ML19209C881
| ML19209C881 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1979 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910180435 | |
| Download: ML19209C881 (2) | |
Text
G k
N
- gTh 94 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ON\\ M}
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD f
In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466 CP
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
SE8\\ED 0CT 51979 ORDER (October 5, 1979)
On September 14, 1979, Applicant filed a Motion To Compel Answers From Intervenor McCorkle.
Therein, Applicant requested that the Board compel Ms. Brenda McCorkle, an intervening party, to respond to certain interrogatories set forth in its Second Set Of Interrogatories W Ms. McCorkle did not respond to the instant Motion.
We grant in part and deny in part Applicant's Motion To Compel Answers.
Within fourteen days after the service of this Order issued pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 92.740(f), Ms. McCorkle, under oath of affirmation, shall file complete and responsive answers to certain of the interrogatories as indicated, infra.
If In the instant Motion, Applicant notes that, contrary to 10 C.F.R.
92.740b(b), Ms. McCorkle's Answers to the Second Set of Interrogatories filed on September 6, 1979, had not been signed under oath or affirmation, and Applicant requests that she be required to resubmit her Answers.
We will no't direct that Ms. McCorkle, a pro se intervenor, resubmit her Answers of September 6th under oath or affirmation.
However, here-af ter responses to interrogatories must comply with our Rules of Practice.
,11/6 138 y3 F 7910180 j
s
- Interrogatory A.
1 (b).
The Motion is denied.
Ms.
McCorkle's objection is well taken.
It is not the responsi-bility of an intervenor to propose plans or remedial actions--
that responsibility lies with the Applicant.
- Interrogatory B.
1 (d).
The Motion is granted.
Ms. McCorkle shall state specifically every reason', and every fact supporting these reasons, as to why the hydrogen getter does not prevent hydriding.
2 (a).
The Motion is granted.
Ms. McCorkle shall explain how fuel densification will increase power spikes and heat generation rate.
2~(b). The Motion is granted.
Ms. McCorkle shall state what alteration in linear heat generation she expects over the lifetime of a fuel rod and how this alteration will affect fuel rod integrity.
2 (c).
The Motion is granted.
Ms. McCorkle shall state what increase she expects in anticipated localized spikes and how this increase will affect fuel rod integrity.
Interrogatory C.
1 (c).
The Motion is granted.
Ms. McCorkle shall state every reason, and every fact sup-porting these reasons, why these amounts of unfiltered leakage of 5%, 10% and 20% would exceed the Part 100 guide-lines.
1176 139
ens ree 3-It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
^!A_k Sheldon J. hblfe, Esq., Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5th day of October 1979.
1176 140 O