Latest revision as of 02:13, 28 February 2020

Text

Affidavit Re Metal Shavings in Control Rod Blades.Cites Incomplete Cleaning of Blades & Unwarranted Passing Insp
	ML19210E132
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	05/21/1979
From:	Reynolds G; CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML19210E131	List: ML19210E132;
References
	NUDOCS 7911290495
	Download: ML19210E132 (2)
	v • d • e

. . . . .

N' ATTACIDiENT A

~

V,-

~s. ..

e AFFIDAVIT OF .

GORMAN 1. RETNOLDS 2

STATE OF OHIO )

) SS COUNTY.0F CLERMONT )

I, Gorman L. Reynolds, aged 29, residing at Rt. 2 Box 69,Cseaman, County of Adams Ohio, hereby state that I am a member of M111 wright Local 1454: that I have been'a journeyman M111 wright for six years: ,

that I worked for -Reactor Control Inc. as M111 wright general foreman at the Zimmer nuclear power station, Moscow, Ohio from October, 1978 to February, 1979: and that'I have personal knowledge of the facts hereinafter related ,

While working for Reactor Control Inc.(R.C.I.), my crew was required ,

to clean metal shavings from control rod blades. These shavings were left by the manufacturer. We first took old cloths wrapped with a heavy gray tape and beat the sides of the blades to remove these shavings.

We then ran a magnet along them followed by a machine shop vaccum cleaner Quality control and finally wiped then down with an acetone solution.

inspectors employed by R.C.I. then ran a spot check on the blade con-formity with a "go-no go gauge". Only about one third of the blades I

were checked. ,

l In February, R.C.I. required my crew to do grinding on all the control rods (at the bottom of the blades) to remove an over-sized weld.

Small metal fragments from the grinding went into the contro1! rod blades by way of small holes running the length of them. When I informed R..C.I.

engineer's of this I was told that shese fragments could clog the rods I then told my super-and to wipe them down with an aceton_e solution.

S 12 P un290 f f s

\

visors that wiping with acetone alone did not get the shavings out. (The

- uroper procedure for removing shavings was the procedure we. initially Jed g remove % ose left by the manufacturer.) They inspectad -the rods and passed them anyway.

. When we first started the c. leaning after grinding, H. I. Crane ,

proja:t manager for R.C.I., told me the job would last two weeks: it lasted two days. We were rushed through this job and it is to my knowledge that metal shavings still remain in the control rod blades.

I saw them reported them and R.C.I. Passed inspection on them anyway.

mn -

.G'orman L. Pp9nolds The foregoing affidavit was sworn to and subscribed before me by Gorman L. Reynolds this 8/ day of kdu ~

, 1979 v

dd t < 9 :

Notary Public IzbML A*"** HW '

,1,NIN...

,.,.. il '? M. . ='O e, , . .u -

.....a

. i

,I m 2 m:m n an xeaws=x:;:;c w = x a 1425 7gg-

ATTACHMENT B

GENER AL @ ELECTRIC NUCLEAR ENERGY PROJkCTS DIVISION GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,175 CURTNER AVE., SAN JOSE, CAUFORNIA 95125 MC 682, (408) 925-3732 ,,

-t a -Lt

? ,

4 April 24, 1979 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio.n Division of Operating Ruactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D. C. 20555 '

Attention: Mr. Paul S. Check Division of Operating Reactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS ON CONTROL BLADE LIFE (B Loss) .

4C

Reference:

F. D. Coffman, Jr. to R. L. Gridley, telecopy of 4/6/79 Attached are the responses to the NRC questions to the referenced communi-cation. These questions were informally transmitted to GE on April 6, 1979. A draft of the responses has been hand carried to you by R. O. Brugge on April 23, 1979. The attachment to this transmittal is the final form of the GE response.

If you have any further questions or comments on this subject, please contact R. O. Brugge of my staff on ,(408) 925-3360.

Respectfully,

, R. L. Grid 1 , Manager Operating Plant Licensing Safety and Licensing Operation RLG:gtm/102D

= *

~

Attachment .

cc: Mr. F. D. Coffman, Jr. -

DOR /NRR

.1425 123

Question No. 1 ,

Provide or refer to the technical bases that demonstrate that both the safety analyses and the operating limits current for BWR'rgedequately

accommodate the new data on control rod design life. Thegasesmust cover all domestic reactors employing General Electric Coipany control ,

%- rods.

Answer No. 1 Based on neutron radiography and destructive examination of exposed control blade absorber rods and analytical evaluations, it has been established that there will be no loss of the B C4 absorber material from the absorber rods until a local depletion of 50% B 10 has been achieved.

The data base for this criterion was based on the examination of 45 absorber rods from a foreign BWR and 13 rods and 9 rods from two domestic BWR's respectively. Further substantiation of this criterion was obtained by neutron radiography of 32 absorber rods from a domestic BWR. The B 10 depletion was determined by assay analyses using mass spectrometry and substantiated by analytical predictions of B 10 depletion using a MONTE CARLO computer code.(1)

Using the above criterion which is applicable to all General Electric supplied BWR control blade rods, and the depletion distribution of the control rods in the reactor core, the amount of B 4C potentially missing from each control blade can be determined. It is conservatively ~ assumed that when 50% local B10 depletion is reached, the B C completely disappears.

4 The primary functions of the BWR control blades are to provide power ,

. shaping and reactivity control with regards to achieving cold shutdown

-. and scram reactivity. Of these, only the reactivity control function

. would result in potential licensing or safety concerns. The impact of i this new control blade lifetime criterion on licensing and safety concerns is discussed in more detail in response to Question 2.

4 RLG:gmm/102E 1 4/24/79 1425 124

s Question No. 2 ,

Identify the safety concern most sensitive to this control rod life-limiting mechanism (loss of B4C). Include the bases for the sensitiy,ity considering

_ at least the safety concerns of the shutdown margin, the e@alpy deposited Y during a rod-drop accident, the vessel pressure, and the scram reactivity 4, effects on transients that determine the limiting ACPR.

4 Answer No. 2 .

As noted in re'sponse to Question 1, the degradation of the reactivity ,

control functions associated with achieving cold shutdown and scram reactivity could potentially impact licensing or safety. Although many licensing events require scram for mitigation, the safety evaluations potentially most sensitive to scram reactivity are the abnormal transient

. pressurization events (e.g., generator load rejection or turbine trip without bypass) and the control rod drop accident (CRDA). Based on results pre:ented in the control rod drop accident licensing Topical Reports (2), (3), (4) , it can be seen that the CRDA is not very sensitive to scram reactivity insertion rates. Figure 2-1 and 2-2 of Reference (3) show that the increase in peak fuel enthalpy is only about 10-15% for scram insertion times which were 2.6 sec. and 5.0 sec. , or essentially a factor of two difference in scram insertion rates, to 90% insertion.

The decrease in scram reactivity insertion rates due to loss of B C 4

would be significantly less than the above example. Furthermore, since the application of the banked position withdrawal sequence (5) , the sensitivity of the CRDA to scram reactivity insertion rates has been reduced further. Therafore, this new control blade life limiting mechanism s

. (loss of 84C) will not result in violation of the CRDA licensing safety criteria.

3 The impact of this new life limiting mechanism on plant transients was also evaluated. These evaluations conservatively assumed that 26% of the control blades were missing B C based on control blade )SO% B10 4 _

depletion distributions representative of the previously defined end-of-life blade. It should be noted that all operating BWR's, for which GE supplies RLG:gmm/102E 2 1423 125 4/24/79 -

the licensing analyses, will have a lesser fraction of t, lades at this conditite.1 dur:ng the current operating cycle. The resultant 1oss of scrau reactivity from the above configuration when factored into the plant traasient analysis resulted in an increase of CPR of o aproximately

0. 0L Due to the-conservative nature of this evaluation, gis increase g is considered to be sufficiently small such that no additi[ rial margin

v. for the MCPR operating limit will be required. Het impacth n peak ,

\ vessel pressure is less than 1 psi increase. The impact of B 4C loss was

. also evaluated relative to shutdown margin. Blades at less than 80% of the previously defined blade lifetime will have insignificant, if any, B C missing.

4 Control blade depletions were evaluated for all operating BWR's, and for those plants which had control blades in excess of 80% of the previously defined blade lifetime, analyses were performed to assess the potential loss in shutdown margin. These analyses were performed conservatively by applying an end-of-life depletion distribution to all blades that were projacted to reach 80% of the previously defined blade lifetime within the current operating fuel cycle. The foregoing approach maximizes the amount of potentially missing B 4C.

Since the shutdown margin, fuel loading configurations, control blade depletions, etc., ara all plant dependent, specific analyses were performed for each reactor. From these evaluations it was determined that the potential reduction in shutdown margin was 0.001 to 0.005 Ak depending on the unique core design characteristics and the number and location of control blades in excess of 80% of the previously defined life. Since all domestic operating BWR's currently have demonstrated shutdown margin

, in excess of 0.01 Ak the techncial specifications on shutdown margin demonstrition are still satisfied. .,

s .

Based on the above discussion, it has been concluded that this new

, e. control blade life limiting mechanism (loss of B4C) has not resulted in I the violation of any licensing or safety criteria. It is also apparent I that the cold shutdown margin is the licensing criterion which is most sensitive to this new control blade lifetime criterion and hence, has the greatest likelihood for potentially violating technical specifications.

RLGtgam/102E 3

/?U19 1425 126

Question No. ~3 Describe the controls employed to assure that BWR's are not operated beyond the bounds of the safety analysis of that safety concern most sensitive to the loss of 8 C 4 from control rods. %

5' -

k

- f.AnswerNo.3

^%

s Although no licensing or safety criteria have been violated as a result of this new control blade li.fetime mechanism, as an added precaution GE has notified all utilities hh GE BWR's of this new control blade lifetime criterion via a Service Information LettgIL)f6) . In addition, to those utilities which have control blades projected to be in excess of 80% of the previously defined life, this SIL recommends that an adminis-trative adder be placed on the current shutdown margin demonstration tests to account for the potential loss of B 4C during the current operating cycle.

This SIL also states that due to this new control clade lifetime limiting mechanism, the control blade lifetime has been reduced to 80% of the lifetime previcusly defined; therefore, it is recommended that the utilities replace control blades consistent with this newly defined lifetime. Following these added precautions ano recommendations will assure with a high degree f confidence that all licensing and safety criteria impacted by this new control blade life-limiting mechanism will be satisfied.

e e

?

2-RLGrgmm/102E 4 4/24/79

~

1425 127

REFERENCES

1. C. M. Kang, E. C. Hansen, EndF/B-IV Benchmark Analyses ,,

with Full Three Dimensional MONTE CARLD models, ANS Transactions) Vol. 27, y Pages 891-892, 1977. t iL,

2. Stirn., R. C. , et. al. , " Rod Drop Accident Analysis for Large Boiling Water Reactors," NEDG-10527, March 1972.

3. Supplemen't 1 of NEDD-10527 (Reference 2), July 1972.

4. Supplement 2 of NEDO-10527 (Reference 2), January 1973.

5. Paone, C. J., et. al., " Banked Position Withdrawal Sequence,"

. NEDD-21231, January 1977.

6. General Electric Service Information Letter No. 157, Control Blade Lifetime, Supplement 1, March 1979.

~%

~ -

i *

~

RLG:gmm/IO2E 5 4/2A/79

\k,lr3 \3

i ATTAC11 MENT C GENERAL F ELECTRIC NUCLEAR ENERGY

, PROJECTS DIV1 LION INERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,17s CURTNER AVE., SAN JOSE, CAUFORNIA 95125 MC682,(408)925-3732 -

MFN-178-J9

.) RLG-087-1]9

. June 29,1979

. =

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission ,-

Division of Operating Reactors

. Office of Huclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Mr. Paul S. Check Division of Operating Reactors ' -

Office of Nuclear Reacto.r Regulation .

Gentlemen: ,

SUBJECT:

RESPONSES TO NRC ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON CONTROL BLADE LIFE (B C4 LOSS)

Reference:

F. D. Coffman, Jr. to A. H. Ervin, telecopy of 6/15/79.

Attached are the responses to the NRC questions to the referenced cocmunication.

If you have any iurther questions or comments on this subject, please contact R. O. Brugge of my staff on (408) 9,25-3360.

Respectfull , '.

u -//

-g r .

'R. L. Grid Wy, Manager Operating Plant Licensing .

.. Safety & Licensing Operating RLG:sj/389 7 . bec:

. { Attachment .. R. C. Stirn 2 K. W. Braaman.

- cc: Mr. F. D. Coffman, Jr. R. 7. Brugge DOR /NRR -

, sj/389 1 ,

1425 129

RESPONSES TO NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON '

CONTROL BLADE LIFE (B4C LOSS)

Question 1 i

, Pleaseprogdethedatausedtodevelopthecorrelati4nbetweenBC g loss and B. depletion and describe more complet p tfe methods 4

+ used to measure the B C loss and calculate the B depletion; s i includeanyadditionaidatadevelopedsinceyourletterwaswritten.

. Answer 1 The data used to develop the correlation between B C loss and 810 depletion was provided in the presentation given bh Dr. D. L. Fischer of General Electric Company on March 22, 1979. NRC personnel attend-ing included Paul S. Check and F.D. Coffman. Figure 1 is a copy taf data given in the presentation. The data shown is the average deple-tion obtained from hot cell examinations of control blades at 100%

and 80% of the previously defined control blade 1tfetime.

~

The amount of missing B C from individual tubes was determined by neutronradiographyperformedinhotcells. Conservatively included in the total amount of missing B C3 were any grey zones where the B C was not missing but in some stage of decomposition. Also, in dhtermir'ng the amount of missing B C the B C tubes were assumed to be perfectly full with no settling.4 ,heT amo6nt of missing B 4C is calculated from the elevation difference between the B C 4 column indicated in the as-built drawing and the level of the solid black B4 C as observed in the radiographs of the absorber tubes.

The local B IO depletion was determined experimentally by B /B assayanalyses,andanalyticallybycontrolbladeburnuphofes which were calculated using Monte Carlo techniques for one control blade with no'B4C loss.1 Assay analyses were performed in a hot cell using mass spectrometry. The assay analyses were performed on both sots of rods shown in Figure 1.

 ,                                            o Question 2 Explain how the above data suppJrts the conclusion that there will be       -

no local loss of B4C until a B depletion of 50% has been achieved. 7 Answer 2 i

i The B,C loss was concentrated in the high burn up reg %on of the contr61 blade and the shape of the distribution curve tf the missing B4 C was identical to the anticipated control blade bufn up profile -

e i 2C. M. Kang, E. C. Hansen, Endf/B-IV Benchmark Analyses with Full Three-Dimensional Monte Carlo Hodels, N!S Transactions. Vol. 27 Pages 891-892, 1977 AE:sj:at/3Y l425 130

Responses to HRC Requests June 26, 1979 Page 2 (Figure 1). By superisaposing the analytically derived control blade burn up profiles on the B,C loss data, it was determined that the 50% locQ bgn up profile wds the best fit to the B C loss 3 _ profile.. B /B assayanalysesperformedononeoft@$ control

     'f4 blades with a crack but no B,C loss at 100% of the prettiously defined control blade life c3nfirmed that the peak burn up in the                    '

rod was 50%. For the absorber rods at B0% of previous life the assay samples were taken immediately below the point where the absence of B C was observed. 4 The local burn up at this elevation was slightly higher than 50%. .

 -               Previous examinations performed by GE at VNC also substantiated the correlation of a 50% local . burn up as the onset of leaching. In 1968, GE placed four (4) absorber rods in fuel assemblies exposed ir. the Dresden I reactor in order to achieve accelerated burn up.

After four cycles of operation, only two tubes remained in the reactor (the'other two had already been returned to a hot cell) and , both were visually inspected and found to be sound. At the end of . the fifth cycle the rods were inspected and they were observed to have large cracks and most of the B 4C was missing. Calculated burn up of these two rods was in excess of 50% along their length. Therefore, by our current correlation, this clad failure and B C4 loss would have been predicted. At the time these observations were made the cause of the failure was thought to be excessive internal pressure due to helium gas build up. The average burn up achieved had exceeded the mechanical lifetime based on internal gas pressure as defined by models used at that time. In 1974, five tubes from a Dresden 1 control blade at B0% of pre-viously defined control blade life were examined. One of the absorber rods had a through wall crack with no apparent B,C loss and another absorber rod had incipient cracks. The absorber rod with the through wall crack had a local burn up of 52% and the rod with incipient cracks had a burn up of 46%. At that time the

 .                failure of the rod with the through wall crack was thought to be a random flaw; however, to verify this conclusion, GE initiated a program for further evaluation of control blade performance.

~

       .           Recent absorber rod examinations show cracks extending below the bottom elevation of the areas of B C4 loss, and tubes with no B C 4
         ;         loss were observed to have through wall cracks. In both failure y        modes, no B C was observed to have leached out of absorber tubes                  ,

withlesstban50%burnup. . All the cases cited substantiate 50% local B 0 burn up as the onset e of B4C loss. By using this correlation, the amount of.B,C loss was predicted for a Big Rock Point control blade which waf bdyond the previously defined end of control blade life. The predicted B,C loss was equivalent to the measured loss as determined by neutton radiography performed at VNC.

                  ,                                                                , , . ~ . -

AE: sj:at/3Y

t Responses to NRC Requests June 26,1979 Page 3 , Question 3 _

                                                                            .c
         ;,          Explainhowtheabovedatasupportstheconclusionthatbladeswith
         #           less than 80% of the previously defined biede lifetite will have insignificant B C    missing.                                           '

1.- 4 Answer 3 10 The presence of B C as a function of B 4 depletion shown in Figure 1 illustrates the type of B C loss which would be anticipated for a

 ,                   controlbladeat80% oft 8epreviousdesignlifetime. This loss is based on neutron radiographs of tubes removed from a control blade at 80% of life. The amount of 84 C missing is small and has negli-gible impact on control rod reactivity worth and on core physics calculations impacted by control rod worth such as shutdown margin andscrggreactivity. The B C is assumed to be gone at 50%

local 8 depletion and no c,redit is taken for the fact that the . missing B C had been depleted (i.e. , the change in control rod worth is conser$atively evaluated against fresh B C or a new control rod). 4 Question 4 , Explain how you have determined that the effect of B C3 loss on MCPR cgg be bound for all BWRs by assuming that 26% of the blades have B depletion distributions representative of the previously defined end-of-life blade. Answer 4 The MCPR effect was evaluated for operating BWR plants for which General Electric Company is currently providing reload fuel and fuel management services. For these plants, the limiting case was a plant which would have had 26% of its blades in excess of the previously defined end of life blade. Therefore. the evaluation was performed on this plant. 7 I , t . i e 5 AE:sj:at/3Y l425 'l32-

I LOSS OF B4 C VS. B " DEPLETION o TIP j 50 %I LOCAL' 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- DEPLETION B

      .         21 -                                                                     5                   i la

_ -} CONTROL BLADE a 100% LIFE 5 i . 18 - 1

                                                                                                               \
                                                                                                                 \
 . 5 *"        ~

4 32\

   $                                                                                    TUBE NO. #                 \
   =    30      -                                                                                  -
                                                                                                                    \
   $*                             o   -60 TUBE CORRELATION                                                             g E    as       -

o 50% BURN-UP BASED ON CALCULATION \ I AND ASSAY ANALYSES. . g 5 - o ' CORRELATES WITH DRESDEN DATA il o CORRELATES WITH SWELLING PREDICTIONS CENTER ,

                                                                                                           .           EDGE OF WING                                                                    .                                OF WING 50% LOCAL TIP                                                                            B10 DEPLETION HM                                                                                 3          \

m z TUBE NO. A 2 \

   ~      6          -
                                                                                                                     \

g CONTROL BLADE AT 80% LIFE \ 12 ( i= c2 . .

                                                                                                                         \     '

L \ 18 - . . \ . 0 . .- t d

    )24                -

CENTER I4D I33 EDGE OF WING . OF WING

                         !                                                          3498 i

dsp9 MP. BARTH: I have no further questions to ask f It 2 or Mr. Maura since he has adoptc!the testimony with a

                  .     !n  ! correct::.on and stated the staff's conclusion. I think it
               ., q           would be appropriate since this is a board-raised matter 4

[ that if the board has questions, that they direct questions a d to Mr. Maura at this time, sir. r (1oard conferring.)

b:J 8 j! CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think the board has

                        .l g
               ,i             relatively few questions, but I think we'll let the parties mha             ask their questions first.

ti g .' So, Mr. Feldman, you may proceed. L,. j MR. FELDMAN: If it's all right, I'll walk around 4 just so I can face Mr. Maura and won't strain his neck. 13 l; CIIAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: in[ i I , Could you use the microphone

                      !       if you can.

15 t 1 l CROSS EXAMINATION Y. ,. l BY MR. FELDMAN: 17 . i O Mr. Maura, I'm going to refer you to the first

1C i

                     !        page of your direct testimony in which you indicate that 19 ;

i prior to your inspection you interviewed the concerned 20 l

                    !         wor!: man.

21 , i Could you tell me which workman this was? 22 ' i

                    ,                A   Mr. Gorman -- what's his name?   Reynolds --

ll Gornan Reynolds. 24 j i O Mr. Reynolds? 25 ;,' q A Yes. n 1425 f34

3499 dsp10 1 0 Did you interview any other concerned workmen? l A No, because the affidavit was just his. Ah 3 'I' 0 So you did not interview Tom Partin, for instance, 4 whohad tcstified earlier in this proceeding concerninq l;! O f, this matter? 6} A No. But we did take into consideraticn his

         'l     ! concern about earlier chips.

8 0 Okay. But you did not talk to him? 9 A No. MR. BARTH: I object to the question, sir. My 10 11 distinct reccliection of the testimony of Mr. Martin is'

17. that he did not testify on grinding the chamfer.

MR. FELDMAN: I believe he was one of the millwrights 13 who work d on the rods and had that concern. That is my

         !4     <

I 15 recollec tion. w The record speaks for itself. e g/ h MR. BARTH: This is not correct, your Honor. I i MR. CONNOR: Martin was gone by then. 13 i

-                 l MR. BARTH:    Mr. Martin raised the question about 19 2cj                the seals and the ends of the control rods and the i

21 l question of how the control rod blades were properly I / 22 ' measured for thickness.

            ; }[{                      MR. FELDMAN:    That is correct, your Honor, but
                     ;l n;                I think ho also testified as to the chami.'erino as well, if I'm not -- maybe I'm mistaken, but that's how I i

1425.115 i

4 0 3500

d3pli 1 !! recall it.

                    'i
              ,1 'I                  MR. BARTH:    Counsel is mistaken, sir. I object
                    'l
                    'f    to the questbn.

1.

                - :                  tie board knows the record as well as I do.      I'll 3

i abide by your decision. n. q" (Eoard conferring.)

                    !i 7g                    MR. FELDMAN:     In any event, the quese. ion has been o

q gi answered anyway. gyO CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The question has been l

                   'li gg[           answered. I don't recall precisely the date when Mr. Martin
           ,,       y    left, but he -- I can't remember that.

12 lj! But anyway, you may -- that question has been J g ll answered. , I 34[ Why don't we just leave it. g BY MR. FELDMAN: h

o p O Okay. Now, who put together this mockup that you g

1.. j 4 discuss in your testimony on page 37 Who constructed that? l A Reactor Controls.

~                 !l 1 10 MR. CONNOR:    This has all been gone into in il yn jg great detail previously.

How this test was set up and 21 j conducted and it was subject to a lot of cross 22 h!! examination. i-

,,q

_e This relates only to this man's complaint.

                  ,l 2; p AR. FELDMAU:     Th.s is a new test.

l! MR. CONNOR: 25 :! I'd hate to go over all thin 4 n 1425 136

.6

t i li i

              .I                                                             3501 4!

dap12 stuff we went over before. i ly dF. FELDMAN: I don't think Mr. Connor understands what is goirg on here. I believe at the request of the i board Mr. Msura set up his test to determine whether or not - i there wr.3 ar y problem with these metal shavingc. And no one ;

,                    has questier.ed him regarding this whatsoever.                   :

i CI: AIRMAN BEClilIOEFER: This is the test on page ; 1

               ,                                                                      I n'         3.                                                               i
          ..                    MF. CONNOR:    I'm saying this has all been gone      !
         ;O I        into, but I'll hold it until I see where we're going.

1; BY MR. FELDMAN:

.]-

2 O Do you recall the question, sir?

4 y0 A Yes. I said P.eactor Controls, l' p l'l 0 Okay. Did you consult Mr. Reynolds after the g ;, mockup vas completed in order to ask him whether or not

               !I m           it was nn accurate and fair representation of the -- what g h         he was templaining about?

A No, because I know what the blade looks like, and 93 ]

                !i 19 ;        as long as I can see myself that it is similar in the i

39 lli configuration, I don't see any need to ask anybody else. 2; d You knew, I can see it myself. l i

        .x_
        ~

0 Did you ask -- did he witness the test that you O', perfemeci on the blade? _7 ,,j ,

7. ,v 3 A No, he was not at the site.

Q Sc y u w re not able to ask him whether or not 25 4 4. i! l425 137

i i

                   ).                                                              3502 1

dcpl3 ! the way you did the test duplicated the way he saw the -- 0

3) t, he cau :he cetual blades worked on?

3b A Because of theshape of the blade, there is only

4 one way you can grind. Thre is no way that you could do it SF dif fereat than the way we did it at the test.

                  ;i St 9
 '                ll          0   Well, did you show him the metal shavinga or I
              ld   l chips that you produced with your grinding?

8 A No, I did not show him anything. 9 O Se there is no way that you know whether or not 10 - the chips are actually the same size as those chips that were 17 j grcund ahich Mr. Reynolds had a concern about? l: 12 A Well, thatis true. You know, my entire testimony i 1, ! is based on the fact that we don't care whether there were i

a[ e chips or not left inside the blade.

t t- We go and we project all the way out through 10 !! assuming the chips are there, that the tubes are going to

         ;y '          crack becauce of the chips being there, which is a very 10 !         amote pessibility, but we considering it.
 .              I 19 l                    Trying to determine -- assume they crack:    are 20 f          we going to get into trouble or not?

2! , O Okay. But you did indicate that you don't know 22[ for a fact whether or not these cHps were the same size which

I 23 jj caused I:r. Poynolds ' concern?

2; P] t A It makes no difference. 3 ;; O New --

                ;l 1

l,' 1425 138 48 5

t i 3503 dsp14 'i A It could be 10 times the size that concerned a him and still the resulb wottd be the same. ii af G Ycu indicate in your report -- let me find i 4 L, the page here so I can refer you -- your report indicates

                   ;l n

that the si s of the particle might make a difference. 5 :!: 3Il Ycu ask -- on page 4 you indicate that -- you

,                 ti j ll        ask the licensee to consider whether or not the metal ti
 -            8, chips wculd likely block the flow path between the absorber roc s 1 9 ;!        and the sheathing;    that's correct, isn't it?
             ;g :              A     I asked them to consider -- to make the assumption t

that they did block the flow, 3; d o and 3 ;;l 1 mpb fis. 73 ',' F i 15 li 13 !!

l I

17 [g i n IU i 19 l l

20 t ,

21 l

2^j

                  't 23ff 24 !j il 23!

i 1425 139 i

!i

F il 3504

0 3t!ADELOM P C Wouldn't the size of the particles make a differ-flws david , i mpbl '

                           '   Enca in considering whether they would block the flow?

3 A i7 ell, yes and no. Yes in the sence that the o bigger they get the less likely it is they will block the n flow. They uould have to be small enough to be able to get v . through tha cmall holes in the sheath before they can do the 7j blocking, o

 .                 3 ffl                     So they cannot be too large.

i a ll C If they were too large they wouldn't block the

                          ;I 10 !-         holas?

4

                !! 3                  A      That's right. They have to be able to penetrate.
                         !i
                 ;.? H                G      Okay.

l f Did you consider at all what would happen if the 13 !p! 14 , particles were bigger? Maybe they wouldn't block the flow; at but did you consider what would happen if they were bigger le .1 than -- il 3; ll A If they're big enough that they cannet get in-il ml side between the sheath and the pin, then we don't have any i 10 l problem because they're not inside the plate. l O Okay. 20 j!.i 21 A You see, the only time you have the problem is l' 32 if the particle gets inside. If it was not able to get 22l inside, then it's comewhere in the plant right now, in the 24 ficor or in the vacuum, thrown away or whatever.

               .m fl                         The particle has to find its way inside between
               ~~ !!

e l425 140 It ie i

i 3505 f mpb2 I' the aheath and the cin before the problem would be geaerated. 2 :' O Well. couldn't those particles be bigger than the ones you found and ctill get in the sheath?

           - '{

[ I No, because they grind -- i u MR. BARTH: Objection, Your Honor.

              ;t 2N                     The 'cestimony to which he's referring in para-7          graph A on page 4 assumes a blockage regardless of size. It
 .        3          assunes the vorst possible case.

i 3 l, He's already testified that the size particles i 10j are relavan :, so ha has answered the question. It's been 11 ; l asked and answered. It's a technicality. I 12 ,' But over and above that, I think the destimony is 13 misundsrstood. He has assumed regardless of size that full I

4 blochaga is stopped.

13 , MR. PELDMAN: I think that that's a misreading [ 13 ji of the testimony, Your Honor. 17 , I believe that on page 4 of the testimony what

              ;l 13 l        it says is that Mr. Maura asked the Licensee -- 1,4 other i

19 l words, Cincinnati Gas & Electric, I assume -- to consider 20 h. whether a p::oblem would exist if they were blocked, and he l 2; i did not ask them to assume that they were blocked. i l ggl BY MR. FELDMAN: i 33; O Mr. Maura, am I correct to say if they were l. blockad there would be a problem? g;I-l y a. 2 vo. t . es . i, l425 141

i! b 3506 tl rpb3 1a There wsre two questions asked. One ist assume u

              .:'       that thara are enough particles insido that would actually       i block the flow. And the other one is -- that was from the
               ,        point ol view of heat transfer.

l

              - '                    And the other one is:   now let's assume there      l ara particlos in there -- maybe one, maybe two or three --       ;

7g what in the worst thing that could happen with those ti

 .          .-y  ll     particlas jammed between the pins and the sheath.

I: 3 j O Okay. D

         ;3 [                 A      There were two separate questions. One was for h

1; heat transfer, the other one was for maybe just curiosity: H

2. -

            .,          what is the worst thing that can happen.

g 9 4' ". ,

                 !;           Q      Okay.

ij

         , _, fI Now those were concerns that you had, and the l

3. ! way you went about finding the answers to these concerns b

        ,3 was to ask Cincinnati Gas & Electric, isn't that correct?

4 g A That is correct.

        .i L, i

O Did you conduct any test on your own, with your i a g- i own tean? 1

       . , . ,   ]            A      No.

. "" ij t! I also asked the General Electric Company for the t

       ,,y u-        ;,

samo -- ll 0 General Electric Company makes the reactors,

13 ,

e isn't that correct? m (

                 ,j           A      That is correct.

3 {f}} ]42 l j - b k

I : 3507 i.

           .o apb4           ]                    But    have to -- I asked them through the b
                  -i Lic.:nceo -- let's put it that way -- to come up, and when-
          ' ,' ;        ' heir response gavo me an answer that looked reasonable --

and thau was the worst actual case, because the worst thing s that aa happen is to crack the pin. 3j Q Now you didn't ask any independent lab to do a 7l test, did you? 5 '{ A No, it il 9 ;t My position would be if the response had been l 10 ill 'nothing is going to happen, no pins will crack', then you 4 11 ';

                *e havo grounds maybe for doubting.         But --

1A Q uho told you that nothing would actually happen? 12, .i A Iobody. They told me that they actually would l 14fl crack, i

        ;g                      Q     But that it would make no difference, isn't that 10 )           correct?

17 , A Well, that's because of something else. And 18 this --

        ;3 i                   O      But you still relied upon CG&E to provide you t

20 ' with tha information that you based your judgmant on, isn't i 21 i that correct? MR. BARTII: It misrepresents the testimony. 22 l! ! I 33 (( objact. is 34 IIO's testified that CG&E and GE both -- 2 i, MR. FELDMAN: I'll amend that. I'll withdraw the 1425 143

                                                      ~
             .l 3508 mpb5            question an3 I amend it to include GE and resubmit it in that f

2j fora. 0l THE WITNESS: I already forgot what it was. 1

           ?l                    DY MR. FELDMAN:

1 T] Q Uell, isn't it true that you relied on CGGE and l

.         5    +

GE for all of your evidence? 7 A For the response as to the fact that the chips i a could in a remoto case generate a crack, yes. Then after I 9 that, to pursue the problem with a crack, we also relied on 10 studios made by NRR of GE data. 11 O Now in your testimony you do refer to cracking 1; !1 of the blado, I believe, is that correct?

         !I              A       Of the pins, yes.

l 14 [ O Of the pins. g, What's the danger involved, the possible danger i, ic ;t involved with this happening, not to say that, you know, you t p conclud3 that it wouldn't happen. But in the worst case l gg j what could happen, possible, not conceivable, but possible, l 19 i if the pins cracked? ng l A Well, at the time that I was told that the worst 3 g :ase would to the generation of cracks in the pins, my next 22 l concern was what is going to happen to the boron carbide 4 33 g inside, is it going to leech out and then we have a problem 3, with co.itrol, or if it's going to stay in. 25 h , So that's why the problem cascaded all the way II

             ;f                                               1425 144            !

a :

et 1 3509 I mpb6 down into the st2 dies of boron carbide leeching cut of the 2 pins. I O I just don't know too much about this, as I'm o sura you're aware.

             't 3

Dut -- Let's wait until this music is through

,         6l     playing.

I 7] ;! (Pauso.) 0] . Okay. I think our interruption is over with. I 9 I'm not an expert on this and I really don't to il know what baron carbide is. If you could just explain that

             !i f! j    to me, what the possible dangers are or what your concern was.

Il

            ,    2:: plain why you had a concern with that.

1?.'I'

12. , MR. BARTH: I object to the question on the le ; basic taat this is no place to learn how to design and 15 l'j build a nuclear power reactor, j

10 MR. FELDMAN: Well, I beliove, Your Honor, that 17 i! Mr. Maura indicated that there was a concern about safety 10 g or uhataot with regard to this boron carbide, and that he's d 13 ' opened up that area. l . 29 ! (The Board conferring.)

)

ti 1; D CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think he may answer the i 22ii; questica asked. i' 23 j It's sort of basic information, but I think. it's li 2; ' okay. b THE WITNESS: Well, boron carbide is the compound 25f . v j!.- 1425 145 a :

                 .                                                                 3510 I

mpb7 that is placad inside these pins, and since it contains boron

            'I i - and the boro 1 will have the element B10, which is a neutron 3l            absorbia:g, 11 rea.:ts with the neutron flux and controls the, Ij           lat's say tha chain reaction that is taking place which in turn generatas th3 heat.
                    ~ ' '                                                 '  ~~

J .37 MR. FELDMAN: 7I O so that if this were to escape you could lose

 -         G              control of your reactor, is that correct?

o l A You could. It depends on how much you lose

-) whetaer you can lose control, the ability to shut down the

          !.              unit.

ta] O That's a fear that you have and' UiAt sI why you 13 '.l investigated it, right? i 14 li A (Indicating agreement.) 15 0 Did you investigate ways in which this crack i

          ;6j             might be enlarged through other means --
          ;-                     A     Well, when I approached --

10 0 -- during the operation of the plant? 19 l A Well, when I approached NRR with this subject

                'l 20 . ,            they hac already started investigations on a similar problem 1

2; j of cracking, not due to chips but due to the life of the

)

23i ; blade.

        ;3        -

But you're still talking about the same problem. p .j It's a crack. And they were quite well into it. And so I 2.- [j kind of stayed on the periphery and let them continue. I i 1 I' 1425 146

n

                 !t 3511
                 ,1 mpb8 i [!       just cc:cmunicated with them so that they would keep me up to date as to what their findings were. And that's what you see at tache <l come of their study.
                     .          O     Now is there any way that this crack could be avan larger than it was on your test model?

A No. A crack due to chips I would say would be

                 ,!     smaller than those they experienced by the and of blade life, u
            ;d                  0     You believe that what you've got la the maximum l

0 l possibla, is that right? 10 ;d ; A Yes, because now you're seeing the effects of

         !!j            increacod gas pressure inside the pin, the boron carbide
                 ~1 U. j j         swellin.y, which is increasing the stress on the stainless O

n ;! pin, you know, there are other greater factors now. 14 O But you only tested one rod, isn't that true; tr , , when you made this test it was just on the basis of one

                 'l gd             sheath, isn't that true?

[!

         .j j"                  A     Which test here?
         ;a '                   O     Well, we're talking about this test involving
         ;g             the boron carbido.

l

, 39 , A No, this is not a test. The boron carbide study y 1 is actual empirical data obtained from blades, control rod 32 blades that have been in cores for, you know, tan years,

               .t g3 . '          12, whatever, 6 years, depending. There are all ranges.

e-and this in a GE ongoing study which NRR is following. It j; .l involvus domestic and foreign reactors. So you have quite 1 1425 147 I k I a

r I 3512 I I mpb9 1! a blend. il 2 j' Q Now you didn't actually take out the blades 3 that ara in the plant right now and check them fo:: the

      -' ,l   particias, did you?

l 5 A No, sir. 3 d v

            ,             rtR . FELDMAN: I have no further questions.

7 g CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I guess Dr. Fankhauser. 8! Do you have some questions? 9! DR. PANKHAUSER: Yes, I have just c few questions. I 10 l" BY DR. FANKHAUSER: 4 1; / Q Mr. Maura, you stated that these chips may lead i to the causation of cracks in the boron carbide pins, is that 12 l i 13 , correct? i A That is the remote possibility. 14[ is , O It's plausible? I l 13h A Yes. i' 17 ! O And there apparently are other factors operat-I 10l ing in a reactor which are in fact even more likely to cause to these cracks to occur? 3g A Right, later in . life. I i 3g Q Is it plausible that these multiple factors, i 22 l including fragments from grinding, might act synergistically? i 23 i In other words, that the varying effects from age of the 24; reactor in combination with entrapped particles cculd work i 25 ; together to increase the problem of cracking? I r 1425 148 i i

3513 i mpbl0 I! A Yes. The cracks let's say generated by a chip i o

          ~.,      will occar earlier than the cracks generated by gas pressure 4

buildup, swelling and so forth. So we assume in ths study 4 are there, oh, probably after three cycles.

             ',f   that the cracks I              O      iiow thesa cracks that form, could you  describe i

S !! the natt re of these cracks?

,            il 70                    What I'm trying to get at:   Are these merely
-         6        hairlino cracks or is   it possible that the pins themselves e

9 .; could bcgin to come apart? 2 I 10 {l.l A The cracks due to the chips wonid be just hair-I

        !! ,l      line cracks, localized, very small. The cracks on the other 12 I       study of latar end-of-life of the blade are larger, but I i

13j have not personally witnessed or seen any photographs of any 14l ; of those cracks. So I cannot really tell you the width of i 15 ' the crack.

        '6 '
        .                Q      Am I correct in assuming, however, that small

7 ! cracks produced as a result of contamination from grindings 10 l could be expected to enlarge during the life of the reactor to or during the life of the blade?

20 l A Yes, I'd say that possible. i i 21 O And in the event that there were difficulty with 22 ; the control rods already having oversized blades, is it i 23 ' plausible that those cracking pins could prevent those' blades 24 from being compressed in a way that had been counted on at thE 15l time that those blades were checked for the proper i l i 1425 149

)!

i 3514 mpbil Ilf dimensions? 2 i MR. CONNOR: We object to the question in the 3 sense it talks about oversized blades. I don't recall any 4 }) evidence in the record about that. II U DR. FANXHAUSER: Perhaps I could refrosh Mr. I: C j' Connor':s recollection, that 75 percent of the concrol rods 7!} failed m pess inspection with the 280,000dths gauge unless

           'I h

G 'l' they were compressed with a forty pound clamp. S q Do ycu remember we spent several days on that, i! 10 ; Mr. Connor? Perhaps you remember row. k 1: ; MR. CONNOR: I object to Dr. Fankhauser's mis-12 . characturization of the record, which he obviously does not i 13 ; understand. la But in that use, let's go ahead with it because i 13 [e in that context it won't matter anyway. 10 DR. FANKHAUSER: Well, apparently !!r. Connor 11

      !7 [      still does not ramember.

i 10 This hearing considered for several days, if m 19 not misr.aken -- , 20 1 MR. CONNOR: Objection, Your Honor. i 21 !i This is not a place for argument, 23 l1 CHAIRMAN BECHROEFER: Now I think -- Did you withdraw your objection? 22 .i

     ;_3                     MR. CONNOR:  I withdrew my objection on the basis u

li 2gj he statad. s va

I i425 150

e

              ;                                                          3515 i

k mpbl2 I CHAIMtAN BECHHOEFER: Okay. 2j MR. FAMKHAUSER: If the objection had not been

           >g      offered in the firnt place then we could proceed in a more 4N       crderly fashion, if I'm not mistaken.

0

s " MR. B ARTH : Mr. Chairman, this is quite out of

          '>       hand.

74 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes. 0 I think we'll just ask questions, und then when il D there are formal objections we can deal with those.

         !O [;                 BY MR. FANKHAUSER:

i 11h 0 Do ycu remember the question? i 12 ! A Let ne see if I remember it. 13 U You're asking me if the crack -- 1; j O Let ec rephrase the question, if I may. 13 MR. 3ARTH: The witness is trying to answer, j jd Il Your Honor. May we let the witness continue with his answer I I 17 instead of chutting him off? He has a right to do this. 18 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: If you can remember the 19 question after all of this, you're seleome to answer it. If ' 2cl it turns out you answered the wrong question, then Dr. el 21 d Fankhaut:er can ask it again or rephrase it. l 23 THE WITNESS: Okay. I 23 If I understood the question right my answer 2,; l would be that even if the blade by the growth of the pin F yy i let's say increased its thickness up to 3/100dths, or like we p 1 L w 1425 151

              !!                                                                 l

l 1 3516 i mpbl3'N, said laat August .33, all the tests that were performed on

          -3              the prototype showed that we had no problem. We had no n

J !i problem until we got into the negative gap, and even then it s

         -J               was an operational problem and not a safety problem.

d j; BY DR. FANKUAUSER: h Q The question, however, unfortunately, was not correctly recalled, and that was:

         "I t,i In the event that the pins begin to disintegrate 9 ;'            that would act to impede compression of the control rod blade, h

10 } is that correct? 11 j' A No. If you make the assumption that the pin in 1:. g disinteJratod, then there is nothing to prevent - then there

                  !I 13 }             is actually, you know, the inside of the sheath then is weak-il     or, you could say, and it will compress easier.

14 l! i 15 d O That would be in the event that the pin had i: OH utterly disintegrated and disappeared. 17 t A Yes.

       ;g       i Q      The case that I am trying to probe with you is I

19 l , that caso in which the pin is beginning to disintegrate and i 20 i e::pands, but has not disappeared. And that expanded pin, if 21 I'm not mistaken, could act to prevent the compression of the 22 blade e? the control rod.

             !i 23 ll                            MR. BARTH:   Objection, sir.

I 2.; d That assumes a fact which is not in evidence. I g- If the pin begins to disintegrate, it expands. That fact is

             .i 2,

f.# l425 152 l

                  ,;                                                              3517 i

mpbl4- f not in avid 1nce, and the question is improper. ! i ! CRAIRMAN BECHHO'EFER: Yes. I think that objec- l i. tion is correct. You may try to establish the fact, but you don't have an adequata foundation now.

LY DR. FANKHAUSER:

          '.                    Q      Mr. Maura, in the event that cracks develop in
            -]           those pins, would you anticipate that such a pin would be
                    ,    12rgar or s: caller than an intact pin?

A It would be larger by whatever the size of the i

1. i crack, d

5 'l Q Largur. Correct. All right, I would agree with 13 that.

       '. j                            Now in the event that that larger pin, the n il t

calargoment is in the direction of the walls of the fin, 15 wha uculd be the effect of that enlargement upon the

      <-                ability to compress the walls of that fin?

i 1

       ;g :!                   A       I think the test results to date have shown no
       ;0 :l            problem with it because all these blades that have been
               'l, no '              examined had cracks after, let's say, 12 years, 14 years.
               'i 2        :t       Af ter overy refueling the control rod blades are friction 4

1 22 ,1 1 tasted. So if you were having one of these degraded bladeo, 2; if you vant to call them that, if they were getting so i

2. . ,' thick that they were causing problems, then the previous o i 23 , :riction tecting should have shown a problem, an increase. {

               *i l

d i425 153 i

SI d 3518 1 H is I ' n7bl5 And up to today there are no -- to my knowledge, 2 to NRR's knowledge, there are no histories of friction test-3 inq prcblems due to the . blade, caused by the blz.de. j C But there are examples in our experience with 5 reactors where there have been friction problems, though, is i U :l nhat correct? d A Not due to the blades. I don't know of any case 1 3bl whsee the blados -- The only ones I've been aware of were i s ;i actually where there wis a problem. i It turned out to be the

         !O              drive,     thera was something wrong with the drive. Maybe the i

11 seal had been installed improperly or sc.mething. C. N O I see. i 13 A But caused by the blade, not that I know of. 10 > Q All right, t 15 3 Let me ask just one more series of questions. i ,: You stated -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that 17 the way in which these blades were ground precluded c) 'ps

 -      ;;l'             from getting into the blade.      Is that correct?

79 A Yes, that's my testimony. i 20 , O Could you explain briefly for us the way in i 21 ; which grinding was done so that no particles could get into i 3,3 i the bicle? I g3 ' A Okay, i 2_. ] According to the interviews we did, including d 2Jj! rr. Roynolda, the grinding was done with the. blade in'a. J t i425 154

3519 l npbl6 I j vartical direction. The blada was mounted vartically. So i I ! 2 you had an angle, a channel. And the grinding, because of 1 i the distanca available, the grinding -- the tosi had to be 4 held in a vertical position. Therewasnowaythatyoucouldl

                    <  rotate your grinding tool.

1 So hocause of that position the mockup was built i

             / ,'      the same way, so thak it would be done in the vertical posi-
 .               :I el         tion.    .And roughly the lower foot of the blade was covered ll l

with shim stock - 10 C With what? I'm sorry. I '. A With shim stock. It's thin steel material, you

          ! .2 t

know, just 11ko aluminum foil you could say, 12 It appears that approximately three to four feet

k. ' higher than that was covered with plastic polyisthylene.

,' Ouring the mockup what I did was I held my hand 16 g ovar tha ang. iron that we were using, and I could feel no

7 particles hitting my hand if' I held my hand directly te I over the channel.

i 19 l Now as I moved my hand away from the channel, then I could start feeling a few particles, and -the more 23 l1 2; I moved it away. So it gave me a feel for the direction of 22 particia travel being away from the blade. 23 3 You see, a particle would have to not only go i i 22 ,':' straigh up, it would have to also make a turn inward I gg, toward the blade in order to be able to got into.one of the N u 1425 155 :

i 3520 ripbl7 ' holes. C: My e:cperience, as you may understand, is some-wha: linited with grinding, except that I have tbi distinct impression, when I took natal work long ago; that when you i

lj ara grinding that shavings tend to go in a radius around

'                                                                                        l
        E the wheal, but they do tend to splay out in varying direc-      '

l tions. l 5 ; A That's right, i

            ; i If this was my channel, all the particle travel E              was away from the channel; none of them were in the direction 1;             against the channel. And you would have to hava a particle 17.

como up and then change direction inwards in order to be able is to go inside the blade. 14 y 0 How is the grinding --

         ;E                    A     The grinding tool is like this.

15 (Indicating.) 17 And it's turning -- 79[ Q In a rotary fashion? j; A Yes, but not in the radial direction, you could . I 2: J say of the blade.

               !i 21                      O     And you concluded by holding your hand at the 22i              sido that there were no particles that could have gotten i

into tha control rods? 23 ,d

       ;;                      A     That's right.

l 23 " But we still took the position that let's assume , 3 y

l 1425 156' 11

l 3521 l l i mp':13 - chcr.3 '<::3ro particlos. ! Q And you stated that -- Now I'm curious about the i

vay in c7hich these particles could hava been -- you apparent-ly sans unconcarned about the siza of the particles. ' Could you tell us about how the size of the carniclas would affect the causation of cracks in the boron ;

                                                                                                  .i carbida pino?

l-A Okay. t You have to assume -- and this is why things

t i start gotting--you know, the probability is very small -- you havet to first assume the particle gets in. I Then you have to assume that the particle is not t only in, bu: it's also--you know, the blade is 12 feet long. j At has to ba in tho upper fourth of'the blade -- and I'll l i

                 '.                                                                             1 1      come to that as to why.                                                 l 4                                                                              l i

t;

;,(

So you're talking now, the particlo had to travel

                    ,   roughly lat:s say 9 to 12 feet.         Then the particle has to get
                    ,   ja:med between the sheath and the pin and not work loose.

l Then you have to assums that the channel - that I

        ; ,. , o        this blade happens to be one that is rubbing constantly
          .             against the channol.        If you do not make that assumption,       f 2;

you got no crack. Okay. *

l 3;.; If the blade is so thick or the channel is so l narrow, the gap is so narrow that you have this rubbing l effect, whr.: you'ro doing is you're compressing the particle I 1 J' i425 157~ :

3522 mpbl9 I .: against the tube. Okay. E-Than if the tube is relatively new, all it will do.is just deform. It will plastically deform; that's no

                            ' problem.

The problem would come then if you assume three c1cles . lown the line where now the stainless steel is getting

           ".       1 more brittle.         Thors is a possibility that instead of giving, U

6 ,l it vould generate a hairline crack at that spot. O a so as you can see, you have to make a lot of 10 i! assumptions to be able to generate the crack. 11 0 So that the particle has to be small enough to li. i n fit batJoen the sheath and the pin. ~

         ' ? ]1                      A          That's right.

le l'9 O And what is that clearance, roughly? It must be

        ;5 'j                -- ther3's probably 4 .ange, is that correct?

a ].i ., A Yes. That's hard to say, because, like you 17 j i remembe.: tha last time, that sheath is very flexible, and it je could be from touching to - I don't know. I hats to speculato. 1; You could have maybe 1/16th of an inch, 1/32nd, I don't know. Il 23 ;' O Would the flexibility of that blade parmit larger n 21 t particles to become wedged in there, though, than you had j 22 j- parhaps originally considered? 23 A ch, it makes no difference, the size. We make o 2:: I.i the assamption that we're going to generate a crack, so 1 g.5 i wo don't ca.ro, you Anow. 1425 158 I I!

-?

t 3523 s i r.pb20 - t C All right. DR. FANKHAUSER: No further questions. CHAIRFAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Connor?

                                      .i MR. CONNOR:  Eo questions.
   .t rid Es.dGlOn            .                -

ICL fDic 3

                                     .i
                       )

a,

l.

iL lt:! 4 I l 1 ~. !i '

                  !? ,r l
                  ;> l t

1.' \ t 9 5 en a .J . I i l' lC ii II H 17 i'I ! f n '

                 , .es        i
                 =n
                            .I m.. ,       o il I

z. l +'

1425 159 H j 2.5 .; 16 s- l

                              ?
                              *                                                                  .t

4WEL/wel Z 3524 fla Madelon! I BOARD EXAMINATION 81

1 Il 3Y MR. BRIGHT:

a 4 Q I juot have a' couple of questions here. I might I point out, on page 4 down at the bottom of the page, under il 3j; a., absorber is misspelled, in case you would like to make il

 ,            '3 !!         that change in your testimony, i

7! A 'les, you're right. 6li O And I think I know what you're talking about in Jf ! pars. graph b. here, just after a. You say, in the accond line 10 l from the bottom, "could generate maall cracks aft 3r the . .." 1; trow, that would be small cracks where? 12 i A That's the ones we were talking about, in the pins, 13 generatad by these chips that are -- 14 0 In the absorber reds? 6 15j' A Right, i 1G[ O Okay. ,

            !?                         There's a little bit of ambiguity here, whether 10 j           it would be in the sheath or the absorber rods. Okay.

19 Let me ask you: If you get a crack, are these 20 ordinarily longitudinal cracks, rather than circunfarential, 21 l or . . . I 22 ! A Aa far as I know they are. 2^ I} O Ckay. So they split just like a pipe is frozen? 24 N In that the idea? Just open up like that? ! y 25 A Right. But it probably makes no difference in I ' j [ 1425 160 ,

                 'l wel 2         i,                                                               3525
           ! ,,            this caso, 2l    '

O Ifell, what I'm concerned about is your statement 3 about the Icas of the control rods; that is, that you

           ' .'            uculdn' t be able to control the reactor with it. Now, that 5

in somethine that causes us all concern. I can recall stray

          'd sheets of csdmium once upon a time that gave us fits for 7'               awhil<3.

8 Fhat is the -- what would be the first thing that 9 > would happer. if you got a crack? 10 A If the blade is relatively new nothing will li happen. For some -- 12 O Eut it does split? 13 A Yes, you'll have a small width to the crack, 14 maybe a few mils. 10 Q And this exposes the -- 1 I 10 A -- boron carbide, ty 0 -- boron carbide.

.       Ic                      A     -- to the water atmosphare.

Oj 0 To the coolant. 20 , Okay. Does this in general -- do these cracks I 21 i got large enough, even along toward end of life, that you i 22l lece boron carbida in a massive fashion, like ic just q2! crumblea up and. falls into the bottom of the reactor, or l Lt[ scmething like that? 25 A According to all the data available -- and if I i I 1425' 161 I

I wel 3 3526 I i can spcitk for IIRR -- tha mechanism is not well understood yet. 10 i There scens to be a relationship between B depletion , I and the boron carbide starting to leach. l'cw, all the rods studied so far, in t3.e last con ~ercation I had with Mr. Kaufmann, I think chere's now ! I

            )
                   ]      ' ray over 200 pins that have baen studied, indicate that.this         !

d

           .' J           magic 50 percent local depletion still holds true.                     l There         -

a 9)J has been no pin found yet where boron carbide has leached

           .) j i                                                           10             I out where the depletion was under 50 percent, the B i                                                                        9 y                                             .   .                           !
           '"             depletion..                                                           f a

1

         ;2 r

So there ceems to be some correlation. There is i 12 , data showing that maybe it takes 60 percent, but all the I 13 points, let's say, are above 50. 50 scams to be the magic 1 tc line below wh,ero no leaching occurs. r ,! So although you have the boron carbide exposed,

         ! s ,,           none iu leaching. It seems to be glued together. Some kind 4

1 d i' 3 ,. o:d a scintering process. t p' O Hell, the carbides are usually refractory 19 , material. 29 A Uell, this is the pcwder that is compacted, you i know. nut it appears to scinter itself during the early life i g; [j in tha core, and it doesn't start again breaking down until i 3} you reach or axeeed this 50 percent B 10 depletion. t il t Q That would he much like the old mixed exide tamped i gg coro, or taaped fuel rods. Okay. Well, now, my concern

               ,      <                                                                     l

y. 1425 162 .

vel 4 j s. 3527

             'p          is in the rate of Isaching.       Nould this be, in terms of loss is 1 lj         of cont 3:ol- in your opinion what kind of time frame are we tal::ing about?

J l:l 4!I A t.'c11, I think now you're talking 12-16 years, that

!i

typa of . . . it dapends on the machine, you know, and how G do you, say, managa your control reds.

i n You can take blades

           'l {          that ara approaching this average 34 percent from the inside,
 .         8,            nove tham to the outside, bring the outside onas in.          You 9 ]           knov, you can -- like you do with fuel management, you can 10              do control ::od nanagement, to --

h Il 11 h 0 Ucll, what I'm concerned with here is here I am, L I;. per!cing gaily along with my merry reactor, and suddenly I 15 have no control rods. Is this a scenario -- 12, A Mo. 15 0 -- that has any resemblance to reality at all?

        ;c                    A       Ho, lecause the licensees monitor blade exposure, I

[7 { co overybody knows what each blade has so far. So that's 11 13 number one. 10 Humber two is the original GE end of life was that t 20 average 42 percent over the top fourth of the blade. And t i 2' l st that time the blades were supposed to be thrown away.

       ;; j                          Uow, coma reactors did apparently operate even 23 (             Nith coir.e o:f those. Now we're coming with the bulletin which 9

2.; u is nupposed to come out this conth, which will not only -- y ;}'l and in the past MRC has not been directly involved by putting i 1425 163 l

I, i - wel 5 ll 3528 i

            ![          t tech apec item, let's say, and saying this is it, this is i ll}>:

the and of life of the blade, throw it away. This bulletin h new is ise first stcp saying you must monitor for exposure, il 1 i. cr.d you must aall us what you're going to do when 34 percent --

            -]          which in the new design life -- is reached.
,          .y                       So controls are being placed now that a licensee et 7 4           must justify exceeding 80 percent of the old design life, 0        ,

which it the new design life. O Q But in any event there's nothing sudden about the

         'C             process?

11 lt A N). Not that we have seen in any of the rods. 12 M2. BRIGHT: Thank you. 13 (The Board conferring.) 14 BY CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: ic 0 I wanted to follow up a little bit on what you and i 15 tir. 3right were discussing. 17 ; You talk about monitoring. How do you know how 10 much B 10 is left, or how much is gone? Is there a little 9d gauge you read? 2; A No, these are computer calculations that the 2; liccasco does for each blade. They know the position of the b 2; y blada, they nnow the flux that the blade is in, and they can 6 nyn calculata what exposure history of the blade is. 4 0 How often do they do this? g; d,

        ;j j'                A      I don't know. I couldn't say whether that's a l       -

1425 164 1, 4

l' 3529 wel 6 li 0 nonthly, weekly, or quarterly thing. I don't know. [f' I could not giv: you . . . but right now, under the bulletin as I

            - lt',

4

                      ! undtratand it, they will have to do it like at thu beginning fi of >his cycle -- lat's say you're finished refueling, you l

i E ha<e to predict what your exposure will be at the end of that < i! C i! cycle. So you're already accounting for what you're going

,                     t 7            to losa during that cycle.

S, O t.ow, is there any measurament of the actual, rather c than the -- i 50

A Yes, there are correlations that have been made 11 o to the code, the computer ccde, to ampirical data, because i

12 ji ue have taken those pins, and then they have run tests in the t is hot cell, they have done assays on the boron carbide, and 14 determined how much is left and what the exposure history h

          ;g        ,

has been. 16 j, O Will that necessarily tell you what condition a 1 17 particular pin is in? i 18 A They know --

is . O An individual pin. Just pick out any pin in the I 20 t reactor, and -- 2: A They pick any pin and they -- 22 0 -- can you tell -- 23 . A -- and thoy can tell, destructively testing it, 1 y u know. 2.4 h a g3 l! O All right. i

              $i I'

t i425 165

II

                         !                                                             3530 wel 7 4            A     And then they can determine -- let's say now we I

2ilj know exuctly where that pin in, was our code able to predict?

            ~dI             so they havo refined the code to where they can predict il L       accurately 63 the empirical data available.

II

Q ; Tow, for instance, if you're at the beginning Jf I

 -         G               a cycle, the company predicts that by the end of the cycle l

7 4 l 34 percant or less of the B 10 will be used up, could anything S happen cluritig that cycle which would, say, push it up to 40 e' sp percent without -- and where the company wouldn't kn,w that ' 10 that had happened, or the NRC wouldn't know that that had 11 happened? 12 If anything like one of these chips or some other 12 features thct I don't know about right now -- 14 A Okay. Let's -- 15 1 Q -- could anything happen that --

t 3G 'l A I know what you're leadiry to. Let's assume that 37 , the fuel rocIs exceed 34 percent, you still don't have the l

p3 problem. All 31e calculations made to determine if there 19 i was a safety problem assume that 26 percant of the blades in noj the coro were exceeding their life. f 21 J Q Eo at what stage would there be a problem with 22 a particular control rod? 13 A Vie haven't had any problems so far. I assume,

         ;; [              yas, at some point in the game, maybe 20 years, 1' the blade I

was to stay there forever, you probably would hava a problem. 25 1425 166 il

wol 3 1 3531 i But we have never reached that -- L 2 . O Uell, I'm trying to determine whether, with the 2 controla you do have, anything could happen during the cou se e i of a cycle whore during that cycle the control rod would -- lI E A I would say during the course of just one cycle i

i you would not have a problem.

3 7 O Fell, a particular cycle. I mean assuming you'd a taken all the measurements early, and that you'd predicted, s , and asmming that some of them go over those predictions, to would there he any where you would lose control during that 11 cycle, c.ny conceivable mechanism, or any mechanism that you 12 can hypothesi::e that you think could happen? 13 A No, I could not think of any. 14 0 Now, what happens when you find -- say you 15 predicted before the end of the cycle the B 10 depletion will y exceed 34 percent, say it's not 34 percent at the beginning 37 of the cycle, but it will exceed it at the erid. Is there ja any requirenant in force that would make a licensee replace 10 the blados at that time? . 20 A Ioday there is no requirement for any of the q; operating plants to replaca any blade just because it is 22 exceeding 34 percent. The bulletin would be the first tim' 3 that I know of that places the requirement, and all it does 24 is place a rsquiremen: that the licensee come back and 25 , justi y c ntinued use of that blade. i 1425 167 1

ij I 101 3 h 3532 y i' If Q wnat about a tech spec requiring a change? l l

          'h A       There are none that I know of.
                    ,        Q       Is NRC recommending anything like this be put in?
          ^h       ~

A I've mantioned that to NPR informally, but right

          ~j           now the first stesp is the bullstin.

u J ?j Q Do you think it would be desirable, in your own i 7j personal opinion?

.              d 60                 A      To include it in the tech specs?
               !,)a ey                 0      To have some requirement that wnen, say, 34 percent i

o is reachad -- and I won't say -- I'll ask a few more later, m 11 [' i but I uoa't .say now whether it has to be 34 percent right at mf,ftheendofacycle,butsayifyoupredictduringacycle is that 34 percent will be reached, would you have the licenseo 14 replace the control rods at such time as that would be 15 predicted according to the calculations? 10 A It depends on how nany control rods are going to 17 c:cceed that number, and by how much. You know, if you' re

        ;9            talking at the end of the cycle like predicting 36 percent, 19            I t'.on't get excited, because we have rods right now that are 20 ,           ecceeding 4 2 percent.

y, So what I'd like to see in the tech specs, or what 22 4 I suggest.ed, is that the requirement to monitor the blades, 22 4 the expc-3nre history, be there, instead of the use of a Ii y ] bullatin, and that the justification to come to NRR -- you 25 know the requirement to justify the use of a blads in excess y 1425 168

ll l 3533 wel 10 l I 1 j!i of 34 percent be also in the tech specs. I 2; O And I assume if they were to justify such use, 3f they would havo to provide calculations to show that there t 4i woule be no problem before whatever the wear would be at the Ij 5' next cycle, at the end of the cycle? 5l ; A That's right. 7 (The Board conferring.) S Q Well, let me ask you one question which is in a 3j comewhat different area: 10 In there any possibility that these chips, whatever 11 their sise, could physically impair the operation of the rod 12 itself? Not its chemical properties, but just -- could those 13 chipa prevent the rod mechanically from being operated when 14 it's supposed to? Is there any conceivable *- could you Ig perceive of any set of circumstances where this would happen? 16 A As long as the inner filter in the control rod 97 drive is intact, and we don't have any evidence of any filters e 10 , that are not, any particle that can go through that filter

19 I; wil1 n6t impair the performance of the drive. A i 20 t (The Board conferring.) I dp fin 21 22 23 ! Zi ! t n 25 :j i-1425 169

3534 4dsp 'O , CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I believe that's all the I dupl a questions the board has. 41c -21 4 Does the staff have any redirect? 1,

                '- ~                    MR. BARTH:   Yes, sir.
                 >   ,l                         REDIRECT EXAFINATION'      .

H a i' BY MR. BARTH: l ^ .y n O Mr. Maura, you recited a sequence of assumed 6 !I events in response to a question by Mr. Fankhauser which li result in a chip causing a crack in the top quarter of the s {i

                     !i 10 U          blado;   is that correct, sir?

l

\*

li l A Yes. I 12 l 0 In actual terms of the reality of this wodd, 13 is that assumed sequence of events not in reality an y Alice in Wonderland fantasy? I,

              ;g y                A     Probably, f

16 0 Based upon your professional judgment -- h gy forgetting the words " assumed" and conservatively" -- would

 ,            ;gj   i this be likely to happen, sir, that a chip could work its i

way to the top quarter and cause a crack? 19 l , a 1 20 A Due to the grinding, no. There's always a 21 possibility that some of those original chips that were 22 discussed last August could be located in that top quarter 23 of the blade.

                .s i         Q       Sir, if we assume that in this NRC conservative g

1

.x_

t. fantasy that a crack did occur at the top of the poison pin, r

i 1425 170

O.: h 3535

                ;I dsp2    1        is it in your professional judgment that that would result in the i.r.pairment of the quality of the poison pin?

F A No. O O - Ho'r many poison pins are there in each wing of i y the cricifor.n? Do you remember?

           'hli
           .             A     19.

7f I O Which would make a tatal of?

,             i Cl            A     76 per blade.

i 0 0 How many oil these pisen pins in our NRR assumption 10p of conservatism would necessarily need to be damaged to 11 impair the function of the control rod as a poison agent in it ! the reactor? II i 13 A I really don't know because they do not look into 14 ,. how many pins were damaged, but how much boron carbide

         ;3         has been lost.

t

         ;g                    So they go strictly on the matter of volume of the 97         horon carbida loss.

I 10 Q Sir, would not the continuous condensate 39 cleanup system of the reactor filter out any boron carbide that 29 , was in the raactor water? 2i . A ch, yes, i 22 ;, O S the problem would not be loose boron carbide in li

        ;; ll
        ~-

the reactor water, but the loss of the quantity of boron I: 24 ll carbide from the control rod? h 25 l A Right. - II j i425 171

3536 l dsp3 1 Q Again, using your professional judgment, forgetting 2l 1 this fantasy of all horribles we have, is it a practical 3h reality in your consideration that a chip or a series of 0 4h chips co.11d irpair the safety function of a reactor by this 5; series o:: events by which is caused cracks and breakage in II 3 :l a poinson pin? i 7! A No, I'm not concerned about the chips.

 .                P 8[            Q      In response te a question by Mr. Fankhauser, you N

g l: assumed that a crack would enlarge a poinon pen and therefore to 'I; could swell the sheath of the wing of the cruciform; is that 11 correct, sir? 12 A Yes. 13 I Q These control rods are checked at every fuel g,; , cutage; is that correct, sir? 1 15 A That's right. g i O How often is a fuel outage, sir? I g I A Probably on the average of every 18 months. 7g Q Is it likely, in your professional judgment, that to the swelling that could be caused by an enlarged poison pin 20 n the sheath of the wing of a cruciform could impair the I ability to withdraw or insert that control rod? 21 l g A You mean that one cycle? No. u O If you and I are both wrong and if it could so you

           ,,    h'l would lo:se one control rod, would this impair the safety
           ' 4 ll h function:s perofmred by the other control rods? Could you 3

1 i' ' 1425 172

    .            .i

l i 3537 I

                                 'h dap4        ']               bring the reactor to hot or cold shutdown if you 1

n 2 j

                                       .. cst one control rod?                                             i 3                       A    No, it:c designed to lose one.

A1. BART3f: I have no further questions, Mr. i:. t 3 ; Chairaan. J i CHAIRMAN DECHHCEFER: Mr. Feldman? l i

                    ' 1                            MR. FELDMAN:   I just have a couple of questions.

3 ; RECROSS EXAMINATION g BY MR FELDMAN:

m j O Under questioning by Mr. Barth, you -- the n; oritJinal chips were brought up. gg l Could you explain what these are? 13 A Well, I never saw the original chips, but during 3,.; Mr. Martin's testimony he testified that some chips that he gj had seen during the initial installation -- some : hips 1 jg !. came out of the rods. !

                . ., ;                            These were chips that supposedly came from fe
               ,,8 4

j' Wilnington with the blades.

               .g                            O    Okay.

i , g i A So we have two sets of chips, if you want to call

    ,                                 it that way:     one that is the so-called original;  the        i other ones, those generated by the grinding.                     .
                        .                   O     Okay, now referring to those original chips,        l i

l;' did you investigata what the effects of these chips might ; I g u s be en the rcacter? ; m e. i n 1425 U 3 i

t' 3538 l' il dapi3 If CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think he used the words i 2 ;, " original chips." i We will not get into examining the parameters of n 4 lls. all the ariginal chips again, but I think this one question 5 ho can answer because it did relate to an answer that he

6 gava, I believe on redirect.

i 7l So -- l 0' THE WITNESS: It's okay for me to answer? I II 9 ,, CHAIRMAN BECHROEFER: It's okay for you to answer. 10 THE WITNESS: It makes no difference. A chip is 11 1 a chip. The fact that we investigated chips in my book kl 12 'i covered all chips. 13 (Laughter.) 14 'MR. BARTH: A chip is a chip. 15 BY MR. FELDMAN: i; O You don't know what kind of chips those were? They I 17] might have been potato chips for all you know. l ir, A Theynight have been, but they were all stainless 19 chips. 20 Q Yea don't know what kind they were, really, dc. I 21 you? 22 i A It nakes no difference. t i Q I'm just asking you; you don't know what kind 23hd g; ! they reclly tere, isn't that right? I r: A If We accept the August testimony, they were i 1, i 1 1425 174

i 3539 i

               ;ll                     MR. CONNOR:   Objection, your }ionor;   this has dep5              q 2              all been covered by previous testimony last August.      This 3;          has all been gone into. Apparently Mr. Feldman wasn't there thon.

ni l! Certainly, this is not related to this direct iI s '} testicor.y, let alone the redirect testimony.

 .                      I MR. FELDMAN:    I'm asking if since then le has.
             .,. ,l' .
 ,           g                         MR. CONNOR:   It still has nothing to do with --

g MR. BARTH: I support the objection and move to

           ,g l strike the question, your Honor, because it's not related l

I to the affidavit. 11 0' 1

           '_                          MR. FELDMAN:   It is related to something that was i                                .
          ,3 f '

brought up on redirect. That's why I'm asking it. g , (Board conferring.) MR. BARTH: I did the redirect, your Honor, and 15}lI never asked about any original chips. SC 3 MR. FELDMAN: I wrote " original chips" as soon 1,/, as Mr. Barth mentioned it, so I wasn't fantasizing it or in Alice in Wonderland or anything like that. 1S ; . 20 , MR. BARTH: The record will show that I did not 21

                 '         mention the words " original chips," your Honor.

l MR. FELDMAN: Well, maybe Mr. Maura did. It was 22 : 1 1 mentioned in your examination. 23 ! 1' MR. BARTH: Can we get back to the Gorman Reynolds 24! h affidavit, uhich is the subject of the questioning, sir? 25[ h 1425 175 c

I 3540 0 dep? stainless chips, so they were the same type as the grinding I liI 2; chips, 1

l 0 But you don't know what the sise of then were or 1

or raany there were;

            -'I                                      isn't that right?

I

A It makes no difference. I

1 c d Q Me were just -- well -- let us have one further

. 9 I t 74 question. I C! And that is this: was the accident at Three 1 lt Mile Island an Alice in Wonderland fantasy? i t i 10 MR. BARTH: That is unrelated to the question, b: 11 !i sir. I move to strike it. f iz ' 1 MR. FELDMAN: I withdraw the question. I have 13 no further questions.

p. ; CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Lat's just leave it that

         ;g ;               way.

(Board conferring.) i y l 77 CHRIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Dr. Fankhauser? g BY DR. FANKHAUSER: 19 O Mr. Maura, what kind of process leads to the i oc. f depletion of boron carbide from a rod? j 21 A The leaching. 22 ' O Leaching, is that the solubility factor? 23l A It is -- I assume -- I cannot say if it is l' 24 ,> coluble or not. It could be just carried by the water, like ; 25 in opposition to, say -- I l i it 1425 176 :

I t,i 3541 i t i dspS j 0

                        !i                   De you know -- are you aware of what the solubility
            -, ." might be of boron carbide in an aqueous solution?
            ~           O
                        'l MR. CCHNOP.:  I object to this, your Honor. This
              - 4u                                                                                     l
                       ]4        is clearly beyond redirect. It's no time to get into a 1

i n

           ~
                     .                                                                                 l j       lecture on reactor physics.                                           I i

MR. FELCMAN: This is rocross, your Eonor, not I

           , :i{.

{ redirect. r I 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: It.is beyond whatever it is. C I (Laughter.) IO DR. PANKHAUSER: I don,'t think you'll find anyone 11 ; to argue with that. UE have been discussing, however, the 12lI i! depletion of boron carbida from these -- from these rods, 13 !i and I think it is important to e~stablish the parameters which 14[ affect that depletion. 15l And I'm particularly interested in kn wing why -- wt it seems that cra:ks seem to accelerate this, and I would 17! y like to -- I'm interested in pursuing that problem . 12j MR. CONNOR: Your Honor, we object;

 '                 1                                                                it's clearly 19 beyond the scope of redirect examinatiGn.

He should not be 20 l allowed to just start on a new topic that he just thought 21 about. 0 This involves some of the rules of evidence. E2 y (Board conferring.)

                 "                                                                                  L a

23 'i CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: l' d We will sustain that I. 24 j objection. It was beyond the scope of the redirect. 1 U i ea i 1 i a 1425 177 e G 3

3542 ll dsp9 BY DR. FANKHAUSER: f 2j Q All right. Mr. Maura, you stated that the control l Ll rods are checked at fuel outages; is that correct?

!)

A Friction testing. 5 Q For frictional testing?

           ' :                 A     Right. And scram testing. I mean, of interest 7'             in this problem would bethe      friction.

Ey 0 Yes. I am precisely interested in the way in s which these rods are checked. - to Perhaps uhat I'm specifically interested in knowing - - 11 l these rods are not manually inspected; is that correct? I (2 A Oh, no. i n' O That would be quite a dangerous occupation, I 14 presume. gg 8 A Right. ic fl Q Now -- so what one is looking for is not changes l' 17 ' in the dimensions of the blades, but merely some -- some c hint in friction by operating the col.'aul rod driver is

         ;c. a          that correct?

s 1,8 p,c ? A That's right. All you're doing is measuring the qi ifpressurerequiredtomovethedriveandtheblade.

                'i 22                    O     So that muld be a very cursory inspection of the I'       control rod at best?

25 E[

        .y j!                 A     No. it has been very accurate, as the prototype      l q                                                                         l f     tacting showed last August.

6 . 1425 178

3543 0

                      't dop10       1ll               0     Thsre is no check that is made, however, of the if Eh           boren carbida that is still remaining in the rod?

d MR. CONNOR: Objection. That has been asked and 4 j answered. i 3 DR. FAi4KHAUSER: I think it has not.

-            E :j                      CHAIRMAN DECHHOEFER:    I think I asked that, didn't I

7i I? I thought I did. Yes, that has been asked and l t! answered.

5) I think I asked the question.

Il 10 N DR. PANKHAUSER: Well, if I understand, there was 11 the suggestion that a computer program is designed to i 12 - predict the amount of boron carbide remaining, but that 13 is not the same thing as measuring the amount of boron

                 ?
         . p'             carbide, unless science is taking a dramatic,different L
            ;-q turn frcm what I was trained at.

h jc CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I believe I asked him how g it was reasured. 73 DR. FANF.HAUSER: Then I am to understand that the

           ;g l            use of a computer to project contents in the rod is a 1

20 ' bonafide means of measurement for the Nuclear Regulatory 3 g Commission. i 32 ' MR. CONNOR: I move that be stricken as argumentativj. i'

           .n t

CHAIRMAN BECHBEFER: Yes, that is argumentative. 1 2d That's basically what his answer was, though not completely. ii i 23 :

                         ,                                                   1425 179 t

l

o 4 i 3544 dspli ,'j l BY DR. FAliKHAUSER:

                       .i 2!!n                  Q     Mr. Maura, is there any means other than by

uce of a computer program which is used or might be used if

                      .,       to determine the quality of the control rods at these o       j       fuel outages?

f 3 Ij MR. CONNOR: I object to that on the grounds it 7 is beyond the scope of the redirect and because it has l s' also been asked and answered.

                     'l
              .4 4                   DR. EANKHAUSER:     I can see that Mr. Connor is 10

finally warming up to his job again. I think that again u wdre having the sage problem, and if we can get the answers li 11 ij to the questions, that these proceeding can proceed much r

n more expeditiously than with these repeated objections. I 1c l (Board conferring.) il

              .j'                        CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:     I think this questict' may be 53 3             acked.

il 9 Objection overru12d on this onn. I 7e i DR. FANKHAUSER: Thank you.

  .               e 3*;                          THE WITNESS:    Would you repeat it?

, y, ! DR. FANKHAUSER: I think we better have the N g; ;j reporter do that because I'm certain if I change a word or 2 22 l' tuo, Mr. Connor will be up in a second.

        ,        ii a

v. '! MR. BARTH:

q Mr. Chairman, could I ask that you

                 'I
            .; g             rdmonich Mr. Fankhauser from this unprc6ssional N

characterization of personalities --

          "!!                                                                     l425    1E0 6

{ 3545 a

                        ,i dep12        -

DR. FANKHAUSER: I've had good lessons from you

                        .I                   :

Ey and your colleague over here. 1 ll CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Let's not have arguing. I

                        ;l j dci' t t:'hink we should characterize any of the people here.

9 3 ((t Let's just ask substantive questions, i. G lj MR. CONNOR: I make no objection because the I t

              .h            gentleman doesn't understand legal procedure anyway.

6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Could you reread the question. s (The reporter read the record as requested.)

. MR. BARI'H: I object to the question because of 11 tho; absence of the definition of the word "qcality." Are t

12) we talking about mechanical quality or what?

I ui DR. PANKHAUSER: I would be happy to amend my i t. question to satisfy Mr. Barth's ancerns. i g l: The quality I'm specifically concerned with is 10 the boren carbide content. 17 j THE WITNESS: There is one because you also do a i gg ' shutdown margin test after every refueling, and that test, gj if there is gross loss of boron carbide, it would tell us , 2C that this one rod or whatever does not meet the 21 [ required shutdown margin. 22 , BY DR. FAMRHAUSER:

~.

O What kind of test is that? a.c f g l4l A It is a test to determine that the reactor -- if

'l

_ . _.y h ena rod fails to scram, the reactor will shut down. So you [ 1425 181

o il

                    !;                                                            3546
                    ;l l:

dsp12 ifi ! have to demonstrate that during a cycle with the reactor

            - !!           in its nast critical condition.

ii

                    !!                If one rod fails to scram, the reactor vill still chut down. So this is a shutdown margin test to measure 5 :i          the amount of chutdown that you have available with the
             ' i!          most reactiva rod stuck full out.

Y 7E O Stuck in or out? i 0[ A Out. il

            ;I!.i                     So you can see that that is a test.

P 10 !! O Would it seem prudent to you in your professional e l' it ! opinion to establish a regular regimen to monitor the 1 12 horon carbide content of fuel rods, particularly in light of 12 the cvidence we've hoard this afternoon of marked depletion 14 ll of boron carbide content in those rods? o jg MR. BARTH: I object to the question, your Honor.

                   .1 16 4             It is unrelated to Gorman L. Reynolds affidavit, which
                   \\

17 0 hopefull is the subject we're listening to. p

 .        ;g [                        (Board confarring.)

i

         ;g!                          MR. BARTH:  In terms of your previous comment, 1

a 20 ;l ' sir, it is beyond the purview of anything which we could t 21 poccibly be addressing now, oo ;. . DR. FANKHAUSER: We are on redirect; I think this U 3; !j nubject has come up. lI 25 jl MR. BARTH: Address the board, not me. d 0 DR. FAUKHAUSER: I'll address the world, as it were. 7... j s, e ii i425 182 .

3547 i dep14 , (Board conferring.) i CEP.IRMAN BECUHOEFER: That objection is overruled. g I chink it is clearly -- brings out a few o'! the - questions I asked about a proposed tech spec. THE WITNESS: There is a program thatis continuing and that is the monitoring program of pins that

7 are removacT from the reactora to make sure that this 50 percent B-10 depletion line does not shift. i

                          ';                       And that is an ongoing procram. So that is --

you know -- so you can say that there is a problem, and that is the umpirical data that is used, then, to make

                         .i
                - :l sure that the computer codes are accurate.
               ,~e.      ;!

BY DR. FANKHAUSER: O That program is based upon control rods that have h, been removed from service; is that correct? I A Yes, c satrol rods that are taken out, are

               ._ a          -

i

               .t destructively tested and examined for an amount of boron            j n

g. carbide that has leached and then correlated to the. amount

  .                    n
               ,< 3                   of B-10 depletion that has taken place.
                    , -)                          And that is where we're putting all our eggs right new. That's the best basket we have.

a j Q The thrust of my question, however, follows

             .                        on some questions from Mr. Bechhoefer, and that is:       does     4

I i it, in yctir professional opinion, seem that it would be l

prudent to establi sh a mechanism whereby control rods are ! l v 1425 183

I

                !                                                          3548 dspl$           . checked for their quality, specifically relating to the 7[ baron carbide content as an ongoing program during the operation of these reactors using these control rods so that --

4 so that one would not wind up using control roda -- A That is exactly what is going on; we re requiring 0 !) S the licensees to monitor the exposure life of that blade. I T Okay? . J B And then on this hand we are saying, hey, keep an a eye on it. It's like mileage. Okay. How many miles do you t to j have on that blade? i 11 ; On the other hand, we're running and getting 12 empirical data that says, hey, after 50,000 miles you've 13 , got to change your tires.

12. And that is what we're doing.

15 ; O I'm specifically concerned'-- and I'm sure you I I 10 . are too, however -- about those defective tires that may 1- ; blew out at 20,000 miles when our projections were that Icf they would last for 50. f And I'm particularly concerned about -- and I h) li 20 ; wonder if you are as well -- those control rods that may be -- i 21 . may act abnormally and have hastened depletion of boron t 22 carbide because of cracks that may be induced by somewhat i 23 I~ improper construction practices. 3g MR. CONiiOR : Objection, your Honor; there is gg ; no foundation for the suggestion that a control rod would 1 il, 1425 184 d

i l 3549 i dsp16 1 blow out. The evidence already established is that in e 2[ the event those hypothetical things happen, it would be i JP a slow leaching process over many years. d.

               +      .l             The monitoring program of the blades dld        providea the net worth of the rods every time theiria checked t

ll in the control room.

h, So there is no foundation for that quescion.

8 DR. FAZIKHAUSER: Mr. Chairman, I was following 9 in the analogy that Mr. Maura had established. I don't to! think control rods would get 20,000 miles on them by any 11 stretch of the imagination. 12 MR. CONNOR: I'm sure you wouldn't think of it. 13 THE WITNESS: If you don't mind, I'd like to p; answer. tr . CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: All right, go ahead. I 16 THE WITNESS: I can clarify -- let's use the g, . analogy of the tires. Maybe it is a lot easier. If I run tef tires all the time like you're saying and let'a say I

 .                i 19l          find,out I get a blowout every 80,000 miles and then with

. 20f another one I get one at 75, 0000 and another one is 21 60,000 and another one again back to 80,000. 22 And I-- after many tires, I decide I have had i 22l 200 blowouts, but none under 50,000 miles. Okay? I

           .4 That is what we're doing. We're setting the low 25            limit. As I said, it is true that you could always speculate l

l [ l425 185

1 l i 3550 55 dspl7 ! i that you could have a blowout at 20,000 miles, but history i 2j hac shoan none so far under that -- let's say -- that l ly! 50,000 niles.

                      ' d.                           And that is what we're doing. Now we continue n

monitoring. We don't stop there. We don't say, sell, t fi okay, we have 200 tires and then we're going to quit. Wa 7 continuo monitoring and we continue plotting the next one and s O the next one and the next one. i s i; And if someday the data shows that going back l

    ,           10 u

to the boron depletion, that under 50 percent B-10 l' depletion, we start getting -- reaching -- then we would 12 be concarned. 33l But all the data to date showa that that is not i 14 ' the caso. And that is the critical point. It is not the jy size of the crack. That is where maybe I get confused with 16 l some of the questions I get because people seem to think i g i that the crack is critical. i 3g ' The crack is not critical. The critical ggj parametur is B-10 depletion. That seems to be what causes I,

              .w. .,                     the boron then to start leaching out. You could have a 21               ,          crack tnere and as long as, let's say, the depletion i

23 l locali=as only 30 percer t, none of the boron carbide is leaching out. BY DR. FANKHAUSER:

             . . . , ',,1                      O    Could you define B-10 depletion, then, in this e

L il 1425 i86

l' 3551 dspl8 1 sense? E, A Okay. That's actually utilized; this is an L atem of boren 10 that has been -- has reacted, let's say,

              "      uith the -- a neutron and has chang.sd to -- I don 't know --

i

> ; iselium, lithium, and all kinds of other --

E !. O What does it change to ?

  -               e 7I           A    Helium.

t S Q Helium? i 9i A Helium, that is the main gas generated, but i K} there ic some change to lithium also, which later on goes 11 into tritium. l l2 i 0 And do I understand that the major paramet'r e to 12 ! affect depletion is not one of dissolution, but one of I Ic conversion to a different element? g A Right. And my understandinynow is that we 1e i don't know what is so magic about 50 percent. Okay? But 37l it is semething that happens in nature. Okay?

            ;g                  I mean, you could says    why des electricity flow?

19 ( Ucll, maybe you don't - we can't answer that, but we know I ,, 20

it does I

21 ;' So -- p; i DR. PANKHAUSER: No further questions. 3 (Board conferring.) 3' CHAIRMAN BECHROEFER: Mr. Connor, do you have any

                  .a further ques:: ions?

7-]! , i,' 1425 187

F 3552 t dspl9 MR. CONNOR: No, sir. 1{il 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Barth, do you have any 3 further questions? 4 MR. BARTH: We have no more questions of Mr. Maura,

            .)    [-  Sir.

CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The board doesn't either, t

            */ ;;     so --

u! (Board conferring.) u MR. BARTH: May I ask that Mr. Maura be excused? 10 CHAIRMAN EECHHOEFER: All right. Mr. Maura is i 11 - excused. In (Witness excused.) 13 (Board conferring.) 14 ,' CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We'll take a break now, and tg ' we'll come back on the insulation about -- make it about 15 je ' minutes, about 20 of. I

         ;7 ,                   (Brief recess.)

{E i i 12 9 . 2C t 21 , i 22{ u 24

,=

1425 188 il

t 3 i 3553 I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Ms. Fichter or Mr. Gillman, 3MADELON l'"s david L are you reaily to start? mpbl n 1-Whereupan, t

                 .'                     E. A. BORGMANN,
                  ' 'I                    ROBERT E. COTTA T

and i e 1 MELVIN S. AB3AMS

Gd resumed the stand as witnesses on banalf of the Applicant, 9 and, having been previously duly sworn, were examined and a W! testifiad further as follows: 4 11 ! CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: You may procaed. la CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) h 13 BY MR. GILLMAN: Mi . O Referring to page 16 of the PCA report -

                    .1 15                     CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:   Could you try to speak a 1G .      little louder -

t 17 MR GILLMAN: Yes, sir.

 .             18 i                  CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:   - or maybe more distinctly.

1s We have trouble. ~ 20 ' DR. HOOPER: We can't hear half of what you say 2; up here, sir. All this morning I was trying.to hear what l you were saying. 22l 23 BY MR. GILLMAN: 24 ; O On page 15 -- gj DR. HOOPER: You have a bad microphone, for one I! i!

1

.4

i

3554 I ,!

mpb2 thing.

            -i I                BY MR. GILLMAN:              *
               .i I1               O. On page 15 of the PCA report it st.ites that "At 91 minutes from the start of the t est, bulbu in the circuit attached to
          ' ,i cible 15 in Tray 3, began to indicate a ie               short circuit."

u II C Mr. Abrams, on page 39, could you dissuss whether 3

~'

the mode of the beginning short circuit at 91 minutes was a 10 short A to B or a short A to tray? I t i ;j In othar words, what was the arrangament of the t 12 ' light panel that indicated a short? 12 i A (Witness Abrams) It was A to B.

               ,I 14 '              0     This cable was maggered to that point?   Did you iC          do an ohm reading on it at 91 minutes, or did you wait until i   .

10 i 94 minutes tihen the same cable is indicated to have given out i I antircl'r? 17 13 What happened at 91 minutes? This was different

         !; I       from what happened at 94 minutes.

It , 39 {! A I would like you to look at sentence five, line i ag five, ca page 15, the sentence beginning 22 lI "At this time, the cable was meggered il 23 , and stil? indicated circuit continuity.' 2z; il t That r2fers to 91 minutes. I d 25

              !            0     But tha light panel indicated that it had shorted.
              !l i

4 j' 1425 i90

5 3555 mpb3 I A No, it did not.

              .t 2              O        What did the light panel indicate at 91 minutes?

A "At 91 minutes from start of test. .." - and I'm

'}

l reading from the tex' here: i I 3q ... bulbs in the circuit attached to

 ,       o               Cable 15 in Tray 3, began to indicate a short
              'i 7

I ::ircuit. " l G ; O By *beginning to indicate', did they flicker? A There was some dimunation in one of the bulbs. U] to {I Q But you didn't call it a short circuit or failure until 94 minutes, is that correct? 11 } . i 12 ~ A That is correct, according to the information i 12 ' given on figure 25, Electrical Monitoring Circuit, which M' says that a short A to B will show up as a full lit light i t, 't in Lamp A and a dark light in Lamp B. 10 , O The PCA report does not state anywhere the 17 distanca from the tip of the flame row. 1s How is there a flame row, is there a flame of i 19 " burners in the furnace on either side of the furnace? i

g. A In that particular part of the furnace which

i 2! p was used for the test there were three burners, three large

              !    three raillion     Btu capacity burners.

22 33 { I believe in this case - and I would have to i 2; check that -- there were two on one side and one on the other 25 cido. i 1425 191

3556 w>o4 O What was the distance from the apex of the flame to the bottom of the bottom cable trays, three and four?

A It's difficult to say, but probably they were impinging, nhe f ama was impinging on the bottom of the cable -

ays.

I

 .                            O     Mr  Cotta, at the Zimmer Power Station what
              >       7.srcent of the power cable trays havs the dimensions four inches deep by 18 inches wide?

A (Witness Cotta) I can't give you the exact

            +         percontage. It would be very small.That would be 18 inch
            .         widh trays. The majority are two feet, 24 inca wide trays.

0 I'm sorry, what percentage did you say would i O i; bo 4 by 187

                  .i A     I said it would be very small. We do not have
                ]
           -:         too many 18 inch wide trays. It would be probably on the
            ,c !!     order of five to seven porcent of the power trays would be
                  't
              -:      that dinsnsion.

9 ;! O What parcentage of the four inch by 24 inch

              .y       trays have side rails?

x l A Less than one percent. i i

              ,   C                 You're talking about the extended side rail, I       l r; q        asaumo. All trays have side rai3r, n                   Q     Aro there any cable trays'at the power station       j i

f w.Lth tha dimension six inches by 24 inches? i I g- A Power trays? I a . , f 425192 ; a i

4 3557 if rpb5 - O Power cable trays? Y* A No. 3 O Mr. Cotta, do you believe that a test of cable tray containing cable of uniformly the same gauga size is J represcatativa of cable trays at Zimmer Power Station? A That would not be a typical tray cross-section, no. S O Mr. Abrams, do you claim that a horizontal cable il' 9 tray fire test is sufficient to qualify a vertical cable 10 . tray installation?

         !! j!            A      (Witness Abrams)   I would say yes, if the test is
              'I

12. . run properly.

d i O Mr. Abrams, what was the total surface area of 1.:. cable e:cposed to heat?

              !i p ;!              A      on a single tray?

il n ij O All four trays. n .; (Pause.) u il mp A Off the top of my head I would say probably 250

 .            t 13 l        square feet.

i , ;c ;., Q Does the square footage of surface arsa exposed a 2; to fire in the PCA observe the PCA test, the Portland Cement

u. 3scociacion test - Let me repeat the question.

Il 22 g Does the square footage - that's the total square l 2.; footage of surface area exposed to fire in the PCA test 7,5 obcerve the ASTM E 119 guidelines? i . 1425 193

I I

                  !l                                                             3558
              ' 'l inpb6       -

FR. BARTH: Object to the question, sir.

The uitness has already testified that those 6

guideli:les do not provide a requirement of surface art:a. CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think that question's been ac%ed, so the objection is upheld there. BY MR. GILLMAN:

e O Mr. Cotta, does an energized 40 AWG cable create e j the sa:ra amount of heat when energized as a 'L4 AWG cable? t 3 (Witness Cotta) It could generate less; it it 1: 4 depends wnac une current is carrying.

1. O If you are using the current that is specified t

D. g in Tabla 8.3-18 of the Final Safety An'. lysis Report, wouldn't o 13 ' that craats more heat than --

i t r' MR. CONNOR: Wait until they have the document,

          ;f        ,

please. 1 i

s ; CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Just an inquiry ft

          ;         i               Is this the table that. appears on page 8.3-65
          ;g      ,

of the FSAR?

g ' MR. CONNOR: Yes.

. 20 ' WITNESS COTTA: Now you were asking whether a 21 ! 4-cught cable loaded to its full rating would generate the

                  .i r, . I        sams heat as -- what was the other one?

33 BY MR. GILLMAN: u3 !, O A 14 AWG cable.

                  -l
         -y         .

A (Witness Cotta) Loaded to its full rating,

                    .i
                  ?

1425 194 l}

              .                                                                3559 mpb7    'b               O      With a load of -- a specified load, specified 1:
         -,,         manufacturer's load.

e A The heat generated, as you are aware, is the I2 2 croduct. U s Yes, if they were both loaded to their rated capacity, your 4-ought cable c uld be generating mere heat, i 7 i yes.

 -        S!      ,

However, we do not have any number 14 chble in the s.

                ,i   Zimir.er Station   in the cable tray system.

N io O Mr. Cotta, why did they use 14 AWG cable in the f

i i! PCA,tect;?

d

        ;2 ll               A       The conductor in the c;ntrol cable in the PCA p

Uj test is for 'monitorieg purposes. It's really immaterial h 1.t 'l as to its size. The cable construction is identical to that, l!

                 .i ed           as far as the insulation is concerned, is identical to that il

[ used on Zimnar.

g! l Q How much more heat do you estimate is generated

        ;e 1         in terms of a temperature in degrees Fahrenheit from an is i         energized 4-ought cable and a 14 AWG cable energized to h

3 ;; manufacturer's specifications? . q A I cannot give that to you in degrees Fahrenheit 21 ] 1 22 it because it comes out as a wattage figure, and from that point l 3 you would have to figure your temperature rise bared on the 3; ij anvircnmental conditions you're looking at. n .

'(

p,3 O Would you estimato it? i 1425 195

3560 mpb8 A 11 o .

   #6                   ,

O Mr. Cotta, what is the operating temperature of safety related power cable at Zimmer Power Station? A The design temperature of the cabla is 90 degrees Cen:igrada, Celsius, if you will. [ O What is the operating temperature of nonsafety related power cable? l MR. CONNOR: Objection, Your Honor. d That would be clearly irrelevant. la1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEF3R: I don't see the relevance d

!jo of that, because we're only interested in protecting the i a

             !? j         safoty reinted cable, I mean in terms of this contention or 15j           this issue.

io BY MR. GILLMAN: is Q What is the operating temperature of control

            . c. !,       cabic?

d

n. i A (Witness Cotta) The cable rating is the same as 7e the power cable. It's 90 degree C cable.

ir p However, in both the control and the power

                   .i nj             cable Curing actual operation you would not be achieving u]ij           that temperature because your cables, the actual loads that uj             are on them are not at the full rating, full ampacity, if 4

1 you will, of the cable. They're at something below that.

           , ; 'l Q    What is their operating temperature?
           ..]4
           .y-        .          A    It will vary with the particular tray section.

el 1425 196

3 3561 mpb9 J Q What is the maximum operating temperature of pcwor cable -- and I don't mean what the designer specifies. A We probably have that' in'our calculations, in our cal shoets at the office. What we havo done is run the actual sections out

 ,                   to a wa':ts por foot loading.
           ~ ;f             C     If you did the calculation and it cams up with
 .               1

13 watta per cable tray foot, as testified at the hearing q

L j today, and 26 watts per cable tray foot, as was testified i,

C . in the answars to the Miami Valley Power Project's interro-1' j gatories - Which is it? 13 watts per foot per cable tray, 1

2 2 ., or 26 watts per cable tray foot?

        ;2      h           A     Of those trays that will be covered with the

h. , Kaowcol, the maximum loading at any one point is 13 watts 4j per foot.

3 When you look at the total station and take the l

/] :

heaviest loaded tray section in the total station, the I heavies: load is 26 watts per foot. te

 .              I ej                 Q     For a cable insulated power cable tray, what will 1

20 :-l the temperature on the interior of the cable tray be for 2; j 16 watts per cable tray foot?

                 't E l                       MR. COUNOR:   Object to the 16   There's no 2; i         foundation for that number.

i y MR. GILLMAN: I thought I heard 16. It is 13? I 3.-_ WITNESS COTTA: Yes. l i 1425 197 u ,

MPD/wel 1 ! 3562 t n i I{ BY MR. GILLMAN: 2, 0 Then what is the temperature for on the inside of 3' a po:icr ':able trcy that is generating 13 watts per cable tray 40 foot? 9 :, A (tfitness Cotta) Something less than 90 degrees S Celsius.

 .                   y 7                 0     80 degrees Celsius?

3I A I don't know what the exact number is, so I I i 9I wouldn't vanture a guess. It's less than 90 degress casius. 10 [ Q Mr. Cotta, what is the basis of your reasoning 4 11 that; energized power cables will survive a 90 minute fire U 12 i test if you have not performed the test? It 17, p MR. CONNOR: Objection, your Honor. That question 0 14 . uns asked and answered this morning. That's already been i 15 d answered. h 1G ! MS. FICHTER: That was asked yesterday by myself of - jy , MR. CONNOR: Well, all right. So --

                      .I
               ;g ;      ,

MS. FICHTER: But these are other witnesses. I gg j think they can answer differently. I . 2C CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: If it was asked of the other

                       .I 2;      q     witnes30.s, then they can answer.

I gg I MR. CONNOR: It was asked this morning. I C3 AIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Was it? 2.~3 h O q.3 lj M2. CONNOR: I remember the answer. O gh C:IAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I don't recall whether it 4l !,

                       !i                                                  1425 198

3563 wel 2 i i tra;r or rann't, but I think I'll let him answer again -- if I

           ^
           .        l  it is a;ain.
                    ,             WITNESS BORGHANN:    I think it was my st.atement to i
           <.          !!r. Connor writh regard to the calculations we made indicating
           ,           that in the event the cables were energized to the 13-watt
                 'l 5           per foot level, that the difference in heat input would
 .                  I
           ,           affect the results by a matter of slightly over a minute.

i 3 HS. FJ.CHTER: I don't believe that's responsive. q g[ Ha asked how do yo's know, if you didn't perform the test. to l That was not his answer. He's not responding.

          ;;                      'iITNESS BORGMANN:   Well, we know a lot of things, 1

y and I believe in calculations, and I think it pretty well gl , proved that tho effect of the energized cable would be gi negligible on the results of this test, that the heat input

g! from energi::ing the cables would be well within the tolerance i g level of the data taken during a test like this. gl BY MR. GILLMAN: g Q Would you be willing to let an engineering class 39 at the University of Cincinnati review your calculations? 4I A (Witness Borgmann) My calculations? , 7, j p f Q The calculations that claim a difference of only n ene minute under a test condition. V

              !l p

A They can review any of my calculations they want. a

        ", . J
        ,                         MR. BARTH:    That question is far afield of what
              }}
        ,, y

[ ue're discussing. _.. ;16 I I425 199

0 3564 wel 3 :l n id CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes. I think that's going 2f a littla far. I'll uphold that objection. I'm not sure I: 2H what an engineering class at the University of Cincinnati d i4 has to do with this. i: El BY HR. GILLMAN: u

           ;$          Q     !!r, Cotta, on page 3 of your testimony you state h

7 !! that cables which . . . the second sentence in item 6 -- il G! ')l " Cables which pass through cable trays.cacooned with Kaowsol a Ei have been suitably derated in order that the design I m! temperaturen are not exceeded either in normal operation or 1i I as a reuult of a postulated fire." iz ; Have you derated power cables that would be 1 10 wrapped in Kaowool more than power cables that would not 14 be wrapped in Kaowool? is A (Witness Cotta) As I stated this morning, as a t 10l result of the phenomena coming out of the fire protection I 17 evaluation report and the concept of using a Kaowool blanket around cable tray sections, we went back and looked at each la hll e' one of thoso sections to assure that the loading of the 20 cablos was well below the current rating of the cable, and 21 the actual I squared r coincidental input from the cables 22 ; in that tray stayed below the watts per foot limits required r 23l to keep those cables at 90 degrees C. or below. 2 *, !! O Are you saying that the Sarating o5 power cables g ]! shown in Table 8.3-18 of the Final Safety Analysis Report ti l!" 1425 200 il

vel 4 $ 3565 t I

                     !   applies to both power cables with Kaowool insulation and 2,        uithout Kaoucol insulation?

3lj A I did not say that. I J, O Then is it true that Table 8.3-18 represents i' 7 f 6arcting of power cables both with and without Kaowool 6 L insulation? l 7 JR. CONNOR: Objection to the question, your

 .            3          Honor. There's nothing in here that says there's any 9'         doreting of any cables.       It just says the power cable current i

to ! carrying capacity -- period. It's a misstatement of the i jj , record.

            ;; '                    CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:        I don't think the question i

jaj should be asked in terms of derating. I don't think this I g, table has anything about derating. You can ask if any of i 15 ! these are derated. There's no indication that these are I You need further foundation for the 5

            ;3          dorated at all.

i 1-; quections you're asking.

                   .I g3 '                    BY MR. GILLMAN:

gg Q Where in the FSAR doca it state that you have 20 derated power cables? , g A (Witness Cotta) I don't know if there is a g!! statement in there that says we derate power cables. The L anpacity table given g in the table you're referring to is g[ a selection table used as a limiting ampacity when selecting i

..+

z.= cables for given loads. Ihwever, when you select a cable l l0l r 1425 20i

s 3566 vel 5 1 I for a given load, you allow additional margin because of the 2h differences that may occur between the design equipment and li 3 what actually arrives on site as a result of testing. t 4 j So we always allow additional margin to what is Eli in the table, and when we look at the particular tray 6] acetionn we go back and look at every cable and look at 7 overy load, and look at the coincidental loading, to assure 6 that that tray sect 3nn does not exceed the allowable watts I per foot. sl ic 0 Why do the power cable ampacities listed in Table 11 8.3--18 of the FSAR exceed the ICEA NEMA standard entitled, l 12 i Ampacities In Open Top Cable Trays? 13 A The ICEA table you are referring to was a table 1e; generated, I believe, in 1975, was when that was first 1; ' printed. That did not exist at the time that the cable 1G ll celection table was made, although that table was made as h 17 !!l a result of Mr. Stolpe's efforts. Much of the information

         ;a          that went into the development of the table for selection tg          of cables that we've used is based on experiences we have.

. 20 ' In many cases, particularly on smaller sized cables, our l 21 l numbers are below Mr. Stolpe's, and particularly below the b 22 ICEA numbers. g' Q My calculations indicate that's not true. But 93 h lot me ask you this. ti gy MR. BARTH: I move to strike the' argument.

i

1425 202 l

wel 6 !! 3567 11 I I! CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's not an appropriate

   -           'Y
               -         cor r.ont at this stage. You can ask questions to determine
                -l3a     the accuracy of the statements.
                   .j
               'G      f BY MR GILLMAN:

0 You claimed that you could not use the NEMA

                   ]     ICEA open top cable tray standard because it came out in d
                -sh      1975. Could you explain why the table 8.3-18 appears on D

E a page that has a revision dated 1976? o (Witness Cotta) The revision date is a revision 9 1 A

                 >Il no the FSAR. There was a cable that was added to the list, 10 ',l i

1 l the 300 MCM. I 0 hr. Abrams, would you agree the best test of 12 l i 12 , Kaoror.;l would take into account all possible sources of heat? 14 A (Witness Abrams) Are you referring to the best 1g electrical test or the best fire test? What kind of test U

              ;s ll       are you referring to?

i-1 ; II O Referring to the tests you did. Se A I'm not in a position to answer that. I can only 19 l relate to the test that was performed in accordance with . the directions given me by the plant in terms of the test 2C. l

            ,y        i   I ran.

m. O Does Portland Cement Association have the Il r

            ,3            facilities to perform a cable tray fire test on cable trays 3,;          containing power cable energized to utilty specifications?
             ,g                A      As a regular part of equipment, we do not. If we 1425 203

val 7 3568 j!!. I agree to do such a test, then we would have to get equipment 2k to furnich the necessary power to the cables to bring them

                  ':      to the ar..ergi::ing level you refer to.
                     .          O     How much nore expensive would that test be?

i N MR. CONNOR: Objection. That's irrelevant.

BY MR. GILLMAN:

                     ,          O     Then, Mr. Abrams, why --

i 3] (The Board conferring.)

Y DN CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The cost is not relevant. I' 10 1 If a certain test has to be performed as a matter of safety l, 11 l requiremtents, the cost is irrelevant. We're trying to I

           !2 d,          determino whether the test itself was adequate, not what it i

13 i cost. 14 BY MR. GILLMAN: 15 j! Q Mr. Cotta, are you familiar with the ICEA NEMA ic Standard ampacities for cables in open top trays? 17l MR. WETTERHAHN: Please show him the document. 13 (Document handed to the witness panel.) 19 DY MR. GILLMAN: . 20 i r, Q The papers that gave rise to the star.dard by 2; I engineers named Stolpe and Lee. Mr. Stolpe wrote the first i i 22 !I paper an a result of his work at Southern California Edison i 23 !. Company in the aftermath of the San Onofre cable tray fire. 24 il! I In this standard which grew out of these papers, gdI the calcalations upon which these tables are based have used 1425 204 a

U 3569 I tiP3/rapbl '4 the effective thormal emissivity. flwa ,.

   <        ual7             ,;

Fnat is the thermal emissivity of Xaowool? L MR. BARTH: Object to the question. That's been exten:sively gone into before. The

w.tlessas have testified they could care less. I MS. PICHTER: Your Honor, I never did hear a figuro for the thermal emissivity of Kaowool. MR. BARTH: They testified it did nut matter'for [ an hour and a half this morning. I object to the question. and I'? ! MADELON ;! WEL flws 11 : .' l~ u ,- n 14 " i n :'it as av

c ! i

,i,

. =n 11 h 22 !! i' 23 I!

'l.

i Ei ll is 25 !! 5! (L 1425 205

592L/wel 1 ij 3570 fl'2 Madelon f 9

'l.

1 CHAIIE BECHHOEFER: I think the witness has

                       .i
                 -i         :llroady answared the question in terms of "it doesn't matter,"

s l

                       ,    is t; hat he caid.
                      ,I
                .i j                     tiow, if you want to make a showing that it does
                      <t 5]          matter, well, you can do so an an offer of proof and we'll U

o 4 consider why perhaps it should be answered. h 7[ But I think the witness has satisfactorily 0 answered the question in terms of stating that it didn't I w[0 matter, so ws would need some connection to show tehy the 10 ' actual endacivity -- l? MR. GILLMAN: Well, I'm trying to establish that in an important parameter of heat conduction -- I'm carry -- of 13 heat ficw, has been entirely ignored in the Portland Cement 1, Association test, in the sense that they used radiation is chielded thermocouples in the interior of the furnace. The IC thermocouples attached to the Kaowool were unshielded, and

             ;7            the emicsivity characteristics of Kaowool are not even known, 18l           and the directional emissivity characteristics of Kaowool are 19            not known.

. 2Cj In a heat test, a fire test, of a material which 21 is designed to insulate against fire and extreme heat, it 22 seems to be a matter of negligence that the manufacturer 23 e uld have ignored any discussion of the errassive charactttris-yl tica of its product. I 25 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, in this udt does'it i

                   !                                                       1425 206 i                                                        -

li vel 2 ; 3571

             ;         natter?     I n.ean are you prepared to show that it matters, in ji
            ;-         terms of the test results?

i

             -                     MR. GILLMAN:   Okay. I'll essentially pass on that
                  .i que s tio.'
                 !q I
            ..     ".                MR. CONNOR:   I move. to strike the suggestion of
                  'I 3]    ..

negligence on the part of the manufacturer in not considering their favorite parameter, on the grounds that there's no l c.,. j foundation for such a term. I g CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think the werd " negligence" g, j should come out. I don't know what substitute word you want to p.ut in there to make the sentence make sense, but why i a don't you put failure of the manufacturer to consider, or . .

         , , ,                       MR. GILLMAN:   Mr. Cotta has claimed that his w        j 1.,     k     calculations show that with energized power cable there y
         ,_ i          would be a very insignificant difference in the failure of nu :

l the firnt cable. I would like to know how he did his hh

                 ' , ' calculations without the emissivity characteristics of
                 !     Knowool.

23 !

'                I i                   MR. BARTH:   Move to strike the question of the 19 Board, because the Board is not the proper person to respond

> _ 1;

         <a ll    to such a question.

21 [ . l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think he's -- 22 MR. BARTH: He answered one question -- 20 .

                 !                  MR. CONNOR:    Your Honor, --

2n MR. FELDMAN: He's not asking the Board a ua : i I ' i 1425 207-

il 3572

       ,:cl 3     i question. He's trying to make an offer of proof.
     <         E ,y                    MR. CONNOR:   This whole area is bogging down, il
               ?!         because it's all been covered and answered.      The fact of the raatter is the witnesses have already pointed out the source 2q         cf the taat, whatever was there, and the Kaowool did in fact
 ,             "!         pass the Standard that the contention said it did not pass.
                    !i 7                       Anything beyond that is purely irrelevant.

E (The Board conferring.) 5 ', MR. BRIGHT: Gentlemen, whoever is most qualified -- i,

              !c!         or all three of you would be welcomo -- this emissivity thing i.

11 b keeps coming up. Now, there is no doubt but what extremely i hot Kao.. col is going to radiate. I think wa all recognize 12 l 12 that. I The statement has been made, if I recall correctly,

;;[

15 that in your professional opinion this is an insignificant iG thing. 17 j Now, the sticking point appears to be that the 19 thermocouple system used for measuring the furnace temperature 39 used radiation shielded thermocouples which, even though not 20 totally negating the emissivity contribution, it would, as 21 I visualize a shielded thermocouple, it would introduce a 22 timo lag into the system. 22 \; Would you -- could you -- explain how emissivity il would come into this? 24 h i 23 j WITNESS BORGMANN: Are you referring to the i-1425 208 I

                     !l                                                                     l a
                     ?                                                              3573 xel 1 2   .j     thermoccuples?
                       !                MR. BRIGHT:   This is what I understcod was the i
                -j          problem, that there was a discrepancy in that the thermocouple used on the cable tray were not shielded. The thormocouples

used to :neasure the furnace temperature and to get the

 ",            3 ;I         avertgo temperature were radiation shielded.

7 ER. BORGMANN: Well, I'll let Mr. Alrams read from

E E the Star.dard, but the thermocouple installation is exactly D per the ASTM Standard. 10 ; KITNESS ABRAMS: The term radiation shielded i

              ;;    j       thermoccuples are not used in the Standard anywhere. They v
              ;;{           any "prctected" thermocouples, and the Standard directs you 13l           to use those thermocouples when you are' performing a test, N

14 that is, to maasure the furnace, the measuring control l

             ;5 }           furnace atmosohere, when you are running a test in accordance O

s [ uith the provisions, the applicable provisions, of ASTM-E119.

17 } It doesn't say that they are radiation shielded

 .           ;e l           thermoccuples.

t g, The thermocouples used to measure temperatures 2e; anywherc else on the specimen are not shielded thermocouples, i pj; j and there is no direction in the Standard that says they L 22 should ha shielded thermocouples. _e.

               ,l                       So you uce a commercial or a special limit type 3; ;            thermoccuple wire which you can buy from any company that i

l? manufactures it and that's compatible to your system you use 1425 209

i 3574 vol 5 l, i for reccrding the temperature in your laboratory, and those i 3 i,t m:present the other 72 thermocouples on the speciraen. h; h Now, there is no mention whatsoever in the

                 !,     Standard what type of heat input the protected tubes, the if
               ~

rrotected tubes on the thermocouples, are there for. They're i 3 j there for other reacons, presumably. They're there because 7 over a number of years they were found to be the thermocouples 3 ' that would give you the best test, and have stood in the s4 Standarc. for perhaps half a decade --- half a century. I w so they are there, and we cannot say they are 11 radiation protected. They are not. It doesn't say that at 12 all. It sars they're merely protection tubes around the 13 thermoccuplea. 14 The wire whic' is used inside of that tube is 17 differect than the wire that you use on the speciraen itself, 10 because that is the directions and specifications given in l 17 the Standard for running the test according to the Standard. I'

            ;g                      They do not anywhere indicate that you have to 9         know anything about emissivity, conductivity, conductivity go          factors within the furnace, within the material on the 21 cpeci:aer., or any measurements t at are made by any thm.N-n' i

couples in the fire test.

            ,e                      They do tell you what the readings -- what they
            ~ I; 24 9        are the;;o for, and what you do with them, and why you i

I 25 ll : ueasure in some instances. Thermocouples are there to i:! 1425 210 li-tI

ij 3575 901 6 i! i i 1h i measure a traperature. It does not explain any of the

           t
                   . Iactors concerning what kind of heat they're loc, king at.

ll

           -   li                    (The Board conferring.)

J i:

           - 3;                     iiR . DRIGHT: Well, I, a short time ago, made a 1     perhaps unfertunata parallel uhen we were talking about

miacivf.ty crongst my colleagues, and compared it in some

q

           '          vays to the process of radiolysia, where it's a tough problem
                ]
               'l l
               !{     to figuro, because you have recombination at the same time

that you have generation.

          'c                        .t.s I understand emissivity, this would be the hot n

11 l} Xaowool radiating back into the chamber. Would taat be

          'l f  2 richt?     Or would that be wrong?

1

J. I: WITNESS BORGMANN: That's correct.

I

          ". J i                    MR. BRIGHT:   Okay. If this radiation vere not
          ;; !        truly s utsed by the chamber thermocouples, what would be the i

i n difference between the actual temperature in the chamber as g :: compared to the perceived temperature in the chamber as

                 'l m           perceived by the thermocouples?

WITNESS BORGMANN: That would be a difficult n[ . 29 b calculation to make, but I think you've got to put this into 0 g i perspective. r, i I don't quita got the allegation here that if you 3g don't tcke the emissivity into account the inference is that

                  .i  the thermocouples in the atmosphere will be reading low, and
          ;, h 7           aince the averago of those controls the heat input you in I.                                        1425 21l'
                 .I 4

O 3576 wel 7 h

                 'l Ih         effect *,ould be putting more heat input, not less.

2 l'l- Therefore, it adds conservatism to the test, not i 5 detracting from the test. So this is a tempest in a teapot.

                .i
            +!!         Actually, like we said this morning,, the results of the tests

speak for themselves. If we're controlling a heat input

 .          5 f!        with thermocoup'_es that are reading low, then we in effect 7           have put more heat into the furnace, and what we would 6           indicato if the thermocouples were accurate, as far as e           omicsivity is concerned, as far as conductivity is concerned, l

10] that's really academic. Because we measure the time to 1i failure of the cable behind the Kaovool and the performance 12 l speaks for itself. . 13 DR. HOOPER: I think that's the point we wanted 14 to get at. It would be conservative, rather than -- 1 :- WITNESS BORGMANN: Absolutely. id ' CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, I guess we'll

          ;7            consider the question that was asked as answered, and you w       ,

can proceed to the next one. I think a few more things have l

          ;9      1     been answered since then, but .   ..

1 20 MR. GILLMAN: Your Honor, I'ni not clear on one 2.; point. Does anybody know what the thermal emissivity of d m i Kaowool is?

         -. i  4 25       '                 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:   Well, I think that's been I

gg l an3 wared. l 3h O MR. GILLMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. I I 1425'2F2

wel 8 j' 3577 t i l I {;j BY MR. GILIJGN:

              ' j!

O So you did your calculations without using the n s U cmissivity of Kaoucol and determined that the failure of the

              - ll      first cable would occur in only a minute or so. You did the EliI i:

l calculation without -- I think you Taid 86 seconds, or 81 il 3p ceconds -- you did that cale.0at.4.on without knowledge of the i: I'

              ?i        emissivity of Kaowool?

n 3 !l A (Witness Abrams) That's correct. v i dp fic 0 l K 11 IrI ,8 12 l 13 lI i lt u ;i 15 M 17 . I

 .          18l 10!  .

- 20 I t 2 f i 22 i i: E4 ,i 9

                 .I 25 '
                 !!                                                  1425 213 r

( *e

3578 i 2 0 Mr. Cotta, what happens when power cable bunches 5dsps 2I in the tray? 3P1 3 ,, Doesn'.t this create hot spots? ils wel ;

               -d             A     (Witness Cotta)   Yes, it can, if the cable is L    ,    loaded to its rating. This is relevative to -- how t

I hot are you inferring " hot spets"?

s j A (Witness Borgmann) When you say " hot spots," l L relativo to what? I mean, hotter than something else? When i 5; . you'ro down to a very low level -- 10 f C Hotter than the rest of the cable? 11 ' A Yes. I 12 ; Q Mr. Abrams, you claimed that the test that i L3 l Portland Cement Association performed tested the worst i' 1/ ; possible conditions that eetl7 accur in a cable tray Dl containing a 60 percent fill of mixed gauge, energized b lt 10 li power cable with bunching of the cable? r 17 h A (Witness Abrams) I made no such claim.

                  'l 1
             ;e               A     (Witness Borgmann)   Mr. Abrams cannot answer that gg         question. He conducted a test to the configuration at

, no our direction. His scope of work was to conduct thr, 2? l tast under the ASTM standard. 22 O Well, Mr. Borgmann -- 1 af A Yes. n; q Q -- do you claim that the worst possible f conditions were tested; namely, a 60 percent tray fill of 25[a

                  !I
                  ]-                                              1425 214

                    !                                                              ?579 dsp2     I
                    .,   mi:ced gauge power cable, energized, with bunching of the I
            -g           cable?
                    ,;        A    I make one claim and one claim only:       that the i

3d fire test that wa conducted gave us assurance that if that

                    .s tesc were passed, that Kaowool could be used as a 90 minute
 ,                       fire barrier at Zimmer on our cable trays, and I think it
                   ;l 7l     '

did that. s C6 Q Have you ignored hot spots in the tray that would 2' create an additional source of heat besides the operating 10 temperature of the cable? 11 MR. BARTH: I object to the question. Thero is li } no basis to assume or posit the fact that there would be hot t Dj spots in the cable trays at Zimmer. I in ! If he wants to establish this, let him do so. 15 l MS. FICIITER: I believe the testimony -- the n, witness testified there would be, unless I'm hard of hearing. 17l MR. BARTH: If she's hard of hearing -- the i to hypothetical was asked, if the power cable was looped, would Is it be warmer. The answer was yes. The is no estab11 aliment 20 , that that condition occurs, sir, t It j MR. GILLMAN: Your Honor, I have an inspection i 2? ; report that is an unresolved item that is still open. This is 23l the inspection and enforcement inspection report number 7- i 50-358-73-3, page 3, dated March 21, 1978. pj j It says: " Heat dissipaticn of power cables

                ,                                                        1425 21.5 o

V

                 !i ll                                                          3580 dsp3        L    predon.inantly along one side cf cable trays;    a review of n
             - !;     this matter was made by the architect engineer as documented
             ,3 l1 in Sargent & Lundy's letter to Cincinnati Gas and Electric
                 't
                 't   Company dated February 14, 1978."

l 9

                 'j              MR. BARTH:   I'm left in the air. I move to strike 2   N h    the reference;    this was not any kind of document provided t

7! to us by the board's order. 6 It's improper use as cross. It's improper use

                 !    as foundation. It says nothing so far.

I C' ' (Counsel for Intervenor MVPP conferring.) 11 I (Board conferring.) i CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Is that the document we 52 l 15 ! suggesed you show the applicant? i 14 i MR. GILEAN: No. 1E . CIGIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Is that document in the list i 10 l of 16 that wa got? i 17 ; MR. CONNOR: No, it is not. l

 .         is                    (Board conferring.)

10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I don't think he should use V 2C i the piece of paper since you haven't supplied it to the

          ?. I q    parties. But why don't you ask your question in terms of h

22l traether ther2 is any hot spots or bunching of cables at 23 Z imr.ar . i 24 , Then try to find out whether that could have an 25 offect en tha fire protection -- not the-fire protection -- l i t i425 216

t!

                    ;                                                           3581 dop4     '

the inculation. 1

   ,         2 ;;                  BY MR. GILLMAN:
             .; i             O    Is there any bunching of cable at the Zimmer Power
             .           Station?

t 3? A Not to my knowledge, not significantly, no. The c; cable is randomly layed. There is no bunching, to my i 7! knowledge, i . 3 l (Counsel for Intervenor MVPP conferring.) l 9' MR. GILLMAN: Your Honor, I dodt have any more 10 questions. Thank you. 9 CHAIRMAN DECHHOEFER: Ms. Fichter, do you have 12 any questions in other areas of these witnesses? i 13 MS. FICHTER: Yes, just about one or two. jg MR. CONNOR: I object to this, your Honor. 7- CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I had said earlier that I 10 i thera were certain other areas. I g MR. CONNOR: You said in technical matters, and g thatis all there were -- that is all there ar e in this e g contention. 20 CHAIRMAN BECHROEFER: Let's see what Ms. Fichter g j has to offer anyway. Let's see what kind of questions --

          ,,            let's see what the questions are on.
          .a     ,

1'

          ,,                       MR. CONNOR:   2.733 is lbmited to permitting l
          ..,, l        cross examination to be conducted by somebody the board
          ,y            may find to be technically qualified. But it doesn't provide
                 ],

I

                !-                                                      1425 217 l.

r.

                     }!j                 ,                                        3582 i.

dep5 ji for multiple cross examia. tion by various people representing a . I _ !; intervenors.l,

                     !l 304                    CHAIRT*AM W""MPER:     Certainly for areas not u

c.h covered by 733, the party's legal representative -- i

                  . '!j              MR. CCNNOR:   Then the lady cannot ask any
                     's il
 .            ? ,;        technical cross examination questions.

i

              - Il                   CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:   Or technical areas, other 6                   !

c. than those covered by Mr. Gillman.

              ;(                     DY MS. FICHTER:
                       'l 10                  0    Mr. Abrams -- Mr. Abrams, in your affidavit I 1

3g 7 see'here where you have done a lot of inspection, l g! evaluation and recommendations for repairs of numerous s g i buildings, including nuclear facilities.

           , , .                       How many nuclear facilities does this involve?

( *. l 4 y ! MR. CONNOR: I object to this, your Honor. This

            -, [

p j is voir dire on the nature of the man's qualifications. l That has long since passed by. He's been accepted as

             .j i

gi an expert and the testimony has been admitted. We can't start that now.

l g CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, you --

          ,,         i                (Board conferring.)

j i DR. PANKHAUSER: Mr. Chairman -- t

                     ,                (Board conferring.)
          ..o        n,
          ,.                         CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:   I think the objection will I

l

          ,          q    be overruled. Voir dire would be fine if you were trying n

I t o strike tha testimony. if 1425 218

P 3583 h IN If you're trying to establish the weight of the dso6 h C ll tatimony, I baliave cross examination as to the witness's i, 3 , qualifications is perfectly proper. 0 4 ll So the objection is overruled. 5$: WITNESS ABRAMS: One power plant under construction , i, G DY !!S. FICHTER: 7lk 0 Uhat pLmt was that?

 -                 l 8i                 A     The Perry Nuclear Power plant.

9 O Up in Ohio? Near Cleveland? I l0 ') A Near Cleveland, Ohio -- Perry, Ohio.

                  }
           ? ! p'               0     In your --

I 12h ; CHAIRMAN BECHEOEFER: We're having problems 53 ;I hearing. Can you fix that microphone?

           ;4                         WITNESS ABRAMS:    The Perry Nuclear Power Station
           ;g             under construction in Perry, Ohio near Cleveland.

g, ; BY MS FICHTER: I t-h i 0 In your professional opinion and from studying is , this nuclear facility, is it your -- in your opinion is

l 10 jj fire prevention a major problem in the nuclear industry? II 20 ; MR. CONNOR: Objection, your Honor. This witness 21 hac not been offered for that purpose. 22 The witness has been offered to tell how he 23 conducted the test under the ASTM procedure. I -- whatever 24 it is -- 119. Now, his opinion on this would be _g irrolevant and not significant to this board on this d v i 1425 219

ff t 3584 1 dapT7 contention which is limited: strictly to whether Kaowool

   ,-         10       :assed the test.

3 (Eoard conferring.) MP. CONNOR: She's trying to broaden the issues 4

unduly. E CHAIm1AN DECHHOEFER: We will sustain the objection T !, on that one for the reasons stated by Mr. Connor. 8f BY MS. FICHTER:

               ^
                   ;         . I guess, Mr. Cotta, I'll ask you this:   who is the
             ;C I  L   manufacturer of Knowool?   Do you know?

11 A (Witness Borgmann) Babcock & Wilcox. 12 l 0 In light of Three Mile Island, do you believe 1 12 i you can rely on their products?

p. A Absolutely.

15 i MR. CCNNOR: Objection. Objection. g, j MS. FICHTER: It's already been answered. i 77j MR. CONNOR: I move to striek it, then. Let's 19 l face it, it's a circus attempt to got into the newspapers. 19 It has nothina.to do with whether Kaowool passed the test. - MS. FICHTER: I don't believe there's a single 20l 1 paper in this room. 21 l n CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think that particular 23 ,l question should be stricken. I don't think the reputation l 33 -l cf Dabecek and Wilcox -- il e_n Il MS. FICHTER: I just have one more question. 6 l[ l425 220

                 ;j                                                        3585
                 ')

p dop0 - j 3Y MS. FICHTER: O I believe this was never asked or answered. I n J think, :tr. Borgmann, you were talking about it: are

';~

Okonito cables used at Zimmer? A Yes, they are.

 ,               ij            MS. FICHTER:   Thank you. That is all.

1 (Doard conferring.)

 -                 l 3                 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:   It is Dr. Fankhauser's b

o] o turn nou.

           !o j, I             I was wondering in terms of timing, I know I have
           ;, [  .

been requested by at least one party to adjourn by 5:00

]9 today. But if we could finish the whole matter, the whole issue, it might be -- what I wanted to find out ist 13 l .

y! do you have any estimation of the amount of time you have? g3 'j The board has relatively few questions itself.

           ;c                  DR. FANKHAUSER:   Barring any major disruption, I g;         think I should be able to be done in about 15 minutes.

l 33 ; CHAIRMAN DECHHOEFER: Is there going to be l 19d substantial redirect? g MR. CONNOR: I don't see anything. There might l

                 !   be a couple of clarification points.

21 t

                 !i 3q                   CHAIRPAN DECHHOEFER:   All I'm trving to figure il
          ~,       -

cut is whether we should -- u: 9 9-. MR. CCNNOR: No, let's go forward. u,. il CHAIRMAN DECHHOEFER: Yes, because I think we a i'r i 1425 221

3586 dsp9 1 coul3 get through tonight. 2 Dut we might be here as late as 5:30 or 6:00 7 o' clock. 3l 4 MR. CONNOR: How about 8:00 or 9:007 5i CHAIRMAN DECHHOEFER: What? l G ll MR. CONNOR: How about 8:00 or 9:007 I 7I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I was trying to -- when --

 '               O       one of the attorneys hud asked me if we could adjourn by c       5:00 10                     (Board conferring.)

11 CHAIRMAN DECHHOEFER: LGL me ask one further 12 question: does the applicant have any witness on control 13 rods at all or not on the matter that Mr. Maura addressed? 14 MR. CONNOR: Oh, no, not on that. 5l) CHAIRMAN DECHHOEFER: All right. Okay. i IC ! .MR. CONNOR: We may eventually offer rebuttal 17 witnesses, as we indicated earlier, but not -- certainly i

              ;g         not at this time.
 ~

39 (Board conferring.) CHAIRMAN BECHBOEFER: What I was trying to figure, . 20 21 before we go on with Dr. Fankhauser's questioning, will there be anything that will prevent us, when after we are 22 i i through with this series of witnesses, from adjourning the a ;i h2aring? 24l I Will there be any other reason why we would have g; F i 1425 222

l'i 3587 I dap10 - to come back tomorrow? r 1i MR. CONNOR: I hope not. l

               l                   MR. BARTH:   Not from the staff, sir.

4

               < l!                  CHAIRMMI BECHHOSFER:   I'm going to ask the staff 5!          about 30 seconds' worth of questions about future scheduling, i
              *!r        but thatis about it.

i Okay, Dr. Fankhauser, why don't you proceed. I BY DR. FANKHAUSER:

, O We've heard quite a few comments about end i

10 j. point criteria, and I would like to know -- criteria is a i'

            ;g i         plural and I wondered what the criteria are in this particular 4

12 test. i 12 i A (Witness Abrams) The criteria which were considered

u. to be looked at to determine when the end point occurs were L

electric circuity, as indicated in the reports the g- l:l !

            ;c l         observation of short circuits;     meggering of the cables 17           to indicate whether the -- there was insulation breakdown;
 ,          ;g      ,    and observations of temperature at which these end points l
            ;g l         would be nached.

ge

t The observation of temperature, however, was not an I

n; j end point. l 22l Also, not considered as an end point, but looked 33 into after the test, were the conditions of the cables in 74 !l two trays, which were removed at two different periods

           , , , .       during the tests.

l l425 223

i

[ 3588 depil O Nhat two trays were those cables removed from?

                   }i.
              - '             A     I have to check here and make sure.

7 The cables were not removed frem the trays. The

ti j trays were removed from the furnaco.

               ' ]l           O    All right.
              'i              A    Tray one and tray four. It would be a top and
                   ?

! bottom tray on one side of the furnace.

bh O And there has been cont idorable testimony to the H

              ' i        effect that there art no provisions 10 the standards for the i

h

10 l: total square footage of cable trays that is exposed in il tig these tects; is tLas correct?

                   't 12                A    That is correct.

l3 O In your professional opinion, does it seem likely 14 i to you if a doubling in the square footage in, for instance,

            ;c           the two lower trays -- that is, number three and number I
            ;e i'        four -- would that substantially increase the probability of i

17 !! a failure, particularly in terms of circuitry at on earlier

I d

1C stage than that which was observed with only two trays

            ;g       !   being in that position?                                      .

I i , ro A In my opinion, the answer is no. I 21 i O Do you think that wculd have any bearing at all i

22. i on the notal -- that the total surface area of the l

33 ! tray under test would have any effect upot. the successful i g, passage of this test? I

           ,e J

A I do not. s n

?!

i 3589 1 I dap;2 1 l Q All right. l 2l Would you consider that Kaowool passed the test 2 that you administered with flying colors?

           -: [               MR. CONNOR:   Objection, your Honor;  it's li irrelevant whether it passed with flying colors;   it was 5h .

G passed. It passed 119. 7 DR. FANKHAUSER: I think it is not irrelevant.

 .         5                  MR. BARTH:   Sir, the staff does not have a 0        criteria, " flying." I object to the question.

ic (Board conferring.) 11 DR. FANKHAUSER: If we want to bicker about 12 terminology -- 13 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think you may want to u rephrase it. Let me put it this way: I think the staff

          !Sl       witnesses did testify that it was enough of a -- if the l

exact number of minutes of the test was reached. 93 ll 17 But you can ask the same question of this panel,

         ;c         if you wish, or questions along that line. I think the 19         staff witnesses did testify yesterday that it would be 2C         enough if the number of minutes -- it didn't matter if it 21 i       wac in excess.

t i It just had to pass for a 90 minute -- to 22l 23 pass a 90 minute test, it just had to go 90 minutes. - i

         ;,; ;                DR. FANKHAUSER:   There is indication from what 25         has been presented today that in fact at 91 minutes there L                                                i425 225 i

4 d 3590 1 dspl3 was -- there was some indication that something was going

   ,.          -h      wrong.

i e ! And at 94 --

               #-                CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:   Why don't you rephrase your i

e question. E i- I don't think that " flying colors" has enough 7I specificity. Ch BY DR. FANKHAUSER: l 0; O Would -- would you say that if the standard calls i Ri for something to withstand the exposure to heat for 90 I 1; j minutes and that there was some indication at 91 minutes that i 11 j, it was failing and there was a clear failure at 94 -- would i you call that a clear, conservative margin of safety?

s l 14 A I would not refer to it as margin of safety; I

             ;-        would merely say that according to the conditions stated
             ;cl       for when a test reaches an end point, the test passes with
             . .!  g no qualifications at 90 minutes, if it is so desired;     that i
            ;gj        is, if you are asking for a test to go 90 minutes, it
             ;gl;      must not reach an end point before 90 minutes.

l . 2c O Are you awaneof what the term " conservative margin of safety" means? 2; f 22 A Not with regard to ASTM E 119, no. That is not 23l included in the standard. 3; O Have you ever heard Ehat phrase, " conservative r

            ,e
                  !l   margin of safety" used with respect to nuclear power plants?

i i k d 1425 226

t 3591 dspl4 ! MR. CONNOR: Objection, your Honor; that is

                    ,1 F. :)      irrolevant to this test.
               ;l                   DR. FANKHAUSER:   I think it isn't at all.
               -                    (Scard conferring.)
                ,,:                 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:   That one I will sustain;    that
                    ?

e c

                   !l     is irrelevant.
                    !l 7 ll                 BY DR. FANKHAUSER:
 .                  I!

O In the applicant's statement of material facts, eh s number 21, I believe it states: "The wrapping of cable wl trays with Kaowool blankets protected the circuit continuity

             ;g           of cables in the trays for a minimun of 94 minutes."

g In view of the fact that there was a flickering of g the lights at 91 minutes, would that indicate to you that y this statement 21 may be in error?

            ,, h               A    The statement is absolutely correct es it stands.
               ' a ,-

Q Would you care to explain that any further? 16 }!! MR. CONNOR: Objection. That has been asked and 7_>. pl I answered.

 .           . 8
            ,... , ,                 (Board conferring.)

I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I will custain that; that x, ll _1 h has been asked and answered. p

                    .i
           ,,,, ll                  DR. FANKHAUSER:   Of this witness?

j II CHAIRMAN BECHROEFER: I believe so, yes. I think 23 '

           ,,       e     he just stated that if it was a 90 minute test -- if it m
                    ;                                                                       j mada 90 minutes, that was enough, a,
                   !                                                     1425 227 i

d e 3592 dsp15 '. DR. FANKHAUSER: Well, but the -- 1

              % ll                 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:    These undisputed :? acts or i;
              -j        whatever they were aren't being accepted by us in any event;
              -[        we didn't grant summary disposition, so we will find our a
                      !  facts from the record.

il

 ,            5j                   I don't care whether the applicant proferred it
                    'l 7!         these. We didn't accept them at the time. So --

l 0' (Board conferring.) 0; BY DR. FANKHAUSER: 10 i O In the ASTM 119 specifications, is there a

distinction made between the temperature at some remoto l

il b t location in the furnace versus the temperature at the 12 ' interface of the outer surface of the Kaowool?

 .          It                A    No.

1 m, O What does that regulation specify the temperature jcj should he to which the Kaowool is exposed?

1 n, A The average temprature in the furnace should be r ge l2 that which is given in the standard, the time-temperature 10 , regime.

t 2c , O It makes no specification about the temperature il nj l to whicit the Kaowool is to be exposed should be?

22 A No, sir. I 23 j O In your professional opinion, do you think that j 34 ll the temperatare of the furnace could be considerably higher

                  'I in one locat. ion where t.hera may be a thermocouple that is e,

3 a

i 3593 i dsp16 jl supposedly measuring the temperature of the furnace verss l the temperature which the Kaowool has been exposed to: 2 lI: h

             - i-      i.e., that the furnace temperature could be substantially l

ij higher than that to which the Kaowool is exposed? i A Did you ask me if there are places in the furnace 5l ! 5] where tha temperature would be higher than that to which 7 I the Kaorool would be exposed. Is that your question? 0 0 And which you had thermocouples to record the 9 il temperature. I 10 lt A There is always the possibility, depending upon 11 the nature of any particular fire test, that there will 12 < b6 uncycn distributions of temperature within the furnace. 12 , O And if a standard says that an insulating 14 material must be able to withstand exposue to a given 15 i heat, but that heat is somewhere else in the furnace; does i

            ;c i       that in fact demonstrate that that insulating material I

37 can in fact withstand that heat? 79 A I can't answer that question; I can only say g that tha exposure which is designated in the ASTM test, + t the ave: age temperature in the furnace is to be within 30 21 l certain limits of the time - temperaturu curve; this is i 3; j what you consider in running your test. Il 33 i I can make no judgment to your question. 24[ O It was stated -- I believe it may have been by l' L P.r. E rcmann -- that the most susceptible cables were 25 i s li k 1425 229

I l 3594 dsp17 Il i chosen for testing; is that correct? 9

                 ??               A     (Witness Borgmann)   That is correct, in our il 3]         opinion.

4 l 0 What criteria did ycu use? hl

                 , l,I                 MR. CONNOR:    Objection, your Honor. I object to 1

a that. It has been gone into alreaV.

                 !)Y 7!                    DR. FANKHAUSER:    I don't believe it has. I don't
 ,                     f a

S remember any discussion of what constitutes the most 9 susceptible cable. 10 i I han it in quotes. I believe those are the I 11 ! precise words that Mr. Borgmann used. Il 12 (Board conferring.) t 12 l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I believe the witnesses

              ;c            did explain that one point, if I remember correctly.

i 3

.j So I will sustain the objecticn on the basis that it has

              ;gj           already been answered.

37 j BY DR. PANKHAUSER:

  ,          10                   0    There is a discrepency I would like to have g           cleared up in the report, page 33, figure 15;     it states 33             that the cables were filled to 30 percent capacity.      Page 9 --

3 A (Witness Abrams) Which report? 0 It's the blue one; it's the test of Kaowool. 22 l 33 A You're referring to page 337 I O Yes, page 33, figure 15. __ r A Ohav.

                    !,                                                      1425 230

3595 dspl8 1l Q On page 9 it says that those trays were filled to Ld 40 percent capacity.

                 .d El          A    I believe that is correct.
              ^ ll        0    Which one?

Ei A 40 percent.

 ;            5-          0    40 percent. So the 30 percent on figure 15 is 7:     an error?

6' A Where do you see the 30 percent on -- 3 it Q Cable trays, 30 percent fill. J 10l A The correct number that we were given that 11 [ represents the number of cables that we put in the tray is 12 l 40 percont. . i 13 0 What percent of that, then -- figure 15 is in

            ;.c      error?

gj A Thuc is correct. Figure 15 is in error. 10! O Mr. Borgmann, are ycu aware of any cables -- cable

           ;;        trays at Zimmer that are filled so that you can see them
           ;g        mounding over the top of the side trays?

P I

           ;g 7           A     (Witness Borgmann)   We had some where we put 30j       oxtensiens on the side rails. They're not over the top now.

2' h 22 i O Do you think that the heat generation might be I - 33 onbstantially higher in those trays 'thit wara-ever. filled?~ - - - _ _ _ _ _ i 34 MR. CONNOR: Objection, your Honor. This has

           '  5q     been gone into.

l' i 1425 231

3596 dspl9 1 CHAIR M BECHHOEFER: Yes. I think the word 2, " overfilled" is incorrect also. i, 3 DR. FANKHAUSER: ll? percent full. In other a worda, if this is 40 percent full, there are cables --

                     .' ![i i ll    cable trays that are carrying more than what would be 100
                     =l      parcent of the depth of -- to which this figure is --

r 1 7 MR. CONNOR: This has been gone into in

3 excruciating detail last August I guess it was -- last 9 summer, in any event,in one of the hearings.

10 And this was all explained. It's all in the I record. And it's not proper to go into it now. 11l 12 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think the -- 13 DR. FAFKHAUSER: I wish to go into it specifically 7, in terms of the heat generation of energized cables. g (Board conferring.)

                    .g                 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:    You want --  the energized 77 cables?
                    ;g                 DR. EANKHAUSER:    Yes.
                    ;9 (Board conferring.)

end dsp5 ;g mpb fis. 21 a a: , l - -- 24 !l l' 25 , i 4 i-e' 1425~232

3597

                     'I t  9 7MADELON      *

(The Board conferring.) f1ws david mpbl El CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think you will have'to a:

                    - t,' establish -- I asked some questions concerning a 60 percent fill, and I was going'to ask maybe a few more. But I think E        the FSA3 limits the fill to 60 percent.

O So I don't think you can ask about 110 unless e - 7 you have some evidence tnat that type of fill exists in the 1 2l '

                     ,i trays in question. And I certainly don't think what occurred C        in tho sarlier hearings would establish that fact for these ll

C]:t trays, certainly.

So you'll have to connect up any questions you 11] 12 l ask on :his. As I say, the FSAR limits oit to 60 percent. i 15 ; BY MR. FANKHAUSER: i t, O Mr. Borgmann, would you agree that the amount of 10 heat put out by a cable tray containing energized cables, or i; . mora correctly, the amount of heat contained within the tray i 1; l would be proportional to the depth to which cables are piled I te ! in the tray? v i 10 ! MR. CONNOR: That was asked and answered this I ,. ;c ; morning, that very clearly. I 2f !j MR. PANKHAUSER If it was asked and answered,

I 22 , then my caso has been made already to inquire as to -

s i:

               ;; !!                   CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:   I think that one was.

Li g; , MR. PANKHAUSER: -- then the case has already

               ,          been nada to the fact that if we have done calculations based "a

i 14'25 233

i i 3598 4 mpb2 I upon a 30 or 40 percent filled tray in terms ob Btu output, 2' and if :here are trays that contain substantially more cables 1 ,, than that, than we would expect substantially more heat out-

                .i 4         put in proportion to the number of cables.
                ;l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:   Now I think they've already d

0d testifiud that it's insignificantly more. r 7 Some of those questions were already asked, and

 '           3        I have one or two left, filler questions.

9 MR. PANKHAUSER: It was stated this morning that

           ;0 '       13 watts per foot trould put out about 444 Btu's per hour.

11 , It also is apparent that the utility previously supplied a

2[h figure of 2G watts per foot, which gets it up towards 900 13; Btu's por hour, 14 And if in fact we're talking about 30 or 40

           ;5       ! percent fill, if you triple the amount or quadruple the amount
                !l 10g        of cables in question, then you are upwards of 3- or 4000
          ;y          Btu's per hour.
           ;3 ,                   CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:  Yes, but such tripling or
           ;g         quadrupling isn't permitted under the specifications, and

, 20 h you can't show that they've done that. 21 j' MR. CONNOR: This has been gone into. Mr. I Eorgmann testified there was a 13 watts per foot limitation nl n that axists on all wrapped trays. That would be the binding

          ;;          limit regardlose of any other consideration.

_e c; CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's correct. i i 1425'234

I! il 3599 mpb3 1 ,, MR. CONNOR: And that's all been thoroughly

      '                gone into.

MR. FANKHAUSER: Then I withdraw the question.

              - -                   BY DR. PANKHAUSER:

. O Mr. Dorgmann is that 13 watt per foot ilimitation ,

c "4 is that a summation of all cables in the tray or per cable? Y i4 7d How is that? A (Witnass Borgmann) Let's clarify this'. a {I s I said that on the trays that are wrapped with 10 ' 'b Kaowool, the heat output is 13 watts per foot, and that

                  ,l i

11 ! includes all cables in the tray. N 12 !1 The original Sargent Lundy limitation was 21 f,l watts per foot for cable to be wrapped with Kaowool. They 13 )' 14[! went back and checked those trays, and they are loaded such 15j that the heat output is 13 watts por foot for all cables in J 20 the Kacwool wrapped trays. rr 171 O I think we need to get back to the concept of ja margin of safety again. 19 , And I would like to ask the gentleman from i r 20 '; Portland Cament if he would consider that a cable that could i 21 i withstand test conditions for 100 minutes to be a safai-22 cable -- or an insulation that would provide protection for

            =q         100 minutes to be a safer cable than one that would provide il 2a j       protection for 94 minutes?

Il 25 q MR. CONNOR: Your Honor, we object again. a q-1425 235

u 1 3600

                  !]!
           ,i mpb4

The issue is whether this cable, these cables It 2' passed this test. And any speculation or interest in things 3l like this has already been gone into, for that matter, but-a 4 fi it's irrelevant in any event.

1 3 'I The facts speak for themselves what the tests 1

r 5! show. 7r DR. PANKHAUSER: I think they do speak 'for 3 themselves, and I think it shows that the margin of safety 0h is very slim at best, and it is my firm conviction that if IG the tests were done on - if the NRC had given specific 11 : ragulations about the square footage to which the heat should i' 12 have been applied, that if you double the square footage 12l there la twice the chance that these cables would not have i N' ! been protected for that amount of time. And I think that the evidence clearly indicates 13f Ic that these test 3 show that by the letter of the law the k 17 l! Kaowool squeaks under the line. And I think that when it y is I comes to nuclear power plants we cannot permit safety to 19 barely be satisfied. 20 {l I think we need - l' 21 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEP3Rs I think safety is consider-22y ed when you establish the length of time of tha test, that i the test has to accomplish. You don't evaluato it on the 23 24 , , basis of -- at laast all the witnesses have said you don't 1 avaluata it on the basis of how much better than the test l 25 ,.i 1425 236

t r

               '                                                       3601 i

I mp'oS I lij requirements it meets. h 2N In setting up the test requirements certain

           'N       margins of safety are already taken into account. For that j
              !f    reason I will sustain the last objection.

6 BY DR. FANKHAUSER: li r C Q Mr. Borgmann, are you aware of any other tests

           'I       which have been performed which might shed some light on the i

0 i adequacy of Kaowool as an insulating material? I ll 9 ;' A (Witness Borgmann) Not to my knowledge personally , d 10 not on the Zimmer cable trays. I 11 j Q You're not aware of any other tests? O A 12 ig Personally . w not. I'm sure there have been Il 13 some. 14 0 Is there any other member of the panel who is II 15 ;; aware of any other tests on Kaowool? 1:3 (The panel conferring.) J 17 A Mr. Cotta has some information on other tests he I 1 is ' ran. 10 . O I would refer you to again the information that i e n,. you submitted as material facts, and you refer to apparently l 21 l two othar tests that were performed on Kaowool. Is that 12 s rrect? I n !! A I thnght that you were referring to tests that ii 23 demonstrated the adequacy of Kaowool, i j g The tests that you're referring to I believe were U-Il

              'i I425 237

l 3602 i; muc6 I is.i tests Cich ve e not accepted. r 2'l' Q Tosts which shed light upon the adequacy. i 0' A I den't know that they shed light if the tests 4 i' wara not acespted. t O You're refarring, and, of course, I'm referring t the ducky taats and the Underwriter i,aboratory tests. r

                 .           A     I was referring to the Husky test.

(

            '[               Q     Is it plausible that the reason those were not P.

Or accepted was because they did not in fact pass the test? U

          'O ij              A     Which test are you talking about?

l'

          ~ijI               Q     The Husky test.

L

          'O     l>

d A No.

                  'l
          ;3         j             MR. FANKHAUSER:    No further questions, i

i (The Board conferring.)

a ! !

i H' CHAIRMAN BECHROEFER: I -just have one or two

          ;G !!        very brief questions.

H g EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD l'

           ;g !                    BY CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:

7 19 0 In terms of the energized cable and the 40 per-D' 'e 2: cant loading, do you - and I'll ask any member of the panel Il 21 l -- you also cosm to indicate that an increase 1.1 parcentage 22 of filling of the trays would not substantially affect the i 23 ,i results of the test, and you gave a very small time figure. 1: 2; Consider a specific car,e. The 60 percent fill

                   !i that's nentioned in the FSAR, if the trays were loaded to N          Uh                                                                          ~

IF 1425 238 a 1 WA i 1 L. J wJl

3603

                !l 1!

cpb7 IN that naximum extent, would it be your opinion -- or what 2 would you opinion be about the results of a similar test all conditions being the same except that the tray was loaded

                  !      to the maximtm amorat stated in that section of the FSAR?

A (Witness Borgmann) You're talking about the

           ?             fire test?

r , 71 Q Power cables, yes.

A O In my opinion the results would not be significant -

E ly difforent. I believe I stated that this morning. 10 ? O Well, I just wanted to pin you down to the d 11 apecific 60 percent figure. I think you said if it increased,

                ]'i 12 l           it wouldn't. But I just wanted to pin you down.
             .j 12 lll                       The Section 8.3.3.1.3 of the. FSAR puts a limit
             . il 14.O           that the trays are not supposed to be filled to exceed 60 15.d.     ' ll percent   of the cross-sectional area in any case. I'm 15             assuming the maximum loading now.      And does your an. war that 17; }          you gave this morning, would the same answer apply when you i
             'd 3

m:3 specifically look at that maximum leading which is specified 19 j in ths FSAR? -

i

- i A when you say " maximum loading" - r 20 h> di 21 i' O 60 percent. i 22 A But in connection with that 60 percent you 230 also haro to make the specification that the physical

                !i 24 Ii           loading is not exceeded, and also that the thermal loading 0

pg is not excaaded. And, as I said before, on the trays that y 1425 239

3604 mpb8 Ib are wrapped with Kaowool, Sargent Lundy came up with a

                  ,l 3
   ,                    restriction of 21 watts per foot.      So if you went to 60 par-i 3

cent ycu have to throw in the further caveat that you're not 4l ' c::ceeding 21 watts per foot in that wrapped tray in order 3I to keep tha temperature down to a comfortable level below 2 the 90 degree C rating of the cablo. r

7) Q Right.

3 !! Well, could you fill it as high as 60 percent N a :: and still stay within that. other limit or not?

                  !l 10 ll               A      It would depend on whicia particular cable was h,

4 lij in..the tray. We're not there. We're down at 13 watts per I 12 foot. So to answer your quastion, you would have to go back 12 and look at which particular trays were in that cable, what i the ampacity was of the particular cables, and then see Ml i 15 i whether or not you would exceed it.

           !G                         On some trays you could very well get 60 percent U             fill and still not exceed the ampacity limitations.      It would m!           be pretty hard, I 2 ink, to keep it at 21 watts per foot and i

19f got 60 percent loaded, because to my knowledge none of the 2c i trays that are . trapped with Kaowool are much over 40 percent. 2; l:. They're in that vicinity. They're certainly not 60 percent, i 22 ji not oven 50 percent. 23 ; C I see, u

24. i So in terms >f the actual cables in the trays I

          ;c            that ara going to be wrapped, or the cables that will be i
               ;i, a
               !!                                                                         l 1423 240

o

                 '                                                         3605 mpb9    I        wrappeo in Kaowool, your answer that the heat load caused o
             ~ i.

by exesss over 40 percent would not be significant does

              - I
                     , apply to the specific installation at Zimmer?

A Yes, it does, based upon our designer's limita-tions. 1 5 Right. C j Q I ~4.' Now does it matter -- if a tray has different

                 ]     types of cable, if they're not all the same type of cable b   j     running through the same tray, does that make any difference?

a R] u I know you've tested the worst, or the cables it that are likely to lead to the worst results. But if you i 12j have a mixture of those cables with some other cables, does

                 'i "T         O           that make a difference in terms of ability to withstand a 14 t,       fire or....

a 10 1 A Well, I think the time to failure might vary cable to cablo depending upon the particular configuration 1-

],!

17 P of the cable, the size of the conductor and the amount of

           ;ai         insulation.

i 13 ll But the fact remains that in those cables wrapped b 2; :i in Kaowool, the time to failure of the most susceptible u 21 ? cable would be on the order of the 94 minutes. The other ones could conceivably last longer. 22 ] 23 0 But the fact that different sizes of cables are 14 mixed together, that would not affect the time when the -- k 25 I mean, it would be a reverse synergism? ifil 1425 241

l 1 I 3606 rapbl0 1 A I don't believe so. I guess there might be

i. Some second or third order effects, depending upon the 2' i conductance of some of the heat away, but it would be nagligible in the overall timo frame.

In other words, the amount of mass could

             '!         conceivably have some effect on heat dissipation, but

(- a 7: within the confines of our cable trays and the amount of 3g materia 1'you're talking about, I don't think it would be o s i! significant.

?!

10l O It tmuld be on the order of the same few minutes h 11 or.oeconds? i 12 ', A In tr.y opinion, it would. 15 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Do any of the parties have 14 j -- Well, let's see. i

          ;5 i                       Mr. Connor, do you have further questions of I
          !cj           your witnesses as a result of our questions?

v7 MR. CONNOR: Ney we will have no questions at te this pcint. b

          ;9                         CHAIRMAN BECRHOEFER:      .Do any of the other

, 20 parties? 21 l MR. BARTH: The Staff has no questions, Your 3 i 22[ Honor. 23h;l MS. FICHTER: We have no questions, Your Honor.

                .i pf,                         CHAIRMAN BECHh0EFER:    Okay.

The witnesses are excused.

25 i i 1425 242

i 3607 mpbil I. (The panel excused.) CHA RMAN BECHHOEFER: Before we adjourn, I 1 vould like to ask Mr. Barth if he knows, do we have any g

                 ?
             ^             means of estimating a time frame for the next series of

i e -; hearings?

d ' i 2 I realize the Staff is in the process of develop- g i x

              / !!         ing new standards for both evacuation and monitoring.

i f d 0 't MR. BARTH: I have no time frame, Your Honor. G ,.; The Con. mission and the Congressional Committee are consider-i.

                   'l ing this matter. I don't know what they're going to do with iC h n

11 il it. I just don't. I tried to check before I left Washington

            !2 !           and it's really up in the" air.

t-CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: How about financial quali-13 j pi fications, will that wait until - o il 1E .1, MR. BARTHs There's no reason to move ahead with iG j that until we move with the others. So we have no informa-17f, tion on that directly, sir.

  ,        je '                          CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:                All right.
           ;9            ,

Okay. Any comments by any person.,on any subject, i V l 20 because we'll adjourn if not. 21 y MR. CONNOR: On the subject of resuming the it 29 i hearinca, we, of course, have to await the Staff on this, fi

           ;3 '![           or I guess the whole Commission.                 But as soon as we see a a
           ;g !f            way to naka progress intelligantly, we will request that the ji
           ;c .i            hearings be resumed.      And it may be piecameal, and hopeful!.y l                                                                  1425 243 r

                       .i
                      .I                                                             3608
                       'l d

mpb12 ; it would be a tocal completion of it. But we see no way it could be before the first 2I cf the year or Fabruar.y, if then. Washington is in a bit of 1 a tumeil.

                       .                  CHAIRMAN BECHHOEF2R:  Chay.

( L] t Absent further comments, the hearing is adjourned 9 730 until w3 announce the next session.

(Whoreupon, at 5:30 p.m., the hearing in tha I

9 c.Mve-entitled matter was adjourned, to reconvens

                      !l 1C                  at a date to Le determined.)

1? ai 0

     - i 15 j' 1-l i

e: . 1C i

              !)      ,

i' 50 I w; f n. f 1

             'il     f r<

x .j m a 1425 244}}

ML19210E132: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 02:13, 28 February 2020

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

Reference:

SUBJECT:

Reference:

Navigation menu

ML19210E132: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 02:13, 28 February 2020

Text

SUBJECT:

Reference:

SUBJECT:

Reference:

Navigation menu

Search