ML20099C659

Voluntary Answers to Portion of Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy late-filed Thirteenth Set of Interrogatories Re Issue 8.Prof Qualifications of Rj Schmehl & Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20099C659
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	11/16/1984
From:	Glasspiegel J CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
References
CON-#484-211 OL, NUDOCS 8411200014
Download: ML20099C659 (20)

Text

rgseq4PN y7 l.

f Cn RttATED COPRESPONDEN@

e 3

s

~.fks%.'

Q.

~

['-

g a.

~

November ~ 16,-.1964-

~ - -

"f

.t 00CMETED 4

• -/ ?'

~ uwnc

'Q 1.f UNITED STATES OFr.' AMERICA

'[Af jgyp _ hj{ ;j8. *

.,yy 7

p NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO904ISSION-

.w, w nrer w n m

?

?

Before the Aton'c Safety'and'Licensino Board i ~

Y 4

In~the Matter of

')

)

1

, THE CLEVELAND EI$ECTRIC

)

Docket Nos. 50-440Dk

s ILLUMIF4 TING COMPANY, EI g.

)

50-?Al o4;

~

-)-

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,

)

Units 1 and 2)-

)

6 APPLICANTS' VOLUNTARY ANSWERS'TO A PORTION-OF OCRE'S LATE-FILED THIRTEENTH SET OF INTERROGATCRIES'TO APPLICANTS'(ISSUE #8)

Discovery on Issue #8 has been closed since September 30, 1982.

333 Tr. 753.

On July 30, 1984, OCRE moved to reopen' discovery.1/

OCRE ettached to its motion to reopen Ohio Citi-

.zens for Responsible Energy Thirteenth Set of Interrogatories.

to Applicants, dated July 30, 1984.

As set forth in Appli-cants' f111ngs dated August 14, 1984,I/ and September 24, 1984,2/ Applicants voluntarily agreed to answer some of the 1/

Motion to Reopen Discovery on Issue #8 (July 30, 1984).

1/-

Applicants' Answer to OCRE Motion to Reopen Discovery on Issue No. 8 (August 14, 1984).

i

~

1/

Applicants' Further Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsi-ble Energy Motion-to Roopen Discovery on' Issue No. 8 l

(September 24, 1984) ("Further Answer to Motion").

t i

vy

~1~

0 3 sos

g x

n

.\\h

~

g

~ $~

l

'{V t'

's w,

=.

+9.

^

_N l

_$2

'.{

i

_ ?g '"

e y

7

j. 3 y y_

M.

L

' nf,

( 4 1ste-filed" discovery' requests' submitted with';OCRE'1s motion toL g,

sf

. u x-2 i

x~freopen~.GApplicants submit,the_followingspartial-response.$/

y l y

.o

',q,"

JAll documents supplied

to OCRS= fir ir.spection willIbe'. pro -

~

i1 g Lduced for tospection atlPerry Nuclser Poker Plant}("PNPP").

i

3

'1 2 Arrangements i,tn iemaaine the ' documents : can Lbe made by contacting -

m-4

• Mr. Eradley'S. Farrellfof The. Cleveland'LElectric" Illuminating

.c Company at '(216) 239-3737,- extension:5570. ' App'licants;will/4 tprovide~ copies'of anylof the produced" documents,;or portions thereof, which OCRE' requests',.at Applicants'scost:of duplica-

.tlon.

' Arrangements for obtaining. copies.can:be made with Mr.

s

'Ferrell.'

RESPONSES

.! ent ify all penetrations of:the containment pressure d

13-22.

boundary;-for each penetration identifled, gives.

.e e

e t

(G). 'whether the penetration was analyzed in the PNPP ul -

timate structural capacity of Mark III containments report, and if not, why not..

Responset' The selection and identification of penetrations analyzed-in the Ultimate Structural Capacity Report are discussed ~in sections 4.4.2, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4, of the Report.

1/

Applicants are'still preparing answers to the remaining interrogatories listed'at page.2 of Applicants' Further Answer to Motion.

Applicants will file answers to the re-maining ir.terrogatories listed therein when they are com-pleted.

Y s

.4n M

13-25.

Concerning the document entitled Ultimate Structural Capacity of Mark III containments' identified in Applicants'

' Supplemental Answer to OCdE' Interrogatory 5-49, give:the date of the document,:and supply'the. names, addresses, employers,

<and professional qualifications;of.cIl persons responsible for its preparation'.

I

Response

The documeut referenced in this. interrogatory is~an m

undated' appendix to_an undated draft report entitled " Interim l

Report-on the Hydrogen Control System."

The appendix was pre-

' pared in March 1983.

It is a revision of an earlier appendix to a draft report entitled " Preliminary Report on the Hydrogen Control System," which Applicants previously' identified to OCRE in response to Interrogatory No. 5-51 of OCRE's'Fifth Set of-Interrogatories to Applicants.

?pplicants provided a copy of the latter report to Ms. Hiatt by letter dated February 25,

+

1983.

The document referenced in this interrogatory is being l

reviewed by CEI, and has not been finalized for formal submis-sion to the NRC Staff.

The referenced document was prepared by R. Alley, R.

Schmehl, and S. Iyengar of Gilbert Commonwealth Inc.

Appli-l l

cants previously supplied Mr. Alley's resume by letter to Ms.

l Hiatt dated February 25, 1983.

Resumes of Mr. Schmehl and Mr.

Iyengar are attached.

l 13-29.

Have Applicants in their analysis of containment ca-pacity considered the variation of material properties with the temperatures associated with hydrogen combustion?

If so, iden-

-tify all such analyses.

If not, why not?

. 1 I

I

, ~.... ~

,.r.-

.-r,_.m

W

+

/

g

., /

=%-'r'Y t

At s

- ;g t

V

Response

+

1 4

BeforeIdeciding whether,'or the extent:to which,~ it.may;

,~

7

be necessary~to analyze." variation'o" material properties with theit'emperatures: associated'with. hydrogen combustion," CEI must~

~

first finalise a temperature time. history for hydrogen combus-3-

^

tion".- Such a temperature' time history lhas'not been finalized..

t 13-32.-

' Identify any study, evaluation, calculation',^or-

~

.analys s per ormed by-of (sic] for Applicants to determine the i

f degree of. leakage from electrical penetrations,' vacuum break-ers,. purge / vent valves, hatches, and airlocks due to the pres-sures and temperatures resulting from hydrogen' combustion.

Response

Potential' leakage from:the equipment hatch was considered as described at page 22 of the Report.

No'other study, evalue--

tion,. calculation, or analysis as described in this interroga-

'?

~

tory has been performed.-

K 13-33.

Give the value of each variable in the equations on

.pp. 10 and 11 of Ultimate Structural Capacity of Mark III Con-tainments report used to solve said equations, and explain how i

these values were obtained.

Response

1

.The values are as follows:

F1 = applied dynamic pressure.

F1 varies as shown in tables 7A anti 78 l

l l

i

! [

1 i

)

~

ps

' " c-2

?jg =_

~ ' r l' *

i4

. y Y -'

'^

s'

~

!y 3e 8

. 3

. y

'~ V

+

s3;+

L.

ff, *

..K = 87.2 psi / inch for knuckle-

['

~

= 95.2 psi / inch for: cylinder:-

C '..

+

I 1

y e

.=il4.7. psi / inch for apex:

Tel [cosIl -L( M i 1.0)]/W A

+

m

,1.

[ '.

Yst-a,

~

r.

W = 83;2-rad /sec. for knuckle,. cylinder ^and apex F

1

td =L100.0 sec.

-.1 a

Yel: = 0.945'for average kunckle~.

-l = l'.25 for average cylinder ~

=-7.293:for average apex

= O.78 for. lower bound kunckle

~='1.01 for' lower bound cylinder;

6.025 for. lower _ bound apex

.Yst!" E1' K

M=

g1 W

Yst Rm

= 82.4 psi for average knuckle

= 119.'5 psi for average ~ cylinder

= 107 psi for average apex

= 68.0 psi for lower bound knuckle

= 96.25 psi for lower bound cylinder

= 68.4 psi for lower. bound apex tm = calculated from equatiog 0 =(F1 - Rm) Im-F1t M

m + yel 2tdM The values were obtained as follows:

1.

F is the dynamic pressure applied to the containment vessel, which produced the deflection and ductility ratios presented in Tables 7A and 7B of'the Ultimate Structural,

-4

y 4

{,

t'.

Capacity Report.

Tables 7A andi-7B provide th~e results.of:a-

~

Eparametric study.irt which the pressure, F, was. varied and the-

' deflections.and ductility,ratiosEwere calculated kar the'equa--

tions documented.in1the Report..:The criteria used to determine the'value of-the' maximum pressure F, fare based on the ductility.

' ratios specified in Appendix A to'NRC Standard Review Plan,.

~

'Section 3.5.3.

2.

The stiffness,'K, is'obtained from a' unit-pressure:

load case utilizing the'KSHEL'(linear, elastic) computer pro--

. gran and the model presented in Figure 'l of the Report'. 'The stiffness is' calculated by dividing the calculated deflection of a particular point on the' containment vessel model-by the-magnitude of the applied pressure.

3.

Tel is calculated as shown, using values for W, Ye1 and Yst (defined below).

4.

The value for W was the result of a frequency analy-

. sis of the containment vessel performed by Newport News'Indus-trial Corporation.

1 5.

td, the duration of the pressure transient, was I

obtained from an analysis which considered a conservative quan-tity of hydrogen from the zirconium reaction'in the active re-gion of-the fuel rods. This hydrogen was postulated to be re-c leased to the containment atmosphere.

6.

The values of Yet are obtained from the computer analysis described in item 2 above.

The unit pressure computer analysis and the resulting containment vessel stresses and m

$e q e1 4 #w w wAWW'-3 sf

s. -

i

^

l",

c a p.

gg 1

^

u m.

+

rv

- m

^ ( o f.;

-- l Q o.,

i 7'..

k N b U Ydeflectionsfwere utiliNedialAngjh b}hithe distortihnsenergyf

'w

'^ 4

?(

+

'- t c

~

i

,e.

.9

N yield (criterion:(see'section::M1 tof L:.the ineport )) toicalculat'e :

A yy n w

- p

}the vesselJdeflection, cY,1,' fat : a :part ibular ' pol'ntidue jo ?the; internal tressure,6 corresponding ito. a sta'te._of membrane 7 Y

% i 1

fyielding ;inJthe vessel.:;

T n

+

rir,,

f.: 7 1 iYst,:theistaticfdeflection ofethejeontainment-vessel,,

m

• lis ca1culatediasishown,cus'ing' values for-F. Land Km

~

~

i m '

I,the'calduldedmass',Ulscalculdtediss:shown,-

^

8.

M using values for,F,'W,;and Yst'+

.r 4

A

/

13-34~.

. Identify allLsources of. uncertainty infalliof.thelas--

sumptions,.judgements,l calculations,1.and models~employedrin.the' Ultimate Structural Capacity of Mark.!!! Containments. report,:

Tand explai.nLwhatJeffect they have on the results and conclu-7 sions therein.-

~

-e b

k RGsponse The~ Ultimate' Structural Capacity Report does:not' discuss.

uncertainty per se.

Instead, the authors of the' Report used conservative assumptions and judgments in the Reports' calcula-tions:and analyses.

The use of such conservatisms provided lower bound results for the internal pressure-capacity.

For example, the stress-strain' relationship used for-the plastic analysis of penetration number P 205 is based upon-the nominal properties of the material.

The actual properties are greater than those used for the analysis.- Therefore.the actual capacity of the containment vessel based upon penetration num-ber P 205 is. greater than that predicted by'the analysis.

W 4 1

~

p~~j j

[

~ ' * '

Other examples.of this, conservative approach include'the

. analyses of the containment 1 vessel,Lthe' analyses of.the air.

1ock and equipment hatch, and'the~ analyses of the-lower. con-tainment vessel penetrations. 'These-analyses lare based on'lin '

f earselasticity. ! Typically,-after yield, the plastic.and strain hardening characteristics'of?the: material'would permit addi-

.tional_pressureicapacity.

Thus, analyses based'only onLlinear elasticity produce lower' bound:results..

J A 13-35.

.Did the' analysis'of structural capacity include the effects of deficiencies in construction-and fabrication of the containment vessel?

If so, explain how these effects were con -

.sidered.

If not, why not?

Response

The Ultimate Structural Capacity' Report is based on cur-rent design values for the containment vessel..These values include any impacts of construction or fabrication deficiencies that have been identified.

Under Applicants' program all such deficiencies have been analyzed, and corrected where necessary,.

to assure that the containment design requirements are met.

To this extent the design values used in the. Ultimate Structural Capacity report " include the effects of" any such deficiencies.

13-40.

Did Applicants in their ultimate structural capacity report consider the effects of any changes in material prop-erties or the creation of residual stresses resulting from welding of the containment vessel?

If so explain how they were accounted for.

If not, why not?

. L-

p e

-q 3

J y,

G "Y

iY r

.7 '

3p w

a

,y i

e i

Response:

1 Applicants)"accountedLfor" potential material' impacts from-welding by. applying :the.-appropriate ASME, and AWS ~ standards at'

.the' time.the'weldi'ng[wasLperformed..=These codeLstandards, e.g.,

standards. governing pre-heatland post-weld 1 heat treat-

. ment,' minimize residual stresses.in materials which may result from'the weldingJactivity.

Thus, it was notEnecessary sepa-rately to consider: potential' impacts'from welding:as part of

~

the analyses.in the~ Ultimate Structural Capacity Report.

q 13-41.

Demonstrate <that.the calculations and methodology em-played'in the Ultimate Structural Capacity Report-are in'accor-danca with provisions of the ASME Code,Section III.

Response

The AS!!E Code,Section III, does not specify requirements for the calculations or methodology to be used in an ultimate structural capacity analysis.

However, the analysis in the U1-timate Structural Capacity Report did use ASME Code service limits.as a conservative basis for calculating the ultimate ca-pacity of the containment.

See Ultimate Structural Capacity Report,'Section 1.

13-44..

Explain and supply the basis for all the following statement appearing on p. 6=of the Ultimate Structural Capacity Report:

"Since the yielding in the knuckle occurs only at one point along the meridian, the pressure can be increased above 68.0 psig to 78.0 psig, the level at which hoop buckling occurs in the knuckle."

_g_

lp -

+,; ;

=

ty._ g.'

u w

,y;

N;

~

y -,,

3, p+.,

.m J; v a

2.-..t g

..1 Respo. nse:-

g.

D g

e

,#.-e jThe.increaseifrom;68.0 psig;to 78.0fpsig,': discussed >in:the.

~

4

. referenced material,:.isfexplainediby thel uctility.andithe ad-~

d ditionalstrengthofthesteelinitheia'rea-;iniquestion.

The:

1 ductility;of theMsteel and:the. additional'strengthloffthe s' teel-

~

~

~

Dallow'the'forceslin'the area (of-the containmentivesse1~which E

has < exceeded.th'e yield stress to be : redistributed to thelsur -

~ rounding;areawhich:isLbelow'thematerialiyieljdstress?

p 13-45..

Explain and supply-the b' asis lfor hheJstatementsiat-

p. 7 of the Ultimate Structural capacity Reportothatelocal iareas at discontinuities-having stresses exceeding!the yield:

stress will'not affect vessel integrity because the stresses' are only on the inside surface of'the vessel.~

. Response:

TheLinterrogatory omits a key statement at.page 7 of the-report,.namely, that "the stresses at.the same location ~on the g2tside surface of the containment:are below the yield stress" (emphasis added)..Because the.above yield stress in these areas of the containment are limited to the inside surface mem--

brane, this type'of stress constitutes " secondary stress" with-in the n.eaning of the-ASME Code, which states:

The basic characteristic of a secondary stress'is that it is self-limiting.

Local yielding and minor distortions can satisfy the conditions which cause the stress to occur, and failure from one application of the stress is not expected.

e i

3 ~ -

p,

-~ y

~ '

. =

n. y,

< N

?

ik k_~'

f ;\\;,

L

+

g=-

. s 3 c'~ ;.

7

~

~

= TheYpicondary.' stresses at: thdse[ discontinuities arez.well within; g

-u 7thejA Elaccept'anceccriteria.1 In additi'on,-the riverage v

R t

1 stresses acrossuthal thicknessof the plates 1inithes'erareasSare y

Forithese:rea muchtless than'the yield stressi.ofJthe steell

~-

sons,Jthe(vessel integrity ^is:.not. affectedly thsLlocal~:second ~

' h.

'p :.

,Lary stresses referenced'at pageL7 of;the; Report.

(

l'3-46.:

Do' Applicants considerzthecpressurestin p'rentheses a

in tables 6A and 6B.(some of.which areLquite' low;..e.g.imain

-steam penetration) to;be theico' trolling pressures-.for the con---

n

tainment?

Explain why or why not.

<m b

Response

No.

The resultslof-additional det'ailedJanalyses,.which

~

reflect the strength of the penetrations, and' controlling: pres-sures, are summarizedJin'Section 6.4 and Table 12:of the Re-port.

13-47.

Explain the basis for the following assertions ap-pearing on p. 9 of the Ultimate-Structural Capacity haports-(a). Initial yield pressures can be increased-if the plastic zone is limited to one radius from the-penetration sleeve.

Specifically explain how such limitation of the plas-j tic zone can be assured.

(b). It is expected that'the vessel strains resulting from one radius yield region around penetrations would not re-sult in objectionable distortions.

Define objectionable dis-tortions, with reference to proper authority, and explain the basis for your expectation.

b I

f L

• k

.-----3

-,,--,w.,,

,m--

-,-y-,--#..x,-,--,-w,..me.w,,-

--w

,-..--,-=-------,,ms,.-

e.

e

w.

"20 p.

[

^

s Y?

~

' ~

lp J.

1 a:

'e? \\.

.4'

.. Response:Virgill

' Summer Nuclear Station,; Unit'1,~900'NW.

~

C.(

.l

.-1966 Lehiah University.' Bethlehem.1Pennsylvanial 1973-74 Assistant. Professor-- Taught' courses in steel; and concrete

structures and~computerEprogramming..

q

~

~1966-73~

' Teaching Assistant,1InstructorL-Assisted.in courses.on?

numerical; methods'and taught's course'in computer' programming.'

"1964-66 Wishinaton State University.-Pullman. Washington ^

4

^

Teaching Assistant - Assisted in steel design. courses ~.

4

1953-64 Government'of Maharashtra Bombay.-India Deputy Engineer, Public Works and Lecturer,f Department 'of

. Technical Education - Held independent charge of-public. works-

. including roads and buildings, and' taught' courses mainly-in.

structural analysis and. design at undergraduate level.

EDUCATION:.

B.Sc., University of Mysore, India, 1948

B.E.;(Civil), University of Poona, India, 1953 M.S. in C.E., Washington State University,.1966 Ph.D.', Lehigh University,~ 1973 Additional Courses:

71 ACI Code and 73 Handbook, Drexel University, 1974 Nuclear Power. Plant Design,'Cilbert Associates, Inc.,-1975 Speakeasy Computer Program, Gilbert Associates, Inc.,:1977

~

REGISTRATION: Professional Engineer - Pennsylvania (1975)--

t SOCIETIES:

Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi i

Honor Society of Sigma Xi PUBLICATIONS:. Co-author, " Strength and Ductility of A572 (Grade 65) Steel-

~ Structures," presented at the Tenth Congress of the International Association of Bridge and Structural Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, September, 1976.

l.

Gest /P-5/84*

g - - -- -

7 ': c,,

+

4, STATEjoFPENNSYLVANIA-'

)

. COUNTY OF BERKS--

-)-

1 AFFIDAVIT ROGER'W. ALLEY, being' duly' sworn:according to_ law, deposes land says thatL.he' is Project Engineer ' -Structural,' Perry Project,

of Gilbert Associates,.Inc. and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Applicants' Answers _to Ohio Citizens for' Responsible.

Energy Interrogatories 13-22, 13-25, 13-29, 13-32,:13-33,~13-34,.

13-35, 13-40, 13-_41, 13-44, 13-45, 13-46, 13-47, 13-48, 13-49, 13-50, dated November 16, 1984, are true_:and correct.to the besti of; his knowledge, information, and belief.

al t

riid2A (A/.

i s d

V

' Sworn-to and subscribed before me this 15th day of November, 1984.

Y g

[plOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires March 1.1986 BERKS COUNTY, READ:NG, PA.

\\

A w-w y

,w c

-4s-

• y-m,,

=

P1-g y

+-

j J.

c November. 16,;:1984

. UNITED STATES OF'. AMERICA' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board.

In the Matter.of-

-)

)

~THELCLEVELAND ELECTRIC

)-

Docket Nos. 50-440:

ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET g.

-)

50-441

)

(Perry Nuclear Power' Plant,.

)

Units 1 and :2).

)

CERTIFICATE OF' SERVICE This is to certify that. copies of-the foregoing "Appli-cants' Voluntary Answers to a Portion of OCRE'S Late-Filed Thirteenth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants (Issue #8)"

were served by' deposit in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 16th day of November, 1984, to all those persons on_the attached Service List.

l-m l

/

ALrr19

(

HARRY H GLASSPIEGEL F

Dated:

November 16, 1984

\\

i 4

3 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 James P. Gleason, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing 513 Gilmoure Drive Appeal Board Panel Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Mr. Jerry R. Kline Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555-Mr. Glenn O. Bright Colleen P. Woodhead, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director Washington, D.C.

20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Terry Lodge, Esquire Appeal Board Suite 105 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 618 N. Michigan Street Washington, D.C.

20555 Toledo, Ohio 43624 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Donald T.

Ezzone, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Appeal Board Lake County Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Center Washington, D.C.

20555 105 Center Street Painesville, Ohio 44077 Gary J. Edles, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 John G. Cardinal, Esquire Ms. Sue Hiatt Prosecuting-Attorney.

8275 Munson Avenue Ashtabula County Courthouse Mentor, Ohio 44060 Jefferson, Ohio 44047

.... _.