ML20080J776
| ML20080J776 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1984 |
| From: | Swiger M CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8402150190 | |
| Download: ML20080J776 (27) | |
Text
I h
f y
00CKETE0 U2,dC i
DI
- 1. R7.T~7 i
February 8, 1984 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)
)
APPLICANTS' ANSWERS TO OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY TENTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS RELATING TO ISSUE NO. 16 Applicants for their answers to Ohio Citizens for Respon-sible Energy ("OCRE") Tenth Set of Interrogatories to Appli-cants, dated January 6, 1984, state as follows:
All documents supplied to OCRE for inspection will be pro-duced at Perry Nuclear Power Plant ("PNPP").
Arrangements to examine the documents at PNPP can be made by contacting Mr.
Bradley S.
Ferrell of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Com-pany ("CEI") at (216) 259-3737, extension 5520.
Applicants will provide copies of any of the produced documents or por-tions thereof which OCRE requests at Applicants' cost of dupli-cation.
Arrangements for obtaining copies can be made with Mr. Ferrell.
8402150190 840200 PDRADOCK0500g4y G
gb
f.
In compliance with the Licensing Board's Special Prehearing Conference Memorandum and Order, LBP-81-24, 14 N.R.C.
175, 230-31 (1981), Applicants' counsel, Michael A.
i Swiger, conferred on February 8, 1984 by telephone with OCRE Representative Susan L. Hiatt regarding Applicants' objections to Interrogatories #10-2, #10-9 and #10-10.
Specifically, Mr. Swiger explained that Applicants believe information con-cerning commercial considerations related to the PNPP standby diesel generators is irrelevant and beyond the scope of Issue No. 16.
Ms. Hiatt agreed to withdraw Interrogatory #10-2 insofar as it requests information concerning commercial con-siderations involved in hiring consultants on Issue No. 16.
Mr. Swiger and Ms. Hiatt were unable to agree on the relevance e
of commercial considerations involved in the procurement of the standby diesel generators.
RESPONSES 1
10-1.
Identify all persons Applicants intend to call as witnesses on Issue #16, and identify the employer and business address of each person so identified.
Provide the professional qualifications of each person so identified.
Produce all tes-timony or drafts of testimony each such person will present, or, if not available, summarize the areas each such person's testimony will cover.
Provide the bases of all facts and opin-ions to be advanced in testimony.
Response
Applicants have not yet determined which persons they will call as witnesses on Issue No. 16 or the subject matter of testimony on tLis issue. -
10-2.
Identify each person or organization whose ex-pertise will be utilized by Applicants on Issue #16.
Provide the professional qualifications of each consultant identified.
Explain the services rendered by each consultant, and provide a copy of the contract agreement.
Response
Applicancs have not yet determined which person (s) or or-ganization(s), if any, they will use as a consultant on Issue No. 16.
To the extent that the Interrogatory requests informa-tion concerning commercial considerations involved in hiring consultants on Issue No. 16, the Interrogatory has been with-drawn.
10-3.
Identify all persons known by Applicants to be knowledgeable on diesel generator reliability (and specifically that of Transamerica Delaval diesels), and provide the business address and professional qualifications of each person so iden-tified.
Response
Applicants believe the following organizations to be knowledgeable concerning diesel generator reliability:
Southwest Research Institute P.O.
Box 28510 6220 Culebra Road
-San Antonio, Texas 78284 Battelle-Columbus Laboratories 505 King Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201 Teledyne Engineering Services 130 Second Avenue Waltham, Massachusetts 02254...
Failure Analysis Associates 2225 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, California 94303 Failure Analysis Associates is believed by Applicants to be knowledgeable specifically with respect to the Transamerica Delaval, Inc. ("Delaval") standby diesel generators at Shoreham.
10-4.
What is the basis of Applicants' belief in the reliability of the Transamerica Delaval, Inc. diesel generators
("TDI DGs") to be used at PNPP?
Response
The reliability of the PNPP Delaval standby diesel genera-tors is assured by a number of factors, including selection, design, qualification, testing, and surveillance and mainte-nance of the diesel generators in accordance with applicable NRC regulations and guidance and industry standards.
Reliability is further assured by Applicants' quality assurance
("QA") review and control over the manufacture of the standby diesel generators.
The PNPP standby diesel generators were selected in accor-dance with Regula' tory Guide 1.9,
" Selection of Diesel Generator Set Capacity for Standby Power Supplies," Rev. O (March 10, 1971).
The specification for the standby diesel generators was written to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and guidance and industry standards..
The standby diesel generators were factory tested ac-cording to IEEE Standard 387-1977, "IEEE Standard Criteria for i
Diesel-Generator Units Applied as Standby Power Supplies for Nuclear Power Generating Stations."
IEEE Standard 387-1977 is also the basis for Applicants' type qualification of the stand-by diesel generators.
The Grand Gulf Delaval standby diesel generators, which are the prototype for the PNPP standby diesel generators, passed the 300 start-and-load type qualification testing program of IEEE Standard 387-1977.
See NUREG-0887, Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Perry Nu-clear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (May 1982) ("SER"), S 8.3.1.
Applicants have committed to conduct an additional 20 start-and-load tests per unit on the standby diesel generators to supplement the Grand Gulf prototype testing.
In addition, Ap-plicants will conduct a preoperational testing program in ac-cordance with Regulatory Guide 1.108, " Periodic Testing of Die-sel Generator Units Used as Onsite Electric Power Systems at Nuclear Power Plants," Rev. 1 ( August 1977).
See SER S 8.3.1; Letter from B.J.
Youngblood to Murray R.
Edelman (September 14, 1983).
In addition'to preoperational testing, Applicants will perform periodic inservice testing af the standby diesel gener-ators in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.108.
Applicants will also develop a surveillance and maintenance program which will include measures to prevent problems affecting the safety function of the standby diesel generators and measures to detect and correct such problems should they occur.
i I
! j g
+---r-y
---pt-
-F p
- e-+7
*----t--3--
-1r-----y-
---s
o Finally, Applicants' QA program was applied to the manu-facture of the PNPP standby diesel generators.
In September 1975 Applicants conducted a Pre-Award Survey of Delaval.
Ap-plicants and Architect-Engineer Gilbert Associates, Inc.
(" Gilbert") held a Post-Award Meeting with Delaval in April 1976 in which it was verified that Delaval's responses to the findings of the Pre-Award Survey had been implemented.
Also at the Post-Award Meeting Applicants and Gilbert reviewed with Delaval the QA requirements of the diesel generator contract and identified the Delaval procedures which had to be reviewed and approved before Delaval would be permitted to begin fab-rication of the diesel generators.
Review and approval of the necessary procedures was com-pleted by Novemoer 1977; and on November 30, 1977 Gilbert issued a fabrication release to Delaval.
Gilbert also devel-oped a manufacturing surveillance plan for the standby diesel generators which was reviewed and approved by Applicants.
To date Gilbert has conducted a total of 44 surveillances in con-nection with the PNPP standby diesel generators.
In addition to the manufacturing surveillance program, in May 1978 Applicants and Gilbert conducted an audit of Delaval's activities in connection with the manufacture of the PNPP standby diesel generators.
The audit concluded that in general Delaval's QA procedures were adequate and were being satisfac-torily implemented.
A July 1978 meeting with Delaval confirmed Applicants' and Gilbert's confidence in Delaval's program.
As.
a result of this favorable evaluation, Applicants approved shipment from Delaval of the PNFP standby diesel generators.
A subsequent audit of Delaval was conducted by Applicants and Gilbert in February 1982.
A May 1982 follow-up meeting at Delaval concluded that Delaval's QA program during the manufac-ture of the PNPP standby diesel generators was adequate to as-sure their reliability.
10-5.
List and provide the bases for all arguments Appli-cants will use in their defense on Issue #16.
Response
Applicants have not yet determined the bases for the argu-ments they will use in connection with Issue No. 16.
4 10-6.
Do Applicants intend to take credit for the Divi-sion 3 HPCS DG in meeting the requirements of GDC 17 of 10 CFR 50 Appendix A and in their defense on Issue #16?
If so, why?
Response
Applicants have not yet determined what their defenses will be on Issue No. 16.
10-7.
Do Applicants intend to take credit for the reliability of off-site power in meeting the requirements of GDC 17 of 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, and in their defense on Issue
- 16?
If so, why? - -
4
Response
Applicants have not yet determined what their defenses will be on Issue No. 16.
10-8.
Provide the specifications for the TDI DGs to be used at PHPP.
List and explain all measures and procedures used to assure that these specifications were met.
Response
Specification SP-562-4549-00, " Class 1E Diesel Generator Units, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2" (March 13, 1975), was the bid specification originally supplied to Delaval for PNPP.
The conformance specification, Rev.
1, is dated December 15, 1975.
These documents, along with all attachments and subsequent revisions, are available for examination at PNPP.
To assure that the specification was met, the following measures were taken.
First, Applicants released the specifica-tion for bidding only to bidders Applicants and Gilbert consid-ered capable of meeting the requirements of the specification.
Second, Delaval's proposal to supply the standby diesel genera-
-tors was recommen'ded only after_a determination that the pro-posal met the specification's requirements.
Third, a Pre-Award Survey of Delaval was conducted in order to evaluate Delaval's QA program.
All of Applicants' QA concerns identified during the Pre-Award Survey were resolved prior to manufacture of the standby diesel generators.
Fourth, Applicants and Gilbert held -
J
a Pre-Award Meeting to address technical issues raised by Delaval's proposal; and all such issues were resolved prior to the award of the contract to Delaval.
Fifth, prior to fab-2 rication of the standby diesel generators Gilbert reviewed for conformance to the specification selected Delaval documentation required by the specification, such as procedures and drawings.
Sixth, Gilbert established hold / witness points during the manu-facture of the standby diesel generators beyond which Delaval was not permitted to proceed without Gilbert's concurrence.
Seventh, a number of manufacturing surveillances of Delaval were conducted during the manufacture of the standby diesel generators.
See response to Interrogatory #10-4, supra.
Eighth, Applicants' QA program was applied to the standby die-sel generators.
See response to Interrogc. tory #10-4, supra.
Ninth, at the completion of manufacturing of the standby diesel generators Gilbert reviewed for conformance to the specifica-
. tion Delaval's hardware documentation package.
Tenth, the fac-
+
tory, type qualification, preoperational and periodic inservice testing programs for the standby diesel generators all help to assure that the diesel generators conform to the specification.
See response to Interrogatory #10-4, supra.
10-9.
Produce all documents in the possession of Appli-cants concerning the design, procurement, or reliability of the TDI'DGs.
4 i
.g.
Response
Documents in the possession of Applicants relating to the design, procurement or reliability of the PNPP standby diesel generators are available for examination at PNPP.
To the ex-tent that the Interrogatory requests the production of docu-ments relating to commercial considerations connected with the standby diesel generators, Applicants object to the Interroga-tory as irrelevant and beyond the scope of Issue No. 16, 10-10.
Why was TDI chosen to supply DGs for PNPP?
Spe-cifically:
(a)
Summarize the process by which TDI was chosen, from the inception of the specifications, through the bidding pro-cess, to the award of the contract.
Explain what audits or re-views of TDI were performed by CEI or any of its agents.
Iden-tify any agent or consultant utilized by Applicants in selecting and evaluating DG vendors.
List all DG vendors con-sidered by Applicants, and explain why they were rejected.
(b)
To what extent were monetary concerns (e.g.,
amount of bid) a factor in selecting TDI as the DG vendor?
(c)
To what extent were quality, reliability, and experi-ence factors in selecting TDI as the DG vendor?
(d)
Explain the process by which the potentially competing concerns of cost and quality were reconciled in the selection of the DGs.
Response
(a)
The specification for the standby diesel generators was prepared by Gilbert and reviewed by Applicants.
Prior to releasing the specification for bidding, a list of potential bidders was developed which identified vendors considered capable of meeting the requirements of the specification...
Three of the listed manufacturers bid on the specifica-tion: Delaval, Cooper Industries and Colt Industries.
Alter-nate bids, as allowed by the letter of inquiry, were also re-ceived.
Gilbert and Applicants each performed independent evaluations of the proposals in accordance $'ith Perry Project procedures.
Gilbert and Applicants both concluded that Delaval and Cooper Industries had placed bids that were acceptable and that the Colt Industries bids did not meet the specification.
Based on greater loading capability, QA and technical accept-ability of the proposal, and experience, Delaval was recom-mended to supply the standby diesel generators.
As a result of this recommendation, Applicants' QA Depart-ment conducted a Pre-Award Survey at Delaval to determine the acceptability of the Delaval QA program.
Applicants and Gilbert also held a Pre-Award Meeting with Delaval to address open technical items raised by the proposal.
Upon resolution of all technical and QA concerns, the contract was awarded to Delaval.
(b)
The contract was awarded to Delaval because Delaval met the technical and QA requirements of the bid specification.
To the extent that the Interrogatory addresses commercial con-siderations involved in the award of the contract, Applicants object to the Interrogatory as irrelevant and beyond the scope of Issue No. 16.
(c)
Quality, reliability and experience were considered in the celection of Delaval as the vendor for the standby 4 -.
diesel generators in addition to the fact that Delaval's pro-posal met the requirements of the bid specification.
(d)
Cost and quality were not competing concerns in the selection of the standby diesel generators.
The specification for the standby diesel generators was written to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and guidance and industry standards.
Delaval's proposal to supply the standby diesel
~
generators met the requirements of the specification.
To the extent that the Interrogatory addresses commercial considera-tions involved in the award of the contract, Applicants object to the Interrogatory as irrelevant and beyond the scope of Issue No. 16.
10-11.
When were the TDI DGs for PNPP designed?
Name all persons responsible for the designing of the DGs.
Response
Applicants are not aware of the names of the persons re-sponsible for the design of the standby diesel generators or the time during which they were designed.
10-12.
When were the TDI DGs manufactured? (Specify for each DG to be used at Perry.)
Response
The PNPP standby diesel generators were manufactured from approximately December 1977 to September 1978.
Applicants do
s o
t 3
s k
not have information on specific dates of manufacture for each s
standby diesel generator.
s 10-13.
Whdn were the DGs recpived at PNPP?
When in-stalled? Shere and under what'condit, ions were the DGs stored prior to installation?
(Answer ~for eaca EG.)
3\\
Response
s3, The Unit 1 standby diesel generEtars for both Divisions 1 and2werereceivedatP{IPPonSeptembbr21, 1978.
The Unit 2,
['
Divisi~on 2 diesel generator way received on October 23, 1978; il and the Unit 2, Division 1 diesel generator was received on October 24, 1978.
All four diesel generators were stored at the Diamond Shamrock Boiler Shop Building in Fairport Farbor, Ohio prior to installation.
Regular maintenance on the diesel generators during storage was performed in accordance with PNPP procedures.
A 10-14.
To what codes or standards were the TDI DGs de-signed and manufactured?
Produce each such code or standard.
How did Applicants assure that these codes and standards were met?
s t
Response
The codes and standards governing the design and manufac-I ture of the standby diesel generators are identified in the specification.
Measures taken to assure that the requirements of the specification were met are addressed in response to
~,
It
'1 N 3
3 4
4 q
.s 4
j Interrogatory #10-8, supra.
The specification, as well as the applicable codes and standards, are available for examination at PNPP.
t 10-15.
Demonstrate that Applicants' audits of TDI includ-ed coverage of Criterion III, " Design Control", of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, and that TDI's quality assurance program met the requirements of this criterion.
Response
Applicants' and Gilbert's audits of Delaval have consis-tently included coverage of design control, beginning with the September 1975 Pre-Award Survey and including audits in May 1978 and February 1982.
See response to Interrogatory #10-4, supra.
Although some problems were identified during these au-dits in the area of design control, follow-up meetings with Delaval concluded that in general Delaval's design control pro-gram was adequate and was being satisfactorily implemented.
See response to Interrogatory #10-4, supra.
Documentation of these audits is available for-examination at PNPP.
10-16.. Provide and explain Applicants' measures used to assure quality of the design of the TDI DGs.
Response
The specification for the standby diesel generators im-posed requirements governing quality of design specifically 1
intended to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50,, - -
)
1 s.
y
,, s!
)
i Criterion III.
Further measures taken to assure quality of the
', design are detailed in response to Interrogatories #10-4, #10-8
, e and #10-15, supra.
k' f
10-17.
Explain and provide the basis for the statement in t 6, p.
3 of the affidavit of Edward J.
Iurk and Thomas G.
Swansiger, filed-December 16, 1983, that thc crankshaft stress for Che PNPP'DGs.is 60% of maximum.
Demonstrate that the affi-ants are competent to testify on the kinds and magnitude of crankshaft stresses.
Response
The information was supplied by Delaval.
See Letter from G.E. Trussell to A.P.
Pusateri.(November 14, 1983) (available l
for examination at PNPP).
I 10-18.
Produce a concise list of all the deficiencies of which Applicants are aware pertaining to the TDI DGs used at PNPP, and indicate the cause and correction of each.
Response
Lists of all Deviation Analysis Reports and Nonconformance Reports pertaining to the PNPP standby diesel generators, as well as documentation indicating the cause and correction of each nonconformance or deficiency, are available for examina-tion at PNPP. -
e 10-19.
Were the FNPP DG crankshaft fillet radii shot peened or rolled, in accordance with " common industry practice" (BN-83-160A, Enclosure 1, p. 1-2)?
(a)
If not, why not?
(b)
If not, were the radii examined for surface roughness?
Explain the methods used and results found.
Response
The PNPP standby diesel generator crankshaft fillet radii were shot peened.
See Letter from Lee Duck to A.P.
Pusateri (January 24, 1984) (available for examination at PNEP).
10-20.
What is the crankpin fillet radius?
Provide a drawing like Fig. 4-1 of Enclosure 2 of BN-83-160A, including the detail of the fillet.
Response
The crankpins on the PNPP standby diesel generators have a
.75 inch fillet radius.
See Meeting Minutes of Delaval Diesel Generator Owners Group, produced in response to Interrogatory
- 10-29, infra.
Applicants do not have a drawing like Fig. 4-1 of Enclosure 2 to BN-83-16CA which includes details of the fil-let.
10-21.
Produce all specifications for the TDI DG crank-shafts, including material specifications, material supplier, and all drawings and dimensions of the crankshafts...
Responce:
Applicants do not have the requested information.
10-22.
What specification requirements were in effect at the time of design, procurement, and/or fabrication of the con-necting rod bearings for the PNPP TDI DGa?
What specification requirements are in effect now?
(a)
If these specifications were changed, why was this done?
(o)
Do any of these specifications have a porosity requirement for the bearing material?
Demonstrate that the re-quirement was met.
(c)
Has there been any non-destructive evaluation of the bearing material for void sizing?
If so, produce all methodol-ogy and results.
Response
Applicants do not have the requested information.
10-23.
What is the type of bearing alloy used for con-necting rod bearings in the TDI DGs?
Response
The material used in the connecting rod bearings for the PNPP standby diesel generators is an Alcoa B850-T5 material which is a 6% tin aluminum alloy.
See Meeting Minutes of Delaval Diesel Generator Owners Group, produced in response to Interrogatory #10-29, infra.
1 10-24.
Describe any difference between the connecting rod bearings used at Shoreham and those used for the PNPP DGs.
Response
Differences between the connecting rod bearings which failed at Shoreham and the PNPP standby diesel generator con-necting rod bearin~c are addressed in the meeting minutes of the Delaval Diesel Generator Owners Group, produced in response to Interrogatory #10-29, infra.
10-25.
What is the calculated oil film hydraulic pressure on the bearing shell for the conne'cting rod bearings for the PNPP DGs?
Describe the method by which this was calculated.
What is the recommended maximum pressure for these bearings?
Response
Applicants do not have the requested information.
10-26.
What schedule is there for the replacement of the connecting rod bearings of the PNPP DGs?
Respong :
There is no schedule to replace the connecting rod bearings on the PNPP standby diesel generators...
Wha ~ schedule is there for the inspection /NDE of the connecting rod bearings?
Describe all inspection /NDE meth-ods used.
Response
Connecting rod bearing inspections have not been scheduled for the preoperational phase of engine inspection and testing.
Once the diesel engines have completed preoperational testing and have been placed in operation, Delaval preventative mainte-nance recommendations will be followed.
These recommendations include an annual connecting rod bearing inspection which will be performed in accordance with the Transamerica Delaval In-struction Manual, Volume I, Section 6, Part C and Volume I, Section 8, Appendix III.
The Instruction Manual is available for examination at PNPP.
10-28.
What size is the bore chamfer on the ends of the PNPP DG connecting rods?
Of the connecting rod bearings?
Pro-vide a drawing of the rod and bearing like Fig. 3 of Enclosure 3 of BN-83-160A.
Response
The connecting rod and bearings both have 1/16 inch by 45 degree chamfers at the bore ends.
See Meeting Minutes of Delaval Diesel Generator Owners Group, produced in response to Interrogatory #10-29, infra.
Applicants do not have a drawing of the rod and bearing like Fig. 3 of Enclosure 3 to BN-83-160A.
~
I 4
l 10-29.
Is CEI a member of a TDI DG Owners Group?
If so:
(a)
List all meetings of any such group attended by CEI representatives; (b)
Name the representatives attending; I
(c)
List any meeting of such group not attended by CEI representatives; (d) for all the meetings listed in response to the above, i
provide the date and place of the meeting, along with any notes, minutes, or reports on same.
Response
3 CEI is a member of the Delaval Diesel Generator Owners l
Group.
Documents containing the requested information are available for examination at PNPP.
10-30.
Have Applicants or their agents / representatives conducted any inspections on the condition and quality of manufacturing equipment used to manufacture the PNPP DGs or any component thereof?
If so, provide all findings.
If not, why not?
Response
Audits and surveillances of Delaval performed by Appli-cants and Gilbert during manufacture of the standby diesel gen-erators included review of Delaval's control of measuring and test equipment.
The review included verification of Delaval's calibration of selected equipment used during manufacture.
All i
Audit Reports and Surveillance Reports relating to the standby diesel' generators are available for examination at PNPP.
I.,.
~.
10-31.
Does TDI have a program wherein parts or compo-nents are modified (e.g., design margins reduced) in order to improve profitability?
If so, to what extent are the PNPP DGs affectec by this policy?
Response
Applicants are aware of no Delaval program whereby parts or components are modified in order to improve profitability.
10-32.
What tests have been conducted on the PNPP DGs?
(a)
How many hours of factory testing were conducted?
Were any of these tests observed by Applicants?
(b)
Describe all deficiencies, failures, er anomalies re-vealed in these tests, and give the causes and corrections for them.
Response
(a)
Engine factory tests, which consisted of observing and recording engine operating parameters such as temperature, pressure and load at predetermined engine loads, were performed on the PNPP standby diesel generators.
Engine operation elapsed times were as follows:
Unit 1, Division 1 12.25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> Unit 1, Division 2 15.83 hours9.606481e-4 days <br />0.0231 hours <br />1.372354e-4 weeks <br />3.15815e-5 months <br /> Unit 2, D;vi'sion 1 12.00 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> Unit 2, Division 2 18.16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> I
In addition, the specification for the PNPP standby diesel generators required qualification tests to be performed on the Unit 1, Division 1 diesel engine.
The following qualification tests were performed: _.
Starting Air System Tests Sequential Load Tests Load Rejection Tests Margin Tests Load Tests Overspeed Test 1
Torsiograph Test Engine Emissions Test Starting and Loading Test Total elapsed running time was two hours.
Thirty-six engine generator starts were conducted.
i Applicants or Gilbert were present and observed a number of the above factory and qualification tests.
i (b)
Documentation of all test results is available for examination at PNPP.
i 10-33.
Describe what tests will be performed by Appli-cants on the PNPP DGs.
Response
Twenty start-and-load tests per unit will be conducted to supplement the prototype type qualification testing approved by the NRC staff.
See SER S 8.3.1; Letter from B.J. Youngblood to Murray R. Edelman (September 14, 1983).
In addition, preoperational testing and periodic inservice testing will be conducted in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.108.
See id.
Tests to be performed include:
Starting Air System Tests Fuel Oil System Tests Jacket Water System Tests Lube Oil System Tests Exhaust, Intake, and Crankcase Ventilation Systems Test Generator Lockout Relay, Differential Relay and Overspeed Trip '.'ests 22-
+
c-e,-----,---iw w
,,.._---r
--,--,-.r
,,-v-.e
%-g----y
,-m 7w,vr-,-=-,--rmwe---+,-,+%-e. ~, -, - - -w e.
b Load Rejection Tests Ten Start and Load Test Consecutive Start and Load Tests 24 Hour Load Test 10-34.
Regarding the questions developed by the NRC Staff on the TDI DG problem, as listed in the December 28, 1983 let-ter from B.
J.
Youngblood to Murray R. Edelman:
(a)
Provide Applicants' responses to these questions to the Board and parties to the proceeding, under oath or affirma-tion; 4
(b)
Identify the persons responsible for answering each question, and prvvide their professional qualifications.
Response
Applicants have not yet developed their responses to the NRC Staff's questions concerning the Delaval standby diesel generators.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By:
%BdM h.
'N Jay E.
- Silberg, P.C.
Michael A.
Swiger Counsel for Applicants 1300 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 DATED:
February 8, 1984 -
~. - -.
_, _ _ - _ - ~ _ _
\\
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLIMINATING COMPANY CLEVELAND, OHIO Edward C.
Christiansen, being duly sworn according to law, deposes that he is Engineer, Nuclear Construction Department, of the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, and that the facts set forth in the answers to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Interrogatories 10-1 through 10-14, 10-17, 10-19 through 10-24, and 10-31 through 10-34 in the foregoing
" Applicants Answers to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Tenth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants Relating to Issue No. 16," dated February 8,1984, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief.
hand buu4.%
1 Sworn to and subscribed before me this '/ #l day of ',9x 6 l uc.w,
'+ll I. ?
._ i: 1
, 6. b.
i l
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY CLEVELAND, ORIO Thomas G.
Swansiger, being duly sworn according to law, deposes that he is Engineer, Nuclear Quality Assurance Department, of the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, and that the facts set forth in the answers to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Interrogatories 10-4, 10-8, 10-10, 10-11, 10-14 through 10-18, and 10-30 in the foregoing
" Applicants Answers to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Tenth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants Relating to Issue No. 16," dated February 8,1984, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief.
mb U
M Sworn to and subscribed before me this 7 day
/ i. ' -/
of 3 c : <.. c.. a c. /
f&
k-e a lA " '*
A
February 8, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
7HE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-440 7 LLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-441
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l
This is to certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Answers to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Tenth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants Relating to Issue No. 16" were served by deposit in the United Statea Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, this 8th day of February, 1984, to all those on the attached Service List.
j w).ae) 0. 6D: n Michael A. Swiger DATED:
February 8,1984 L
l i
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
)
50-441
)
(Perry Nuclear Power ' Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
SERVICE LIST P0ter B. Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W2shington, D.C.
20555 Washingten, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Colleen P. Woodhead,, Esquire Mr. Glenn O. Bright Office of the Executive Legal Atomic Safety. and Licensing Board Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Ms. Sue Hiatt OCRE Interim Representative Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8275 Munson Avenue Washington, D.C.
20555 Mentor, Ohio 44060 Terry Lodge, Esquire Dr. W.
Reed Johnson 618 N. Michigan Street, Suite 105 Atomic Safety and Licpnsing Toledo, Ohio 43324 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Donald T. Ezzone, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20555 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
, Gary J. Edles, Esquire Lake County Administration Center 105 Center Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Painesville, Ohio 44077 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John G. Cardinal, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20555 Prosecuting Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing Ashtabula County Courthouse Jefferson, Ohio 44047 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _