ML19290C065
| ML19290C065 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1979 |
| From: | Remy M, Vandervelden M FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, REED, SAMUEL & REMY |
| To: | SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290C052 | List: |
| References | |
| PLED-791217, NUDOCS 8001090113 | |
| Download: ML19290C065 (9) | |
Text
pra cuCrcNDD:CE
/'
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h#
7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION D
gh BF" ORE TEE
.R 3AFETY AND LICENSING BOAR dl+
6 In the Matter or
)
N D
)
m SACRIMENTO MUNIr i UTILITY
)
Docket No. 50-312 (SP DiJTR CT
)
)
(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating
.)
Station)
)
)
)
FIRST SET OF FRIENDS OF THE EARTH INTERROGATORIES TO SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT Pursuant to 10 CFR Secticn 2.740b, the following interroga-tories are directed to Sacramento Municipal Utility District. U Each interrogatory not objected to is to be answered separately and fully in writing under oath or affirmation by the individuals having personal knowledge of the answers.
Section 2.740b requires interroga-tories to be answered within 14 days of service.
Five days are added to this time under Section 2.710 when service is by mail.
Accordingly responses to these interrogatories, which are served by mail on December 17, 1979, are due to be filed on December 31, 1979.
Pursuant to Section 2.740(e), these interrogatories should be supplemented as required by the above-referenced rule.
These interrogatories are intended to be continuing in nature, and the answers should be promptly supplemented or amended as appropriate, should SMUD obtain any new or differing information responsive to the interrogatories.
1730 038 An "F.O.E.
Request to Produce" direcred to SMUD is being served contemporaneously with these interrogatories.
O b0 II We request that the presiding officer find that answers to these interrogatories are necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding, that the answers are not reasonibly obtainable from any other source and, accordingly, that SMUD must respond to these interrogatories within 14 days of service.
Definitions 1.
The term "SMUD" shall mean the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, including all directors, officers, employees, contractors, agents and other persons or entities acting at the direction of or under the control of SMUD.
2.
The term "NRC" shall mean the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including all persons employed by the NRC and all persons or entities acting at the direction or under the control of the NRC.
3.
The term " facility" shall mean the Mancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station.
4.
The term " document" shall include by way of illus-tration only and not by way of limitation, the following, whether printed or reproduced by any process, or written, and/or produced by hand, and whether or not claimed to be privileged or otherwise excludable from discovery, namely; studies, analyses, notes, correspondence, communications of any nature, telegrams, memoranda notebooks of any character, summaries or records of personal conversations, checkbooks, checkbook stubs, passbooks, cancelled checks, bills, paid and unpaid, diaries, reports, publications, photographs, minutes or records of meetings, transcripts of oral testimony or sta ements, reports and/or summaries of investigations, agreements and contracts, including all modifications and'or revisions thereof, reports and/or summaries of negotiations, court papers, 1730 039
_2_
brochures, pamphlets, tape recordings, records and dictation belts.
Xny document bearing on any sheet or side thereof, any marks, including, by way of illustration only and'not by way of limitation, initials, stamped indicia, any comment or any notation of any character and not a part of the original text, or any reproduction thereof, is to be considered a separate document for purposes of these interrogatories.
5.
As used herein, the terms " identify" or " describe" shall mean the following, as the context shall make appropriate:
a.
When used with respect to a document, that SMUD shall set forth the general nature of the document, the author or originator, the date, each addressed, all individuals designated to receive a copy or otherwise known to have received a copy, the location and custody of such document as of the date of SMUD's answer to these interrogatories, the use (s), if any, made of the document by SMUD, and the purpose (s) for which the document was prepared.
Where a document is in the custody of SMUD, SMUD shall state the means whereby SMUD obtained custody of the document.
b.
When used with respect to any person, that SMUD shall set forth the last known address, and office or position held by such person (1) as of the date of the events and transac-tions as te which such identification is requested, and (2) as of the date of SMUD's answers to these interrogatories.
If the person to be identr.fied is a corporation or other entity, SMUD is also requested to set forth its principal place of business.
Once a person has been thus identified in an answer to an interrogatory, it shall be sufficient thereafter, when identifying that person to merely state his, her, or its name.
1730 040 -
With respect to any statm_.Tt, act, practice, c.
occurrence, event, device, scheme, meeting, conference, communica-tion or other utterance, the date thereof, the party or parties causing, issuing or communicating said statement, communication or utterance, the parties to whom and in whose presence the statement, communication, or utterance vas given or transmitted, the parties who participated in, caused or had knowledge of any act, practice, occurrence, event, device, scheme, meeting or conference, and whether any of the foregoing was in writing (in which event SMUD is requested to describe the terms thereof, or annex a copy to the answers to these interrogatories), or in oral form (in which event SMUD is requested to state the substance.thereof).
Because of the interrogatories served on SMUD by the CEC, dated November 15, 1979, and becaune of the fact that F.O.E.
is entitled to receive a copy of SMUD's responses to those interroga-tories, and all accompanying documents ashociated with said responses F.O.E. has been able to keep its independent requests to a minimum.
To preserve its rights, and in lieu of serving the same interrogatories, F.O.E.
in Interrogatory No. 1, below, adopts the CEC interrogatories as its own.
To the extent that sati= factory answers to the CEC interrogatories have been or are supt..ed, with a copy to F.O.E.,
F.O.E. will deem them to comply with this requ,est.
Interrogatory 1 Provide responses to the questions and requests for information contained in the documents "First Set of CEC Interroga-tories to SMUD," dated, November 15, 1979.
1730 041 4_
Interrogatory 2 Following the substantive response to each of the following interrogatories, identify by name and affiliation each individual who has knowledge which served as the basis for that interrogatory.
Interrogatory 3 Following the substantive respense to each of the subsequent interrogatories posed by F.O.E.,
identify all documents and studies relied upon by SMUD in providing the answers to that interrogatory.
The identification should be specific to theportion of the document or study relied upon.
Studies shall include observations, calculations, literature and other types of work, whether recorded in writing or not, which consist of an examination or analysis of a phenomenon.
Interrogatory 4 For every non-licensed operator who has left employ-ment or has been placed on probation at the facility in the last three years, provide the following data:
A.
The individual's name; B.
That individual's reason for leaving or the reasons the individual was placed on probation; C.
The subsequent employment of that indi.vidual at the facility or with SMUD, if any; D.
That individual's subsequent employment with any organization whose activities are related to nuclear power, if T
applicable; and, E.
Identify documents pertaining to the departure of this individual or of non-licensed operators generally, 1730 042
_s_
Interrogatory.5 For each of the item's identified in NUREG-0578, provide the following information:
A.
Estimated completion date; B.
Criteria determining compliance; C.
Estimated cost.
Interrogatory 6 For each item referred to in Interrogstory 5, which will not be implemented in accordance with the schedule outlined in NUREG-0578, explain:
A.
Cause of delay; B.
Estimated date of completion; C.
Additional cost associated with delay.
Interrogatory 7 Describe any increases in anticipated reactor trips which have resulted or may result from modifications specified in the Commission's May 7 Order.
Interrogatory 8 Describe the incidence and pattern of feedwater transients at Rancho Seco since going critical in 1975.
Include total number of feedwater transients, dates and times.
Interrogatory 9 Describe the attbition rate of non-licensed personnel at Rancho Seco, over the operating life of the plant.
Interrogatory 10 Describe in detail all physical examinations required of licensed and non-licensed reactor personnel.
Specifically, are operators required to wear corrective lenses, if necessary, during shift duty?
Do the physical examinations account for potential color blindness in operators?
If not, why not?
-a-
Interrogatory 11.
Describe in detail the content of the psychological testing employed by SMUD.
Has an applicant ever been denied employment due to results of SMUD administered psychological testing?
Have any pretant operators required the evaluation of a clinical psychologist prior to hiring.
Interrogatory 12 Describe any testing of operators intended to discover reveal or disclose potential learning disabilities.
Interrogatory 13 Provide for each modification of design, procedures, equipment and training, a detailed estimate of ccsts incurred by SMUD, to date, including estimated future costs of additional actions directly related to Commission Orders, Bulletins, Reports, or other directives associated with post-TMI analyses.
Respectfully Submitted, REED, SAMUEL & REMY M
o
/
MICHAEL H.
REMY
/
Atto neys for Petitioners MARh\\A. VANDERVELDEN Friends of the Earth DATED:
December 17, 1979 1730 044
_7_
REU.23 C C W '.-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,['
~
y, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/!
'IE
.-7,\\$3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD E' ' 'dir$;'I 7%
egi t'Os In the Matter of:
)
/'h s\\
k
)
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY
)
Docket No. 50-312 (..' TO I DISTRICT
)
)
(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating
)
Station)
)
)
)
PROOF OF SERVICE I, ANNE K.
MELINE, declare that on December 17, 1979, I deposited copies of the attached " Motion for Extension on Final Requests for Discovery," "First Set of Friends of the Earth Interrogatories to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff," " Friends of the Earth's First Request for Production of Documents to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," " Friends of the Earth's First Request for Production of Documents to the Sacramento Municipal District," "First Set of Friends of the Earth Interrogatories to Sacramento Municipal Utility District," in the United States mail at Sacramento, California, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid and addressed to the following:
ELIZABETH L.
BOWERS,_ ESQ.
Mr. Mark Vandervelden Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Ms. Joan Reiss U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Robert Christopherson Washington, D.C.
20555 Friends of the Earth California Legislative Offica Dr. Richard F.
Cole 717 K Street, Suite 208 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Sacramento, CA 95814 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing & Service Station Office of the Secretary Mr. Frederick J. Shon U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Lawrence Brenner Counsel for NRC Staff David S.
Kaplan, Esq U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm Secretary and General Counsel Office of the Exec. Legal Dir.
P.
O.
Box 15830 Washington, D.C.
20555 Sacramento, CA 95812 Richard D.
Castro Timothy V.A.
Dillon, Esq.
2231 K Street Suite 380 Sacramento, CA 95816 1850 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 Stephen Lewis Office of the Executive Gary Hursh, Esq Legal Director 520 Capitol Mall, Suite 700 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Sacramento, CA 95814 Washington, D.C.
20555 1730 045
Thomas A. Baxter Executive Dir. for Operations 1800 M Street, N.W.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D.C.
20555 James S.
Reed, Esq.
Christopher Ellison, Esq.
Michael H. Remy, Esq.
Califo:.nia Energy Commission REED, SAMUEL & REMY 1111 Howe Ave 717 K Street, Suite 405 Sacramento, CA 95825 Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. Larry Lampher, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Hill, Christopher & Phillips U.S. Muclear Regulatory Commission Attorneys at Law Washington D.C.
20555 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 I am, and was at the time of the service of tha attached documents over the age of 18 years and not a paety to the proceeding involved.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED:
December 17, 1979 MANNE K.'MELINE 1730 046
~
po$U W
7*h/5 kMR NO3 "Oo p
.s,
yf y'o 504 9, Do, f
UNITED STATES c
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N
b,3
{
f WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k,
/
December 18, 1979 he***
(50- M ]r N O f Docket No. 50-312 g
gg g
~
G Mr. J. J. Mattimoe Assistant General Manager and 4 h$ NNof %
Chief Engineer 2
Sacramento Municipal Utility District ll-6201 S Street P. O. Box 15830 6
Sacramento, Californic 95813 D
3 Dear Mr. Mattimoe DM
SUBJECT:
AUTOMATIC REACT 0P COOLANT PUMP TRIP DURING SMALL BREAK LOSS-OF-COOLAMT ACCIDENTS (LOCA)
The long-tem requirement of IE Bulletin 79-05C requires the B&W licensees to submit a design which will assure automatic tripping of the operating reactor coolant pumps (RCPs) under all circumstances in which this action may be needed.
It has been shown through analysis that this trip is needed for a certain spectrum of small break LOCAs. In order to assure that the operating RCPs are tripped during LOCA conditions yet minimize the possi-bility of tripping the RCPs during non-LOCA transients (such as severe overcooling events), the B&W licensees have proposed a conceptual safety-grade trip circuit which would utilize coincident input signals of low pressure ESFAS actuation combined with low RCP current / power.
The use of these coincident signals was discussed in detail during a meeting held in Bethesda, Maryland on November 8,1979, between the staff, the B&W Owners' Group and B&W.
The staff expressed two concerns with the proposed design. First, while the staff agrees that a decrease in RCP current /pwer.
will occur if voiding takes place in the reactor coolant system, the relationship of RCP current / power versus void fraction has neither been fully documented by the licensees nor demonstrated through full scale testing.
Secondly, absent the above information, the staff is not convinced that the proposed setpoint of 20". decrease in RCP current is the proper setpoint for that portion of the coincidence logic.
Although these matters must be resolved as part of the final design acceptance, we believe that the proposed design contains sufficient flexibility and can be expected to meet its intended function.
Therefore, the B&W licensees should proceed with equipment procurement and development of a final design based on the proposed concept.
1730 047 f
{
}
ff s
2-Prior to final design acceptability, the foliowing conditions rust be satisfied:
1.
Characteristic curves for RCP current / power versus void fraction must be fully demonstrated and documented based upon existing test data and supplemented as necessary with confinnatory data cotained frcxn future tests such as LOFT, full scale testing, etc.;
2.
Justification for the RCP current / power setpoint must 'be shown; and, 3.
Satisfactory responses to the enclosed request for additional infonnation must be received.
It is requested that within 30 days of receipt of this letter, licensees shall provide a schedule for responding to items 1 through 3 above.
In addition, a proposed schedule for installing the automatic.RCP trip circuitry shall also be provi ded. Your installation schedule should include the expected reactor down time associated with the final hookup and testing of this circuitry.
If any additional infonnation is needed, please contact your NRR Operating Reactor Project Manager, Mr. Daniel Garner on (301) 492-7435.
Si ncerely,
d ddi&
O i
Roben W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Operating Reactors Encl osure:
Reuest for Additional Information - Automatic RCP Trip cc w/ enclosure:
See next page 1730 048
Christopher Ellison, Esq.
Cavid S. Kaplan,' Secretary and Dian Grueuich, Esqdomission California Energy General Counsel 1111 Howe Avenue 6201 S Street Sacramento, California 95825 P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 Ms. Eleanor Schwartz California State Office Sacramento County 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., Rm. 201 Board of Supervisors Washington, D.C.
20003 827 7th Street, Room 424 Sacramento, California 95814
< Docketing and Service Section
~
Office of the Secretary s5Trowbridge is 5
n n
P Washington, D.C. 20036 V Nichael L. Glaser, Esq.
115017th Street, N.W.
Director, Tec. ical Assessment Washington, D.C.
20036 nn Division Of ce Radiation Programs
/ Dr. Richard F. Cole U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
,3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission rys W Mall #2 Arlington, Virginia 20460 Washington, D.C.
20555
/ r. Frederick J. Shon U. S. Environmental Protection Agency M
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board S CO INATbR Fra sc California 94111 D.
05 Mr. Robert B. Borsum v Timothy V. A. Dillon Esq.
Babcock & Wilcox Suite 380 Nuclear Power Generation Division 1850 X Street, N.W.
Suite 420, 7735 Old Georgetown Road Washington, D.C.
20006 Ecthesda, Maryland 20014 James S. Reed, Esq.
Michael H. Remy, Esq.
Reed, Samuel & Remy 44 7D ce;,., -
,4 7 717 K Street, Suite 405
~.
Sacramento, California 95814 7
Mr. Michael R. Eaton Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Energy Issues Coordinator Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Sierra Club Legislative Office Hiii, Christopher and Phillips, P. C.
1107 9th St., Room 1020 1900 M St., NW Sacramento, CA 95814 Washington, D. C.
20036 &'s ff 1730 049 4
2 4
occ ~a, IS?S y 4
\\f e#,.(j,g77
~
\\b N
Sacramento Municipal Utifity District Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and' Licensing Appeal Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Richard D. Castro 2231 K Street Sacramento, California 95814 Mr. Gary Hursh, Esq.
520 Capital Mall Suite 700 Sacramento, California 95814 California Department of Health ATTN: Chief, Environmental Radiation Control Unit Radiological Health Section 714 P Street, Room 498 Sacramento, California 95814 1730 050 t
O e
Enciosure ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR ALTTOMATIC TRIP CIRCUITRY FOR THE REACTOR COOLANT PUMP MOTORS We have reviewed the preliminary design descriptions of the automatic trip circuitry for the subject moto:s which have 'been provided by the B&W plant licensees. Since it has beea concluded that this action is required to per' form a safety function, the added circuitry should conform to specified safety criteria.
When submitting the proposed final design for the automatic tr.ip circuitry.
provide responses to the following questions:
1.
For your proposed design, state the degree of. confonnance with the applicable acceptance criteria listed in Column 7.2 of Table 7-1 of the Standard Review Plan. Also, provide justification for any non-conformance.
2.
Provide a discussion of the following:
conformance of the design with the' design requirements of Section 4 a.
of IEEE Std. 2791971) and, b,
confonnance of the design with the principal design criteria of Section 4 of IEEE Std. 308-1974.
3.
Provide a detailed description of any changes to and/or interfaces with the existing protection systems.
Include diagrams (block, location, functional, and/or elementary wiring), as necessary, to clearly depict the changes and/or interfaces.
In addition, provide an analysis which demonstrates that these changes and/or interfaces will not degrade the existing protection systems.
4.
Identify equipment which is identical to equipment utilized in existing safety-grade systems.
For the equipment which is not identical, briefly describe the differences.
5.
In general, the equipment shall be seismically and environmentally qualified.
Therefore, provide the following descriptive infonnation for the qualification -
test programs:
equipment design specification requirements; a.
b.
test plan; 051 c.
test setup; d.
test procedures; and, e.
acceptability goals and requirenents.
\\
,u*
s n4Oo tOo 4Z r
- r i
4OZ :nOCe.onO 9 *00Fi~> (O*O )"(wCOCes r
D n
D0OM4*Oxyr w 2 v Ok>(-
a :
1 nOOr>2 2" b8 Y 4
o nO:4EC'"O r <(
O-
+ "3 h
8*8
- - =3o-ODw* n3 %" *m"U<w. a h 0
.t mtO.D r*
r b a.
E.7D3 Mctg4+t*.rr. t3o k0C1 r
(
++ts 4
%1 t
f e-O4 0<O A"U*- (. n sO 1 " ** **
- U < n C D =O-eM mCU
=
Pd*s D
f r
3O
+a03
- =M 8
- r
- a. O3 +r8 h^ =
' tea *p 9
O1 t79 O<e mE "
" n" r M n 3M eD O
1 d
h
=.
m O1O<*=O(,yD
,aW
- D G1a
- e
=
usO.vf b.Y y
(
ad r:D e.rw* m 1 '~ "
4 : ram O" DD3 a 3etp t
fp.==D
+3et
+
D3 tD EWdO7 Ea a.
. a.
n(10 41W r(
((
s-t eva a*
32w QDw=o3% "n"8 dw.a% t3*=m a39O B e O3 4 a.
C703 MCrge.t+8rr 3o M0C1. p mOwonc D + 1 "a* *cc.at+A
- 8 t
(
O<ps DC D.
3<a OD n
rs.
8*
t
.a eT*
a-c:
t p
3Oa
(
f
=-
(
no i
tce 5
S e 'S 5
5 ct 02 ievr r c ee SS C
d e c' D nh at R' n 9f e
o no,t i
hg t e n
e c
.i kiS cf h
of sa D OUW
" NuQ QMN L
g,{