ML20065F401

Answer to Fourth Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20065F401
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	09/28/1982
From:	Willmore R CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
References
NUDOCS 8210010345
Download: ML20065F401 (17)

Text

. _ _ - _ _

DOCKETED usnRC

.jpPggpbgrgdR33 2 1982 r.c r y - - - . >

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinq Board In the Matter of )

)

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441

)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) ) 7 APPLICANTS' ANSWER Tb OHIO CITIZENS -

FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS Applicants for their answers to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy ("OCRE") Fourth Set of Interrogatories, dated September 7, 1982, state as follows:

All documents supplied to OCRE for inspe,ction will be produced at Perry Nuclear Power I'lant ("PNPP"). Arrangements to examine the documents can be made by contacting"Mr. Ronald Wiley of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company at (216)

(

259-3737. Applicants will provide copies of any of the produced documents, or portions thereof, which OCRE requests, at Applicants' cost of duplication. Arrangements for obtaining i

copies can be made with Mr. Wiley.

.1 8210010345 820928 PDR ADOCK 05000440 0

• PDR

RESPONSES _.

4-1. Please produce a copy of the following document identi-fied in the response to OCRE interrogatory 1-12: " Evaluation of the Asiatic Clam Corbicula Fluminea in the Western Basin of Lake Erie," prepared by Ms. Jennifer Scott-Wasilk, Mr. Gary G.

Downing, and Mr. Jeffrey S. Lietzow of Toledo Edison.

Response

The document wi11 be supplied for examination at PNPP.

4-2. Please list all documents in the possession of Applicants concerning the presence of Corbicula in Lake Erie. Produce all such documents (except those previously provided).

Response

The following is a list of all documents Applicants have concerning the presence of Corbicula in Lake Erie that have not yet been provided:

(1) Scott-Wasilk, Downing, Clayton and Lietzow,

" Environmental Survey for Corbicula at the Eastlake Power Plant," dated September 9, 1982, plus cover letter from Scott-Wasilk to Zucker, dated September 13, 1982.

(2) NUS Corporation report, " Preliminary Planning Considerations Regarding Corbicula at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant," dated December, 1981.

(3) Letter from Kovalak to Madsen, dated May 7, 1981. ,

= (4) , Memorandum from Zucker to Banks, dated May 19, 1981.

(5) Letter from Wells to Keppler, dated July 7, 1981.

(6) Letter from Scott-Wasilk to Kovalak, dated July 2, 1981.

(7) Letter from Stansberry to White, dated May 7, 1981, with cover letter from White to Szwejkowski, dated May 19, 1981.

(8) Letter from Davidson to Schwencer, dated June 18, 1981.

These d6cuments will be~ supplied for examination at PNPP.

4-3. The "Corbicula Reconnaissance Survey" (May 1981) prepared '

for Applicants by NUS Corporation at p. I lists various methods for controlling Corbicula: chemical treatments, clam traps, mechanical cleaning devices, centrifugal separators, and magnetic water conditioners. Please provide a description of each of these methods with an assessment of their efficacy and their feasibility for use at Perry.

Response

l

! The "Corbicula Reconnaissance Survey" prepared by NUS Corporation noted the referenced control methods because they are either in use or being tested in the industry. No eval-uation of their efficacy or feasibility for PNPP has been done.

Some of the referenced control methods are described in a July, 1982, Power Magazine article. This article will be supplied for examination at PNPP.

O l

4-4. The " Report on General Plans (Permit to Install and 401 Certification) for the Proposed Perry Nuclear Power Plant" (part of the Ohio EPA permit dated July 12, 1974) at p. 2 i stat 6s that there will be no backwash of the intake.

Considering the potential for clam biofouling at PNPP, do Applicants still believe this statement is true? Specifically, if flow blockage due to Corbicula in the intake were to occur, would Applicants consider backwashing the intate, possibly with heated water, to kill / remove the clams?

i -

Response

1 The statement still i;s true.- No backwash of the intake is planned, large}y because such an operation could not be accomplished without extensive modifications.

4-5. If backwashing is not contemplated, how.would such a problem be corrected?

Response

Because flow blockage due to Corbicula in the intake is not possible, Applicants have no plans at this time to correct

"such a problem." The openings in the' intake structure 'itself are too large to be blocked by Corbicula.

i 4-6. FSAR Section 9.2.1.2 states that the intake of water for the ESWS can be taken from the discharge structure if the j normal intake becomes unavailable. What is the probability of this occurring?

'._-- . . _ . .~ - . . _ - , __ _ _ . - , _ ._ _

Response

' Use of the discharge structure as an intake for the Emergency Service Water System would occur only if the intake tunnel were blocked due to a seismic event. Because the intake structure is safety grade, it is designed to withstand seismic events equal to or less than the magnitude of the safe shutdown earthquake.

4-7. Does the discharge contain any screens or any other features to prevent the intake of adult Corbicula? Describe these features, including the mesh size of any screens.

Response

The discharge structure itself has no screens. There, however, are vertical traveling screens in the emergency service water pumphouse. These screens are described in Table 9.2-13, at page 9.2-62, of the PNPP FSAR.

4-8. During such circumstances in which the discharge would be used for water intake, do the Applicants intend to chlorinate the ESWS to kill any Corbicula larvae that might enter?

Response

Applicants have no plans to use chlorination to control Corbicula.

. ~ . _ _._-,._.:..,_ -

4-9. Describe the provisions Applicants will employ to prevent the accumulation of sediment within the intake, discharge, and ESWS.

Response

The intake and discharge tunnels are designed such that sedimentation presents no problem. The flow rate in the Emergency Service Water System is too fast for sedimentation to occur.

4-10. Will non-safety-related service water systems be subject to Corbicula monitoring and control? List every such system '

and give the degree to which it will be monitored.

Response

The flow and pressure of the Fire Service System will be tested annually. While not conducted for the purpose of discovering Corbicula, these tests will indicate if Corbicula are blocking the System. Additional monitoring has been identified in Applicants' response to question ASB-9 of the NRC Staff. (See letter from Davidson to Schwencer dated April 29, 1982.) Applicants' response already has been sent to the service list.

4-11. Provide a detailed description of the lake bottom near PNPP, including that near the intake and discharge structures.

~

Response

A detailed description of the lake bottom near PNPP is contained in a memorandum from Nugent to Zucker, dated September 22, 1982. A copy of the memorandum will be supplied for examination at PNPP.

4-12. Describe in detail all plans for chlorination of the ESWS and intake / discharge flows. Have chlorination cycles been designed to coincide with Corbicula spawning seasons in Lake Erie?

Response

Chlorination is provided for both the Service Water and the Emergency Service Water Systems to control microorganisms in the water. No chlorination of the water is planned for

, Corbicula control.

4-13. Will the Corbicula monitoring program (including ESWS surveillance testing) for PNPP be continued throughout the construction of the plant and during maintenance outages after the plant begins operations?

Response

Beginning this year, the Lake monitoring prog' ram for  ;

I Corbicula will be continued indefinitely. Such monitoring will take place twice each year. Flow monitoring of the Emergency

Service Water System will take place whenever the System is in operation. Visual monitoring of certain potential locations j for Corbicula blockage will take place during maintenance outages or when the plant otherwise is not in operation.

Commitments to monitor yarious points in the plants' water systems are detailed in Applicants' response to question ASB-9 of the NRC Staff. Applicants' response already has been sent to the service list.

4-14. Provide detailed, legible drawings of the ESWS; include the diameter of all piping, the location of flow meters and i differential pressure indicators, and chlorination paths.

l

Response

Drawings of the Emergency Service Water System will be made available for examination at PNPP.

4-15. Provide a detailed description (and drawings) of the RHR heat exchangers. Specifically discuss the similarities and differences of the Perry heat exchangers with those of the Brunswick plant and Pilgrim I.

Response: ,,

'A drawing of the RER heat exchanges will be made available for examination at PNPP. The RER has two loops, A and B, each of which has two heat exchangers connected in series. Each heat exchanger is a vertically mounted single-pass shell and double-pass U-tube type heat exchanger. RER system flow is into the A or B heat exchanger shell through the penetration at

~

the top and out through the shell penetration just above the Ibe sheet. The system flow then goes into the downstream C or D heat exchanger in the same manner. The shell of the upstream heat exchanger in each loop has nine one inch penetrations along its vertical axis which are connected to a common vent line. Two other penetrations are connected to a level trans-mitter. The tubes and tube sheet cladding are BWG Stainless Steel. The shell is carbon steel. Overall size of each heat exchanger is approximately 4. feet in diameter and 29 feet high.

Total heat transfer rate is designed to satisfy the require-ments of 1) shutdown cooling operation 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> after shutdown t

with the reactor 125'F and service water 10*F below maximum allowable temperature, 2) steam condensing operation one and one-half hours after shutdown with maximum service water temperature, or 3) containment cooling operation with maximum I service water temperature. The maximum rate of heat transfer across both heat exchangers in either loop is limited to 150 x 106 BTU /Hr in the steam condensing mode. Both the tube and

\ .

shell sides are designed for operation over the temperature .

range from 40*F to.480*F and at pressures up to 500 psig.

Applicants do not have sufficient information about the Brunswick or Pilgrim I heat exchangers to compare Applicants' heat exchangers with those of Brunswick or Pilgrim I.

4-16. . Are the RER heat exchangers ac.ltiple pass? If so, does the potential for internal bypass leakage exist (see AEOD Report on Service Water System Flow Blockages by Bivalve Mollusks at Arkansas Nuclear One and Brunswick (February 1982) at p. 33)? Provide all plans Applicants have proposed for measuring heat exchanger performance, in terms of heat transfer coefficient (i.e., other than flow / pressure measurements).

1 i

Response

6 The RER heat exchangers are two-pass on the tube side and one-pass on the shell side. There is no possibility of bypass

leakage between the tube and shell. The heat ~exchangers are hydrotested on both the shell and tube sides to ensure heat exchanger integrity. Heat exchanger performance will be evaluated periodically using flow, temperature and pressure measurements. Any significant deviations between the measured performance and design data will be corrected.

.-=y---. . -. , . - . ,--,---v,- e,.,.-,,y- ,.m.,,,,-w.,,.%..w-- . . - . - - - . - - . - * - - , , - - - , - , - -----------r,.,,--,- , - ,,m,-- ----- - -

4-17. Will surveillance testing of the ESWS be conducted with -

the system aligned to its. post-accident mode, as recommended by the AEOD Report?

Response

One loop of the three loops in the Emergency Service Water System will be surveillance tested each month. The System will be aligned in a post-accident mode.

4-18. Are the RHR heat exchangers at such an elevation and the ESWS piping to same configured (sic] such that they would become a trap for any debris swept into them?

Response

There is a " dead spot" directly below the location of the heat exchanger inlet and outlet. This area is drained, however, when the Emergency Service Water System is shut down.

The area is then refilled with demineralized water, 4-19. Describe the metallurgical composition of the ESWS

, pumps, piping, and components, including that of any screens or j cladding. Specifically, is Cu-Ni (or any other substance that j might be toxic to clams) used?

i l -

l

.- =_

Response: ,,

' The Emergency Service Water System is composed of various grades of carbon steel and stainless steel, leaded red, brass and aluminum bronze. No Cu-Ni is used in the System. Because Applicants do not know which substances conceivably could be toxic to Corbicula, Applicants cannot identify "any other substances that might to toxic to clams."

4-20. Describe the metallurgy of RER heat exchangeribaffle plates and water boxes (and any welds therein). I.e., is carbon steel or Cu-Ni used? Compare the strength of f the PNPP RHR heat exchangers with those at Brunswick / Pilgrim I.

Response

The RER heat exchangers are composed of various grades of carbon steel and stainless steel, and copper. No Cu-Ni is used in the heat exchangers. Applicants do not have sufficient

~

information about the Brunswick or Pilgrim I heat exchangers to

compare Applicants' heat exchangers with those of Brunswick or _

Pilgrim I.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE a

By: , r Jay E. Silberg, P.C.

Robert L. Willmore Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Dated: September 28, 1982 i

l

.c .

i 4

, , , . .. _._,.y._ ,-_ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ - . , __,..,.__..--__m_,_,, . .

~

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY CLEWLAND, OHIO

,f Richard A. Pender , being duly sworn according tc, law, deposes that he is Lead Mechanical Engineer Nuclear Analysis and Design Section

, of The C(eveland Electric lifuminating Company and that the facts set forth l

in the foregoing Applicants' Answers to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy interrogatories 4-24 through 4-20 dated September 7,1932 ,

are true and ccrrect to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

A Sworn te and subscribed 4-before me this / h. day of '/MM //flL 3

b d - 4 ,

l C4P0UNE h. W110!

Ndery Public. StaM of Ohio Mycomn.%,bottes Api!17,1385 ,

(Ree:rrded in Lake County) i i

l ___ . _ . - - _ . . - . . _ - - - . - - - - - - - -

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY CLEVELAND, OH10 Raymond F. Zucker, Jr. , being duly sworn according to law, deposes that he is Chemical Engineer , Nuclear Design and Analysis Section of The Cleveland Electric illuminating Company and that tha facts sat forth in the foregoing Applicants' Answers to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Interrogatories 4-1 through 4-13. dated September 7,1982 ,

are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

s T,hldk' f N Sworn to and subscribed before me this N day of 7

Ab31 )$

M .. .

QROLINE M. WILDE Notary Publu:, $nte el Ohio My Commission Ezphes April 17,1985 (Recorded in bke County) b

.-.n,_ .--.. , . ..-_.,-__.,,._,,e,. . . _ , , . , , _ _ , - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . , , _ , _ . _ ,,.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441

)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Answer to Ohio Citizens For Responsible Energy Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants," were served by deposit in the U.S.

Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, this 28th day of September, 1982,.to all those on the attached Service List.

Rob 6rt L. Willmore Dated: September 28, 1982

.-._,-,.a - . ~ . - - , - - -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA __

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

~*

In the Matter of )

) .-

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC. ) .Do'cket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY . ) .

50-441

)

(Parry Nuclear Power Plant, ) ,

Units 1 and 2) )

SERVICE LIST Pator B. Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board Panel U.S'. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wcchington, D.C. 20555 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 Appeal Board OCRE Interim Representative i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8275 Munson Avenue l Washington, D.C. 20555 Mentor, Ohio 44060 1

Dr. John H. Buck Daniel D. Wilt, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Post Office Box 08159 Appeal Board Cleveland, Ohio 44108 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Donald T. Ezzone, Esquire Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Gary J. Edles, Esquire Lake Cciunty Administration Center Atomic Safety and Licensing 105 Center Street Appeal Board Painesville, Ohio 44077 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Washington, D.C. 20555 John G. Cardinal, Esquire Prosecuting Attorney Atomic .3afety and Licensing Ashtabula County Courthouse Boa!.d Panel , Jefferson, Ohio 44047 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wachington, D.C. 20555 Terry Lodge, Esquire 915 Spitzer Building Toledo, Ohio 43604

. _ . _