ML19270G128

First Set of Interrogatories & First Request for Documents Submitted to Nrc.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19270G128
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/09/1979
From:	Doherty J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
References
NUDOCS 7906050016
Download: ML19270G128 (4)

Text

3 -

REttTED conn

A -

[ U. S. NUCLEAR REGULA O h M lISSION #

4 $.

>[ BEFORE THE ATOr!IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA 9' b%9" d

1 ,bematterof: ' )' ' ' CM a

$ \o7 2

2 o'uaton Lighting & Power Co. I h ,, gf!

diens Ureek tiuclear Generating )

Docket #50-46e T4b I e..

g Station, Unit 1 #

EIRST

,2 SET OF INTERROGATORIES & FIRST REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM

(, THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .BY JOHN F. DOHERTY s

John r. Doherty, of 4438S Leeland, Houston, has been admitted r .-

l* ;iis a party .LNterVneor in the above proceedings on March 15, 1979, No raise a single contention with regard to the Anticipated Transi-

n

] 'ent Without Scram Accident (ATWS-). . Pursuanc to 10 UFR 2.740 (b) 1 7'

s ,

2.741 the Staff is to answr eqch question below separately .

' . ' .,,and ful.ly in writing, making them no lator than 14 days af ter ser--

vice of these interrogatories.

',-" r.ach Interro6atory is to be answered as follows:

[*B'.ga.a.Frovideadirectanswertothequestion.

jf.. [..b'. identif / all documents and studies, and th particular parts -

.g%., 7

f. . thereof, relied uoon by the staff, which serve as the basis for

..the answer. Provide copies of any st'ch document in 30 day,s 4

.W g under 10 CFR 2.741.

.1,}$.Identifybyname, title, and affiliation each Staff or Conmission

.:/y/ - employee, consultant, contractor or subcontractor that has the arg .i ;

' . expert knowledge required to support- the answer to the question.

y,4

. Identify in the same manner who6 answers each InterroCatory. ._,

9?J.d. Explain wheter the Staff or Commission is engaged or intends to engage in further research which may affect the answer, and -

A"

<. identify such work. M.,-

e r. p.

e'.-Identify the witnesses whom the Staff or Commission intends to 'g 1

J.v.i. ,, have testify on the subject questioned. t ,

"e" .f,)

q$.p;f. Provide a summary of the testimony that each, witness in part

m 23 g.

• / l (above) is exuecged to offar and state the factual basis for each

.$7 -

~2 conclusion or opinion each witness epects to present. $,ps .

m

. , g. Provide ooies of any document such witness will rely upon in ..

7/r.) formin opinions and conclusions for testimony. @

. p' -y . . . 3:

v.+

..7'.,i . 79060500* .%,

Y ?' .. *Oh?

S. 1 N.',tr-

. t INTERROGATORIES

1. What is the progrens of'the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe- .

guards on ATWS? q-

2. Provile a copy of the sub-committec report as made available to be committee on January 4, 1979

3. What is the Staff's estimate of the p'robability of an ATWS ,

in a BWR plant? '

4. How does. the Ctaff justify moving ahead with hearings on ,

I.,

Apolicants ATWS system when the June, 1976 review by the

s. sl.

Environmental e

Protection A 5encyjsays, ,

e As incidents occur in the nuclear power industry, 'M -

their significance relative to reacbor safety should be evaluated and placed into m,eaningful perspective. (?) _'

a- Specifically the incident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2, beginning March' 28, 1979 b- Reserved

5. How much credit 'is assigned the Doppleer effect in reactivity .

d increase in an ATWS where the:

a. Main Steam Isolation Valve Trips

b. Turbine trips. ,

6. Has the Staff taken the position (and is it the current posi-tion) that the recirculation pump trip feature combined with the ability to manually shutdown the reactor (by inserting **

control rods or by initiating the Standby Liquid Control System

_t (SLCS) provide sufficient protection in view of the very low probability of complete failure to 'ucram? (This is a paraphrase of 15.1.28 of bhe PSAR')

7. Does the NRC take the position that all SCRAMS are reported to it because licensee recording devices cannot be fud6ed, charts

• Reactor Safety StuM.y (WASH-14CO): A Review of the Final Report.

U. S. Enviranrental Protection Acency, Office of Radiation '

Programs, ~.!as hington I . C. 20460, June 1976, Pa6e 1-8.

manually s.j%h

' )l,,1v :.',

.; d:(. ..

' ]g Y

.. , - - - ~3- y,i-p h qh

.~ . a M.

hidden or other subterfuges won't evade NRC surveillance? .TO I

< .v..r :

G. NUREG-0460, V. III, Pg. 4, states: ,p 3

The principal criterion for choosing among the alter-S$$y

., native olant modifications is'the level of safety jud- l{f],.

ged by the NRC to be necessary. Another impor tant c eu.

.~ consideration is the cost of the modifications.

' T4r

v ,

a. Isn'b it against policy to consider costs in safecy gg'ah u systems? (This intervenor recognizes that cost-benefit )y[,

analysis are a part of the commission rules in regard  ;:.f. s. .

to environmental, safety, such as with 10 CFR 20 guide- .55

'wg*

lines onradwaste systems.) 'qw

b. Will costs be a determining factor in the ATWS solution 4C,

, for Allens Creek ( ACNGS-)?  ;;hh

. If answer to "b" is "yes", please explain how costs will 'M.!5, 1

be fi5ured in. For example, how wil'1 the Applicant be permitted to not use the full solution, assuming it is ) .

Alternative #4, of NUREG-0460, v. III, Page. 18, 19?

9. Wilt the NRC be able to present data from the Three Mile Island occurence on the adquacy of Regulatory Guide 1.77, with regard to adecuate conservation in assumptions rel-ative to peak fuel enthalpy? .

a. Will the results of the' December 9, 1978, LOFT tests be analyzed by that time, and available?

10. What is the Staff's current progress in the analyris of . '?

General Electric Document, NED)-10802, " Analytic Methods ',

. of Plant Evaluacions of Gene'r al Electric BUR's"?

11 Referring again to NUREG-0460, v.III, Pg 4, how many dollars per chance of ATWS accident was the limit on modifying .

standard design Mark-III, BWR-6 plants?(Of answer in another ,,

way if convenient this cost-benefit type question) ,

12. How.will the risk of an ATUS stay acceptably small in view of the fact that the limited number of aperating reactors  ;

will increase ? (See NUREG-0460 v.III, P. 43). .

9 9

i

...s., ,

n;.;,'.t.;: .

4 ' l+,

~&'l!s :. " - .

4. . ,

3.b..'L nym .?!.t; n-

~

.7;'f.f T,.,' 13. How much more 13.4% sodium rentaborate solution in g Lions

.e f' ,,_. will be required of licensees to meet the"high capacity g;'g liquid poison injection" requirement of Alternate y4, .

-PJe.d in Table 1 on Page 18 of UUREG-0460, v. III.?

a '.

Tihr

' g ,f 14. Has Apolicant committed to a rapid fuel failure (less than

?[k[

one minute) detection system?

.]7 '. 4,, d .L, a. Is there such a system for applicant to commit to?

.t,.., s1 h...

u .w .v . .M 15.r. State what consequence of ATWS events' alternative #4 (See 4 , i UUREG-0460, v.III, Pg.18) would not mitigate and indicate

, what you propse t'do about the consequences?

. l) ).Y

%0b eb: 6,, .

SERVICE OF PROCESS y.3@.1.<

-P I have served'c5pibs.oftFIRST SET OF INTERRO.GATORIES & FIRST n, ,

'*' REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM .THE NUCLEAR REGULATORI COMMISSION BY

' ,.'.. .., # JOEN F. DOHERTY on this day, April 7 , 1979 via U. S. Postal

. Service., nespbetfully submitted,

. . y. '

f@n d. Doherty '

R 33% Leeland I.? y;e.' .

douston, Te::n.s 77023

_.j- 9' PARTIES SERVED .

'l l ' Sheldon J . Wolfe , Esq. (HRC)

/,. .'. ,', Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum (NRC)

-c?'- Gustave Linenberger (NRC)

Tl'.t. Docketing & Service Section (HRC) 5;-.' Steve Schinki (NRC Staff)

, '.F.i. chard A. Lawerre, Esq. (TEXAS)'

P- 4 J. Gregory Copeland, Esq. (Applicant)

-:fp;;*d l

e

, R. Gordoa Gooch, Esq. (Applicant.T

-r ' Carro ninderstein, Esq.

," $ # Brenda McCorkle, Esq.

.g,,s; dames Scott, Esq. (Texpirg) vu,,

,.,r. '

JL

~

• l'l . to

.i : '- .

, -'.^ 'f k'*

'ir .&:

,'[, ,

. g .-

. y .' .t '

.g g s,;r..; l

(< .'}