ML20027D054

Responds to 821018 Ltr Re Svc of Documents to Parties. Telcons Could Expedite Matters in Future.Svc List Encl. Related Correspondence

ML20027D054
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	10/22/1982
From:	Silberg J SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
References
NUDOCS 8210280216
Download: ML20027D054 (9)

Text

,

i r .r=s SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE DOCKETED A PARTNERSMep OF PROFESSIONAL ComPORATIONS 1800 M STR EET. N. W.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 h2 o TELEX october 22, 1982 es=v. esNawLAW - Mi e 1 CASLE .*#3 NAWLAw"

, k"'

JAY E. SILS ERG, P.C. e ae a Ms. Susan L. Hiatt OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Road Mentor, Ohio 44060 Re: The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.,

.et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) Docket Nos. 50-440, 50-441

Dear Ms. Hiatt:

Your letter of October 18, 1982, states your belief that Applicants made a " misstatement" in their Answers to OCRE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories, dated September 28, 1982. The statement which you claim to be in error is that Applicants had sent to the service list their response to an NRC Staff question. If you will refer to our May 6, 1982 letter to you (with copies to the service list), you will find attached the response in question.

The second matter raised in your letter concerns the attach-ment to the February 3, 1978 letter from Ross and Eisenhut, NRC, to G. Sherwood, GE. You indicate that Mr. Wilt has been unable to locate this document. That_dqcument was sent to Mr. Wilt by letter dated April 5, 1982. A lopy of that letter and its attach-ments are enclosed.

Rather than burdening the service list with these types of filing problems, it would be more expeditious if you would simply call me. Since I had in fact spoken with you on October 18, you could have saved all of us some paperwork if you had informally mentioned these problems to me at that time. ,

S' cerely,

)

l 4c k SI BERG Enclosure y  ;

cc: Service List JES: 1am 8210280216 821022 PDR ADOCK 05000440 0 PDR pS0

E i

UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA' 00CEETED i UVFC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 82 00T 25 A11:37 In the Matter of *

)

) ,- '+ h T/G '

, y,,3y w.1CF THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC. )

ILLUMINATING COMPANY .Do'cket Nos. 50-44 0

. ) -

50-441

)

, (Parry Nuclear Power Plant, )

! Units 1 and 2) )

l SERVICE LIST Pater B. Bloch, Chairman 1

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel

[

U.Se Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 t

Dr.' Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Docketing and. Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Frederick J. Shon James M. Cutchin, IV, Esquire

, Atomic Safety and Licensing. Board Office of the Executive

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20555

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

' Washington, D.C. 20555 Christine N. Kohl, Chairman '

Atomic Safety and Licensing Ms. Sue Hiatt l

Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OCRE Interim Representative

Washington, D.C. 8275 Munson Avenue 20555 Mentor, Ohio 44060 l

Dr. John H. Buck Daniel D. Wilt, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Post Office Box 08159 Appe'al Board Cleveland, Ohio U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 44108  :

Washington, D.C. 20555

= Donald T. Ezzone, Esquire -

Ga'ry J. Edles, Esquire Assistant Prosecdting Attorney ~

Atomic Safety and Licensing Lake County Administration Center -

Appeal Board 105 Center Street Painesville, Ohio 44077 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 John G. Cardinal, Esquire Prosecuting Attorney  :

Atomic Safety and Licensing Ashtabula County Courthouse Board Panel ,

Jefferson, Ohio 44047 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D .-C . 20555 Terry Lodge, Esquire ~

915 Spitzer Building Toledo, Ohio 43604

. v

~

NUM Eh, -M&'.- '"

SHAW. P rrr M w e.oo, p= o m ( ,,g 7 D % W8 M 4 eTMac , , , ,

?'^5 a N ovow. o. c. moo 3.

~.=-..m...... **.,7 *" *"**Pt.-

vT. M A..

Em~C.., .C

.L,e.. ,

u mt. * *o= ' === -e000

='cvc= w. Luc DAvtD e.. muote sTCoas eg.g1 *s*t CAM.Av CTCoAmt o. u . .O,TTM.A. CA=ttvos, s. JOseC "

(4,7ag ,TM,CT "', 6 Cove n. A k*

oCaest r. TmO- m.Oet TMo**AS A. S AKTCm {E'k' M h. m OnaA a.

"*I' **avtv ETCPMEN D. POTTS y,cS oma y, ppg,,,, .

JAMCS M. sumoCa TCLCCO*sta sO.ew on. o. Ci U"**"""'D'**'

4CmAL3 CMAmmOrr SMCLDON J. WCtSCL . ag *"

IEMlLLIP D. DOSTweCE stort 442-eO99 4 422e AY A. CPsTtCM ietaec Y JOo*N A. McCULLowoM RAMO L ALLCM ."

DAvtO LA C. T se.OTMY 0.AWLOne J. PATRtCM MeCMCY Atewg g,gnaggggpp C C3MllGC M. ROGCR3. J At. CComoC p. e*ICMACLY. JR. TIMOTMY S. MCSalDC ragggaggg g qq FCCD A. LfTTLC CLt&ASCTM M. PCNOLETON** 004D0watswueerso J AMCA ThoheAs LENMART TELCJL PAUL A. alA*LAN 71eeW Q. RMa*#CLANOCR STCVEN L MELT 2Cm MAm*T M. glass >tCGCL . SALLY C. ANomCws DGWCC w. CMuscentLL DC.Aw D. AULeCR 88 2693 IS**AwkAW wsMI TMOMAS M. MccOeMacet L Cll;.Let A. MsCMOLSOW. JM. JOMadCNCCL JCrrmCY maw =Aw C. s c..aAnc.otA.Aw

. uC E n, MAer1ew 0. MAALL CABLE"5MAwban. wn.uam e. same SUSAes M, rmCUND SAedOEW MAmC A si,C,,F,O(ggg EsCMAfiG J RCNDALL Casa.mLES sTC MCw . v73TLC TCheEIN

= -

JOHN L Canst Jst JUDtTM A. SAwotgm

,mgugYg,w

_, A, C. r,.L Cao weMTMRODN.DmOWN puius s,e.ARvCT DAOCAAA 8% ROSSOTTI C. ::

JAMES B. MAMuw wn!TCR*s DimCCT D6AL MV*seC4 mo*C87 m.GOmDON CowAac.c.,. YOv.=uTC CEOait V.ALLCN.JR. AAwCAL s. MCLL -C=OCL A. w FLCDDaAswCe mOstwT C. 2AMLC.m .

202;822-1417 .A=.A=AJ.MO=sC=

etAT aCwLv wC.sS.TCna m.eM A=o C. c ALC .

CCo. Ja.

M A~iCL .

April'5, 1982 Daniel D. Wilt, Esquire Wegman, Hessler & Vanderburg Suite 102 7301 Chappewa Road Brecksville, Ohio 44141 .. . . . . . .. ..

The Cleveland ' Electric Illuniinatinc 'Co._,' 'et 'a1.

.. l Re:

(Perry . Nuclear . Power . Plant , ..Uns. ts ~t 1. ana . 2)

~

• ' ' ' l 50-440,. 50-441 Docket Nos. .

I

Dear Mr. Wilt:

24, 1982,, I am With regard to your letter of March l enclosing the following items:

8-4, and C-2 of NEDO-2.4712.

Pages 8-2,,

1 i

The attachment referenced in the February'3, 1978, G. /

Eisenhut and Denwood F. Ross to Gi letter from Darrell G.

Sherwood.

Sincerely, e .

Robert L. Willmore .

RLW:jd Enclosures

.L 1.

.n 28 e

26 -

O cs-n s<.6m mu 24 -

6 cs-27 20Aco ma.r p O cs = 22.5 m . S 22 -

20 7n e ~

a to - *

2 16 - ' 8 O

\

g 3 ..- .

m ,

m

• 14 -

t iE .

cc j 12 -

im 5 a w

" = to -

4 O

H

<c su N

> a - - '

4 ..

6 -

.z.

l 4 -

0 0 b 0 '

, _ a. .

g I I I I I l I I '-

1 I 27 33 39 46 65 67 63 69 76 ,

31 87 CONE RADIUS (in.) . .

Figure 8-1. Steam Updraf t Effect on Spray Distribution for liPCS , ,

e . O e

9

-_ -- -- - - - __ . _ - - - - - _ - __- __.n_ - _ __ -- - - _ -

W .

8 e

k g - a at

i. i w =-

. t Og . -

d* \ . .

j a, \

1 g 1

\

. t g.. .

Y s *

%g .

h  %~ e -

n i

1: g

. C 3

G Sif.

\ -

Q ~

6$

a m

\ 4.

= p i

. \ -

d Z

C 4 h

. 5  ::s & M

\ W u Eh" . <

t A '\ _

C o < n  :

o

\i

< C g 1

• g M \

E

• N -

z U o Uo

• -

• r4. :s \

a 8

a .

w d 6 e.

\

/ .

=

5 5

$0 -

- =

zu w < v e.

C g 3 s a n

i 80

/\ .

n

= .

1 1

/ \" .

u y

D .

t t -

E $as 9.

I. \ E ~

• O s- l -

I f .

I _ g -

e s-t _ _ - - - -

w l s e

-(

s .

e . .

( ,. ,

t .

l *

.s .

. . e o .

L3rtle mag vat 3g * *

• LIFT 2e E4xtpasst 9&LtrE { . . .

e - . ** - -

Listze unstasus vaamt * - - .

• 4 f.3554* 573. asT8ATads a Fue sameor efmentxuist

• m-maw. amvass 8 6 7 8 9 go 3 8 4 ~

1. s g e 1

ee *****eooseeeeee-- - -

e a 8e E.6t,es e a  : e St.94ts a 14.3300 e a 11.143.e

u e o.3 e

ss.o or e mg

a. vyg 1e e .

• 8.i.9: es a e . e

33.3 w a e . no.eems e .

e e ie e e is.vw4 = = -

e .3 n e .sars .

e e

53.4.us

.s is e a .eems = :n: __ _~

ae- - - o i i. e **~~e. _. z. _

eee s.sris% : . sue =

no.az.e e .. __% . . e 3e en s , e #6.esu o me.een 18.7873 e 84 7888 e e is. :Tt*% 86.0976 e 13 4013 e 35.3644 34 e333 g = gT e

o t.

a e

e a 37.E343 e gg.6 eft e 84.3%s s

• 30.ee74 e

.e e a 3e S. T84 35.3e84 e 30.438e e .aSes s .3909 e 3e 63et e .3338 e .2933 e 4319 :ooe%_ z_

e . 31 e _:oooneonoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeroe_..

e a 3e obe e ek ooneeeeoooeeeeeeeeeeore:_ 3.3444 e 4.3737 a 3.39s3 e . e e eee..

e, 4.6333 e - 8. Seas e 3.3749 e 6.6344 8 4.0644 e 3e a S. Tete e 8.3343 e 3.3437 e 3.3333 e e e e e 7.0688 e 3.esel e 4.9983 e S.9916 e a 3e a e 6.4397 e S.3tes e

. mere a 3333 e e3639 e . Mas e e * .*

3e e .3 3M e .3373 e e**: :p -

ae a ***g* eoeeeeeeeeo : .:eoo e e

_:eeoreeoo 1 9741"reo**eeeereo 6.8233 e .

e

, eenene:_ - -a e a e 3.33e9 e a 5.

4.M 44 e 6.4437 e I e a

4e E.6ets e 3. tees e 5 9te4 4. e 4e

• e .

7.9648 e 3.MW e 5.19M e e e a a e 3 8%7 e 4476 e .9eet e .3e37 e . -

4e a , esjB. .3338 e  :. . - o

• 4e e o en a neeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeenseeooooese S.e*44 e n S.9994 se- ~ __h T 3 e

• e e

eeee eeeeeeeeeeee:. - .e 9.eetf a 3.elas e 3.3379 e .99 e , e Ee o e 9.7933 8 3. nets e 3.73ta e I e a e

• t 36 3.7385 a 3.33e4 e S.Mf3 e e e e 3e e e 9. S.9048 e .337f e .t ae4 g Se e .hle .9434 e 69798 e ' ~

• e se._ vee:  :-- ..

e e e 3e en: - :h 4.Sest a -4 te49 m 4.4?st e oe e a

e.  :

e e e E.sett e 4.7798 e .

e e 4e e e 7.3830 e 4.ased a 4 ftts e 4.36 8 e .* e

• 4e e e 4.9330 e 4.neet o 3.7&&5 8 e a e e e .5364 = .M94 e ^.39e9 e 6e e e 8338 e oe***eeeeeeeee* -- - - _*** . a 4e e 4. gem e e e ,

eeeeeeeeeoooooooooooooooo**ereee****eseeeeee**:_. e 8.3315 a 3.96er% t.tT156 3.3535 e e e a Ye e e a 3.304a e 3.e918 e . s.8344 e e a e ye e .e S.6891 e S.e6es e 4.7e84 e e a . e o e e 1.949e e .4738 e .e944 e 7e a .seet e e *e .eelt e eeoeooooo: : ne- - -:-^--

a e e e 3.3933 e e e 7eooreeooreeeeeeeeeoeooeree**************eeeooooo a S.653s e .

1. 3p? e. e o e 0.8133 a 3.9638 e e e e ae

• e e e . 18 3.3s29 3 47 e e e ae- e S.9*93 e e Se e e e

e g .3 e .1376 e .3344 e - . o - e a ae e - - - - e seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee- e e ooreee,oeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer. 8.36s3 e 8.3864 3 kfl. e e e a e e , 3 e S.4Ms s e a e e' Oe s 6803 S.4335 * ,

e e e , esg 3.9847 e .3 e a e 9e ee e a e 4.3443

.sosa e. . ins og me 9e.e.:- -

e

.e. ~ ~ enoa n e.e - eefs e .

%. ~

e

~noo.

S.9394 e

~-

5.4844 e e a a

e e,

e a a

e s.esag e e e- e e e e t.6aas e a e le a e a e T.6534 e 8. 8 8 83 e e e e e

to e e . e .5647 e .

• 3e o e

e e e .sena e -^

es a . e --.  ::*e- g , .5 e .

- ^ R :o: 3.e776 e a .e, e

• • • • eL*************ee********e***-~ e e a 34.3 a e a ll e f e e a se,aseo e 3.3336 e

• e s ,e e 33 e e 8 e e e ;e.66e4 e 4.0439 e e e e e e a ,

e .se37 e 0003 e Il e , e e e w- a gg a e e

. *s *** eL** *e .tw% . .

e o o seee eeeeeeee.eeeeeeooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee:

is e e e

e e

e e .2,3 33 4

• e

• e e

e a e e a

13 e a s e T.Thee 3.

• e o e la e e

e 43 .3 ($4  :  : ee ___ _

e o ** enee ** en *e ooneeen. e a

s. e Is eese eeeeeeeeeeeooo ne rooooe s e re ne seeee eeeenooooooene a 3 set e I. el a .e e e e e e m e 33 e e S. 428 3. e e- e o e e . sJys e e e 33 e o e e .ftse soy e e 83 e e e .3* :e-e e eeeeeLe~ e o n soo. e

~ ~.~e.~esee- no.e-ene.none-e-.oye 33 e a e e a e e

a a

e .

e e e e

.e e e e

• e e 34 e e e a e a e s. e. e a e <

a e e e e  : ~ e.ea: :ee e e e. -e.e.n-e- -n

,e. e o i . eon-e.n -~e nomeo eoee-~~e.~~~~~o ~ese .

Figure C-1. Core Flow Map; Run 1-1 l

( C-2 1

' . t

. ' ~

. .t -

= -

i REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORFATION

. t l

GE CORE SPRAY DISTRIBLITION PROGRAM l' i

I .

The items marked 1/19/78 below include all requirements identified at t the January 19, 1978 GE-NRC Core Spray Distribution meeting in Bethesda. l The list below also includes a compilation of outstanding questions from all other question lists on this subject. The list below therefore re-places those previous lists. Those marked 12/15/77 below were previously asked at the NRC-GE meeting in San Jose on that data (see 12/29/77 minutes of that meeting); those marked 9/2/77 below were previously contained in a letter of that date from O. Parr, MRC, to G. Sherwood, GE, concerning our review of Amendment 3 to NEDD-20565 which addresses this subject.  !

You will note that questions 1-a,1-b, 2, 3-a, 3-b, 3-d, 3-e, 3-f, 4, 5, r 9,10 and 12 of the 9/2/77 list are not included below. Although we '

still require the infomation requested by those questions, we believe more comprehensive infomation will be available in those areas .when results are available from the new test facility at Lynn, Pessachusetts; we there-  ;

fore defer bur requirements for this infomation until that time.

1) (1/19/78) Provide a list of the General Elect'ric Company's criteria 0

for acceptance of the experimental results from the full scale, 30 .

sector-in-steam tests. 'The criteria should state qualitatively and

. quantitatively: a) what parameters will be measured and exactly how GE.will detemine whether the results verify or contradict the hypoth-esis that themal and hydrodynamic effects are separable; and b) how ,

the spray distribution under accident conditions will be conservatively represented in licensing analyses, t 2).(i/19/78) Provide copies of the references cited by Dr. Sandoz at the 1/19/78 meeting regarding size of the steam condensing region sur- i rounding a nozzle. Describe why GE believes that this data is appro- f priate for application to a BWR spray system (e.g., that the geometry, i spray flow rates, subcooling, and steam pressures are simi,lar in the referenced tests and in BWR's following a postulated LOCA). Please incidde pictures of typi~ cal BWR single nozzle spray patterns in steam.

3) (1/19/78) Present a clear schedule of the overall program, including all experimental and analytical steps presently planned, to detemine r the predicted core spray distribution in a steam environment for the BWR/6 design and any other designs for which tests are currently .!

planned. Include tests to be run at the Lynn facility, at the San Jose single nozzle steam facility, and at the Vallecitos full scale air fa cility.

t

.s t

l

.I-g n .

3' 3- .; -

d- j

4) (1/19/78) Discuss how and when GE will administrative 1y infors BWR .

(12/15/77) Quantify the conservatisms resulting from certain features

10) .. of licensees and appittants that GE has tne capability of determining the present GE-ECCS-LOCA model, which were qualitatively discussed - steam environment core spray distributions for various plant sites at the 12/15/77 meeting. .

and designs. For example will GE volunteer to perform this deter- -

mination for older plant designs, or will GE issue a letter to older Provide the *CCFL delay vs. rero spray coefficientfor* tradeoff the l

plants that the methods are available upon request. or will GE expect (12/15/77)

11) results (discussed in slides SCR-5 through SCR-8 (12/15/77)) the licensees and applicants to make the initial inquiries regarding sizes and types of jet-pump BWR plants whose results were not presented availability of the service, etc?

at the 12/15/77 meeting, and for the second most limiting break location

. for *LPCI Modified

• BWR's. 5) (1/19/78) We have heara several presentations regarding test0 programs to.be accomplished at the Lynn. Massachusetts full scale 30 -sector

~ (Previous number 1-C. 9/2/77) The proposed tests do not include possible

12) effects steam test facility. Each presentation has emphasized investigation due to the differer.t steam qualitin %at might be present under of either core spray (CS) distribution or counter-current-flow-limiting various conditions. Water droplets entrained in the sten:n Describemay howchange GE plans (CCFL)phenoment. In reality, the two are closely coupled. Please the interaction of the steam and the spray cone. .p rovide a written description regarding how the facility will be to quantify such possible effects experimentally and/or analytically. utilized to investigate the closely c'oupled relationship of CS and CCFL phenomena,

13) (Previous number 3-C. 9/2/77) . For " Air Mockup of Steam Environment, tests that will employ Yee Jet Nozzles. will those nozzles be modified 6) (1/19'/78) Quantify the expected effects of the smaller amount of to simulate steam effects, and if so. how? steam condensation that.is expected to occur in the

• hydrodynamic" region. Why does GE expect that this condensation kill not invalidate *-

14) (Previous number 6." 9/2/77) Provide the data for the lower spaqer the separability" hypothesis? (The January.19 meeting disclosed that test discussed in the first paragraph of page 4-6. , approximately 25% of the total condensation is expected in this region.)

15) (Preficus number 7. 9/2/77) What updraft was present in the tests (1/19/78) What air updraf t velo' cities will be utilized in future

• reported by figures 4 5 and 4-67 .

7).; Vallecitos air-water full scale tests to simulate steam velocities in the post-LOCA environment? Justify the conservatism of the simulation

16) (Previous number 8. 9/2/77) There appears to be a discrepancyFor between including magnitude and direction of the air flow with respect to pre.

Figure 4-6 and Table 4-1 on the minimum measured channel flow. dicted steam magnitude and direction following a LOCA.

example, no channel in the periphery had a 3.4 gpm flow for VNC no121es with deflectors in and no intermediate channel Please explain had a minimum flow of 8) (1/19/78) Describe and document the results given at the 12/15n7 the apparent 6.B gpm with VNC no111es,. deflectors out. meeting regarding: a) minimum flow currently predicted per channel.

discrepancy. without consideration of steam effects, for BWR/2 through BWR/6 .

11,9/2/77) Justify your assumption that one-half of. plants, and b) provide a comparison of that mjnimum flow to *sinistsa required flow" (three different definitions sho i 17)' (Previous numberthe 'Ap;endix K* quoted core spray heat transfe'r used when spray flow to a bundle is below minimum design flow.

You coefficients can be quantity as discussed at the 12/15/77 meeting).y1d The be usedwas material for th s

. presented on slides TWC-10 (12/12/77) and TWC-11 (12/12/77) at the should provide results of experimental spray heat transfer coefficient 12/15/77 meeting.

measurements taken at lower spray flows. Also, you should quantitatively demonstrate that actual penetration of the assumed (lower) flow into

~

9) (12/15/77) Provide documentation regarding wh'y GE believes steam and the bundle is consistent with your CCFL data and correlations, under a11 water flow patterns in the Lynn 300 test facility wjil adeouately reactor conditions predicted by your ECCS calculations where this assumption represent the flow patterns that might be present in a full 3600 oi lower heat transfer coefficients is made. upper. plenum following a LOCA. Include discussion of tests both with and without the " pie-shaped baffle" in place.

IS) (Previous number 13,9/2/77) GE has changed the type of nozzles in various BWR designs for example between the BWR/3 and BWR/4.

Please used provide the rationale for such changes, including a description of any tests which indicated the desirability for the above mentioned change, ,

and the results of those tests.

l ,

s s

~4 Y 4

>'