ML20041E118
| ML20041E118 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1982 |
| From: | Doherty J DOHERTY, J.F. |
| To: | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041E119 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8203100162 | |
| Download: ML20041E118 (4) | |
Text
t-SA*:.R'.) CO?REvMnENt" UNITED STATE 3 0F AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULitTORY COMMISSION March y-4 1982 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
.g 7.q_g p3gg HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
> Docket. No. 50-466 CP g
(Allens' Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) gi&-ty a
4f'\\
A INTERVENOR DOHERTY'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANT 2-WITH REGARD TO TEXPRIG COUr7 NETION 31 AND QUADREX MATTERS
'E N
P m,y rf w $'
John F. Doherty, Intervenor in the above construction "J'
/
license proceedin5, and acting under the Board Order of\\
xk
. January 28, 1982, now files the below Interrogatories pur N !i; g Y suant to 10 CFR 2 740(b) and 10 CFR 2 741 Please answer each cuestion fully.
Please identify all documents *and studies relied upon by Applicant which sup? ort the answer and make available such documents to this Intervenor. Iden-tify expert witnessess who answer the questions and give their relationship to Applicant.
Identify any expert wit-ness who Applicant intends to have testify on the subject matter. questioned, and state the Expert's qualifications.
Thank you.
THE INTERROGATORIES 1.
Sec. 3 1(f) of the Reoort states in part, "For example numerous differences were observed between E.OS practices and the FSAR promises."
(a) Did'Quadrex provide a list of these numberous differ-ences?
If so, pleastprovide it in your reply.
(b) Is EDS a separate company from B&R?
(c) When was EDS first employed by Applicant?
- 2. Has Quadrex provided Applicant additional information on its finding in Sec. 3 1(f), "One group conspicuous
}
by its absence' during this design review program was y
Licensing.
No evidence was found of an effective Licen-sing Group inout to the various disciplines to assure
/ /
consistency in understanding an implementation of NRC re"uirements. " ?
- this includes memoranda, or other si=ilar items 8203100162 820305 PDR ADOCK 05000466 G
(a) What were the responsibilities of " Licensing" in the design process?
(b) What steps did Applicant establish prior to Quadrex
.to insure that this.B&R group did its work properly?
(c) What has Applicant determined to have been the reason that within its own organization it did not detect that the BLR 1zconsing group was " conspicuous by its absence", or otherwise not accomplishing its duties.
- 3. In Sec. 3.1(f) of the Report (p. 3-8) the Quadrex reviewer mentions that there was no evidence of an effective means-
'to secure a timely NRC review for changes in the FSAR.
Wouldn't the Applicant be the entity in contact with the NRC for that?
- 4. With reference to Question E-5, Quadrex Assessment s,tated in its opinion that Westinghouse should review all issued design revisions for the Essential Safety Features (ESP) sequencer.
(a) Was Applicant aware prior to Quadrex that Westinghouse was not?
(b) What is the current industry practice on review of issued de' sign revisions to safety systems?
(c) What will Applicant's position on this be for safety systems at ACNGS?
- 5. What are the professional qualifications of D. G. Scapini', of Quadrex?
- 6. Did Applicant consider it desirableuthat B&R adopt a consist-ent requirement for design margin? (See: Reoort, Sec. 3.1(g),
p,3-10)
(a) Referring to Question C-12, what is Applicant's belief as to why B&R had reinforced the inside face of the containment adjacent to the liner as stated in the "Quadrex Assessment"?
(b) What group within Applicant's organization would oversee design margins for HVAC? (See Question H-8)
(c) Does Aoplicant agree with the Quadrex Assessment on this Question?
_3_
- 7. What' are the personal qualifications of Ram Bhat of Quadrex?
- 8. In Sec. 3.1(g) of the Renort, at p. 3-10, it states design manual or individual engineer log-books to record key bases, assumptions or decisions are especially crucial for the first designed plant for an architect-engineer.
(a) Prior to start of construction, was Applicant informed this would be Applicant's procedure?
(b) Will this be the procedure at ACNGS?
~
(c) Did Applicant ever suggest these manuals or log-books orior to Quadrex?
If so, when, and to what BLR groups?
9.
What was the reason Applicant did not cause B&R to do a failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) as required by the NRC on the ESF? (Question E-8)
- 10. What was the reason Applicant did not require B&R to provide an acceptance criteria for the reliability for the ESF sequencer? (See: Question E-8, Renort) 11'. Referring to Sec.3.1(j), what has applicant determined to be the reason B&R had not made its 1975 pipe rupture report a control document for the STNP design?
- 12. What did Quadrex mean by, "ForESFsystemcompd'ents,this situation is not adequate."? (Recort, Sec.' 3.1(j)(2))
(a)What is the IVC 7 (b)Have the AFW pump motors been purchaselfor either STNP unit?
(c) Have the AFW pump motors been installed in either STNP unit?
(d) What organizational features.of the Applicant will prevent recurrence of the selection of pump motors which may not be qualified for postulated accident environments at ACNGS which were not present at the STNP? (Note: this question refers to differences in Applicant's or6anizations for STNP evidently prior to Quadrex, and ACNGS in theffuture)
- 13. Prior to Quadrex had Applicant noted that the use by EDS Com-pany of a jet surface with 10 half-angle cone might not be consistent with industry practice? If so, what was done to bring this to EDS attention? (See: Question M-4 (EDS))
- 14. What steps did Anplicant take to be sure EDS company performed a design review (design verification) of preliminary loads transmitted to BLR, used as a basis for plant design? (Ques-tion M-8(EDS))
. 15 Would Applicant's QA/QC have been in a position to be certain the pipe rupture loadings' supplied by EDS to B&R would bet. applied in other than the vertical direction? (See: Quadrex Assessment, Question C-4, Report)
(a)"Did '.this, Applican't know BLR..had'used the EDS loadings contrary to EDS instructions?
(b) Does Applicant believe tae Quadrex Assessment on this question accu, rate?
16.
What are the personal qualifications of R. Kopoe, of Quadrex Corp.?
~
17.
Referring to Interrogatory 15, above, how does Appli-cant anticipate being able to prevent a recurrence of this-failure to follow _ instructions?
18.
Referring to Question M-19, was Applicant aware of any engineering significance to out-of-plane loading in pipe whip', prior to Quad. rex?
(a) Prior to Quadrex did Applicant attempt to appraise either EDS or BLR of this facet of pipe construction?'
(b) What facet of Applicant QA/QC will examine Ebasco work in this area'.at ACNGS?
(c) What is the basis for believing Applicant will not inadvertently permit the same omission?
- 19. What is the disagreement as to the requirement to meet superpipe stess limits mentioned in Question M-9, and adverted to in Reoort, Sec. 4 5 2.1(d), p. 4-39?
20.
@ hat comoloted pipe rupture analysis outside containment anal-ysis had B&R accomplished prior'to. termination..on,the-project?
Any? (See: Sec. 4 5 3, p. 4-41, Report) 21.
What awareness did Applicant have that B&R had no TRD to;. identify the essential components of. potential targets in the pipe rupture scope? See: Sec. 4.5.3.1?
22.
What uurchased equiptment may be unsuitable due to lack of pipe rupture analysis? (See: Renort, Question M-25, Quadrex Assessment)
SERVICE OF PROCESS: on attached' Motion for Bechtel Power Company Quadrex Report Review" JY.
.