ML19338E696

Partial Response to Jf Doherty 12th,13th & 14th Sets of Interrogatories.Addresses Contentions 12,24 & 44 Re Occurrence of Water Hammer & Generic Review of Reactor Manual Control Sys Design.Affidavit Encl

ML19338E696
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/02/1980
From:	Moon C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Doherty J DOHERTY, J.F.
References
ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8010060015
Download: ML19338E696 (5)

Text

i 10/02/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-466

)

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating

)

Station, Unit 1)

)

NRC STAFF'S PARTIAL RESPONSES TO JOHN F. DOHERTY'S TWELFTH, THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH SETS OF INTERR0GATORIES The NRC Staff responds, in part, as follows to the following interrogatories propounded by John F. Doherty (twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth sets of interrogatories) which pertain to contentions which are presently subject to motions for summary disposition.

By agreement with Mr. Doherty, the remaining outstanding responses will be filed as soon as the necessary Staff reviewers complete current review assignments.

Twelfth Set Contention 44 12-44 What progress has the DOR / DSS Technical Review group on Water Hammer made since it was established March 10, 1977?

,4/

How many pages in their draf t report mentioned on Page C-2 of NUREG-0582 is devoted to BWRs?

80100800385 G

. Response Progress and plans for completion of generic tasks addressing Unresolved Safety Issues are summarized in the " Unresolved Safety Issues" Sumnary (Aqua Book), NUREG-0606, Vol. 2, No. 3, August 15, 1980.

Copies of the pages (3, 4, 5, 6) on Water Hammer (A-1) are enclosed.

The draf t report referred to on page C-2 of Appendix C to " Water Hammer a.

in Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-582, July 1979 has now been published as

" Water Hammer in Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-0582, July 1979.

Appendix C of NUREG-0582 is a portion of the description of Task Action Plan A-1,

" Water Hammer" included in NUREG-371, " Approved Task Action Plans for Cate-gory A Generic Activities." The organization of NUREG-0582 precludes a clear identification of pages that address BWP,'s.

12-44-02 -- What additional improvements in system designs and procedures to prevent water hammer from inadvertently voided dis-charge lines due to trapped air are possible other than the use of jockey pumps? (Pg. A-5 of NUREG-0582 has additional details).

Response

As noted on page A-6 of NUREG-0582, the objective of Task 4.0 of Task Action Plan A-1 is the recommendation of criteria (including criteria for sensors and alanns) and changes to Technical Specifications for the jockey pump, or equivalent, systems that could be used to minimize the occurrence of water hammer. Since specific designs and procedures would not be reviewed until the recommendations for criteria and changes to Technical Specifications are finalized, specific improvements that would be required have not been identi-fied at this time.

. Thirteenth Set Contention 12 4.

What are the results, if any, of any on-going generic review of the RCIS as mentioned on page 7-29 of NUREG-0152, the SER for the G.E. BWR/6 system?

Response

On page 7-27 of NUREG-0152, it is stated that the Staff had been reviewing the reactor manual control system design on the General Electric Company BWR/4 and BWR/5 plants in detail as part of a generic review of General Electric Company's reactor control systems.

Results of that review as applicable to the Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (a BWR/5 plant) were reported in the Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0528, January 1979.

In Section 7.7.3, the Staff stated its conclusion that the system is acceptable on the basis that malfunctions of the system would not be expected to degrade the capabilities of plant safety systems or lead to plant condi-tions more severe than those for which safety systems are designed.

Fourteenth Set Contention 24 3.

Relevant to Doherty #24, at what stage of the four stages listed on testing the fast scram system on P. 4-5 of the SER Sup

1. 2 is the General Electric research? Are there any " milestones" reached?

Response

The fast scram system is being reviewed as a part of the operating license review for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (Docket Nos. 050-416/417).

Copies

. of Sections 3.9.4.4, and 4.6.3 through 4.6.3.1.1.5, which describe the Control Rod Drive Performance Assurance Program, of the Final Safety Analy-sis Report (FSAR), are enclosed.

The Applicant's response to the Staff's request for additional information about the fast scram control system (Question 211.22) was provided in May 1979 on page Q&R 4.6-4 of the FSAR (a copy is enclosed).

The Staff understands that the response to Ques-tion 211.22 will be updated in a forthcoming amendment to the Grand Gulf FSAR to show that the Production Qualification Testing Program h4s been completed, and that completed tests of several drives under the Production Verification Testing program have been tested satisfactorily.

4 Since the Staff's review is not complete, additional questions and responses may be shown in future amendments to the Grand Gulf FSAR.

i i

O

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-466

)

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating

)

Station, Unit 1)

)

AFFIDAVIT OF CALVIN W. MOON I hereby depose and say under oath that the fore 5cing NRC Staff responses to interrogatories propounded by John F. Doherty were prepared by me or under my supervision.

I certify that the answers given are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

0 LW.V)]"s Calvin W. Moon i

Subscribed and swor to before me thisd; tad day of 1980.

1uY U'ar/ Publicg 0 LLL&

Not My Consnission expires:

de,

/, / 7 [M y

(

l