|
|
Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:}} | | {{#Wiki_filter:i i |
| | [} [tELATED. @NN 5-11-81 p |
| | ~ |
| | q, 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA // Nd#d S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - |
| | 2l MAY 13 t00t 8' 24 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD - |
| | 3 Omes of the sec. s 4 In the Matter of ) |
| | ) % |
| | N 5 HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY) Docket No. 50-466 |
| | ) |
| | (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating) 6l: Station, Unit No. 1) ) |
| | 7, ) |
| | I 8l t |
| | 9, TESTIMONY OF C. W. DILLMANN ON BEHALF OF HOUSTON f LIGHTING & POWER CO. ON DOHERTY CONTENTION 6 - |
| | 10 RECIRCULATION PUMP OVERSPEED 11 Q. Please state your name and place of employment. |
| | 12 A. My name is C. W. Dillmann and I am employed as Manager, 13 Heat Exchanger & Flow Control Valve Pump Design, by General 14 Electric Company. My business address is 175 Curtner Avenue, 15 San Jose, C&lifornia. |
| | 16 Q. Describe your professional qualifications. |
| | 17 A. My professional qualifications are set forth in Exhibit 18 CWD-1 to this testimony. |
| | 19 Q. What is the purpose of this testimony? |
| | 20 A. The purpose of my testimony is to address Mr. Doherty's 21 Contention 6, which states: |
| | 22 Applicant has committed itself to provide a decoupler to prevent destructive overspeed of the recirculation 23 pump motor. However, a potential for pump impeller overspeed exists. The Applicant states that impeller 24 missiles will not penetrate the pump case and that ejection or impeller missiles through the open end of 25 the broken pipe will be prevented by additional pipe supports and restraint..7 Petitioner requests that an 26 adequate basis be provided to assure that these measures will be effective. |
| | 27 28 . |
| | 8105100Sif60 |
| | |
| | 1 2 Q. What is yo'ur understanding of the concern expressed 3 in this contention? |
| | 4 A. My understanding of Mr. Doherty's concern is that 5 under certain conditions which Mr. Doherty does not define, 6 overspeed of the recirculation pump could occur, resulting 7 in the destruction of the pump impeller and the creation g of potentially destructive missiles. Mr. Doherty is con-g cerned that these missiles could damage or destroy plant 10 structures and components necessary to safely shut down the 11 reactor, or necessary to mitigate the consequences of a 12 design basis accident. |
| | 13 0 As a preliminary matter, would you briefly describe 14 the reactor recirculation system. |
| | 15 A. The reactor recirculation system is a system designed 16 to provide forced coolant flow through the reactor core. |
| | 17 The system consists of two parallel piping loops, located 18 outside the reactor pressure vessel and inside the drywell. |
| | 19 Each loop consists of a recirculation pump and motor, re-20 motely-operc':ed normally open suction and discharge block 21 valves, a flc w control valve, connecting piping to the 22 vessel, internal vessel jet pumps with their connecting 23 piping, and associated system process and control instrumen-24 tation. Each external loop takes suction from the vessel 25 downcomer annulus via the recirculation pumps. The vessel 26 downcomer annulus is the region of the reactor pressure 27 vessel in which water having already passed through the core 28 |
| | |
| | I l |
| | i 1" 2 is mixed with feedwater. It is located between the core 3 shroud and the vessel wall. Recirculation pump discharge 4 flow is split downstream from the pump to provide flow to 5 multiple nozzles on the vessel shell from which internal 6 piping distributes the flow to the jet pump inlets located 7 in the downcomer annulus. This driving flow will cause the s |
| | 8 jet pumps to entrain additional water from the vessel annulus. |
| | 9 The combined flow will then pass through the reactor core. |
| | 10 Water which is not turned to steam returns to the downcomer 11 annulus, to be mixed with feedwater, completing the recir-12 culation path in the vessel. |
| | 13 Q. Under what conditions can potentially damaging recir-14 culation pump overspeed occur? |
| | 15 A. Damaging recirculation pump overspeed can occur only as 16 a result of a break in the recirculation loop piping. |
| | 17 Q. Will you explain how such a break could result in 18 recirculation pump overspeed? |
| | 19 A. Should a pipe break occur in a recirculation loop, 20 reactor coolant will escape from the vessel to the drywell. |
| | 21 Under normal operating conditions, reactor pressure is 22 about 1020 psia, and drywell pressure is atmospheric (about 23 15 psia). Reactor coolant will flow from the vessel to the 24 break by each of the two available paths. The recirculation 25 pump will be in one of these paths depending on break 26 location. If the break is on the pump discharge line, 27 reactor coolant will rush through the pump much faster 28 than it will normally be pumped, due to the large |
| | |
| | 1 2 pressure dif ferent.ial between the reactor and the drywell. |
| | 3 ( 1000 psi). Th recirculation pump normally operates 4 against a differential head of about 780 ft. This greater 5 flow will exert a force on the impeller as it passes, 6 causing the ir.peller to accelerate. If the break is on the 7 pump suction line, the large pressure-differential between 8 reactor and drywell will reverse the direction of flow 9 through the pump, causing it to spin in the direction opposite 10 to its normal rotation. In both cases, the pump is now acting 11 as a hydraulic turbine and is subject to overspeed. Flow 12 in the reverse direction will exert a greater force on the 13 impeller than would the equivalent flow in the normal direction. |
| | 14 This is due to the hydraulic characteristics of the impeller 15 design. In an overspeed candition the impeller will 16 possibly be accelerated to the point where stresses created 17 within the impeller exceed the tensile strength of the 18 impeller material. The impeller would then fail, with pieces 19 of the failed impeller flying off the spinning pump and be-20 coming the missiles of concern in this contention. |
| | 21 Q. Mr. Doherty's contention states that " applicant has 22 committed itself to provide a decoupler to prevent destructive 23 overspeed of the recirculation pump motor." Would you 24 discuss this commitment? |
| | 25 A. The original design of the recirculation pump included 26 a decoupler as described by Mr. Doherty. The design has 27 since been modified, eliminating this feature. In the 28 current design, the motor will be coupled to the pump impeller. |
| | r j |
| | |
| | 1 2 Thus, it will be subject to overspeed as well. Therefore, 3 Applicant will address the consequences of motor missile 4 generation as well as pump impeller missile generation. |
| | 5 Q. Why was the design changed to remove the decoupler? |
| | 6 A. In the period of time since the use of a decoupler 7 was identified, two steps were taken. One was continued 8 development and testing of the decoupler. The second was 9 added analysis of the probability of missile generation. |
| | 10 As a result of the decoupler testing, it was concluded 11 that while the decoupler was acceptable and would serve its 12 intended purpose, it would add complexity and servicing 13 requirements that were undesirable. The parallel study 14 of missile generation, using proven methods, concluded 15 that motor missiles would not be a problem. Therefore, 16 the use of a decoupler was deleted. |
| | 17 Q. What structures or components would a pump impeller 18 missile cr a motor missile strike? |
| | 19 A. In the case of the motor, missiles generated by 20 failure of the rotor will impact the stator and stator 21 frame. Missiles generated by failure of the rotor end 22 structure (consisting of the retaining ring, the end ring 23 and the fan) will strike the overhanging ends of the stator 24 coils, the stator coil bracing, support structures, and a 25 wall of one-half inch thick steel plate. |
| | 26 In the case of the pump impeller, missiles will either 27 impact the pump casing which is 2.9 inches thick, or be 22 injected into the recirculation loop piping. The missiles |
| | |
| | 1 2 which are injected into the pipe have the potential for 3 lea 1;ing the broken end of the pipe and striking various 4 drywell structures and equipment. |
| | 5 Q. What is your conclusion concerning the damage that 6 pump and motor missiles could cause and what is the basis for 7 this conclusion? |
| | 8 A. Motor missiles will in no case penetrate the motor 9 housing. Pump impeller missiles will not penetrate the 10 pump casing, and those impeller missiles which escape from 11 the broken end of the pipe will not damage the drywell 12 walls, any piping system, or the main steam isolation 13 ' valves. The basis for these conclusions is a GE report 14 transmitted to the NRC by letter of March 30, 1979, entitled 15 " Analysis of Recirculation Pump Under Accident Conditions." |
| | 16 Q. Will you briefly out ine the method used by GE in 17 this analysis. |
| | 18 A. Since it is impossible to exactly predict the size 19 and shape of the pieces of a failed pump impeller or motor 20 rotor, the configuration of the piece which would possess 21 the maximum translational kinetic energy was determined. |
| | 22 This is the worst possible missile. The conficuration was 23 found to be any 90 sector. The kinetic energy of the 24 worst possible impeller missile was calculated, based upon 25 impeller speed at failure. The Stanford missile penetra-26 tion formula (see Reference 6 of GE report) was used to 27 conservatively estimate the energy required to penetrate 28 |
| | |
| | 1 2 the impeller casing. A comparison of these values showed 3 that the worst possible impeller missile would be contained 4 by the recirculation pump casing. A similar calculation was 5 performed for the motor rotor. Similarly, the results 6 showed that the worst possible motor missile would not 7 penetrate the motor housing. |
| | 8 Further, the possibility that a pump impeller missile 9 could be ejected through the recirculation loop piping and 10 out of the pipe break opening into the drywell was investigated. |
| | 11 The study, which considered possible pipe break locations, 12 planned pipe support location, and postulated missile 13 trajectories, concluded that with the application of break 14 criteria in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.46, no 15 damage would occur to the primary containment, any major 16 piping system, or to an inboard main steam isolation valve. |
| | 17 Absence of damage is due to the fact that trajectories of 18 postulated missiles do not intersect these systems. |
| | 19 The analysis discussed above assumed that the pump impeller 20 would be accelerated to the fracture point by the postulated 21 recirculation loop pipe break. Additional analysis was 22 performed to determine whether the pump could actually 23 be accelerated to the overspeed failure point by such 24 a break. Pump speed is related directly to volumetric 25 flow through the pump. Volumetric flow rates through the 26 pump for different breaks were determined, based upon the 27 very conservative assumption that the reactor presstre does 28 not drop during the time required to accelerate the |
| | |
| | ir |
| | = |
| | 1 2 pump to its ultimate windmilling speed. Results of this 3 conservative analysis indicate that overspeed conditions 4 could exist for certain types of recirculation line breaks, b such as a double-ended guillotine break on the pump suction 6 line. The analysis demonstrated that for the complete 7 spectrum of discharge line breaks, no overspeed conditions 0 will exist. |
| | O Q. Please discuss the conservatism of the GE analysis. |
| | 10' A. The calculation of whether an impeller or motor missile, 11 once created, would penetrate the pump casing or motor IE housing, respectively, is conservative in the following 13 ways. The Stanford missile penetration formula conserva-14 tively predicts the total energy absorption of a complete Ib ' penetration, since it is designed to compute merely the 16 energy required for partial penetration and significant 17 additional energy would be required for complete penetration. |
| | 18 In addition the calculation of ultimate windmilling 19 pump speed is conservative because the reactor is assumed 20 to remain at full pressure until ultimate pump windmilling 21 speed is reached. Also, flow through the pump for each 22 postulated break was calculated based on both a homogeneous 23 flow model (all water) and a two-phase flow model (water 24 and steam). Whichever result yielded the highest rate 25 was the one used. Another conservative assumption was 26 that the curves used to determine maximum pump speed 27 based on the previously calculated volumetric flow rate 28 are based on homogeneous flow thereby giving the highest |
| | |
| | e 1 2 momentum. The expected two-phase flow would produce lower 3 pump speeds than the assumed single phase flow. |
| | 4 Q. What are your conclusions? |
| | l A. A recirculation loop suction pipe break accident may 5 |
| | I result in overspeed to failure of the recirculation pump impeller and recirculation pump motor. This conclusion is based on extremely conservative assumptions. However, 8l 9 even in this unlikely event, the overspeed condition and 10 its consequences will not impair the operation of any |
| | / |
| | 11 systems necessary for the safe shutdown of the plant. |
| | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 |
| | |
| | '1 Exhibit CWD-1 2 EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION 3 Charles W. Dillman 4 Mr. Dillmann is Manager of the Flow Control Valve, 5 Heat Exchanger and Pump Design Subsection of General Electric's 6 Nuclear Energy Business Group. In this capacit1, he is in 7 charge of mechanical design, analysis and structural evaluation 8 of Nuclear Steam Supply System mechanical equipment. |
| | 9 Mr. Dillmann has 21 years of engineering experience, 10 15 of which are in the nuclear business. He has been a 11 manager of design engineering and manufacturing groups for 12 the last 10 years. This work has all been on light water and 13 breeder reactors. |
| | 14 Mr. Dillmann received his BSME from Purdue University 15 in 1959. He has taken 40 credit hours of graduate engineering 16 courses. He holds a professional engineer's license in the 17 State of California. |
| | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28}} |
|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20063N7471982-10-0606 October 1982 Motion for Termination of Proceedings.Util Decided to Cancel Plant.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20063N7591982-10-0606 October 1982 Withdrawal of Application for CP ML20055A7221982-07-15015 July 1982 Memorandum & Order Denying Jf Doherty 820615 Submittals, Treated as Motion to Reconsider ASLB 820602 Order.Motion Untimely Filed & Failed to Show Significance or Gravity of Issues ML20055A3551982-07-12012 July 1982 Amended Contention 59.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054L4521982-07-0202 July 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820615 Motion to Reopen Record to Add Contention 59.Motion Fails to Establish Timeliness &/Or Significance of Issues Sought to Be Raised.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054L5531982-07-0202 July 1982 Response Opposing Doherty 820615 Motion to Reopen Record to Add Contention 59.Motion Should Be Considered Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 820602 Order.Timeliness & Significance of Issues Not Established.W/Certificate of Svc ML20054J9371982-06-28028 June 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820615 Request to Reopen Record. Request Improper & Insufficient to Support Relief.Commission Rules Cannot Be Circumvented by Refiling Same Argument After ASLB Ruling Issued.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054F9861982-06-15015 June 1982 Motion to Reopen Record to Take Evidence on Contention 59. Gravity of Issues Warrants Reopening ML20054G0171982-06-15015 June 1982 Contention 50 Re Brown & Root Deficiencies in Quadrex Rept. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20053D0861982-05-24024 May 1982 Response in Opposition to Util 820519 Motion to Strike Doherty Contention 58 Re Applicant Conduct on Reporting Violations.Contention Should Be Treated as Such,Not as Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20052H8621982-05-19019 May 1982 Motion to Strike J Doherty Reply to Applicant 820507 Response to Doherty 820422 Motion to Add Contention 58. Commission Rules Do Not Allow Reply.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052H4441982-05-14014 May 1982 Reply Opposing Applicant 820507 Response to J Doherty 820422 Motion to Add Contention 58.Contention Should Be Admitted W/Amends.Aslb Should Judge Conduct of Applicants. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052F3121982-05-0707 May 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820422 Motion to Add Contention Re Alleged Failure to Rept Design Defects.Substantively, Motion Is Motion to Reopen Record & Stds Have Not Been Met. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052D1221982-04-29029 April 1982 Findings of Fact on Supplemental Issues to Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 Re Technical Qualifications.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052A4541982-04-22022 April 1982 Submittal of Contention 58 Re Applicant Conduct on Reporting Violations at Plant.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054E0561982-04-21021 April 1982 Supplemental Findings of Fact on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 Re Technical Qualifications.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20050J1111982-04-0606 April 1982 Answers to Second & Third Sets of Interrogatories,Questions 29 & 8 Respectively,Re Quadrex Rept.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML20050E2961982-04-0505 April 1982 Answers & Objections to Seventh Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20050E2891982-04-0505 April 1982 Answers & Objections to Doherty Sixth Set of Interrogatories.Related Correspondence ML20050C4211982-04-0202 April 1982 Objections to Request for Admissions.Requests Untimely, Irrelevant to Issues Before ASLB & Extremely & Unduly Burdensome.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20050C4081982-03-31031 March 1982 Answers & Objections to Fifth Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20050C4791982-03-29029 March 1982 Answers & Objections to Jf Doherty Fourth Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Contention 31 & Quadrex Matters. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20042C6181982-03-29029 March 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820315 Motion for ASLB to Subpoena Quadrex Corp Employee Witnesses as ASLB Witnesses. Request Is Based on Misperception of Scope of Reopened Hearings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042C6431982-03-29029 March 1982 Motion for ASLB to Call DE Sells as Witness for Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 & Quadrex-related Matters.Testimony Needed to Explain Why NRC Did Not Immediately Obtain Quadrex Rept. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20050C5091982-03-26026 March 1982 Response to Jf Doherty 20th & 21st Requests for Documents. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20050C5041982-03-26026 March 1982 Testimony of Lj Sas on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 Re Quadrex Rept.Rept Raises No Issue as to Whether Ebasco Can Properly Engineer Project.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20050C5011982-03-26026 March 1982 Supplemental Testimony of Jh Goldberg on Technical Qualifications.Brown & Root Terminates Due to Lack of Engineering Productivity,Not Due to Allegations in Quadrex Rept ML20042C5201982-03-25025 March 1982 Motion to Compel Discovery from Applicant & to Postpone Evidentiary Presentations at 820412 Hearings.Applicant Objections to Interrogatories Unsupported & Necessitate Hearings Be Delayed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20049K0671982-03-25025 March 1982 Reply to Tx Pirg 820315 Addl Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20049K0801982-03-25025 March 1982 Answers & Objections to Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042C5481982-03-23023 March 1982 Fourth Set of Requests for Admissions Re Quadrex Rept & Tx Pirg Contention 31.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20049K0841982-03-23023 March 1982 Answers & Objections to Third Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20049K0941982-03-23023 March 1982 Answers & Objections to Second Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042A4791982-03-17017 March 1982 Response Opposing J Doherty 820310 Motion for Postponement of 820412 Hearings.Sufficient Grounds Not Provided to Justify Delay.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042B2351982-03-17017 March 1982 Seventh Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 & Quadrex Rept Matters.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20042B2381982-03-15015 March 1982 Sixth Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 & Quadrex Rept Matters.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20042B2451982-03-15015 March 1982 Motion for Subpoena of Quadrex Corp Employees.Testimony Necessary for Clear Understanding of Brown & Root Deficiencies Despite Util Supervision & Specific Steps Needed to Correct & Prevent Problems.W/Certificate of Svc ML20041F0761982-03-10010 March 1982 Fourth Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Contention 31 & Quadrex Rept.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20041F0871982-03-10010 March 1982 Motion for Postponement of 820412 Hearing on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 & Quadrex-related Matters.Addl Time Needed to Complete Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20049J6571982-03-0808 March 1982 Answers to First Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Contention 31 & Quadrex Matters.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041E1001982-03-0505 March 1982 First Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041E1071982-03-0505 March 1982 First Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents Re Tx Pirg Contention 31.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041E1181982-03-0505 March 1982 Third Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Contention 31 & Quadrex Rept Matters.Related Correspondence ML20041E1201982-03-0505 March 1982 Motion for Order Directing Applicant to Provide Forthcoming Bechtel Quadrex Rept Review.Rept Pertinent to Remaining Issue.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20041E1741982-03-0505 March 1982 Brief Opposing R Alexander Appeal from ASLB 820112 Order Denying Petition to Intervene.Aslb Did Not Abuse Discretion in Denying Petition.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041E0711982-03-0404 March 1982 Second Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Contention 21 & Quadrex Rept Matters.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20049H8881982-03-0101 March 1982 Response Opposing D Marrack 820213 Motion for Review of Dates for Reopening Hearings & Continuance.No Commission Regulations or Atomic Energy Act Provisions Require Applicant Irrevocable Commitment.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041B5381982-02-22022 February 1982 Reply to Intervenors Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041C0671982-02-22022 February 1982 Response Opposing Tx Pirg 820209 Motion for Addl Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusion of Law.Motion Mooted by Tx Pirg Filing Proposed Findings on 820212. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041B5421982-02-17017 February 1982 First Set of Interrogatories Re Tx Pirg Contention 31 & Quadrex Matters.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence 1982-07-02
[Table view] Category:TRANSCRIPTS
MONTHYEARML20050C5011982-03-26026 March 1982 Supplemental Testimony of Jh Goldberg on Technical Qualifications.Brown & Root Terminates Due to Lack of Engineering Productivity,Not Due to Allegations in Quadrex Rept ML20050C5041982-03-26026 March 1982 Testimony of Lj Sas on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 Re Quadrex Rept.Rept Raises No Issue as to Whether Ebasco Can Properly Engineer Project.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009H2161981-07-30030 July 1981 Suppl Testimony of D Marrack Re Viable Fishery ML20009E3641981-07-24024 July 1981 Transcript of Rc Iotti Testimony on Behalf of Util on Bishop Contention 17 Re Tnt Detonation ML20009E8661981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of DA Hamon Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Tx Public Interest Research Group Addl Contention 55 (Rapid Depressurization - Steam Break).Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E2941981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Wf Mercurio Testimony on Behalf of Applicant Re ASLB Question 8 (Reactor Bldg Subsurface Soil Mechanics) ML20009E2961981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of R Cheng Testimony on Behalf of Applicant Re ASLB Question 10 (Drywell Pressure Testing).Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E3531981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Wf Mercurio Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Doherty Contention 29,blockage of Intake Canal ML20009E3591981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Cg Robertson Testimony Re Doherty Contention 8 & ASLB Question 3 on Atws.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E3031981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of GL Sozzi on Doherty Contention 32 Re ECCS Vaporization Rate ML20009E3151981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Rl Call 810720 Testimony on Doherty Contention 26 (Stud Bolts).Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E4351981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Gw Oprea & Jh Goldberg Testimonies on Technical Qualifications & Tx Public Interest Research Group Addl Contention 31.Corporate Nuclear Organization Chart Encl ML20009E3481981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of G Martin Testimony on Behalf of Util on Mccorkle Contention 9 Re Chlorine Monitoring.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E3451981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of G Martin Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Doherty Contention 40,10CFR100 Releases.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E3431981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Rc Iotti Testimony on Behalf of Util on Bishop Contention 6 & ASLB Question 12 Re Shell Oil Co 6-inch Liquid Petroleum Gas Pipeline ML20009E3171981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Jc Elliott,Tc Cheng,Md Weingart,Pa Ranzau & Cg Robertson 810720 Testimony on Tx Public Research Interest Group (Prig) Addl Contention 53,ASLB Questions 4B & 4A & Pirg Contentions 28 & 52.W/prof Qualifications ML20009E3211981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of SA Hucilk & Jj Boseman Testimonies on Doherty Contention 17,RL Huang Testimony on Tx Public Research Interest Group Addl Contention 41 & Jn Bailey Testimony on Doherty Contention 42.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E3111981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of MR Lane 810720 Testimony Re Doherty Contention 41 (Reactor Water Level Indicators).Prof Qualifications Encl ML19347F5361981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of DG Tees Re Doherty Contention 47,turbine Missiles.Related Correspondence ML19347F5391981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Fj Meyer Re Doherty Contention 30, Interconnection/Grid Stability.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5201981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of DC Papone Re Board Question 6,ability of Applicant to Demonstrate Compliance w/10CFR50,App A.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5241981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of RA Clarke & Jf Montalbano Re Doherty Contention 10,diesel Generator Reliability.Prof Qualifications Encl. Related Correspondence ML19347F5271981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Rc Iotti & Ws Carnes Re Doherty Contention 47, Turbine Missiles.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5291981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Ma Ross Re Doherty Contention 48,control Rod Drive Return Line.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5301981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Cw Dillman Re Doherty Contention 6, Recirculation Pump Overspeed.Prof Qualifications Encl. Related Correspondence ML19347F5311981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Mf Alesky Re Doherty Contention 50,jet Pump Beams.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5341981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of s Ranganath Re Tx Pirg Contention 39,Generic Task A-11,fracture Toughness.Prof Qualifications Encl. Related Correspondence ML19347F5351981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Rl Baron Re Tx Pirg Addl Contention 21, Occupational Exposure.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5321981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Jf Montalbano & FP Barbieri Re Tx Pirg Contention 12,cable Fires.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5371981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Ma Ross Re Board Question 8,Seismic Category 1 Control Rods.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5221981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of MD Weingart & F Barbieri Re Tx Pirg Addl Contention 10 & Mccorkle Contention 30,charcoal Adsorber Fires.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5151981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of R Williams & N Horton Re Doherty Contentions 14 & 25,on Main Steam Line Radiation Monitor & Fuel Failure/ Flow Blockage,Respectively.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML20003G6781981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 26 Re Computer Code Error.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20003G6711981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Doherty Contentions 3,39 & 20(a) Re Fuel Specific Enthalpy,Fuel Swelling & Gap Conductance,Respectively.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20003G6751981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Behalf of Util on Tx Pirg Contention 6 (Mccorkle Contention XI) Re Aircraft Hazards.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20003G6761981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Behalf of Util on Doherty Contention 9 Re Containment Buckling.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20003G6771981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Behalf of Util on Doherty Contention 27 Re Reactor Pedestal.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20003G6741981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Behalf of Util on Bishop Contentions 4,5,7,9 & 10 Re Tx Electric Svc Co 24-inch Natural Gas Pipeline & Pipelines Crossing Brazos River Upstream from Facility.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20003G6731981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Behalf of Util on Doherty Contention 7 Re LPCI Cold Slug.Prof Qualifications Encl ML19345H1121981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony Supporting Doherty Contention 3 on Inadequacy of Design Safety Limit of Applicant Fuel Rods.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20003B2381981-02-0606 February 1981 Errata Sheet for L Perl Testimony,Page 12,Line 13 & Table 9. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20003A2101981-01-27027 January 1981 Errata Sheet to s Michaelson Testimony.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19343B8481980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Bishop Contention 1 Concerning Population Projections ML19340D1401980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony Re Tx Pirg Contention 1(f) Re Population Risks. Pp 1-8 ML19343B8451980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Hinderstein Contention 5 Concerning Coastal Sites ML19343B8491980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Hinderstein Contention 5 Concerning Coastal Site.Tera Corp Coastal Site Comparison Rept, Encl ML19343B8391980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Tx Pirg Contention 5 Concerning Solid Waste Combustion ML19343B8471980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Tx Pirg Contention 1 Concerning South Texas Project 3 Versus Allens Creek 1. Analysis of Prime Farmland Soils Encl ML19343B8461980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Hinderstein Contention 5 Concerning Coastal Sites ML19343B8441980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Tx Pirg Contention 1 Re South Texas Project 3 Versus Allens Creek Site.Listing of Cost Savings Encl 1982-03-26
[Table view] Category:DEPOSITIONS
MONTHYEARML20050C5011982-03-26026 March 1982 Supplemental Testimony of Jh Goldberg on Technical Qualifications.Brown & Root Terminates Due to Lack of Engineering Productivity,Not Due to Allegations in Quadrex Rept ML20050C5041982-03-26026 March 1982 Testimony of Lj Sas on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 Re Quadrex Rept.Rept Raises No Issue as to Whether Ebasco Can Properly Engineer Project.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009H2161981-07-30030 July 1981 Suppl Testimony of D Marrack Re Viable Fishery ML20009E3641981-07-24024 July 1981 Transcript of Rc Iotti Testimony on Behalf of Util on Bishop Contention 17 Re Tnt Detonation ML20009E8661981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of DA Hamon Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Tx Public Interest Research Group Addl Contention 55 (Rapid Depressurization - Steam Break).Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E2941981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Wf Mercurio Testimony on Behalf of Applicant Re ASLB Question 8 (Reactor Bldg Subsurface Soil Mechanics) ML20009E2961981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of R Cheng Testimony on Behalf of Applicant Re ASLB Question 10 (Drywell Pressure Testing).Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E3531981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Wf Mercurio Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Doherty Contention 29,blockage of Intake Canal ML20009E3591981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Cg Robertson Testimony Re Doherty Contention 8 & ASLB Question 3 on Atws.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E3031981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of GL Sozzi on Doherty Contention 32 Re ECCS Vaporization Rate ML20009E3151981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Rl Call 810720 Testimony on Doherty Contention 26 (Stud Bolts).Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E4351981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Gw Oprea & Jh Goldberg Testimonies on Technical Qualifications & Tx Public Interest Research Group Addl Contention 31.Corporate Nuclear Organization Chart Encl ML20009E3481981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of G Martin Testimony on Behalf of Util on Mccorkle Contention 9 Re Chlorine Monitoring.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E3451981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of G Martin Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Doherty Contention 40,10CFR100 Releases.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E3431981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Rc Iotti Testimony on Behalf of Util on Bishop Contention 6 & ASLB Question 12 Re Shell Oil Co 6-inch Liquid Petroleum Gas Pipeline ML20009E3171981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Jc Elliott,Tc Cheng,Md Weingart,Pa Ranzau & Cg Robertson 810720 Testimony on Tx Public Research Interest Group (Prig) Addl Contention 53,ASLB Questions 4B & 4A & Pirg Contentions 28 & 52.W/prof Qualifications ML20009E3211981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of SA Hucilk & Jj Boseman Testimonies on Doherty Contention 17,RL Huang Testimony on Tx Public Research Interest Group Addl Contention 41 & Jn Bailey Testimony on Doherty Contention 42.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E3111981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of MR Lane 810720 Testimony Re Doherty Contention 41 (Reactor Water Level Indicators).Prof Qualifications Encl ML19347F5361981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of DG Tees Re Doherty Contention 47,turbine Missiles.Related Correspondence ML19347F5391981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Fj Meyer Re Doherty Contention 30, Interconnection/Grid Stability.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5201981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of DC Papone Re Board Question 6,ability of Applicant to Demonstrate Compliance w/10CFR50,App A.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5241981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of RA Clarke & Jf Montalbano Re Doherty Contention 10,diesel Generator Reliability.Prof Qualifications Encl. Related Correspondence ML19347F5271981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Rc Iotti & Ws Carnes Re Doherty Contention 47, Turbine Missiles.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5291981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Ma Ross Re Doherty Contention 48,control Rod Drive Return Line.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5301981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Cw Dillman Re Doherty Contention 6, Recirculation Pump Overspeed.Prof Qualifications Encl. Related Correspondence ML19347F5311981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Mf Alesky Re Doherty Contention 50,jet Pump Beams.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5341981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of s Ranganath Re Tx Pirg Contention 39,Generic Task A-11,fracture Toughness.Prof Qualifications Encl. Related Correspondence ML19347F5351981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Rl Baron Re Tx Pirg Addl Contention 21, Occupational Exposure.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5321981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Jf Montalbano & FP Barbieri Re Tx Pirg Contention 12,cable Fires.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5371981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Ma Ross Re Board Question 8,Seismic Category 1 Control Rods.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5221981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of MD Weingart & F Barbieri Re Tx Pirg Addl Contention 10 & Mccorkle Contention 30,charcoal Adsorber Fires.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5151981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of R Williams & N Horton Re Doherty Contentions 14 & 25,on Main Steam Line Radiation Monitor & Fuel Failure/ Flow Blockage,Respectively.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML20003G6781981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 26 Re Computer Code Error.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20003G6711981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Doherty Contentions 3,39 & 20(a) Re Fuel Specific Enthalpy,Fuel Swelling & Gap Conductance,Respectively.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20003G6751981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Behalf of Util on Tx Pirg Contention 6 (Mccorkle Contention XI) Re Aircraft Hazards.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20003G6761981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Behalf of Util on Doherty Contention 9 Re Containment Buckling.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20003G6771981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Behalf of Util on Doherty Contention 27 Re Reactor Pedestal.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20003G6741981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Behalf of Util on Bishop Contentions 4,5,7,9 & 10 Re Tx Electric Svc Co 24-inch Natural Gas Pipeline & Pipelines Crossing Brazos River Upstream from Facility.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20003G6731981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Behalf of Util on Doherty Contention 7 Re LPCI Cold Slug.Prof Qualifications Encl ML19345H1121981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony Supporting Doherty Contention 3 on Inadequacy of Design Safety Limit of Applicant Fuel Rods.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20003B2381981-02-0606 February 1981 Errata Sheet for L Perl Testimony,Page 12,Line 13 & Table 9. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20003A2101981-01-27027 January 1981 Errata Sheet to s Michaelson Testimony.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19343B8481980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Bishop Contention 1 Concerning Population Projections ML19340D1401980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony Re Tx Pirg Contention 1(f) Re Population Risks. Pp 1-8 ML19343B8451980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Hinderstein Contention 5 Concerning Coastal Sites ML19343B8491980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Hinderstein Contention 5 Concerning Coastal Site.Tera Corp Coastal Site Comparison Rept, Encl ML19343B8391980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Tx Pirg Contention 5 Concerning Solid Waste Combustion ML19343B8471980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Tx Pirg Contention 1 Concerning South Texas Project 3 Versus Allens Creek 1. Analysis of Prime Farmland Soils Encl ML19343B8461980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Hinderstein Contention 5 Concerning Coastal Sites ML19343B8441980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Tx Pirg Contention 1 Re South Texas Project 3 Versus Allens Creek Site.Listing of Cost Savings Encl 1982-03-26
[Table view] Category:NARRATIVE TESTIMONY
MONTHYEARML20050C5011982-03-26026 March 1982 Supplemental Testimony of Jh Goldberg on Technical Qualifications.Brown & Root Terminates Due to Lack of Engineering Productivity,Not Due to Allegations in Quadrex Rept ML20050C5041982-03-26026 March 1982 Testimony of Lj Sas on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 31 Re Quadrex Rept.Rept Raises No Issue as to Whether Ebasco Can Properly Engineer Project.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009H2161981-07-30030 July 1981 Suppl Testimony of D Marrack Re Viable Fishery ML20009E3641981-07-24024 July 1981 Transcript of Rc Iotti Testimony on Behalf of Util on Bishop Contention 17 Re Tnt Detonation ML20009E8661981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of DA Hamon Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Tx Public Interest Research Group Addl Contention 55 (Rapid Depressurization - Steam Break).Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E2941981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Wf Mercurio Testimony on Behalf of Applicant Re ASLB Question 8 (Reactor Bldg Subsurface Soil Mechanics) ML20009E2961981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of R Cheng Testimony on Behalf of Applicant Re ASLB Question 10 (Drywell Pressure Testing).Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E3531981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Wf Mercurio Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Doherty Contention 29,blockage of Intake Canal ML20009E3591981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Cg Robertson Testimony Re Doherty Contention 8 & ASLB Question 3 on Atws.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E3031981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of GL Sozzi on Doherty Contention 32 Re ECCS Vaporization Rate ML20009E3151981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Rl Call 810720 Testimony on Doherty Contention 26 (Stud Bolts).Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E4351981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Gw Oprea & Jh Goldberg Testimonies on Technical Qualifications & Tx Public Interest Research Group Addl Contention 31.Corporate Nuclear Organization Chart Encl ML20009E3481981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of G Martin Testimony on Behalf of Util on Mccorkle Contention 9 Re Chlorine Monitoring.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E3451981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of G Martin Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Doherty Contention 40,10CFR100 Releases.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E3431981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Rc Iotti Testimony on Behalf of Util on Bishop Contention 6 & ASLB Question 12 Re Shell Oil Co 6-inch Liquid Petroleum Gas Pipeline ML20009E3171981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of Jc Elliott,Tc Cheng,Md Weingart,Pa Ranzau & Cg Robertson 810720 Testimony on Tx Public Research Interest Group (Prig) Addl Contention 53,ASLB Questions 4B & 4A & Pirg Contentions 28 & 52.W/prof Qualifications ML20009E3211981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of SA Hucilk & Jj Boseman Testimonies on Doherty Contention 17,RL Huang Testimony on Tx Public Research Interest Group Addl Contention 41 & Jn Bailey Testimony on Doherty Contention 42.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20009E3111981-07-20020 July 1981 Transcript of MR Lane 810720 Testimony Re Doherty Contention 41 (Reactor Water Level Indicators).Prof Qualifications Encl ML19347F5361981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of DG Tees Re Doherty Contention 47,turbine Missiles.Related Correspondence ML19347F5391981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Fj Meyer Re Doherty Contention 30, Interconnection/Grid Stability.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5201981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of DC Papone Re Board Question 6,ability of Applicant to Demonstrate Compliance w/10CFR50,App A.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5241981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of RA Clarke & Jf Montalbano Re Doherty Contention 10,diesel Generator Reliability.Prof Qualifications Encl. Related Correspondence ML19347F5271981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Rc Iotti & Ws Carnes Re Doherty Contention 47, Turbine Missiles.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5291981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Ma Ross Re Doherty Contention 48,control Rod Drive Return Line.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5301981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Cw Dillman Re Doherty Contention 6, Recirculation Pump Overspeed.Prof Qualifications Encl. Related Correspondence ML19347F5311981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Mf Alesky Re Doherty Contention 50,jet Pump Beams.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5341981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of s Ranganath Re Tx Pirg Contention 39,Generic Task A-11,fracture Toughness.Prof Qualifications Encl. Related Correspondence ML19347F5351981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Rl Baron Re Tx Pirg Addl Contention 21, Occupational Exposure.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5321981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Jf Montalbano & FP Barbieri Re Tx Pirg Contention 12,cable Fires.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5371981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of Ma Ross Re Board Question 8,Seismic Category 1 Control Rods.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5221981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of MD Weingart & F Barbieri Re Tx Pirg Addl Contention 10 & Mccorkle Contention 30,charcoal Adsorber Fires.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML19347F5151981-05-11011 May 1981 Testimony of R Williams & N Horton Re Doherty Contentions 14 & 25,on Main Steam Line Radiation Monitor & Fuel Failure/ Flow Blockage,Respectively.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML20003G6781981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Tx Pirg Addl Contention 26 Re Computer Code Error.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20003G6711981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Doherty Contentions 3,39 & 20(a) Re Fuel Specific Enthalpy,Fuel Swelling & Gap Conductance,Respectively.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20003G6751981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Behalf of Util on Tx Pirg Contention 6 (Mccorkle Contention XI) Re Aircraft Hazards.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20003G6761981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Behalf of Util on Doherty Contention 9 Re Containment Buckling.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20003G6771981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Behalf of Util on Doherty Contention 27 Re Reactor Pedestal.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20003G6741981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Behalf of Util on Bishop Contentions 4,5,7,9 & 10 Re Tx Electric Svc Co 24-inch Natural Gas Pipeline & Pipelines Crossing Brazos River Upstream from Facility.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20003G6731981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony on Behalf of Util on Doherty Contention 7 Re LPCI Cold Slug.Prof Qualifications Encl ML19345H1121981-04-20020 April 1981 Testimony Supporting Doherty Contention 3 on Inadequacy of Design Safety Limit of Applicant Fuel Rods.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20003B2381981-02-0606 February 1981 Errata Sheet for L Perl Testimony,Page 12,Line 13 & Table 9. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20003A2101981-01-27027 January 1981 Errata Sheet to s Michaelson Testimony.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19343B8481980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Bishop Contention 1 Concerning Population Projections ML19340D1401980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony Re Tx Pirg Contention 1(f) Re Population Risks. Pp 1-8 ML19343B8451980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Hinderstein Contention 5 Concerning Coastal Sites ML19343B8491980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Hinderstein Contention 5 Concerning Coastal Site.Tera Corp Coastal Site Comparison Rept, Encl ML19343B8391980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Tx Pirg Contention 5 Concerning Solid Waste Combustion ML19343B8471980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Tx Pirg Contention 1 Concerning South Texas Project 3 Versus Allens Creek 1. Analysis of Prime Farmland Soils Encl ML19343B8461980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Hinderstein Contention 5 Concerning Coastal Sites ML19343B8441980-12-18018 December 1980 Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Tx Pirg Contention 1 Re South Texas Project 3 Versus Allens Creek Site.Listing of Cost Savings Encl 1982-03-26
[Table view] |
Text
i i
[} [tELATED. @NN 5-11-81 p
~
q, 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA // Nd#d S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
2l MAY 13 t00t 8' 24 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -
3 Omes of the sec. s 4 In the Matter of )
) %
N 5 HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY) Docket No. 50-466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating) 6l: Station, Unit No. 1) )
7, )
I 8l t
9, TESTIMONY OF C. W. DILLMANN ON BEHALF OF HOUSTON f LIGHTING & POWER CO. ON DOHERTY CONTENTION 6 -
10 RECIRCULATION PUMP OVERSPEED 11 Q. Please state your name and place of employment.
12 A. My name is C. W. Dillmann and I am employed as Manager, 13 Heat Exchanger & Flow Control Valve Pump Design, by General 14 Electric Company. My business address is 175 Curtner Avenue, 15 San Jose, C&lifornia.
16 Q. Describe your professional qualifications.
17 A. My professional qualifications are set forth in Exhibit 18 CWD-1 to this testimony.
19 Q. What is the purpose of this testimony?
20 A. The purpose of my testimony is to address Mr. Doherty's 21 Contention 6, which states:
22 Applicant has committed itself to provide a decoupler to prevent destructive overspeed of the recirculation 23 pump motor. However, a potential for pump impeller overspeed exists. The Applicant states that impeller 24 missiles will not penetrate the pump case and that ejection or impeller missiles through the open end of 25 the broken pipe will be prevented by additional pipe supports and restraint..7 Petitioner requests that an 26 adequate basis be provided to assure that these measures will be effective.
27 28 .
8105100Sif60
1 2 Q. What is yo'ur understanding of the concern expressed 3 in this contention?
4 A. My understanding of Mr. Doherty's concern is that 5 under certain conditions which Mr. Doherty does not define, 6 overspeed of the recirculation pump could occur, resulting 7 in the destruction of the pump impeller and the creation g of potentially destructive missiles. Mr. Doherty is con-g cerned that these missiles could damage or destroy plant 10 structures and components necessary to safely shut down the 11 reactor, or necessary to mitigate the consequences of a 12 design basis accident.
13 0 As a preliminary matter, would you briefly describe 14 the reactor recirculation system.
15 A. The reactor recirculation system is a system designed 16 to provide forced coolant flow through the reactor core.
17 The system consists of two parallel piping loops, located 18 outside the reactor pressure vessel and inside the drywell.
19 Each loop consists of a recirculation pump and motor, re-20 motely-operc':ed normally open suction and discharge block 21 valves, a flc w control valve, connecting piping to the 22 vessel, internal vessel jet pumps with their connecting 23 piping, and associated system process and control instrumen-24 tation. Each external loop takes suction from the vessel 25 downcomer annulus via the recirculation pumps. The vessel 26 downcomer annulus is the region of the reactor pressure 27 vessel in which water having already passed through the core 28
I l
i 1" 2 is mixed with feedwater. It is located between the core 3 shroud and the vessel wall. Recirculation pump discharge 4 flow is split downstream from the pump to provide flow to 5 multiple nozzles on the vessel shell from which internal 6 piping distributes the flow to the jet pump inlets located 7 in the downcomer annulus. This driving flow will cause the s
8 jet pumps to entrain additional water from the vessel annulus.
9 The combined flow will then pass through the reactor core.
10 Water which is not turned to steam returns to the downcomer 11 annulus, to be mixed with feedwater, completing the recir-12 culation path in the vessel.
13 Q. Under what conditions can potentially damaging recir-14 culation pump overspeed occur?
15 A. Damaging recirculation pump overspeed can occur only as 16 a result of a break in the recirculation loop piping.
17 Q. Will you explain how such a break could result in 18 recirculation pump overspeed?
19 A. Should a pipe break occur in a recirculation loop, 20 reactor coolant will escape from the vessel to the drywell.
21 Under normal operating conditions, reactor pressure is 22 about 1020 psia, and drywell pressure is atmospheric (about 23 15 psia). Reactor coolant will flow from the vessel to the 24 break by each of the two available paths. The recirculation 25 pump will be in one of these paths depending on break 26 location. If the break is on the pump discharge line, 27 reactor coolant will rush through the pump much faster 28 than it will normally be pumped, due to the large
1 2 pressure dif ferent.ial between the reactor and the drywell.
3 ( 1000 psi). Th recirculation pump normally operates 4 against a differential head of about 780 ft. This greater 5 flow will exert a force on the impeller as it passes, 6 causing the ir.peller to accelerate. If the break is on the 7 pump suction line, the large pressure-differential between 8 reactor and drywell will reverse the direction of flow 9 through the pump, causing it to spin in the direction opposite 10 to its normal rotation. In both cases, the pump is now acting 11 as a hydraulic turbine and is subject to overspeed. Flow 12 in the reverse direction will exert a greater force on the 13 impeller than would the equivalent flow in the normal direction.
14 This is due to the hydraulic characteristics of the impeller 15 design. In an overspeed candition the impeller will 16 possibly be accelerated to the point where stresses created 17 within the impeller exceed the tensile strength of the 18 impeller material. The impeller would then fail, with pieces 19 of the failed impeller flying off the spinning pump and be-20 coming the missiles of concern in this contention.
21 Q. Mr. Doherty's contention states that " applicant has 22 committed itself to provide a decoupler to prevent destructive 23 overspeed of the recirculation pump motor." Would you 24 discuss this commitment?
25 A. The original design of the recirculation pump included 26 a decoupler as described by Mr. Doherty. The design has 27 since been modified, eliminating this feature. In the 28 current design, the motor will be coupled to the pump impeller.
r j
1 2 Thus, it will be subject to overspeed as well. Therefore, 3 Applicant will address the consequences of motor missile 4 generation as well as pump impeller missile generation.
5 Q. Why was the design changed to remove the decoupler?
6 A. In the period of time since the use of a decoupler 7 was identified, two steps were taken. One was continued 8 development and testing of the decoupler. The second was 9 added analysis of the probability of missile generation.
10 As a result of the decoupler testing, it was concluded 11 that while the decoupler was acceptable and would serve its 12 intended purpose, it would add complexity and servicing 13 requirements that were undesirable. The parallel study 14 of missile generation, using proven methods, concluded 15 that motor missiles would not be a problem. Therefore, 16 the use of a decoupler was deleted.
17 Q. What structures or components would a pump impeller 18 missile cr a motor missile strike?
19 A. In the case of the motor, missiles generated by 20 failure of the rotor will impact the stator and stator 21 frame. Missiles generated by failure of the rotor end 22 structure (consisting of the retaining ring, the end ring 23 and the fan) will strike the overhanging ends of the stator 24 coils, the stator coil bracing, support structures, and a 25 wall of one-half inch thick steel plate.
26 In the case of the pump impeller, missiles will either 27 impact the pump casing which is 2.9 inches thick, or be 22 injected into the recirculation loop piping. The missiles
1 2 which are injected into the pipe have the potential for 3 lea 1;ing the broken end of the pipe and striking various 4 drywell structures and equipment.
5 Q. What is your conclusion concerning the damage that 6 pump and motor missiles could cause and what is the basis for 7 this conclusion?
8 A. Motor missiles will in no case penetrate the motor 9 housing. Pump impeller missiles will not penetrate the 10 pump casing, and those impeller missiles which escape from 11 the broken end of the pipe will not damage the drywell 12 walls, any piping system, or the main steam isolation 13 ' valves. The basis for these conclusions is a GE report 14 transmitted to the NRC by letter of March 30, 1979, entitled 15 " Analysis of Recirculation Pump Under Accident Conditions."
16 Q. Will you briefly out ine the method used by GE in 17 this analysis.
18 A. Since it is impossible to exactly predict the size 19 and shape of the pieces of a failed pump impeller or motor 20 rotor, the configuration of the piece which would possess 21 the maximum translational kinetic energy was determined.
22 This is the worst possible missile. The conficuration was 23 found to be any 90 sector. The kinetic energy of the 24 worst possible impeller missile was calculated, based upon 25 impeller speed at failure. The Stanford missile penetra-26 tion formula (see Reference 6 of GE report) was used to 27 conservatively estimate the energy required to penetrate 28
1 2 the impeller casing. A comparison of these values showed 3 that the worst possible impeller missile would be contained 4 by the recirculation pump casing. A similar calculation was 5 performed for the motor rotor. Similarly, the results 6 showed that the worst possible motor missile would not 7 penetrate the motor housing.
8 Further, the possibility that a pump impeller missile 9 could be ejected through the recirculation loop piping and 10 out of the pipe break opening into the drywell was investigated.
11 The study, which considered possible pipe break locations, 12 planned pipe support location, and postulated missile 13 trajectories, concluded that with the application of break 14 criteria in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.46, no 15 damage would occur to the primary containment, any major 16 piping system, or to an inboard main steam isolation valve.
17 Absence of damage is due to the fact that trajectories of 18 postulated missiles do not intersect these systems.
19 The analysis discussed above assumed that the pump impeller 20 would be accelerated to the fracture point by the postulated 21 recirculation loop pipe break. Additional analysis was 22 performed to determine whether the pump could actually 23 be accelerated to the overspeed failure point by such 24 a break. Pump speed is related directly to volumetric 25 flow through the pump. Volumetric flow rates through the 26 pump for different breaks were determined, based upon the 27 very conservative assumption that the reactor presstre does 28 not drop during the time required to accelerate the
ir
=
1 2 pump to its ultimate windmilling speed. Results of this 3 conservative analysis indicate that overspeed conditions 4 could exist for certain types of recirculation line breaks, b such as a double-ended guillotine break on the pump suction 6 line. The analysis demonstrated that for the complete 7 spectrum of discharge line breaks, no overspeed conditions 0 will exist.
O Q. Please discuss the conservatism of the GE analysis.
10' A. The calculation of whether an impeller or motor missile, 11 once created, would penetrate the pump casing or motor IE housing, respectively, is conservative in the following 13 ways. The Stanford missile penetration formula conserva-14 tively predicts the total energy absorption of a complete Ib ' penetration, since it is designed to compute merely the 16 energy required for partial penetration and significant 17 additional energy would be required for complete penetration.
18 In addition the calculation of ultimate windmilling 19 pump speed is conservative because the reactor is assumed 20 to remain at full pressure until ultimate pump windmilling 21 speed is reached. Also, flow through the pump for each 22 postulated break was calculated based on both a homogeneous 23 flow model (all water) and a two-phase flow model (water 24 and steam). Whichever result yielded the highest rate 25 was the one used. Another conservative assumption was 26 that the curves used to determine maximum pump speed 27 based on the previously calculated volumetric flow rate 28 are based on homogeneous flow thereby giving the highest
e 1 2 momentum. The expected two-phase flow would produce lower 3 pump speeds than the assumed single phase flow.
4 Q. What are your conclusions?
l A. A recirculation loop suction pipe break accident may 5
I result in overspeed to failure of the recirculation pump impeller and recirculation pump motor. This conclusion is based on extremely conservative assumptions. However, 8l 9 even in this unlikely event, the overspeed condition and 10 its consequences will not impair the operation of any
/
11 systems necessary for the safe shutdown of the plant.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
'1 Exhibit CWD-1 2 EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION 3 Charles W. Dillman 4 Mr. Dillmann is Manager of the Flow Control Valve, 5 Heat Exchanger and Pump Design Subsection of General Electric's 6 Nuclear Energy Business Group. In this capacit1, he is in 7 charge of mechanical design, analysis and structural evaluation 8 of Nuclear Steam Supply System mechanical equipment.
9 Mr. Dillmann has 21 years of engineering experience, 10 15 of which are in the nuclear business. He has been a 11 manager of design engineering and manufacturing groups for 12 the last 10 years. This work has all been on light water and 13 breeder reactors.
14 Mr. Dillmann received his BSME from Purdue University 15 in 1959. He has taken 40 credit hours of graduate engineering 16 courses. He holds a professional engineer's license in the 17 State of California.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28