ML20065N761

Answer to 820930 Seventh Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20065N761
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	10/19/1982
From:	Willmore R CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
References
NUDOCS 8210220305
Download: ML20065N761 (13)

Text

- - - ,

%Q i_ ,

00LKETED USHRC October 19, 1982

'82 BCT 2i Ai0i44 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA rr e?.CEt:TARY NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q hjERVICE 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) )

APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO OHIO CITIZENS FOR. RESPONSIBLE ENERGY SEVENTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS Applicants for their answers to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy ("OCRE") Seventh Set of Interrogatories, dated September 30, 1982, state as follows:

All documents supplied to OCRE for inspection will be '

produced at Perry Nuclear Power Plant ("PNPP"). Arrangements I 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 copies can be made with Mr. Wiley.

l i

l I

8210220305 821019 PDR ADOCK 05000440 0 PDR r>s a.

f' w ,

RESPONSES t

7-1. The response to Interrogatory 4-8 states that ,'

Applicants have no plans to use chlorination to control Corbicula. Does this mean that chlorination has been elim-inated as a Corbicula control method, or that Applicants have no plans at all for Corbicula control? If Applicants have any plans for Corbicula control, please' produce them.

t

Response

Although Applicants believe that there are several methods to control Corbicula should they enter PNPP, Applicants.

have not committed themselves to any one method at this time.

Applicants have no plans to use chlorination to control j Corbicula, but have not eliminated chlorination entirely as a control method.

7-2. The response to Interrogatory 4-5 states that the openings in the intake structure itself are too.large to be blocked by Corbicula. Please give the factual bases for this statement, including dimensions of the intake openings and citation to authority stating that blockage by clams of openings of this size is not possible. '.- ,

Response

The openings of the intake structure are four feet by twelve feet and five' inches. The opening of the discharge structure-is three feet in diameter. Both tunnels are approxi-cately ten feet in diameter. Applicants do not believe blockage'of these size openings by Corbicula to-be possible.

l

~ _ . . - - _

w Nor are Applicants aware of any openings of this size ever having been blocked by Corbicula, or of any basis for assuming that such blockage is possible.

7-3. Will the intake structure be periodically inspected for possible flow blockage conditions? If so, give the frequency of inspections and the methodology to be employed.

, Response:

No inspections of the intake structure for Corbicula blockage are planned. See Applicants' Response to Interrogatory #7-2, supra.

7-4. The response to Interrogatory 4-9 states that sedimentation in the intake and discharge tunnels presents no problem. Does this mean that sedimentation will not occur, or that the sedimentation that will occur is not expected to cause problems?

! Response:

l It is anticipated that small amounts of sedimentation will occur in the intake and discharge tunnels. However, this small amount of sedimentation should not cause any reduction in flow through the tunnels.

l l

l L.

7-5. Define what type of " problem" was referred to in the response to Interrogatory 4-9.

Response

The type of " problem" referred to was flow blockage of any type.

7-6. To wraat depth is sediment expected to accumulate in

,the intake and ditcharge tunnels over the operating life of PNPP? What is the nature of the sediment expected, e.g.,

mainly sand, or largely organic matter?

Response: .

Since sedimentation normally occurs only in quiescent bodies of water, the flow of water through the tunnel should prevent any appreciable accumulation of sediment. Any deposi-ted sediment should be identical in composition to the fine sediment found on the Lake bottom in the immediate vicinity of the openings or the intake and discharge structures. A description of the Lake bottom near the PNPP intake and discharge 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. .

k.

s A

g gv

\ ,

N N '

~

% = --

w i

7-7. Can the response to Interrogatory 4-9 be construed to mean that Applicants will have no provisions to control sediment in the intake, discharge, or ESWS? If this is not what was meant, please clarify.

Response

Applicants believe that the flow of water through the tunnels and the Emergency Service Water System will provide adequate control. No additional sediment control is-planned at this time.

I 7-8. What is the flow rate of water in the intake i

structure and tunnel (in both gallons / minute and feet /second),

maximum expected, for:

(a) normal operation 1

(b) ESWS in use.

Response

The maximum flow rates through intake structure and tunnel are:

I l

(a) normal operation: 70,500 gallons / minute or i

l 157.06 cubic feet /second;.

l l

l (b) Emergency Service-Water System in use: 93,200 gallons / minute or 207.64 cubic feet /second.

i t

l l

-S-i t

i OY ,

l 7-9. Is any' temperature difference expected between the i water in the intake tunnel and the water in the lake? Provide the bases for the answer.'

1

, Response:

The temperature of the incoming water ranges from 33 F to 80 F and the normal ground temperature encompassing the

intake tunnel is approximately 55*F. Based on these facts, and

- in light of the large volume of water flowing through the tunnel, there should be only an insignificant temperature

differential between the water in the intake tunnel and the j water in the Lake.

I 7-10. The response to Interrogatory 4-13 states that visual monitoring of certain potential locations in the ESWS for Corbicula blockage will occur during plant outages. Define each and every potential location for Corbicula blockage, and explain why these locations would be susceptible to flow j blockage by clams.

i Response: '

! The " potential locations" that will be inspected

pursuant to Applicants' inspection program will be the pump-house travelling screens, the trash racks, and the upstream pump strainers. These components will be inspected because their function is to filter debris and foreign materials out of

! the Emergency Service Water System, and.they thus would be prime locations for collection of any Corbicula in the System.

! 1 l

w 7-11. Applicants state that they are not familiar with the design of the RHR heat exchangers used at Brunswick or Pilgrim I. It would seem that General Electric, NSSS vendor for PNPP, would have such information. Please refer the applicable portions of Interrogatories 4-15 and 4-20 to GE.

Response

Neither Applicants nor General Electric Company have made the comparisons or conducted the analyses requested by the

. Interrogatories. Although Applicants do not believe that they are obligated to obtain this information, Applicants have requested Pilgrim I and Brunswick to send them their heat dxchanger design specifications. Applicants will provide to OCRE for examination at PNPP the design specifications of the PNPP, Pilgrim I and Brunswick heat exchangers, from which OCRE can make its own comparisons and conduct its own analyses.

, 7-12. The response to Interrogatory 4-16 states that there is no possibility of bypass leakage between the tube and shell sides of the RHR heat exchangers. Would this statement be true even in the situation which occurred at Brunswick, i.e.,

displacement of the baffle plate which divides the water box of the heat exchanger, which allowed service water to bypass the tubes. Explain why or why not.

Response

Applicants' response to Interrogatory #4-16 remains true. Hydrostatic tests performed on both the shell and tube sides of the heat exchangers will insure the integrity of the c,omponent.

y- ,

7-13. The response to Interrogatory 4-16 states that deviations between measured performance of the RHR heat exchangers and design data will be corrected. Explain how this would be corrected.

Response

Deviations between the measured performance of the RHR heat exchangers and design data will be corrected pursuant to the procedures established in General Electric Operating and Maintenance Instructions GEK-75600, Volume VII, Part II. This document will be made available for examination at PNPP.

7-14. The response to Interrogatory 4-18 states that the

" dead spot" in the RHR heat exchangers will be drained and refilled with demineralized water when the ESWS is shut down.

Is this the only portion of the ESWS so treated? List all portions of the ESWS so treated.

Response

The tube side of the heat exchangers, including the' Emergency Service Water System piping up to the inlet and -

outlet isolation valves, are drained and refilled with i

demineralized water when the Emergency Service Water System is l

l shut down. The " dead spot" area described in response to Interrogatory #4-18 is included in the tube side portion of the 1-i

,-9

J k'

heat exchanger. This is the only portion of the Emergency Service Water System so treated.

J Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By: 21# ,

Jay E. Silberg, P .C.

Robert L. Willmore

. Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W.

1 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Dated: October 19, 1982 b

6

_g.

s

b: P THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY CLEVELAND, OHIO ,

Raymond F. Zucker, Jr., being duly sworn according to law, deposes that he is Chemical Engineer of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Applicants' Answers to Ohlo Citizens for Responsible Energy Interrogatories 7-1 through 7-7 and 7-9 dated September 30, 1982, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, Information and belief.

-v -

/ V' w t

() l, i

Sworn to and subscribed before me this /d day of OcT0 DER , 196 %

Ntl u .

l fl v

U V0 Jo$DH C. SZWEROWSKI W Pubk Stats of Chlo . Cuys. Cty l

% Commission Dpires lu(y 14, legg 6 - - e

l V .

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILI.UMINATING COMPANY CLEVE!.AND, OHIO Ray V. Tanney, being duly sworn according to law, deposes that he is Associate Engineer, of The Cleveland Electric I!!uminating Company and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Applicants' Answers to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Interrogatories 7-8 and 7-10 through 7-14 dated September 30,1982, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

A "c-r 6 & - w f

! Sworn to and subscribed before me this 190day af OctoKR , R82 (4M .

yc MSM C. $ZWEJK0W5KI a

Notary Public, state of Ohio . Cuys. Cty Mr Commission Expires Ny 14, 1986 i

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 Seventh Set of Interrogatories to Applicants," were served by deposit in the U.S. Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, this 19th day of October, 1982, to all those on the attached Service List.

. ff Robbrt L. Willmore I

i Dated: October 19, 1982 l

l L

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

) .-

i THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC. ) .Do'cket Nos. 50-440 50-441

~

1 ILLUMINATING COMPANY . ) .

)

(Parry Nuclear Power Plant, ) ,

1 Units 1 and 2) )

~

SERVICE LIST Pater 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 i Dr. Jerry R. Kline Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 f 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 3

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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8275 Munson Avon'ue i Washington, D.C. 20555 Mentor, Ohio ~ 44060 i

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 County Adminictration Center i Atomic Safety and Licensing 105 Center Street Appeal Board Painesville, Ohio 44077 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

20555 John G. Cardinal, Omquire Washington, D.C.

Prosecuting Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing Ashtabula County Courthouse Board Panel e Jefferson, Ohio 44047 .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Terry Lodge, Esquire 915'Spitzer Building

Toledo, Ohio 43604

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