ML20116N929

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Intervenor Exhibit I-OCRE-4,consisting of Portions of Applicant 840308 Answers to Ocre 11th Set of Interrogatories Re Issue 16 Concerning Tdi Diesel Generators.Affidavit of EC Christiansen Encl
ML20116N929
Person / Time
Site: Perry  FirstEnergy icon.png
Issue date: 04/09/1985
From: Christiansen E
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
To:
OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
References
OL-I-OCRE-004, OL-I-OCRE-4, NUDOCS 8505070407
Download: ML20116N929 (6)


Text

m Y

7.. -.

./

a::c. 6 - l'a-March 8, 1984

%J UNITED STATES OF Av. ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t

(.

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 4

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)-

)

i f

f APPLICANTS' ANSWERS TO OHIO CITIZENS FOR

/

RESPONSIBLE ENERGY ELEVENTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS RELATING TO ISSUE NO. 16

[

Applicants for their answers to Ohio Citizens for Respon--

.i sible Energy ("OCRE") Eleventh Set of Interrogatories to Appli--

i cants, dated February 17, 1984 (postmarked February 18, - 19 8 4 )', t 9

f 3

i state as follows:

h a.

E

'i i

All documents supplied to OCRE for inspection Will berpro-a~

s duced at Perry Nuclear Power Plant ("PNPP").

Arrangemen$s to j

t examine the documents at PNPP can be made by contacting

[

t Mr. Bradley S.

Ferrell of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company ("CEI") at (216).259-3737, extension 5520.

Applican,ts

.. ? f s.

a will provide copies of any of the produced documents:or por,'.,

,3

~,

i tions ' thereof which OCRE requests at Applicants' cost of"

{

i.

8505070407 850409 DR ADOCK 05000440 g

PDR y

A O

e l

x 4m oc 0

D 3 0 9

a t

s 1 -I ae=W

!! a E a

-ow u,

g ENI'

  • a 7

')

'R

,N im t

x i

N

=e$

n e

s

]

21 a#e %.

}Q S 'S ~ h f

1 %

71 E

4{

gi 3

3 6, "6 e

.z 1. f.g.. i l

.i h

18 a

D G

recommend that such tests and inspections be performed on the

" lead" engines, or it may. recommend that they be performed on PNPP standby diesel generators themselves, depending on the carticular component under consideration.

The results of (m

U~

" lead" engine tests and inspections will be evaluated by the technical staff in order to determine whether additional tests and inspections should be recommended for the PNPP standby die-sel generators.

11-10.

(a)

Do Applicants have any plans to ever re-place the TDI DGs with rhose from another manuf acturer in PNPP Unit l?

(b)

In Unit 2?

(c)

If not, why not?

(d)

Is this an option in the Design Review / Quality Revalidation Program?

.s 7

Response

(a)

Applicants have no plans to replace the Delaval standby diesel generators in PNPP Unit 1 with diesel generators from another manufacturer.

(b)

Applicants have no plans to replace the Delaval standby diesel generators in PNPP Unit 2 with diesel generators from another manufacture..

(c)

Applicants do not believe that the PNPP standby die-i sel generators are unreliable.

~

y.

(d)

No, replacement of Delaval diesel generators is not f

an alternative being explored by the DR/QR Program. -

-g g.

7 3

,y,

11-11.

(a)

Do Acolicants share the coinion voiced at the Jan. 26, 1984 meeting (see Tr. 46-47) that the Cwners Group Design Review / Quality Revalidation Program will be successful?

If so, what is the basis for this optimism?

(b)

What is meant by " success" of the program?

What criteria and standards are used to define " success" of the pro-r~.

l, gram?

(c)

If the program is not successful, what actions will be taken?

(d)

How many failures or quality deficiencies are neces-sary before Applicants or the owners Group will conclude that TDI diesel engines are unreliable and unfit for nuclear ser-vice?

I.e., is there any number or type of failure considered unacceptable?

Response

(a)

The statement to which the Interrogatory refers was made by an unidentified attendee of the meeting, and Applicants do not know what that person meant by a " successful" program.

Applicants do believe that the DR/OR Program will be successful with respect to the PNPP standby diesel generators, as "suc-cess" is defined in (b), below.

The basis for Applicants' be-lief is stated in (c), below.

(b)

By success of the program, Applicants mean a complete review of the PNPp standby diesel generators within the guidelines of the Owners Group charter.

(c)

Applicants are confident that the DR/QR Program for the PNPP standby diesel generators will be successful because sufficient resources have been made available through the Own-ers Group to assure completion of the program.

A g" ~ ( d )

There is no specified number or type of failure or kqualitydeficiencywhichApplicantsconsiderunacceptablefor

the PNPP standby diesel generators.

Applicants' evaluation of the reliability of the PNPP standby diesel generators will be l

,is not a cur _oose of the based on all of the available data.

It to the

(

l.

Owners Group to draw conclusions with respect reliability.or fitness of any particular Delaval diesel genera-tor or Delaval diesel generators in general.

s

- - ~

What influence do cost / schedule factors (i.e.

11-12.

delay of fuel load or power operation) have on the Design Re-view / Quality Revalidation Program and on decisions or conclu-sions made during the program?

Response

Neither cost nor scheduling factors will have any influ-ence on the DR/QR Program, nor decisions made or conclusions reached during the program.

~

11-13.

Is the Design Review / Quality Revalidation Program in-only a program to determine interim reliability, or is it tended to justify the use of TDI DGs for the entire life of the plant?

Response

The p,pr.pcas of the DR/QR Program is to evaluate di Ael 3

generator components from a design and quality standpoint, not

.f to determin_e interim reliabil(ty or to justify t.h_e. use of Delaval diesel generators for any particular period of time.

~ ~,,_ _

11-14.

(a)

Will the Design Review / Quality Revalidation to find the root cause of TDI engine Program attempt unreliability?

(b)

If so, explain how this is to be accomplished.

(c)

If not, why not? ;

1

l

~1

l THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY j

CtEVELAND, OHI]

l 1

Edward C. Christiansen, being duly sworn according to law, deposes that he is Engineer, Nuclear Construction Department, of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Com;iany, and that the facts set forth in the answers to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Interrogateries 11-1 through 11-15 in the foregeing " Applicants Answers to Ohio Citizens for Responsi$le Energy Eleventh Set of Interrogatories to Applicants Relating to Issue No. 16," dated Harch 8, 1994, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief.

(.

S

%~

AmQ -

i Sworn to and subscribed before-me this

[

day of

~

owA /19 4 C# w sus r8 E i:Lv>

N.

. -,y.;

.._.w.,.

-~

...