those documented 18 items could be resolved during'that one outage.
i 19 JUDGE BLOCH: But that was oral? 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. 21 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 22 O In that oral advisory, Mr. London, did i 23 you indicate that there should be any delays in l 24 authorizing SWA's for future or potential or otherwise 25 unidentified problems? e
18374:
.5 - 2' 1 MR. ROISMAN:L' Objection. That'.s beyond
[ 2 the scope of what.the.' Board asked for. The question-3 . wa s ,- is there a document.. The witness has:said, "No." I f 4 JUDGE BLOCH: You understood that, 1 ( -1 5 didn't you? .I mean, you knew you were going.beyond
.. 1 6 what we had authorized when you asked:that question?. H 7 MR. DAVIDSON:. Your Honor, I thought it 8 was a-natural.and appropriate question-in the' context 9 here. ;
L' 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay, but we only' asked 11 for evidence as to whether there was a written 12 procedure, written memorandum'about it . -
- p. 13 MR. DAVIDSON: Thatfis<true, Your 14 Honor, but it seems to me that that is~a fairly.
15 procrustean way to go after the truth; but if that's 16 your ruling, that'sLyour ruling, Your Honor. 17 JUDGE BLOCH: These matters'are 'all.. 18 rather tangential to the basic question..in this t 19 proceeding, so let's conti'nue. s' . .. 20 MR.-DAVIDSON: . I understand,.Your: Honor. 21 There will be no further questions on.; 22 SWA. l
, 23 Your' Honor will recollect that one of 2d the other items that was raised was the use of the c
(~ 25 master punchlist. Do you recollect that,.Your Honor? 6-
*18375
- 15-3 1- JUDGE'BLOCH: Y e s'.. Could iILjustiask-2 whether'the' protective order was: offered-to the.
{ .. 3 representative ofLthe< State'of' Texas-who'isn't here
^
4 now? 5 'MR. DAVIDSON: WeLnever:gotla'. chance' 6 ~to do it, Your Honor. 7 JUDGE BLOCH . We were trying'to:do..that1 8- 'and-forgot. Do you(have'one1.so he-couldfsign?L 9; MR. DAVIDSON: All.ILhave, Land'I( 10 looked through my papers, was.the one that 11 Mr. London executed, which we could, if we-have a-12 Xerox machine available and some Snopaque, doctor
- , 13 up for him.-
14 JUDGE.BLOCH: 'Let's not take theitime 15 now. Let's continue. 16 BY MR. DAVIDSON: .. 17 Q Mr.-London,- are startup' memoranda 18 entered on the master punchlist?. 19 A Some startup' memos?are entered?onithe 1 j 20 master data system. , 21 O Who determines.- I'm sorry. Is that 22 different from master punchlist and master data
-t 23 system or master-database?
l l q t. 24 A The document-to which you'are referring i k- , 25 was originally called the master system punchlist.- 1 l i
)
,j a - _- -_ --________-__ - _ _ - _ . _ _ _
18376 L5-4 1: Its name has since been changed to 2 that of the master database. 3 G WhatLis its function as the master { 4 database?
- 5. A The master database is an information 6 tracking system which allows a~ grouping of-systems,
>. 7 any deficiencies, nonconformance reports, TUGCO design 8 change requests, startup work authorizations that 9 are outstanding'against a given system to be numerically 10 listed.
p It.contains a description of the item 1 12 at hand; a location that the work'is-performed, if 1 l 1 13 applicable; an SWA number that's doing the work; 14 when startup needs the thing by; when-construction. 1 1 15 estimates they can complete the work item by; a 16 responsible organization, if it's electrical-I 17 superintendent for' electrical construction, if it's j 1' l 18 NEE, an acronym for TUGCO Nuclear Engineering i i 19 Electrical Department. l 20 So the responsible organization is 21 there: and there is also a remarks. column out at the I , 22 side that allows for any information that needs'to
\~
23 be added to the item. I 24 0 Who can put an-item, like a startup 25 memo, on the master database? l.' l
1 18377
.5-5 ? JUDGE BLOCH: Before he answers that,
{' 2 can you mind me of the relevance again? I'm very 3 sorry. ( 4 MR. DAVIDSON: There was testimony about ) 5 the fact that the Ferro resonant transformer memo j i 6 on the trending failures which Witness F wrote was 7 Put on the master punchlist, and there was some 8 question as to whether or not that was a tracking 9 system and how it was used; and I wanted to find out 10 from the witness how it was used and, also, who could 11 put such items on the master database. - I 12 JUDGE BLOCH: This witness knows, for
.. 13 example, whether it's trended?
k 14 MR. DAVIDSON: We'd have to ask hig 15 that, but he certainly knows what's on the master -- 16 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 17 G You do know -- I mean, you have used l 18 the master database. You understand its operation, 19 do you not? 20 A Yes, I utilize it at least twice a 21 week in the performance of my job responsibilities. 22 O When you say you use it, what do you mean ?
~
23 You put something on it or you take something off? 24 A I attend meetings to discuss problems. i (
\~ 25 That gives us a status of expected completion dates I
18378
.5'-6
~
i and-cetual" final completion dates.
- p. 2 JUDGE..BLOCH: You haven't, told me .i 4
3 where we were interested.- I can't imagine it went-f 4 beyond whether it was' trended or not. i 5 MR..DAVIDSON:
. I think there was some-6 questien as to who'could put something on the master' 7
~ database.and whether.it'.was - a tracking system.:
8 JUDGE BLOCH: 'Maybe there.was a 9 question as to-whether an engineer, an STE,'could 10 Put one in. jj MR. DAVIDSON: :Yes, that is.the 12 question. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: So why don't we just ask (-
\ that one question.
gj 15 MR. DAVIDSON: That was the question, 16 who could put it on. I asked him twice;.-he hasn't 17 answered me.
. i 18 JUDGE BLOCH: So we are done on that 39 one. The only other question would be if:it's-20 trended, and I-don't_think he'.s got_ direct 1 testimony e
21 on that.
- 22. MR. TREBY: I don't think:he's answered:
23 the question. 24 MR. DAVIDSON: -I don't think he's-
' 25 answered the question of who.could put it on.
4 _____________i___.______________.____..____ ____i_._____._____.__._.._m _ _ _ _ _ . . . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ __.._:_._J
i 18379 5-7 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Can an STE put a deficiency 2 into the master data list? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. An STE can 4 enter items on the master database and an STE can 5 also, once the item has been corrected, can close
, 6 an item on the master database.
, 7 The master database is a tool for the 8
system test engineer to use as a status for systems under his responsibility or control. It is a tracking 9 , 10 system. 11 MR. DAVIDSON: Judge Bloch, if ycu'd like to ask the witness whether the data is tranded, 12 13 we might as well find out if he knows. 7
\
ja JUDGE BLOCH: Do you know whether the 15 data is trended? 16 THE WITNESS: There is a trend 17 performed on the data, but to my knowledge, it is 18 simply sheer numbers of different categories of 19 items. 20 I get a weekly report that shows the 21 number of items that system test engineers in my 22 group are responsible for and the number of items
'~
23 that various other individuals are responsible for. 24 So from that respect, it is trended.
' 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Is the STE's disposition
18380-
~
L5-8 1 of the deficiency reviewed by other people?..You=say 2 he can get a' deficiency into the list and then he {~~ . 3 can dispose of it. Is there a review of his disposi-4 tion? 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. There would be 6 a revtew of his disposition of the individual
, 7 deficiency-itself.. In other words, a TUGCO design 8 changeLrequest -- or should I say'a TUGCO test.
9 deficiency report, a TDR, has a tracking mechanism: . 4 10 of its own. 11 In other words, it remains open until' 12 such time as the system test engineer completes 13 corrective action and completes the retest. k' 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. 15 THE WITNESS: You're welcome. 16 MR. DAVIDSON: That was all I had on d 17 the master punchlist, unless the Staff-has'some 1 i 18 questions or Judge Grossman. 19 MR. MIZUNO: No.
'20 BY MR. DAVIDSON: ,
j i 21 % Turning to Transcript Page 14,629, at ; i
'22 that page, Your Honor, Judge Bloch, asked some. '
i 23 questions about whether or-not Witness'F could'have 24 procured or could have submitted an NCR with 25 respect to his concerna over alleged conflict'between
- i
18381 5-9 ) ES-100 and Reg. Guide 1.75. (^' 2 What I am turning to is I.am turning to
\
3 the specific answer the' witness gave on that page 4 at Lines 9 through 13, and it reads as follows: "No. 5 It is so written.that th'e:NRC allows anybody to 6 write NCR's, .but: it's so written by: upper management
, 7 in startup is1that nobody writes an NCR from startup 8
without Dick Camp approving it first." 9 RMR . DAVIDSON: Yourl Honor, you asked' 10 us if we would seek to find any such memorandum which jj would have been so written. 12 Once again, I asked Mr. London to 13 undertake that search for us'and' determine if there ja was any such memorandum. 15 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 16 0 Did you undertake that review, . 1
-l 17 Mr. London?
18 A Yes, I discovered the.startup. inter- ) 1 j9 office memo to which Witness F refers. 20 g Does that limit Witness-F's ability to ; 21 write an NCR7 l
\
22 A No, it does not. l 23 0 Would you tell us what the purpose of 5 24 the memorandum was? 25 A The memorandum states, as I recall, that 4
\ ;
18382 h
.5 1- . prior to. issuing a nonconformance reportinto the
~
l (^ ' 2 . Comanche Peak system that it would be: reviewed by! . l 3 Dick Camp.
.l f' 4 0- Do you know the reason for this: review. j u
\
5 and what the review consists of? 6 MR.fROISMAN:- Objection. . Now we are 7- going too'far. We've'got the: document -- t-
~
.,- 8 JUDGE:BLOCH:- Why. don't~we'putlthe.
l- 9 document in?
'10 MR. ROISMAN: I believe the-witness-11 almost. quoted it verbatim. q 12 MR. DAVIDSON:- I think we are entitled
, 13 to understand what generatedythe document, Your
~
14 Fonor. 15 JUDGE GRGSSMAN: ..cuse me.- Mr.ELondon, 16 did you generate that document? 17 THE-WITNESS: No, sir.->The document-18 was generated by Dick Camp, the.startup manager. 19 MR. DAVIDSON: Fut he-may know the 20 facts and circumstances that causednits generation 21 and that's what we're asking. 22 MR. ROISMAN: He can't know that. The 23 best he can know is what Mr. Camp may have~ told him 24 ' was the reason. l
/ , ;
4+- 25 - MR. DAVIDSON: All right. We will take
. i 1
18383 5-11 1 it for that. 2 'MR. ROISMAN: Well,'then it's {~'
'3 irrelevant.
- q. 4 JUDGE ~GROSSMAN: It is also hearsay.
5 MR. DAVIDSON: .Well, Your Honor, I 6 think this record is beginning to look very unusual. 7 I can't understand this. 8 If Your. Honor rays.that we can't'go one 9 ~ step beyond the piece of paper, this has never been i 10 applied to any other attorney in this case or any 11- other witness. 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Let me see the -- 13 MR. DAVIDSON: I am being subjected to 14 a gag order here, and I must tell you that I say this' 15 with all due respect, I find the procedures here to-16 be as unorthodox as any Tribunal I've ever been before 17 in 16 years of practice. 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Davidson, let me l 19 say I've read depositions taken by you, evidentiary 20 and discovery. You use hearsay objections on.every i l 21 page basically for matters that,are not hearsay. i 22 Now you are proposing to submit some j i
' I 23 hearsay testimony that's clearly hearsay, and you are 24 telling us that that is beyond the procedures used j 25 here? $
l 1 i
-l
.18384
.5-12 -1 MR. DAVIDSON: Your Honor, I understand ( 2 your point, and, of' course, you are:quite right'that 3 hearsay is a perfectly-appropriate objection in the f 4 right context, but we.have not yet determined whether i 5 this witness has any actual and personal knowledge,- 6 which would make his testimony not.be hearsay. 7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: .Well, Mr. Davidson, my. 8 recollection is that you askedLhim what caused 9 Mr. Camp to prepare that memorandum; or wordsLtofthat' 10 effect. ij MR. DAVIDSON: Well, II.think l[ actually 12 said, "Do you know the facts and circumstances that 13 caused that memorandum to.be generated," and that is
\ a different question.
14 I 15 MR. ROISMAN: I believe the question 16 that was objected to was,."Did you know the purpose, y 17 Mr. Camp's purpose?" 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 'Yes,.Mr. Camp's purpose. 19 MR. DAVIDSON: All right. Well, I 20 will accept the objection to that question and let 21 me change it to the one I meant.to ask. l I 22 JUDGE-BLOCH: The document may be j 23 admitted -- It's admitted to be the plant's 24 document? 4 25 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, Your Honor.
18385
.5-13 1 JUDGE-BLOCH: It shall be admitted' I
- (~ -2 into-evidence and bound into'the' transcript.- ]
3 MR. ROISMAN: And again, as with respect. , l ( 4 to all the documents that are going'in,.I would-like 5- to state my. request that Applicants sometime~during 6 the early part of next week provide us with a copy 1
.l 7 of the documents.
1 8 JUDGE BLOCH:- No objection, Mr. Davidson?
$ =. .
9 MR. DAVIDSON:' . No objection to I
'10 providing copies, Your Honor.
j 11 (Memo, 7-28-83 from D.qCamp-12 to All Startup Engineers follows:) ( 13 i ( ), 15 16 17 f i 19 1 20 21 l 22 23 24
\-'
25 $
SIM-83194 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY 18386 OFFICE MEMORA ND UM f To All R e n venin Fn e 4'n *
- r m Gen Rose. Texas .Tuly 28. 1983 Subject NCR's In the future all NCR's initiated by Startup personnel shall be submitted to me for review prior to issuance. .
Dick Camp ec: STE Reading File REC /bt r :
~
i l 1 l l l 1
~
ll
.1g3g7 m 5-14 1 JUDGE BLOCH: A brief Statomont about i
e 2 .his-personal knowledge and.the circumstances 3 surrounding. ; 4 MR. DAVIDSON: Y e s'. 5 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 6 O Would you please tell us what. personal 7 knowledge you have of the facts and circumstances-1 1 8 surrounding the generation of that memorandum, j 9 Mr. London? 10 A In one of our regular' morning. meetings il , between Dick Camp and the startup; group leaders, 1 12 Dick expressed concern that nonconformance reports c- 13 were sometimes being cJenerated that were in fact k- test deficiency reports. 14 15 Due to the differences'in the way the 16 two pieces of paper are handled and the actual 17 definition of the term " test deficiency" versus 18 "nonconformance report," Dick' Camp said that he' wanted 19 to review all nonconformance reports prior to submittin g 20 them into the numerical system on site. l l 1 21 /// 22 '/// 23 24 L' 25 w___-_-___ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
183881
.16-l' 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Is'there a written 1 2 Procedure'which' explains ~the criteria.for whether 3 you use a.TDR-or an'NCR?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. CP-SAP-16, 5 test deficiency /nonconformance. reporting, I believe 6 is the title of it, defines a test deficiency as'a y deficiency in the operating characteristics, the 8 test document or the. start-up adherence tofadminis-9 trative procedures that' renders the quality of an 10 item or activity unacceptable. 11 A nonconformance report, on-the other 12 hand, is a deficiency in a component, be itTits vendor
.- 13 documentation, its installation,-installation in 14 accordance with specification or some other attribute 15 that lends the -quality of that component indeterminate .
16 So there is a. distinct difference 17 between a test deficiency and.a nonconformance. 18- JUDGE-BLOCH: Now, that criterion, 19 though, shouldn't you have had an NCR.on the problems = 20 in the alarm circuit that we discussed earlier:today? j 21 THE WITNESS: No, sir, because that 22 was a discrepancy.in the start-up documentation-that
~
23 -rendered chat step of'that procedure unacceptable.- 24 JUDGE BLOCH: No,. it'was a. deficiency- ' ( - 25 in the hardware-that made it necessary to change J the 1 o 8
, d.
~
u 18389 16-2L .1 hardware.. 2 THE-WITNESS: ILbelieve it was a 3 deficiency that .was. discovered during 'the performance-d of the test. It was a deficiency in the-operational, 5 characteristics of the' inverter, albeit it eventually-
~
6' turned'out to be a design problem, but it was_still , 7 Ja' test deficiency report per our definition'in-:
'8 CP-SAP-16 rather than'a nonconformance.- '
9- JUDGE-BLOCH: 'I guess we don't.have 10 that procedure, do we?- 11 MR. DAVIDSON: I'misorry,1Your-Honor, 12 I' don't'believe we do. tit was not one of.'the ones
- 13 that was initially requested.
\.'
14 JUDGE BLOCH: We hadn't requested it-15 because we didn' t know it was ~ going: to become. t 16 relevant. 17 ' MR. DAVIDSON: I understand that,- 18 Your Honor. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: . I think we ought to see 20 it at this point - .not immediately,.atua_ reasonable 21 time. 22 MR. DAVIDSON:. .I. understand,'Your Honor, u 23 MR.-ROISMAN: Mr. Chairmani to avoidc
~
24 any future' confusion on.it, can the Board limit' its O
'- I 25 request to the document?.
L , m
f18390
'16-3 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes.
f"" 2' MR. ROISMAN: And as long asLI'get-3 representation from counsel that its authenti:
.4 I'll have-no objection 1to it.being received without' 5 a witness to sponsor it.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: All we want is~the t 7 document. It should, speak 'f or itself. . Plant-8 procedures are supposed to.beispecific. 9 .BY MR.-DAVIDSON: 10 0 Mr. London, could I just ask you to 11 repeat the number and designation' . 12 A That is start-up administrative 13 procedure 16, the ecryonym number would be 14 1-CP-SAP-16., 15 MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you. JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Davidson, please 16] 17 continue. 18 MR. DAVIDSON: .Thank you, Your Honor.- 19 We may be able to do this'very briefly.
.I 20 Earlier I had shown~Mr. "iisman one'of;.the, documents.
21 that-I wantedLto use, which is the December 19th, 22 1983, start-up memorandum ~, which Witness-Fjprepared.' L 23' There-had been some question as to 24 whether it was a complete' document. Ithas as!
- 25 attachments Reg. Guide'l.75 and a portion of-ES-100
,,___aL , - _ _ _ - - - _ - - _ _ _ -
18391; 16-4 1 that deals with cable separation criteria, and.I (~ 2 have represented to Mr. Roisman that it is a complete-3 document but it did not have as.an. attachment
, 4 IEEE 324, which was a matter of some question and s
5 controversy at Witness F's examination. 6 If Mr.. Roisman is prepared to' stipulate 7 with me that this document is complete as it it, that 8 it did not contain IEEE 324, and'I think there is 9 testimony from several peoplethat this is a complete 10 document, then I don't think we have to ask this 11 witness anything about it. 12 , MR. ROISMAN: I think all I'd like to 13 do is have the document as it now: appears in the 14 record, that the witness will identify that that is 15 the complete document and that IEEE number was not 16 there, not to put in another document but I believe 17 that document is attached at at least one place. < J 18 MR. DAVIDSON: I think it is in i 19 evidence, actually, i
. -)
20 MR. ROISMAN: Right. 'All we have to 21 do is have the witness look at that exhibitfand say 22 yes, that's the complete one, and that I think~will i I 23 take care of it. 24 MR. DAVIDSON: And I think there was b 25 testimony, was there not, Mr. Roisman, that j l 4 4
'l
1 l
;18392 , l 16-5 1 Mr. London had in fact < reviewed this as a part of.
(' 2 the star,t-up procedure. 3 I think there was also testimony that I ( 'd as a part ofithe' start-up procedures, administrative 5 . procedures, that Mr. London was in fact one of the 6 People this memorandum would pass through and who 7 would review it_and initial-it, .so he can testify to 8 his own personal knowledge. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. .Mr. Roisman already 10 said he could. 11 -MR. ROISMAN: Yeah, but I want-it 12 identified by the exhibit _ number and show him the 13 exhibit, rather than this-document, because.then we C 14 got to still-findout whether this document is the 15 exhibit document. 16 MR. MIZUNO: My copy is. labeled Camp 17 Deposition 2. I have it right here. 18 MR. ROISMAN: Oh, that's good. Fine. -j 19 MR. DAVIDSON: . Camp-Exhibit 2.
.)
20 MR. ROISMAN: If the witness.can just 21 be shown that and asked the question about-that J 22 exhibit, that will make the record. clear.
" l 23 JUDGE BLOCH: She's not going to 24 receive that.
('--' 25 MR. DAVIDSON: Oh, that's right, we 1
~l l
d i
-]
i b003 16-6 1 already have it in .- (~} 2 JUDGE BLOCH: The the record show that j 3 -the witness is examining Camp Exhibit.2. j
- 4. MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you', Your' Honor.
5 MR. ROISMAN: I believe the witness has
'. 6 completed his examination of the exhibit.
7 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 8 0 Mr. London,.do you recognize that 9 document as-the one that you reviewed and forwarded 10 that was prepared by Witness F? 11 A Yes, I do. 12 G And is it complete? 13 A Yes, it is complete. 14 O There was no attachment of IEEE 3247 15 A No, there wasn't. 16 g Mr. London, are you familiar with an 17 organization called the joint test group? 18 A Yes,.I am. l
; 19 0 Could you tell us who the members of l
20 the joint test group are and what their function is? I 21 MR. ROISMAN: Excuse me. Could I have 1 22 my memory refreshed on where the joint test group gets I i ;
~
{ 23 into the Board's request'for this witness?- a 24 MR. DAVIDSON: The Board asked what the ! (' 25 Procedure was reviewing pre-operational tests, and I
, l
11S394 6 .7 1 the. witness.in fact referred.to certain' named, 2 individuals, five individuals that had signed -- 3 ~ JUDGE BLOCH: That was already handled,. ( 4 I thought that was handled by Mr. Vega as to what 5 the test people were, what their. functions were, 6 that's not what we're talking about? 7 MR. DAVIDSON: No, we're.-not asking 8 who is the OA technician and what do they do and 9 who's a QC, quality' control inspector and who's a 10 quanlity engineering, or quality control engineer. 11 This has to do with the review function 12 of pre-operational tests, and Witness F pointed out
'{s
13 that his test had been' subjected to some form of
;4 review, there were five names on it, and the. Board 15 asked, well, what'is~the procedure for reviewing pre-16 operational tests, so this hasn't to do with the 17 witnessing of the performance of the pre-operational 18 test, this has --
19 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you have~the procedure i 20 and you're going to put it in, is that the idea? 21 MR. DAVIDSON: I do not have'the- < 22 procedure, but perhaps the witness can explain. i 23 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 24 0 Is there a procedure, a written procedure 25 for the joint test. group review of pre-operational' I i
18335
'16-8 1 tests?.
.2 A.' The review'of pre-operational tests-by-
- 3. the joint 1 test group is governed by CP-SAP-8 and' 4 CP-SAP-ll.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: . WhichLone do we'have lin-6 'the record? 7 THE WITNESS: We~ don't,have either in
~
8 the' record, to my knowledge, Your Honor. 9 'MR. DAVIDSON: But we can procure th'em 10 .for you, Your-Honor. 11 JUDGE ~BLOCH:' Let's declare thiss to be-12 a nonconsequential issue andLforget about the answer
' 13 about it. Let's continue.
14 MR.'DAVIDSON: _ Hewin7 tolthe dictates-15 of the Board's earlier ruling.-here-to restrict the 16 examination solely to those items that were raised-17 specifically by the Board andLto put inithose docu-j 18 -ments that the Board had requested,;there would be 19 some additional areas I wouldLlike to cover. 20 However,'I will, of course, conduct 21 myself in'accordance with the Board's order. I will 22 make that proffer in writing.- I will not'undertakeL 23 examination at this time. 24 I believe that completes my list of J 25 documents that the Board had requested.
+-
_________________.m _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ .- .______m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __.________.._.___m__ _ . _ _ _
18336 9 1 JUDGE BLOCH: We appreciate that. 2 The Board has no questions.of the {' 3 witness. ( 4 Mr. Roisman,.-do you have any? 5 MR.JROISMAN: Just one, Mr. Chairman.. 6 Mr. London, when did Mr. Jamar'become 7 an employee who was under.your supervision? 8 .THE' WITNESS: Mr. Jamar came-.under my 9 direct supervision in May'of-1983. 10 MR. ROISMAN: In your earlier tc.utimony. 11 I thought you had indicated that he had been under 12 your supervision for.three years, and.I was confused 13 about that. Could you just clarify it, please'- ? ( 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. He,had been on site' 15 for approximately three' years and he had been working 16 directly with me.in a group'under.my supervision, the , 17 electrical test group, for -- he had been: working for 18 a period of about one year immediately after his ! I 19 coming onto the job site. 20 However, I was not his administrative 21 supervisor. I was more or-less a1-- I was more or-l 22 less a technical supervisor to ensure that~he-became L < 23 well indoctrinated with the ' start-up procedures and
~
24 that he was performing his job duties appropriately. l
+
(- 25 MR. ROISMAN: And when did that-period I 4. i
18397:
.=16 .10 1 . s tart ? L I'm j ust tryingo to get -- ,
{ 2 THE WITNESS: .As-I, recall,!Mr.-Jamar' 3 came.to_ work in. January of 1981. 4 MR.- . ROISMAN :' And did your responsi-5 Lbility'there include actually reviewing.the" work 6 thati he was doing, and.seeing his test reports,and; 7 things'that.he-was working on? g~ t THE WITNESS: lYes, it'did;- 9 MR '. ROISMAN: No more-questions. 10 11
~
12 13 t 14 15) 16 17 18 19 20 21 l 22 23 24
.* 25 s
18398 2 1 '1' JUDGE'BLOCH: Staff?- i I 2 MR. MIZUNO: Staff doesn't'have any.
-{7 3 questions for Mr. London.
4 -JUDGE JORDAN: Just a' clarifying j (- 5 question. 6 -In-performing,the overload test'in whi:.h 7 you put a jumper on. 8 THE WITNESS: .Yes, sir. 9 JUDGE JORDAN: The procedures for. 10 putting the jumper on, is that partioflthe test .
,6 11 or is it clear where the jumper goes from the test 1
12 procedure? 13 THE WITNESS: Yes,fsir. Startup 14 procedures administratively' require us to ---if'it 15 is necessary to install a : jumper 'during the performance 16 of a preoperational test, that the installation:of
-1 17 that jumper is denoted by a' step, " " . d: the subsequent {
j 18 removal of the jumper is also denc:ed by a-step. 19 JUDGE JORDAN: Okay, fine. 20 Now, then, Witness'F testified that when . 21 he simulates the test, the red light on the panel l 22 comes on, and'you have ru) problem with that, even 23 with the faulty design; is that correct? ' i 24 THE WITNESS: That is correct.- -l I
\-
25 JUDGE JORDAN: All right. 1 e l
15399' 7-2 e 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you very much. You l (' 2 are excused. 1 3 (The witness was excused.) f 4 JUDGE BLOCH: We'll take a five-minute (. 5 break. We will break promptly at 3:00, but I think 6 we ought to start Mr. Eddie. 7 (Recess taken.) 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Welcome, Mr. Eddie. 9 Whereupon, 10 DAVID A. EDDIE 11 was called as a witness and, having been previously 12 duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth and
, 13 nothing but the truth, testified on his oath as b 14 follows:
15 JUDGE BLOCH: The testimony you gave 16 previously was sworn by the reporter. You continus 17 to be under oath in this proceeding. Your testimony j 1 1 18 is subject to possible penalty for perjury. ' 19 We welcome you and we are pleased to 4 20 have you here. i I 21 The witness is my witness, or are there ) l 22 things you wish to accomplish? ) 23 MR. DAVIDSON: Your Honor, as you know, ' l 24 Mr. Eddie appears here today at the request of the I - 25 Board, t l 1
18400 ' 7 't I have no prepared redirect for 2 Mr. Eddie.
- [^
3 (Pause in proceedings.) 4 JUDGE BLOCH: We are just looking for 5 the.... 6 MR. MIZUNO: Mr. Eddie's depositionfis 7 in a black -- 8 JUDGE BLOCH: ITo . I'm looking at a copy 9 of the form that was used for the -- 10 MR. ROISMAN: For the test? 11 JUDGE BLOCH: -- for the test. 12 MR. ROISMAN: Here it is. It is
.. 13 attached as Eddie Exhibit 2, among other places.
^- JUDGE BLOCH: Okay.
14 15 BOARD EXAMINATION 16 BY JUDGE BLOCH: 17 0 Mr. Eddie, I'm showing you.Eddie 18 Exhibit 2, and I would like you to look.for the'first 19 Place here that-your signature appears, which I 20 believe is on Page 13. 21 Could you tell me the meaning of-22 affixing your signature to that . particular line on 23 Page 13?
]
24 A Independent verification is the actiof r .
25 confirming, substantiating'or assuring that an action- i i
~
f-18401-
~
47-4' 1 - in performed'.,
- (' 2 There's,lby our procedures,..indepe$ dent 3 verification gives me~the option to.eitherLpersonally 4 - witness ~t he step myself'or to substantiate the action 5 by documents, records or signatures,-or.have an.
6 independent third person verify an action that'.happens 7 in a remote location. 8 This person'can either be oneLfrom' 9 quality or a person _in startup testing.whoLis equal-10 to or greater.than?in commensurate qualifications 1than 11 the person doing~the testing. 12
.Now, in-this case here I used.4
- 13 combination of methods. We'have anLindependent person 14 in the control _ room. substantiating, and'this was' 15 related to me by. Witness F. s I
16 JUDGE BLOCH: WeLonly.use Witness F 17 instead of... consistently so that we can keep his 18 name confidential from others. 19 THE WITNESS: Okay. h 20 This verification from an independent- ;
)
21 third' person related to me by Witness.F;;also, the 22 STE himself, verified by his signature in this testL
.J 23 record that he had also verifiedithat all those-24 actions had been complete. .
25 So upon the above objective evidence I-l.
~1 18402 i
.7-5 1 signed tho witnoss for indepsndant verification of j
/~ 2 that step being performed as stated. ,
3 BY JUDGE BLOCH: j 4 G On Line 7.1.11, Witness F signed for a ( 5 step which says, " Record output voltage and frequency j 6 on Data Sheet 1." l 7 What did your independent verification 8 mean with respect to that step? 9 i. That he recorded from the static 10 inverters the voltage and frequency as designated or. 11 the data sheet. 12 O Did you see him do that? e- 13 A Yes, I did. ( 14 0 Was.it or was it not part of your job 15 to decide whether that was within the criteria for 16 the test? 17 A No, it's not. 18 G How do we know that? How do you know 19 that's not part of your job? 20 A Well, there's a difference, I guess, 21 between QC and QA. 22 QC monitors all construction activity 23 and is 100 percent inspection.
~
24 QA function is not 100 percent function. 25 We do a sampling and it's a sampling by independent _ . _ _ _ _.___s
q
'18403 h 4'
.7-6 .- 1 -- verification'of procedures in programs to assuro-('
2- that the programs.are being accomplished asithey are 3 stated. 4 : g'- -Was it;partoftyour: job in reviewing-k;- 5 .this test procedure.toflook.atLtha wiring diagram for 6 the equipment that'was beingl tested? 7 A I would sayLitsynot part of myJjob, 8 .although I could look at'it if I' wanted to,-:if;I-9 felt there was a need'for that.
~
10 .O Was it part of yourfj~ob.~to-decide' 11 whetherLthe test procedure' adequately measured-what 12 it was supposed to mea'sure? 13 A No. L G Did there evericome a: time'when~a rumor 14 15 reached you that Witness F or'someone else may have-16 - tricked you about this report? 17 A No. 18 O Did Mr.'Cheatheam'ever;tell'you that. 19 Witness F may have tricked you? 20 A No, he did not. I 21 G Did Mr. London ever-tell.you that?. 22 A No.
.I
' Even quite-recently, he neve'r' told.you 23 O 24 that?
25 A The~first indication that'Ifhad of this q a _ .- --- -___A--- _-N------_--
18404
.7-7 1 problem was when Mark Davidson como to me.cnd ha:askod
/" 2 me to explain my involvement in the test, which I 3 believe was a month ago, approximately.
4 At that-time -- 5 MR.'DAVIDSON: I would like to point-6 out to Mr. Eddie that he is not required tordisclose 7 the content of our conversations.- g There's nothing wrong with your stating 9 that a cony'rsation e took place or giving the time of 10 it or -- 11 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm satisfied that1the 12 answer was that he learned at that time. That's fine. 13 MR..ROISMAN: -Just for the record, I ( k 14 want to note I don't'thinkLthe attorney / client 15 privilege reaches down to employees at this level of 16 the Applicant company, but I'm not asking for the 17 answer, either. 18 I just don't want it to be said, "Well, 19 Mr. Roisman could have said if that's'what he thought 20 the attorney / client privilege was." 21 I don't think it gets to that level.
'22 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm not interested in 23 what Mr. Davidson told Mr. London.
24 MR. ROISMAN: Nor am I.
~
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:. I'm not sure'anyone is
^
e um______._____.__.-m____._ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - _ ._
~18405 7-8 ' 1. anacrting the~attornay/ client privilogo here.
(' 2 BY. JUDGE BLOCH: i 3 0 Do you know what the correct procedure i 4 would.be at the plant if someone discovered that:an 3 employee had tricked a quality technician? 6 A It's my understanding that this.would j i 7 be brought to the supervision that would be responsible 8 for correcting that. 0
~
9 Would you think that any deficiency 10 paper would have to be generated? 11 A If it required to have a deficiency.
)
12 written, yes. 13 0 Well, that's kind of circular.- -If I 14 someone tricked the quality inspector - quality 15 technician, would you expect.that under plant 16 procedure that there would have to be paper on_that? 17 A Yes, that's true. 18 4 Were there other instances in which 19 tests were done in which you had to rely on what an 20 STE told you happened at some remote location? l 21 A Yes, there have been times when we have f 22 relied on them, often, to help in substantiating. intricate tests that require more than one location. 23 24 G Do you know if that happened in other
' ^
25 instances involving you with Witness F?
- 1840s
.7-11. 1 A No.
(~ ' 2 O Yea don't know or it didn't? 3 A No, there never has been another time 4 when I was involved with Witness F. 5 0 In your review of this startup work by-6 Witness F, was it any part of'your job to determine-7 whether formulas that were to be applied were applied 8 correctly? 9 A I believe this'part of the-computation. 10 of the test results is within the startup function, 11 and we do not see that part of'it, unless we go into 12 the records in the vault to do a surveillance ~of l 13 random sampling of documented evidence for verification
' of accuracy.
14 15 O That's a separate quality assurance 16 function that's not involved in the direct oversight i 17 of the testing?
]
1 18 A That's' correct.- ) I 19 (Bench conference.), ) 1 20 BY JUDGE BLOCH: 21 0 Do I understand correctly that there is l 22 no QC check at startup; is that right? !
~
23 A Any work-on equipment'that.startup does, 24 it is. handled through the construction QC program.for-25 as far as needing verification-of maybe lifted leads. i l i
)
18407
.7-10 1 or work on equipment.
v' f 2 G But the tests, themselves, are not 3 subject to QC surveillance?
, 4 A No.
( 5 0 Rework would be? 6 A Rework, yes, if it's involved with a 7 disconnect of quality function. 8 /// 9 /// IC 11 12 13 (- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 e 22 23 j 24 v. 25 e
1840SL 18-1 1 BY JUDGE BLOCH: he (~ - 2 G. Would;you know whether there's a
.3 requirement to file paper on a design deficiency
~ ' '
( 4 if a design deficiency.shows up during a start-up 5 test? 6 A Yes, there would,' because of'not -- 7 usually a design deficiency would make a test 8 deficiency, and any time that we have a test 9 deficiency we write a discrepancy report documenting 10 that fact. 11 O And would it mention that in addition 12 to the test not coming out with the appropriate 13 results that there had been a' deficiency in the way 14 the equipment was designed? 15 A If.the STE can state it that'way, yes, ; 16 he will state it. Or he may just send it up for 17 technical review to let the design people take a i 1 18 technical determination on a problem that is maybe 19 indeterminate at the level of the STE. : 20 0 And he might cneck on it before he.
'21 decides whether to write deficiency paper? l 1
l 22 A No. My experience is that they write j t 23 the deficiency and let the technical group make a i 24 determination on it after it's written. 25 O So you write.it first and then the 4
'l i
_____________._m.__. _ . _ _ _ _ _
/
18409 18-2= 1 disposition'is by'the technicalEgroup?
!(' ~2 A' Yes,. if they designate it for them to 3 disposition it.
4 g And under plant procedures if1there 5 were a design deficiency that the. start-upftest 6 engineers were sure of., what deficiency _ form would he 7 Put it on? 8 A Well, he would document it on a TDR. 9 He also can write a temporary design. change request,. 10 TDCR, and put a temporaryLMOD in to'allowthe' equipment 11 to function correctly and:then when the design group 12 approves that change, then he can 'take the temporary
- 13 MOD tab off of it and make'it a permanent'fix in the 14 equipment itself.
15 0 Now, under what circumstances would l 16 the appropriate form of report be an NCR? 17 A I guess the NCR would be written from l 18 the construction site of-documenting that equipment is, l 19 some deficiency with the equipment itself.- j 20 g So an STE who found1a deficiency in j l 21 the design of an alarm circuit would notibeLexpected' ] i 22 to write an NCR?
?
23 A I'm not sure I can answer-that. 24 0 Okay. If you can't,Ecould you.tell me~ ] 25 what the problem is in answering that?
r i 1 118410'
-}
l 1843: 1 . A.' . . I guess I'm not sure of'where'the j (* 2 dividing;line is-between those two.- 1 3 JUDGE BLOCK: Okay. I have no further ;) ('. 4 ' questions. 5 Mr. Roisman. 6 MR. ROISMAN: No questions. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Staff? 8 MR. TREEY: No questions. 9 JUDGE.BLOCH: Mr. Eddie, thank you 10 very much. You may be excused. 11 THE WITNESS: Thank you.- . 12 (Whereupon, the witness was excused.) 13 JUDGE BLOCH: .The hearing'is adjourned-. 14 I would like to thank all'the parties for.their work l 15 during this arduous session. 16 Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m., the hearing 17 in the above-entitled matter was adjourned.) 18 ---oCo--- _1
'1 19
'I 20 21 l
l 22 a
.i o
'4 g 23 I
24
' 25 i 1
l
'l 6 l l + <
- i
*ICP-PT-02-02l TABLE I Revisisn O !
Mich nical/Einetrical Pr'arneuisito Tant Vnriff ention 0 f X - Denotes required for preop /secept test IS,;,;,g
@- Denotes tests complete and record (s) on file t '% 4 %
. 9 9 % 9
; 4 4 4 4 2
g g i.
, s, xh M ,
ft # 6# 9 /Q
. e, e : i Up O lo4 <9,N+
%% ' w % . l Q 1 ( *o '+ *co o,
- 5 1 1 1 s
+ J<S % 8 i 1 d, .. %,/st %<d+ a # w Y i i n+ %"4g+1 %n %*"+1 l , l g< l . v+ %. 4, ; i ) e x $, ,g%g%' , s+++ s 1 i vg +., s +- l "O # OA + u %p:A l l, "'ss l l $p/ i i i . G e E S t 8 : C "s t # - 3 u 8 % 6 is T + E .: 3 7 5 ,, o " A 0 $ = E '- $ .S .E. ? . = s : E A r: i i l I i i I i i I il TABLE I Revision O j P ~ Mech nienl/Elretrieni Prcrneuisit1 Tcst Vcrificetion y 82 K - Denotes required for preop / accept test ^ 13125 @-Denotestestscompleteandrecord(s)onfile % %1 I . 4 4 % i e 4 + +4 4 g .% i .- . . . . \~ %,$ *A gy xR 4% - /j *s In/ O l l R_ " \ l ' ,%, g,% % $ I % 'f'!O * >'1',+9 1 , 1 i i . e, w s.>%'A.,s, A L l l 4 0 / l l l l l l +4 o+,.,0, O 00 ,v p "+ ,y @s ' -k_ /4 1p (s ' l .g n. IY , I I I l l l %,# %, e,/ ! l l s*< '\,V .%, <<'+*+ + l e,~O ; , g /p 4 - Y # p &n + , s ' +., c + i , , " %['lff,p.! v I I I l 1 I I \ i \ ,,*< s. l l 1 I I
- q. I l l
* 'q, l l l l l l x i i i i i i i D $ e m O k b ~ < N $ ~ s _ t E t i i .- 5 35 u E s 6 2 T " S T E __~ .E e 8 5 +- !! - t 5 = ~ ~ A ~ E E / .E 1 t t 5 YA E OFFICIAL TESTCCIPY !sii::i:.1 10-20-82 l -. TABLE 11. Sheet 1 IS j.jg INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION / LOO.P TEST VERIFICATION Inverter IVIPCI System No.: 0200 (' System
Title:
118 VAC RPS Inverters Calibration and loop tests of the following instruments is complete an3 have at least 60 days remaining in their normal calibration interval. l l LOCATION / CHANNEL NO. SETPOINT/ RANGE NAME/DATE ) Tront Panel of Inverter AC Ammeter (input) 0-25 amps 2/ /,,y,gg DC Ammeter 0-100 amps ((k/ 4. 24W AC Ammeter (output) 0-100 amps , f b / G.E # AC Voltmeter 0-150 V N 4,24,r/ ] i Internal to Inverter HV Relay P. U. @ [b'd /,,24./p
.( 40V To aSUV L' D. O. @ H &4- f ) (o,24,.rs/
ACL Relay Not adjustable 7/ * / 4,Jf,,W DCL Relay , P. U. @ 105VDC [k/ /r24W lACL Relay Not adjustable [.Md G,Jr,eb/ ! CSRT Relay 15 secs delay TD G 24,/"<./ ICSR kelay Curve 3 delay,3.5A [ 2 G8MY Tull Lead Current i Trip at 4.0 a=ps { i Output Frequency 60 * .5H2 Thj (,,24,/</
IC l 0FFICIAL TESTCOPY g;P-PT-0 l TABLE II, Sheet 2 INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION / LOOP TEST VERIFICATION 1S447 Inverter IVIPC2 System No.: 0200 System
Title:
118 VAC RPS Inverters Calibration and loop tests of the following instruments is complete and have at least l 60 days remaining in their normal calibration interval. LOCATION / CHANNEL NO. SETPOINT/ RANGE NAME/DATE Front Panel of Inverter AC Ammeter (input) 0-25 amps 7 2 /,r24,A/ DC Ammeter 0-100 amps [ I 414 ff AC Ammeter (output) 0-100 amps f prJ4-/p AC Voltmeter 0-150 V @ $r [ /,-24 #8/ Internal to Inverter { BV Relay P.D.@ N0*I f ) 6.u yq f 90f TD 13tV (w-D. O. @ M(4 [Mj (,26 psf ACL Re' Lay Not cdjustable ~ k 4/ /,d4./V
)
DCL Relay P. D. @ 105VDC T M .4.[6-lGff 1ACL Relay Not adjustatie 7 j f. 24#'/ l CSRT Relay 15 sees delay 7 (f/C,p/ 1CSR Relay curve 3 delay,3.5A a rp[ 4IrJM/ l Full Lead Current Trin at 4.0 amps Output Frequency 60 * .5HZ I M G2(pdf L l
OFFICIAL TEST COPY !Ei"i". 10-20-82 TABLE II, Sheet 3 IS.I.]g
.) INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION / LOOP TEST VERIFICATION Inverter IVlPC3 System No.: 0200
( - System
Title:
118 VAC RPS Inverters Calibration and loop tests of the following instruments is complete and have at least 60 days remaining in their normal calibration interval. LOCATION /CRANNEL NO. SETPOINT/ RANGE NAME/DATE Front Panel of Inverter AC Ammeter (input) 0-25 amps I 2/64lGW DC Ammeter 0-100 amps IMI /,.2l../Y AC A= meter (output) 0-100 amps I / /rM AC Voltmeter 0-150 V Y j /r//,./.,4 Internal to Inverter HV Relay P. U._@ M7 f I/fM l r0 VVal5trv l
~
D. O. @.49V T j fs* K *i 4 l l ACL Relay Not adjustable T (,2414 l DCL Relay P. U. @ 105VDC 7 j& E // 1ACL Relay Not adjustable [ (f.14ft/ CSRT Relay 15 sees delsy I /14.N ICSR Relay Curve 3 delay,3.5A ./ [r/fr(( Full Lead Current Trip at 4.0 amps Output Trequency 60 * .5HZ 4dG.fr/
/
?
A e
.m.
e
- - - - - - - w-
~
TABLE II, Shast 4 b'I53 INSTRLMENT CALIBRATION / LOOP TEST VERIFICATION i inverter IV1PC4 l System No.: 0200 System
Title:
118 VAC RPS Inverters Calibration and loop tests of the following instruments is complete and have at least 60 days remaining in their normal calibration interval. l l LOCATION / CHANNEL NO. SETPOINT/ RANGE NAME/DATE Front Panel of Inverter AC Ammeter (input) 0-25 amps N I 4 4 ,/*/ DC Ammeter 0-100 amps [ j 6 4,rt/ AC Ammeter (output) 0-100 amps [ $ I #/r J 4 -/ [ . i t AC Voltmeter 0-150 V [ j 6 J4ds/ i Internal to Inverter r HV Relay P. U. @ nov m us w Tf0*7 f ~I 6JG W
' -A D. O. O %%4 f . ) &J4-)*/
ACL Relay Not adjustable M 6-)4,/Y DCL Relay P. U. @ 105VDC 6-//f(/ 1ACL Relay Not adjustable f .4,[/,-24-r/ CSRT Relay 15 sees delay [ / 4,1G dY 1CSR Relay Curve 3 delay,3.5A f 2 4-/4r/*[ Full Load Current Trip at 4.0 amps Output Frequency 60 * .5HZ lI 6e/4#'/- (
~
s . 6
0FR0lAL TEST COPY Data Sheet 1 EF-g 118 VAC RPS Inverter IV1PCI PARAGRAPH ie /, NAME/DATE f ' %~ E RL3 [ $ ~.rk 7-2 n g o i w.v r 7.1.7 Output Voltage /M. / VfC N 4 17
/2/.(p ,
N1 7.1.11 Output Voltage /2d.'3 VAC (< /?s
/,2l.S -
14'i 7.1.17 Output Voltage //8.[ VAC . (p 77-NAd/DATE j pp 4 7.1.9t*3 6 Output Voltage /77.M VAC 7. l
*7.1.7 Output Frequency (60 : .5 CPS)
E.Eh!.r+ 6TA/ 8 '
"$. l u t I
3, [ 4,77, q
$4A0 14f'
*7.1.11 Output Frequency (60 1 .5 CPS) .69.d Ez [ le-2f I 59 19 ?' "f/ ;DYE' 7-21 if
*7.1.17 Output Frequency (60 t .5 CPS) 59.IT Rz 4'27. '
((- NAMf/DATE q
'90 4 *7.1.-3v JZ Dutput Frequency (60 2 .5 CPS) g ry 40.00 nz Ek/7-c7 )
NAME/DATE j 7po i voltage Regulation ( ) mts '. Auf*6 L s t 6v.am.s c46cu.aet e s y .ia s.4 % va we s Es -
.E : h u[727
" NAME'/ DATE
(,e ff,((. '
.:.cording
[Ie/.#;.'..*fe# Ma 'L"."'"" 'is s./ s. se emv6d 0$-02-2
]
l 7.1.H 34 V;1=g; ?.:gul: tier (t 'O TPo b
- Md NAME/DATE.
7.1. M & Waveform is Continuous 7 77-TPD NAMIf/DATE
'f l 1
Recording 02-02-3 ! 7.1.N !& V:11:;c "vals- /*) TPD#, I MA NAME/DATE 7.1.MM Waveform is Continuous 2 727d NAMf/DATE Rer. arks: oL17%f. Ad4 [htdvf.JcV. 24 ads.X4 fct 594 '7.l.7 (het .d /TV(- c._,a ,v.n Ishi'stN WAs ofw% D tdMaaA Uf A*Jo BA%Cb $TA*6 t l.1*L L . ,k P @p . 3-2T-Yo' ( Recorded By: [_ md Date: '7778h Reviewed By: f U a D'te: f,/c,///
Revision 0 P:ga 33 ef 36 10-20-82 m Data Sheet 2
~
118 VAC RPS Inverter IVlPC2 PARAGRAPH NAME/DATE 7.2.7 Output Voltage //7.[ VI.C [ NAd/DATE eI '7-77./ 7.2.11 Output Voltage //l/. I VAC 7,77 , NAME/DATE 7.2.17 Output Voltage //6,f VAC N '7 f7.d NAME/DATE TfD 4 7. 2.-3+ 5Z Output Voltage //7. 3 VAC 717d NAMf/DATE
*7.2.7 Output Frequency (60 2 .5 CPS) 69.7C e ,, E f7N NAMf/D' ATE l
*7.2.11 Output Frequency (60 1 .5 CPS) 59.7 2- Hz fldlezr.
NAML/DATE
*7.2.17 Output Frequency (60 t .5 CPS) ofE77 Hz (M.t!Mf.
NAMf/DATE e4 *7.2.M 32 Output Frequency (60 2 .5 CPS) 59 7f Hz 7-lj NAME/DATE 90 i Voltage Regulation (24%) me n! dp% gtw Aft oma ce6csa.*Me Sy uns.aw VA6vt h 25 coa #*J d
/./ % /!77f NAME/DATE anFA 1lL.' vT.
Q y.fg.4,7 a.JA 1.*F....e
,,,yes :. ye 6 vis.aa,
#f. onsrM.u ao pr,sm,44
< Recordidg 02-02-5
- 7. 2. M X. 'ici;a;; n:;;;;:icr (:'") 790# 4 8 - A/A 9,gt,7*(m,!
NAME/DATE 7.2.H ff, Waveform is Continuous 7 174 l W NA"f/DATE 4 Recording 02-02-6
- 7. 2.M (C, l'citzg: Re p h *' ~ /*'*' TPO
- 4 M
NAME/DATE k 7.2.H J& Waveform is continuous IN^"l/DATEj7-2/ Remarks: , v Recorced By: Date: '/-7 7" Reviewed By: /!d Date: /[2-r y
/V l
e
UrtitilAL ILST COPY RE-10-20-82 Data Sheet 3 13;52 118 VAC RPS Inverter IV1PC3 y PARAGRAPH NAMJ/DATE 7.3.7 Output Voltage //8.[ V/.C 7//. N/JiE/DATE 7.3.11 Output Voltage // / VAC b. ?,77, NAMf/DATE 7.3.17 Output Voltage // 7.'I VAC $ hj M7
' NAMEfDATE f90k 7. 3.M '88 Output Voltage //9.[VAC 'I '/ 27 NAMf/DATE
*7.3.7 Output Frequency (60 : .5 CPS) 5970 Hz I 7</7 c NAME/DATE
*7.3.11 Output Frequency (60 : .5 CPS) 59. 7 E__Hz [ '7f7/
NAME/DATE i
*7.3.17 Output Frequency (60 : .5 CPS) ff /"& Ez [ E["71/s )
;9 'f 8 W's/DATE( 7, o4 *7.3.M 32 Output Prequency (60 : .5 CPS) 599T Ez #4f?- l PJ7 9Y NAME/DATE Voltage Regulation (24%) ,b% 7'2 '. 3 m deus etwow newno of uso.><. s. awn eseaoro oJ NAMC/DATE \
$'ff. Nob'
- y Wa"'" ~
q, l Recording 02-02-8 l l 7.3. MJIr Ve l t :; e "" ~"' * * * ~ /*W FD 4 - X/N ! l NAE /DATE 7.3.MJI- Tpp Vaveform is Continuous 27"l7. 4 NAMf/DATE l Recording 02-02-9
- 7. 3.M 34 V: ' : : g e e ;"' _P -- /*A*T noy *
#A NAE /DATE
- 7. 3. M-IG Waveform is Continuous ,, ] 7 77 N4ME/DATE Remarks:
Recorded By: Date: 727 IY Reviewed By: W s Date: J'/q/hW
,m UFFICIAL TEST COPY Data Sheet 4 F AOAO3 k
l 1
~
118 VAC RPS Inverter IVIPC4 PARAGRAPH NAME/DATE j 7 7.4.7 Output Voltage //70 VAC 7,J,, NAFf/DATE 7.4.11 Output Voltage /I'7.0 vAC [bY7 tr. NAM 1/DATE 7.4.17 Output Voltage //6.7 VAC / 7,77 NAMI/DATE fro k 7.4.G+JZ Output Voltage //7. '~[ VAC *d 747 i N/21E/DATE
*7.4.7 Output Frequency (60 t .5 CPS) 59.7P Pa f I1,/1, i NAM 1/DATE
*7.4.11 Output Frequency (60 t .5 CPS) 59.79 Hz T l Me NAME/DATE
*7.4.17 Output Frequency (60 : .5 CPS) 69,I3 Fa 7,77 4
- NAMt/DATE reo *
- 7. 4. M 3 2, Output Frequency (60 t .5 CPS) $9.7 [ Hz [ dl 7<ff, NAC /DATE Volta
*'** *' f **"""*" '"ge"#Re gulation (2 4 *) 6* 'f 2 :
TpD I N 8* * "" */ W'"" #'* *O #"*'" ' *# SAhliDATE 6*A* &&aAO r [, o Recording 02-02-11 7.4.C4 54 '*)
?:M :;: E ;uhrier / T9p (,, ;
A/A. NAME/DATE 7.4.E+ f(, Waveform is Continueus f, '/. t '/d NAMI./DATE Recording 02-02-12 7.4.-3934 ?: h:;; Ee; O rdr- '-'*' Tr o (,, NA NAME!DAIE _ 7.4.G JG Waveform is Continuous Y ]7-Z;t Remarks: Recorded By: j_ Date: #7 27-If Reviewed By: / Date: 8///Ss/
. a
OFFICIAL TEST COPY IEL Data Sheet 5 13.*54 TEST EQUIPMD'T CAI.I3 RATION
- 1. . uke 8600A Multimeter TC 173(, ID O ?-z 7 ra Ca1. Due f n. (e?7M Name/Date
- 2. Voltometer, Simpson 260 ID Cal. Due #4 Name/Date
- 3. Frequency Counter fd /Jo/ ID .
EP5328A 7-t7-yet- Cal. Due y G-7'7-r9] Name/Date per 2110 4 Fluke Current Transformer free zert ID r. Mcdel 801-600 (g zf-rf Ca1. Due . M,
/2 Z5 l+ /s 21JY NamelDate l l
sc-1103 ;
- 5. Decade Resistance Bcx sc-ne6 ID g[ . l GNR 1433T /Efft Ca1. Due TM. '( /7(j !
c zi N Nene/Date j
- 6. Thermometer, ID l Weston 2282 Cal. Due #4 j
(', Name/Date '
*7. b.UCT D OS a z o r5 _10 l ghn-mc -
9 5 -u Cr.4/s f& & 27-d . i m , s / u rt l
- 8. hrgmaaml. g gc,p s p
~
1'.4poe Bamew q . .,_ g cy ,ge [b, 4 ' -; i un e ,t u rz. 3 t6 M Remarks: kTM Y f0)w;otSM fc lrs.m Ato. s&-~#+TTYm P' F OurvsLy1~ 73 / rya & l t 14em
- o s+o - t o ra N o. e m - oo z.9 ; See TPD # 10 foe 400rnutt fout+
Recorded By: Date: /,-2 'JYh Reviewed Ey: m p a. N Date: ~$7-~$-[O-l
'UITI P-sip-12 ATTACHMENT A Rsvision 2 Page 6 of 6 TEST DESTRUCTION / PROCEDURE DEVIATION 1S156 Test Instr./ Proc. No.: 1.CP P F 02-0 2 Rev.: O T o No.: l.
Pag;e I. of I Deviation Description hA) .M66 // 0f O& /AIS127" ado /17bdAl-Non. ~~BfirarrJ 10 AA/o 1/ S;><rrJs ss Ru o,Js_-
/7bt:rvL secno J5 4. I Y.2 13 efJo 1.Y mM 29 PfffbAmid , ,
/A) AA/ / Scd atJet.
/
2.) Sver7sa.s 1. /. 26 7.2.24 '7. LZ4 AJo '1M 26 swuw Et Cls2J z M J 1D 294d? ' 1327 AC 00TfoY Ztf=4GL. WC8 Ade O VfdMAd gg
/LAr.M .- Reason for Devtstton: AnAx) fd/ F2fX /ON /TV Of 795774G.
L$dds2+d 1D Aub.J R4 Et St277J6 65 OV1ifhlufdf AlddM. Change to Intent of Tast: TES / NO Initiated By: v - Date: d 8 STE/ TEST DIREC*0R APPROVAL: SY N Date: 0*20 #4
. SHITT SUPERVISOR CONCURRENCE: n %_ , Date: Cle-9Mb /
\ '
\
LEAD STARTUP DiGINEER/ LEVEL IV: 1 Date: O SAP-12-1
vv v v--- -- -- Pcg3 6'of 6 TEST INSTRUCTION / PROCEDURE DEVIATION ' 13.g7 Tast Instr./ Proc. No.: j (/. /7782-08 Rev.: O TPD No.: I Page' I. of I .. Deviation
Description:
84/ #46f.1 ' /a ~ 7 ; 9 /t ds / 0 o #' 8 4 S15erim N. l. 2, / . 2. 2,. f- . 3. 2 nsio 6. 4f. 2 rimea 2E rwawase 7a P M D A s s e u ~_ O s ' YL A/6zu EarM SitsE s6n 'Brrd t///dMd 44 AutWegrzenad
'b A*4f4/M :9/L 7FWr~ AS Ztdt/tM4 EY ObJM-2/. Huts arr J o
&l+)7%
< =.y 3f Lf T E w u F e s. e 4 :=ac n e n s ,* /,. /. /0, /o S./B ,
/s . .T. 10.
Add 6. 4f. /O . ( Reason for Deviation: /c d:WF4ta? @ /At4 N 3.b d#~ /NM/-7 s .- ' 2.) sN usM+)e6 n ster' Altenuly' 1D r.4m.v' wn run vnf
/J3DreksW GL/dtenM3/* 5veneJE' ' ' " ^^"^",f138
\
& . /. 4 fr.2.9 & 3.9' M./s 4. 4f.9 All AJf6cid1 AVL 4Mordf.
t / r I Change to Intent of Test: YES NO Initiated By: I Date: dJM l
. STE/ TEST DIREC OR APPE0 VAL: - d Date: 6-26 N
SHITI SUPERVISOR CONCURRENCE: -
MN %n_u r Date: b ~We /
\
LEAD STAR *UP ENGINEER / LEVEL IV: Date: 4 SAP-12-1
OFFlMI.TESFCDPLE ie rPega 6 of 6 I
-- TEST INSTECC !CN/PRCCIDURE DET/IAT CN Test Instr./Ptoc. No.: _iC4- PT~ 0 2 02 Rev.: h TPD No.:
'~-
Page h of Deviatten Dese 17tton: de>o ru6 pou.esas s7ve 7 /.3. 4 7. 7. J. V, , z
- 7. 3. 3. 4 AJD 1. V. N 70 asso As pou.ows:
besonc ,o Drenov 21.s/JM4 TOM CoddGeru ActoSS D/L ev'iltJr rgaastscan,t ro meai ree AC iaperr eJintar' 80D THL FdusJia<, m ss-. 7. /.3 5 1. 2. 3. C' 1.3.3.S aJo
- 9. Y. 3. $ 'rb A tl e A J fd J3l -
FC64014 70 fd Lrrerst_ DC sr/PW Am/s 4r Ammsn c 3An1 j i ! (- Reason !ct Devtstica: t)Dif76d4( /d/</15 TD /2 l~d d A S L A l l DD/J'A8tL 7D 217%L /Df27't/%/ 'fE.nJ5ff4 AdiJT5 CY j tiar.sise s. 1 l l l
. r l
Change to Inte== cf Tes:: YES NO Initiated By: - v / Date: d-2[-M STI/TIST D;1ECTCR A?'RC'.'.C.: ~_ Da:a: h 2(*
- d Y S*d!7T SU?IEVISOR CCNCUREC;CI: 4 2=o %
i Date: USU' .
\.
1.I.O STAE'""? CICINIIR/1.I"II. !*.*: Date:
$dDe! m!
vu v v m -_ _ _ CP-SAF-12. AT ACEMINT A R;visita 2 Peg 2 6 of 5 TIST DISTICC ICN/PROCI!URI DI7IA!!CN Test inser./ Proc. No.: l [/-N- dZ-O"f., Rev.: O TPD No.:' c- s Page b of I Deviation
Description:
bl A b t. TH E Fc Lt o.J. J 6 KEeriod Mousto . Z oJ DATA s gn rs i tu ev 4 ; 7.I. 3 I To 7.I.'5 2 7. 2.'3 I ro 7. 2.32 - I
'7.3. II Te 7. 3. 32. . d. 4. 3 / 70 7. M J/ , 1. s . '3 7 ro 7.l.74, l 7.2. 37 w 4.2. 36 . 7 3. 77 7e 1. 7. 7 G na o '7. 4. 3 7 w 7. 4. 3 6 i l i
/b) is n.en s J '7.l.13.e.AaavE. ms. srs9 E W usac18 6./. 9 70 & /. /2 lJ zwn s.) 7.t.7l.eHAast ran s7sp sfpr/JJC1d 6'-l.Y7D (r . l. ll
.Q ssws J 9. f.3 Y cMJ&L. Snn itftifdCfd Af&n 6.l Y Ad'0 6.lef 10 C. /. // nJo 4,/. /2 t l
/J ssenoJ 1. 2. 21, 0HadOs .mo wusacso Flem &. 7./0 o G. 2. ll l l
(- Reason for Deviatien: '/7/ M W pg/t.4L f/4 0 4/,
~ +] Typsetswm twel.
\
1 l
. s l
Change to Inten: of Test: YIS NO Initiated Sy: Date: [g NW l
~ .. j STI!!IST DIRIO CR APPRC7AL: -
Date: b 20*N SHIP
- Si;PSRV!!CR CONCURRC:CI: h- A '
Date: 6-}lo Z
\
LIAD STAR ~*.'? DIC:21!IR/LI7IL !?: Date: cas.ia.: ____________________o
ECIK.TESTCUPL_A
- TIST DISTRUC ICN/PROCDURI DI7IAT!CN -
6'Pego 6 of 5
- /
Test Inscr./P:ce. No.: 1(0- 95 0 7-0 f Rev. : O TPD No.: [
,- Page - of Deviation
Description:
NA O 6657T PS #~[.I I 'I. 2. I; 7.3. I A-V O I 7.4. .f it EeA o.
"] q +J V1d n R.,
L-6AD . P 't 2 % ~". As f0 ECMSA 2_V A.J o n2 Jd 'TO T .5 /4 cts o .J w e. - s e - r* '
'THrt A Jato (> "Per co a cw ie ra d .5 t' N o 4 J o t o b tr'e r c 4 rt o O 0 F ti t.5A ) d t f S, . 4D E iddt M 2. CO A O TD b AMS.
i c otVclZ.TVJIPf . Reason for Deviation: ID 920Vro t d. .m- >- 1 TD P44 W (~ p.ss so t c. H '
.St*f"0f %f A n fA%b to 2+c62D11.
Change to In:ent of Test: YIS NO Initiated Sy:
,7 I Date: 6".2.[ed Y
~
STI/ TEST DIRECTCR APPRC'.'AL: bm Date: b-26 d'"[ ! y SH!I'* SUPER 1!!CR CONC'*,PJIICI: \ 6 % Date: C (e - 2 (0 4 4 s .\ l LEAD STAR'""? C:G .::IIR/LIVIL !?: Date: l 4 c a s. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._ _J
( l.6-VQ j CP-SAF-12 'I ( @ ACEMENT A R2 vision 2 Page 6 of 6-
.A TEST INSTRUC ICN/PROCILURE DEVIATION .
/
Test Instr./ Proc. No.: IC8- PT- 02-07. Rev.: M No.: Pags- I, _ of-cavtation Dese c tion: dJ PM., 32 c 7 7 k sw e a 7. I . 3 2 ewsw I ye'i. moss Muuned PuerJ,4st redm *2 %) ru f*W'A ) , omew m.,s.a.g '
,)tl D e m t Fb ue@46 uoTL 'Tb + 5Eem e
'"1. l . ~32 7.23'2;7.3.7[
A00 ' 7. 4. 3 2-t A/ost (eunu 1ssuun6J eau.uuns ati osias owns. y frestos) sJ .sysAs 1/1 (7.71 - 1.17 1.47 ) M 1. l. II 1. z .i I .1.1. ll . 7.4.ll). O w iunt usiaN mNuw Y ** miau.s V'5" ""' rikso 2 v' N EsLtrt Febr L ZestjutnaJ MuuuridJ . swat 4./ 5senoJs-i
*'t./.3 4 , '7. 2. 3'& 't. 3. 3 G it J.o 7. < 3 G ,- ReasonfarDeviation:073/BejM4#s/e4C 6:/tv4.
l d Q A00td TD OAfflC'V F7H6D df /*4.*<dt#17d6 fdl,,fM68. /ENGC/447)CN. 1
$ 6080/J63 A&t UJt4 /2 d V'sJt/AL fwmiJM16J df iddL/ff94+1 \
eJt /. lsirraat,t estasi.stroJ.s Act wer Pfrerrasc rs.:ms fledtsi !&J.
+.
V
/ \
Change to Incent of Tast: YES NO ! dr*Md Y Initiated By: g Data: ( . STI/*IST D1?.ICTOR A??RO'.*AL: A _ Date: dr 26"N SH!?* SU?IRVISOR CCNCURRCICI: ( I h_, 4 Date: CG M M I
\
LIAD STAR"**? DIC;NIIR/LI*TIL I'.*: Da t a z' t a *J., I % 1 1
I h ['8 CP-SAP-12 ACE'RiT A R vicien 2
)A I ld Pega 6 of 6 TIST' DIS RUCT CN/PROCIDURI DEVIATION i /
Test Instr./ Proc. No.: IC/- rY-0 2-o z Rev.: O Tro No.: 7
- f. ., Page b of I
//
DevtationDescriptLon:)hs/Ad&L.12*7 e s' 3 (e (!JA s.s G L /75m Ato f. L
/
To 2140 /fB4f-/ /+/.ws /884
'#b DJ -rwn& TT~ sHwrs 12 3 54 CHAast M\l til M 5 ti"Po w i~
l *
- EAJW </4Lof5 To 'Ed. GP /42 V 0,0. S 90t/ m (38'/
l Reason for Deviatten: W / b d / s //// s c /d/d,
$9T~Pbs.)T / QA M VAld)f.5 Olbb/M01D # dit N / W Vb/A L MMA)UAL if fJrdVfN9%&sJte PAV/df/f?/d AW715'//22M I s i Change :o Inten: of Test: YES [NO Ini:1ated Sy: d page: /f.,2. p N STE/TIST DIRICTOR AppRo"AL: 3 d 3,g, g ,ffy, . SH;T SU?EP. VISOR CCNCORPriCE: L km page. Q Q(,4 j f
( * * .s ET.J.O STAR"UP C CIliEIR/LI*lIL !*/: page. l l
. l eso.ia :
l 1
CP-SAP k 'J d 1 ATTAC10'.ENT A Ravisi:n 2 Peta 6 of 6
% TEST INSTRCC"!CN/PROCEDURI DEVIATICN Test Instr./ Proc. No.: IC8 #CO2.-02. Rev.: O_ T?D No.: b Page .I. of I '
r '. , Deviation
Description:
OfLOT See. r ro as '/. /. / _ "/,2 7 "7.f,h" / vp 7 4/. T h) h m trenoas "1. I. l b . '7. 2.10 , '1. 3 t o, Auo 9. . I O PLos m t Nat nrma Tu nt rremem .
/4 .5 7crr 6as '7. l . a*l / '7. 2. *I I
- 7. 7.9 Ne 7. M 9 /> */.str. rut fele catJs c.Jeff.s
- Affteximmw 6 5scsJoS AS/14 srxen Ja etL '
ficet4K, STYP_ t Reasen for Deviatien: {, 7,3 AU6dF - bt97E gfrj3 ry/_ jnAgces 7./edelt0/J61 02-0 Z- / , a z. . o T.- 0 4, 02 -c2 -0 7,. A./e C Z-o z- / o THr.:,2 i? rect. DRGS JSlVL AO UJfB< A WOJL- /d '7Wt 1731~~ 7NttfNWL fift 2f/a)G 2113718. l l l s Change to Intent of Test: YES NO Initiated Sy: mms a Date: 6 1 STI/T!!! DIP.ECTCR A?? ROYAL: ___ m A Date: d M
- d'
,h SHIT
- STPERV!SCR CCNCCRRC;CI: -
Cw % Date: ~)b
\
LEAD STAR *~.*? C:G:2*EIR/LI7E' !7: Date: l i 4 eAD.t9.' l ' .-. _______-_____-__-____-- O
.ame qf,,g,,
4 =CP-SAF-12
) ACHKENT A- Faviaisn 2' mig
{ Page 6 af 6
;m TEST DISTRUC ICN/ PROCEDURE DE7IATION ;
Test Instr./ Proc. No. : - l88.Y-df*d/ Rev.: O TPD No.: k-n Paga I 'of. Deviation
Description:
ffdPFd' G%L SfCMbed h. f F)P'/#4 7D Efft4Pr/ /6 2' rssr-AD ssers) 1/.
' Fun m en nen, a - 6 . 2 m e r e 1 s w a w a. m er 3reneJ 12.
9Ain6* Win 9 _s G Cn ed h e $ Pbed TD EWJusJ6, 11371JG Os** nen a 1.E. \ EPAtfc%s s nr=.r, e J 4.$ AirGL 1D ~R waJia to 1Em.)<, es" 5 se n o u '7. S i I 1 l r-'- for Deviatien: /n #/>)d 9/8-#O 2./J5(/# 721 XL I
\ '
RakhMMM% t A Zni CITRT* PL/d4 2D ~EtGv )di J(, 75.9'nJf, CC THL-ore %* ?$U: ArsmanA NVic54. i j Change to Intent of Test: YES NO t=1::a=.4 st:
/c' Ca l o.c.: 7-74-N 2 s :/= T 3:at: Tea irrsom.: 7M '
- o. .: 7.u,, N-l
[', sa:r scrransca CcNcentrrct, kbN. M o,c : 7--JC. -PV
~
u LIA: sTu P n:c:ntra/trvrt :v: cate: u ,_,,_,
Ii f,a C7-SAP-12
'I ACIDd.ENT A Revision 2 I' Pega 6 of 6
.m TRST DISTRUCTICN/PRCCCURE DE7IAT CN Test Instr./ Proc. No.: If[-Mdt-o% Rev.: O TPD No.: /d y
Page I of .I. ) W Deviation
Description:
/M #64.4.ddMI.= 75 3.7 Edu///wW t.4+t.t. #re u_19d I Tk,/ft.Hs G E5c./ m 9 1rd d d P ' 15.$9 ~.' blACd'lASL Y/AliUWGt.L f61Jf 6, $b_OOZ* ,
fLUtt EC 2n B fL ttt1*G 29 $~7 ' Off DUL // der" M 199f f P C S $ CA4. $t/C // CCr $ W fwet. t0&o A fi) mrt 2M.s' tuc M 3 sm 8 + )
%umi 12yar Bimum (iL mis zsz.i i- a . a s a d e r M Drtsos fisisinses Eox (z.) re- /302. <voc. stit z.i oc~r- H \
TC- /301 c A t nsit . f k d'd r M YOICL 0WJ1' YA41'\C. (3h mW 23h'1 tidl. DitL / 7 A&fG O Y i
/NTE" 'itko te s. Os!E Z l' AfC l'4
.- Raasen for Deviation:
(~' kSOJt Lt.wse sysr warpswwr- Wa.c 2t ust.d raz tr.wasJ d 1cP- 77-6 t c t . *T~-r- W.As ur Pesuect m A60szE At c o f _
'TM Jht A s t.dds 05'r.3 OMsJ -nw mir u./A5 ' dE60d.
_ e WO$$ N b Y # 1 ? , Rt.$ l'*/3M fil lft4l$d E * $$'*hY j ' g ' Change to Intent of Test: YES NO Initiated By: Date: 7-2h-STI/TIIT D!RIC OR APPRC'.'AL: _ Date: 7-2G-## SH;T SU?IRVISOR CCSCCRRINCI: / A Date: 7'M I l LTAD STAR UP CIG:.'iEEE/LIVII. !*.': Date: CAS.t9 '
W I Yg ~ > um - i ' EMENT A R:vi'sion 2 l d fui Page 6 of 6 'y [ g n .g! , j] h, h ST US
.~ [
IOM/ PROCEDURE DEVIATION 1S4C6 Test Instr./ Proc. No.: .I C8- PT- 0 2-0 2. Rev.: /) T?D No.: // , Page $. of [ Deviation
Description:
>>fs e., L 37T/ '7. /. 3 I 7D /2540 4f #vm s.JS
" hffa) /dv' DC HN7"BC2 Ado PFcoff>4-. Ad HM Ekl rwar mis 7.z.s q 2 s 15 ss.o m. 3 r ro a uo two As a w t. i i
Reason for Deviation: 7.d/5/ .f//Wdu/jd 3GdttfJCE.OF' /MMNA [' I 4 Change to Intent of Test: _ YIS NO Initiated By: Date: 7-77 M ___2 STE/TIST DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Date: 7 '2.7 -N SEII"! SUPERVISOR CONCURRENCE: , 4 Date: 7"c27 T Y
~
u LIAD STAR'"U? ENG .NEEI/ LIV" IV: Date: e
I - ib!h;f'i P 6 f6 1d[h[/.[h N ,ROCEDURE DEVIATION 194g7 [ g{T ng - em
~
Test Instr./ Proc. No.: IM 'Pr o fro"2- Rev.: O TPD No.: /* Page [ of I Deviation
Description:
3M 7. T./3 84.h.864. n e ##ow 4//#ex. l
$ $468*/0S 1% of/Me>C Z Stesd/3. I A// toy /0 ser t.s.Jos 7ts lA) s'N/ 9. $./k t*s.hr J s t. '71* set $ 4 s n.
Af/dat Z. 39caJo3 f M J G t. A tc rrr 4 T. 2./ 3 '7. U. /.T ?. 2./*S-1.z.5l, AJo 1.4.14 m 21Ftrer rHt n.et. e,uac.t fazras 1.7.10, 1 3 . 3 0 , -1. s. 1 I 1.4. To s.t.a 4. 4. 3I n /29FLser'nn Im i 71xt Owst. Dun *, Tier h. f Ja.1 (b J Jam dowc mt.1 of Pucuv'Lt. I i
-~
Reason for Deviation: Mrs $Pfwd 6/r i ) c)fstarJsts.- /MoestJtL 4tQ (
*fDC uh _ WM fitdecL9%d /5 5ff CJ 20 /ucattfSfC / -
l l l i l Change to Intent of Test: YES 30 Il Date: '7- 2 7-N Initiated By: ./
~
STI/ TEST DIRECTOR APPROVA1.: _ Date: */-27 VY SEIT" SUPERVISCR CCNCURRINCE:
- Y3.# ""' Date: ~7 .2."/-/Y .
(/ LEAD START'.T? D;GINEER/LEVE!. IV: Date: l
x ACAcafI:C A C?-SA?-lb Rsvisic 8 TIST DITIC DiCY KI? ORT ? cgs 8 of 8
~
134C9 ( .. ., star::p sys so. C =penen Tag so. DR No. Page 3. of d O2A3 TT3x.- E56uv-o I Sco# , De'd iemey Identified during: If during :est, Test No: i Tes- Operatic Other (Circle One) # l .$ C/ -/f d C#0 Z' - Deficiency Descriptics: /d 5*7# 7 /. /i 67 7hE -/1F3r" n/##al s/M/#V/JG . .
'TFAa5f9L Fi&ws 7H E Dc $6J2el '8ACd fD 7)+f /fC SoulCL THS SAC .Tuu'let FMnsd'70 A1)L/m t $ lAl l 4 8.4 50 lYbdO *.lls)l* TWE b$ SOUNS
'7b C6~ moot 3d'//e.Vs.Jr. A Ee/Ded df TNG /CM. #
l l
.l Can C:--eces: Operatic Con i: e? If NO: C?-SAP-5 Auth. No. o'A h NO (Circle One) STA-605 Clearance No. ,v4 Ingi:eering Ivalua:icn required to de:er dne Corrective Ac:10 : TIS @ (Circle One)f Ref. Cc::espendence fe: I:gineering Ival: l C
q Deficiemey Reperted By: Q[* j Da:e: j ,,g .j,g i CO::ec:ive Ac:1::: 0HJa6L 1J19 SYrr7JM of / A/o'd1~ 7btJJfC&*19 d #70 73/t A/fXT- Mt6af ST"' .3 ms./L~ (H/0 /J// J / / 2. b . WSm er" / J t/St1M. JD / / # S3 V'/.9 W7" '73/f" / A.l/W VO L.#3(*F M*>T3 As'ef 7.T&9J 4/3rd #1"O Att6 H E ,v' N>1~JG i )c, f>WJ . CO ec:1ve Ac:10: A;;;;ved 3y: (( ((/g De.:e : g, -)7.g Required Le:es:: $Effntr'i,Jthe7v.p CJ [)C u/iry jf[ jasir-c OfM /s)Mt.dn 4.csoso O full 46Ad. 0C3L AC "MfAffl. f/ANUT' b$JMt MT 03T" SMO 'l. l \#1 i zequ a id te:es: A;; :. vee s : d ///d6 bate: 4 .,z y./y< C:::e:: ze i.e:i:: C::;1e:ed: q f g ca:e: g g7 pq'
- .; Ie:es: :=;:..: ee : Tfig :a:e: g,. y 7,. p q
- 12:::.::::.::: :1g1:c;. :: :.:; =C:: :A S:u:27 / :::: er s .re c a:ee 5 ;e:ris::
Y.S? C ::: ~~~ 5 : I :ineeri.c w::. .
.- Rtvision 8
* - g'- i Page 8 of 8 TEST DEFICIENCY REPORT
-.u.. .t.
IS470 m Component Tag No. TDR No. Page /> of I Startup Sys No. 131 Est=L.IJ - O f N IS O2AS
" 1ency Identifted during: If during test, Test Operation Other (Circle One) Test No: g e p,g.o r.-o "X-Deficiency
Description:
5 2 r QL, 3 nr # 9. t. 22 n,n m ,- , Ac.um f-A't.8-/Oli
/1/smoJ / /d> f/2suo m //Lumi mrt.
- Ca. -- onent Operation Continue? If NO: CP-SAP-5 Auth. No. pA Trc NO (Circle Oue) STA-605 Clearance No. sA Engineering Evaluation required to determine Corrective Action: YES h (Circir One)
Ref. Correspondence for Engineering Eval: j{/' g, ([ Deficiency Reported By: Q[g Date: g ,y,g Corrective Action: /usriart 775cA. To ZFt/Jk / tili2/JG fb* t A%#/. /?fav' 30 4Wr /ICL 21619 asia Den
- car ed e/rJias er Truck 4k'E WMiss!
Wiu- ismart Autam 1-48-/o0 //.14 fcActas inesim.orw.) W,a 71s os.it V/A Sd A.JJ /JFMIF~tto 2 Y 71m<! tnde Ws/nG A # ft/C144 L C # W Y .
?>W Dc?Jmr,es. ,
'rx/t - 3/22 S tJ P .* M 3'3 7 n si Z(o 3 6 l */in9/1600 = t/O 9 AIM: Po ews0 osuk~ son >4l E="M4343D 0 8e.. ro:Oial rs a$,n. 0, nn, toca tuti b e ee. u .7 Corrective Action Approved By: j[(,,, ,[ Date:g y -
Required Retest: T pg/B(M .Seen d .) T / O 7~ ./C/* icd'b-OI r Required Retest Approved Sy: j/[{, [ , Date: ;,,p[( f Corrective Action Completed-M.o.C*$ - nu
# Date: ~, ,af uud - %o-o y 1
Retest Cc=pleted: j Date: 7,2 7 /~Y Distribution: Original to Eog *CGC0 QA Startup/ Turnover Surveillance Superciser MS? Group TUSI Engineering Mgr. Initictor Operatiens Support Engineer SIE + g c' 'i\1 1i
\D
\
00@3Sen F
.Mii 'i$$$Q.T. ly.3's M y . r..% , f' .
;[ e.(",@ *e:* Paga 8 cf.8 . M k.
M$[4MhNfMiM@M.*NWEST DEFICIENCY REPORT
~
;.., ..f....
..- A o - . # ..- = .. % ..
- - - . ... . 4 4
"EC $Nud'5iig' No$.U,**M'NM ,TDR No.O . fage d ..,of h. ,*.z..'%a .
~ .
<2;. ' ' Startu[<SprNa$ ;..w W . i*' * * " ~ .. I W. ..r)M r..n ... 5 . ., %ndg
@. - R) C - R S E R :- .ta.mv.n.v~e O f ^* W cg d:.C.w% A. e.n~
..."...a : m.S . . . -.
'.4.P.- # iency Identifiedd ... ' "
-e.. .. g . . ,. . .If during cest,
~ '
cr J - ., 4; duringF.p..:..'r},. .6 0.f. n
.. Operation. .: Other N(Circle' One)q. 3..: 6 Test.No: ,
'Lest ..;w.+$asw22-2%2d,i*icir.' &
.f .
- . Tid h a.L*.. gf, PT'-OZ-0
--. =.~. .L.: J 2.l :.%.' a- --/.-llt". .~. ^
m...+~
....... ....a.;s ~; t a. ~ y ..v.s.w..*. -
..sy.. .s- .
a... E !E W T GT.' t h e c U S D
; fEDeficiency Descri ,ww.pgg, AO\
c m .v. .a.qd%7,ptionCIO s ,r twit rn.V, .. 5"N ... et.TC l
.. ... . ... y,, .
, b EC. NOU l Id..
*D *E
- N D J N I% %. bd d hf1.)(.9. f.,
h b9deIC8"8##. [j:2.yi-+.- < .w.<-w.w .. ,n. :-; .y~.n . n. :. . . . a,, r .; . ~. - , p
, ;.y. CAU.5T /~iyt
- sk be's F"A t t.4Mt ' - de ,,a.p.mw .r-<.p.wme.s.. m.. '
'. ~
r*C' Z .. .% , . ; 4
- -c.* 3p- .= . .-y.af%s_2 T. .r%., *;. 4'd* ' .*** W ~
;. " ; % ~..~. & f n y ?.'. g u. M
. . ,r. % .
'" ~
., [r . , '-Y . MW.W.Md's$.@i&&<@~'+ .
M.w:, w.m. .c".;... 4%,.,. n-j @ ;yeih w .%).; r-s.'. "-w.,
.: . .n .
. m .- . .
-c. . -...~ ... . ,. z . . . .. . . . .
.. u.v ...~ ...... . ..
m.,.. w. .c.,
.Ag p g Aemp_o . tJpgcicy Cogtf.=neja-
.~ a <,, .s:r m;.mw w. gIf 405.CE-SAP-5Anth. NoW. ..IMNW ?$@%q '
0....m-w dCirele hebMiiM D W .M . ~ STA-605 . ...Clear.an.ce
... ._ No. _ "."...L^
(H,. 9.4,.dw... IES's. . _ . .,w . . . .
- v. . . ... . .. - .. .
. eg ired.. . . ,. ,, .A e...te.rmi=e' (Circle?One)
, '(Engineering 'Eva.l.u.ation4.e dm.nto.t.. e C,orrective Action ' ,,H.5 ' NO
. " . ,j. ~
- n. .
d j.
.. N [. C' N. 4 n.ii).M. . i# r .- . , . . ^ J.'.$.
rp; 9. Ref" .Cor,respon, . .- .. .. . . . den,ce~',f.c..d.. w B,.ng'.Eva.l.:'f e
,.En.51n'e'r . , , . .. - .. - < , . .
w .. .,. .w ....... ,.. w
.... ~.D 41cie!cy,Ee. Ported,,,5y y.=..
. ~
c ,. ggg .@ w.*.m
./.'Dacer 3 p grs.[., .
, 1 U U. R d * * '.~'a dCarreYri e i cN b Y N bY. M N h M N N 5~#'#~k'
.J -
i
'..g. .% Y$ b -h. V2f}c#Y$WW c W%'Och*45 W }47~'j/5 f.$61 #
gh n t m s % 9 w s h w r e w . m e r A a m . h a .r e < m. --
.nm . n w m . w w w i, w a c w . e. m m : c
- f. .e.'. . g c. ?J. * ..R.6 . ut. .;.,6 T J,* *.' M.
a J'.t.~. . . ' i g. ."< o 5 *
. . . ~
' U !F,.?5l-'Did %='?:.' W .
f.&$'ASW5WYU&NO*CW&WAbd*84NC$4? $.Tt - M$C.isWsSiM*'$DSaM.YMENsEEP4eW.MMW%wS9Wm
&..-Wivp%e.ycyR- a'w.'~.$..p=q. m . Wc
~
~~s.Waw es. r,r;.;r><ys.:,+..",Y
.u.:w . w.n..
a.~i. . .-+..r .- .. . :.y
. . *- .v
. .;a. ,
.aw u . ..
~ ~
~ -
$.r-e Y P S &,, e.WA 5D.nt,eW .in . . .~*[ . [f ) ,V'$t C.?: ;
&v,we.% W$c' ..+.. 0.$c$.-.aw;5$
. e n a.~as $ $ .1'? v. $[EyJ u..-
# .-m
. x :.. .
-d*' J.AW.L,v. 2mm. nom %Eg.,J.,W"W
.s.et:o &/' -fffBem g W. w..asa. g - M
- 5*se"e';.h - e .f c .f.00-l T CZ C'Z.
N p>*Qa- AM*tret Eerm.Q.
'%. .4 ,;~.?; ; m M M ;uEMND.TW@#Wis5Bs%'f4+:GB C *- W W'* @'S P h'F w -
.$, D..tigd.iMd'ici. eE.h..[$,rYd@cW ',',,,,,'JI#
- . '"f --Mff 9 4 0 Q.M .J.sateh p'/' z p jp,,f - .
J.I
'~
Act. .i.e.n I C'o.ih., fey.,edN.'./~7
~~"
2 *9. p'rr - ;
;N R,. ;~ Cod.ecEve2 - a .; . 2. ..n .. m.n
~. m /.~.i ~ E.Y
- .~ M.. An.:.:" .
..Datei.*. Q.. .;
.;p J. x. w .~ .u - ,g
. . gy ep-xv nn;, 4 =;;.;c. ,.:p
.y..y. .
..uf,4,w
. ~~ :-.
-.;Dstez.y4.e.r n.%g g.
...e; .
- $. p'",6'L. esc,Cc=p.+letedy*wggy
- ,-.......2..... .
. ...~ .
s.. w.:, u .. 39 s %, Distribution.n:Origina.y'ted. f'o.>.b..!-TCGCD .QA'.Startup/T=rnover Surveillance hperviser a .:. r USI' Engineering Egr. E,.f.? .4
'.S. ,N, ,e T f.%.. .N. e./. D.'.MSIE .
GresN. T.~7*.6'#*m.oT+4.tsrt T 1 e . g;;
?4.
p,& f e %. v - rg . . .
- I
\
d.M,.-
..-c.
7....w.n 5 M, .,u..N.m...wm W N.. IS$5@m. -.9
. qY..
..: v_ ,,. ...... - IN#:..SjiM.
x ... e. .... . ., .. +kM ". . . , M
. . e .. . . w.
. + . ,
xyuw ---~ -- m Stcrtup Sys No. Compentut Tag No. TDR No. Pags I of I ozas -rsx, eseW- of 321Y De#d iency Identified during: If during test, r est Operation Other (Circle One) Test No: g c y ,p;;c a g o g, Deficiency
Description:
/fiffmr# .571/J 1 i/ Thtd 'f. I. $ 4/tmtrs/T
O /tG '~sTft.J6 fttJpA As 3/ftsf/14 2 V Norf &J Ader A e f.7 4 - i Can onent Operation Continue'l If NO: CP-SAP-5 Auth. No. v4 YEC NO (Circle One) STA-605 Clearance No. Engineering Evaluation required to determine Corrective Action: YES h (Circle One) Ref. Correspondence for Engineering Eval: g Date: y,,.g y./ ([' Deficiency Reported By: Q*g Corrective Action: b:/5'EL T" A 194 PA6E //dP"3(e Amfe /Z 0f.Yle hl1D 7StL Af6C14Ud 1'D 9/dV/4f AsFd1.uW 1MC1 NK. 3/6Jsset.o nff 31TJJ. bM/4/M ALL &*' 3 fondJ '7 / Corrective Action Approved By: gg) Date: 7,g g Required Retest: n'a ;;n37"'E;0v',.'l2). ??M !4'AL Di'f;Cin' s"} l
* ^ ^ '~~~' M ?!M W1 Ftrstr 17FF1" / 10 t*dt/Serros Abf70s.) # #
Required Retest Approved By: ggg g Date: jf Corrective Action Conpleted: f g Date: 9yyeg i Retest Completed: _g M y* x- 7 y g g g fate: 7,fJg met: kurs w c,,,,,,w, , g L Distribution: Original to 1.eg TUGC0 QA Startup/ Turnover Surveillance Superviser
,MSP Gr up TUSI Engineering Mgr.
Initiator Operations Support Engineer STE 9 ' r* ' :
- W, % d,4 .
g w "OV e r.a96 = o sevisie 5 Ts Dn:C: <cY it?ct: Pega 8 of a ; b.,Nj 't{'i*
' )p,.3
~
13473- j er s ' . Star: p Sys No. Cempere:: Tag No. TDR No. Page I of I l oZA\/ TBv - ESFut/ -og .rztJ
'~ " " 'ency Identiffad during: If duri=g test, ;
j Tes Operatic Other (Circle 0:e) Test Nc: j,g ,,pg;g g ,g g, Deficiency
Description:
_lA) fffA Y M /9 df fW1 1E.57"* W+ff.) /f4/f y/JG wu]A4 f4*s r w t 1ML AC fcic//LE FA/UJ TD k' DC fuJLU "2A t 1C TO *1we kC- TcfJfE5 1 YM[ WWl.- hY$ Y[UY/k W$ { YYN$ O D$Y? E { $$l/l.ffY br l A A>(nd ) Jr o r IcMd ) I
. t Centi:ue? If 50: C?-SAP-5 Auth. No. A/4 .
Ca= [Ce-~ 50 cent Operati: (circle oce) ST1-605 Cleart:ce No. 4a I:gi:eeri:g Evaluatics required to deter:1:e Ccrrective Acti:n: TIS h (Circle C':e) Ref. Cerres;c dence f er hgineeri g Eval: g t < I Deficie:Cy Re;Crted 37: . Date: g , p f7,,,yp Cer e :ive Ac:1::: A1 8 n nt 1'~+t-A)(LIAO A=A0 ftWr Dews / /A./sfitnl . 0dJGt M TAf SFTn se 3 e C r tufuf' WA>3Rtm V @ THE NFxi~' /Jr 6 Wh7" 3FTnJG . 4 i
-m a
& WQ & f f te,=uateec: n -w,ma & = ~ - n = ~ ~ woe :
,,/,rx AC gr.:t etrxJ. /.xtw[ LZAo tb fug d.C'A0 [ D' M L TTW Ar 3RJ '7d. l$
l Ree aed Ie:ez: A;;reved sy: g L, :ste: p/27/ftf C:= ece.ve tu a: C::;:::e:&fj za:e: 7 2 3,y ! Ee:es: C=y*.e: i: Qpj 0a:e: 7, g , gg . Distributi::: Criginz.1 :: kg CC C CA hi:::;/hn. ver kr e:.llt::e '!:;e: tis:: Xi? C::vy !!!! h ri eeri:3 Mgr.
* *11:1a:::
. 0;er :iers k;; :: hiitea: ,,,,
,,; ,, '.. s
$~I
(JEN W 5 y 8% R visica 8
- TEST DEFICIENCY REPORT Pcg2 8 of 8 19474 Component Tag No. . TDR No. Page I of I -
Startup Sys No. , ~ c'zA.s TB Y ESEL n/-03 32W . If during test, f D " inney Identified during:
. Tes Operation Other (Circle One) Test No: $bSPF0 *2-0 L .
Deficiency
Description:
M4h45 8/4 M'dts 4.d/14 re O //W/J A/ K17/
'7. 3. 33 o V TM E -nST Ptst100tF 'THt is nniR AC /WA</r- StKJL1r 71#/id.
93s s w MeisEd DtJE -m TWL b.C. .W9Pv/ PbL1st6i BfMr. Tuo M/W D_15 V'eC) '7WUS 2f t.lthf1JG DI9 ffC7Weil /s/ V7' 7fdJSN1/ mal 1M/ M D 'D L Tt1~ StA* s / -1Nd'1' 1M MDMi4 AC bbt.f3:6G. /1 AT'el V97v' 1/ud T>tf //V fruV ns4vwaax_ Aerss=t3 n'n1Jr. h42 sMc) ..
#A Can onent Operation Continua? If NO: CP-SAP-5 Auth. No.
TE NO (Circle One) STA-605 Clearance No. v4 Engineering Evaluation required to determine Corrective Action: h NO (Circle One) Ref. Correspondence for Engineering Eval: g , ggg p[* Date: 7 ,, y g g ( Deficiency Reported By:
'- Corrective Action:
Corrective Action Approved By: Date: Required Ratest: Required Retest Approved By: Date: 2 Corrective Action Completed: Date: Ratest Completed: Date: Distribution: Original to Log' TUGC0 QA Startup/ Turnover Surveillance Superviser
- L-MST Group TUSI Engineering Mgr.
hitiator Operations Support Engineer STE
_ _ _ __ _ _-- _ _om OFFICE MEMORANDUM A Ta M. R. McBay August 1, 1984 Gen Ross.T aas
- TDR-3299 Please evaluate the subject TDR and provide the appr;priate corrective action.
Startup rectnenends the lowering of the DC supply voltage, lowering the- transformer tap settings, thus lowering AC rectified voltage. Notify TUGC0 Startup of your findings at'your earliest convenience. l ! 1 i I T. P. Miller TPM/gr ce: D. A. London R. L. Siegel J
]
f. f ' i l 1 V t g= .J.~.a. .,,. ' '. . _
~
,-,,, , , , , , , , , , , , _, *==
. . . r .: sm .:
' C .a
- L .r su . .
.M w . .r ,'s a. s' pes cuer, est. . oveer.. uw *a6 rua * . . - -h> e .-e c. r T sh,< ..,.t. -
4 ; n ': i*. L . . _s , . s)f eJ' .
. .. r.
. , , , . y ., .'*. - >>.
?
- r.
-., / - - , .
- s -...
P.O. BOX 1001 GLEN ROSE. rf.XAS 76043
,,,,7 ,,.t.:
l<.
-i2*,_ ,(*..*... >.,, , . < 5f X.% '". ~ ^
t 4.'i
.- ,: s. **
4 -' o ^r*
-f,
,,P' E'- - ; ,cf. r. , ,';[.,,c .
~
g e ' .8 *-
.'. 1
., y . . ; .. , , . ;.
n *~ ; 5: . , 4 g o < : a. , p..l , _.3
#
- T - "
T o . .k'.$, y,' j
-[ * -
,'J.
^* r.'# C '.cM*8 M*,,',, -
, . . '. ,. . *..'.s ...<
ITN.DD, "A. London - Se ariup
? >
. n ,-
i, ? .gw ~W . 2. ~- ~. . r, :' . . ~ . , . -
- ,.. a. t e :,.<.f..
~, m 1 . ,, .,, . F . w, . . w ,-m, . %. , , s:t., y..
%,~.. . ..,..v. ,.. , n. . ?. s .:c.' +'
, ~
J.n . # --.f. : ." -
$ ,w:(. , .c.,,.,r.,.,,..w.,1 g.
* <w / . .
, .. . <~.
~ :NN~ # W ^ ~ ' ~ ' N . 'b 'W' **N
.'[u b. .0- # , k .%. 6 **
K. s. w , . .G . . . , . '
' m .,
.h.,v... . -..-
7.*' ' h September 18, 1984 - i
-?
. .. . . s~ ~ - - -
DATE
. .u. '. 4 .*-'
. r... .
... 6. .
. + a..> ., .. , ., , . n.
., ,. ..e y, .
- . rr, \ . .. : ' .
Reference:
ICF-PT-02-02
... ...~;- .: - - . .
. 9
..;,- . c .. , : ,,:.
, .. z~;...;, . . ,
.~
. , < . J' c.. ; ;, ' ,
.~ ..:
.Please find correct inverter transformer w, . f e. " '
- ? . , .- ,-.ry<,:.
.m; : .. n.? .=.
. . . . . i. . :. a. , ,
'e1 .' - . ,," ' '. - #
s tap setting and W Relay tap setting ,. a s ? , .. .. , " ' ; ..L. .q -* 'u
.'.'- 'V N ' ' 4 7.' * .; , - - ,..' -
yn..' , . .. s.
, 3.1 .
r, .. .. in letters TSC-6460 and TSG-6002 ,. , , , ,,,
- ^
z., respectively, and close referenced test '
- 'I -
s c. .
. ;6 .
; pachge per above settings.\
- ; . ~s , n W. ;.
- e. .
2 .
Attachment:
.T . -SG 6460 and TpG-6002 _% _ , .),
R g.' N.' ~'-E*'.U'&
. a. ? : :: l,' _f ' h l ' ;, ' '
. L * , 1.
d .v
.r :
. Thank You.
SIGNED - - ' + '~- BY
- ~- -- -
=stauct. cms Te ef:.swa
~ . ~ ~ S. E. E. Cho 9F~.% w.er g ;oey 70 grcE msra.ms re senor = I wa+t stogy 2 grace 57U8 stf 7 Pats CDe*
2 SENC w.er t ANC *ws COPILS WT.* C.AP6'i., m*a0? t Sfw0?CJos %f '~ ,
,-er O, i D ~ _
1S477 l TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMP.OT
- P. o sox ison c:.tx most. rrxAs sono TSG-6002 0FFICE MEMORANDUM R. E. Camp - TUCCO Startup Glen Rose Texas September 17, 1984 To s
Subject COMANCHE PEAR STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TDR-3299 TDR-3299 has been evaluated and the corrective actions are: 1 I (1) Taps of the Inverter Rectifier Transformer should be set such that Rectified DC Bus Voltage will be less than/ equal to 142VDC. This f ' setting should be based on maximum systera input voltage of 506VAC at reetifier erensforner. (2) HV Reisy setting is to be done per W 1etter TBI-H-1201.
~
This is not reportable per 10CTR50.55(e).
\ )( -
Peter B. ens Supervising Engineer
. TUGCO Nuclear Engineering PBS:IA: ADi:j e s i
" i Attachment cc: ARMS L. A. Barnes j
f
.a f ,.L :p ' -
1347s
~
. TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY P. o. nox me . ctzw nose. Texas woo TSG-6460 September 14, 1964 Ray Moller Westinghouse -
CPSES, Site COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION WESTINGHOUSE STATIC Lxvz.nz.x - NSSS Raf.: (1) W 1etter TBI-M-1201 (2) TDR-3299 We have reviewed the reference (1) letter and found certain discrepancies with the provision of Inverter Instruction Manual. These discrepancies were discussed between Jerry Foland W and our Ajit Mukherjee today and W provided the following clarifications: ,
- 1. E7 Ralay Setting - W will revise the drawing #4950C67 Sheet 2 and page 16 of the Inverter Instruction Manual as shown on the attached sheets to conform to reference (1).
- 2. Inverter Instruction Manual page 5, section 3.1, paragraph 3 - Jerry Foland confirmed that "this is a general statement. When H7 relay
(~ setting vill be~ done ~ pe~r reference (1), it will not clear the semiconductor fuses, the life expectancy of the parts / equipment vill not be reduced and performance of the Inverter vill not be adversely affected." N
\
.r.
/
star 3. S ens Supervising Engineer TUGCO Nuclear Engineering
$kd PBS:IA:AKM:je ec: ARMS' ' .
O. B. Cox - TUCCO Results ' D. A. London - TUCCO Startup l l l O evum
.-.s
.,.%.. . y,[e , , ,;,- . . . ,
, , w[ .
. w -7 1 . . b " Y$d M U[hf * *O
'TSG-seg1 SH f 09 2 4.d CPERATING DATA
# Description g '
425 to 519 VAC , AC operating voltage. ^ 105 to 140 VDC DC operating voltage Ferro-msonant transfomer input 190 to 260 VAC (rus) 7% KVA Output rating 0.8 PF 1 p 60 Hz,118V ras output voltage Output voltage regulation
*25 from 2/3 load to full load 60 Hz,,+_0.5 Hz Output frequency Output voltage total harnonic Hamonic distortion distortion will not exceed 5% from 2/3 load to full load Inverter . output current will Overloads not exceed 150% rated output curmnt in the event of a faul t. (Short circuit condi-tions). Inverter will operate into a short circuit. idhen "
short is reseved. inverter
.' output will mturn to norinal.
\ j The system is designed to Anbient tesiperature operate in an asbient tenpera-I I
8 ture of 00C to 49 C and a rela-
,,ve humidity range of up to 95%. ,
Protective Relay Sec Points E - Pickup at 144V Dropout ~
===- -Q 140Vj(This is the DC JT Bus Voltage i.e. Voltage across HV Relay and Zanar Diode - W Dvg. 4950C67 E- Not adfustable. -
Sheet 2.) - DCL _- Not Adjustable. Coil with .,
=
2.7 K cha resistor in series O to pickup at 10$VDC. IAct adjustable.
'. CSRT k ecs. delay.
PER WPT- j 1 Cst - Curve 3 delay 3.5 A. Full ' p <.7 ,- load current. 120V 60 Hz.
/ Trip at 4.0 Amps. ,
m.
-- _._}}