ML20062H549

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard Re Summary Disposition of Jf Doherty Contention 24 on Control Rod Drop Accident.Excerpts of Jf Doherty Deposition Encl.Pp 159-173
ML20062H549
Person / Time
Site: Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date: 08/04/1980
From:
BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19331C559 List:
References
ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8008190111
Download: ML20062H549 (15)
v • d • e


Text

O(~8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIGN BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S

S HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S

COMPANY S

Docket No. 50-466 S

(Allens Creek Nuclear S

I Generating Station, Unit S

No. 1)

S Material Facts As To Which There Is

?

No Genuine Issue To Be Heard 1.

The analysis of the control rod drop accident I

assumes the worst possible circumstances and sequence of events.

Based on these assumptions, no other credible sequence

\\

of events can add positive reactivity at a faster rate.

(Affidavit, pp. 2-4) 2.

The maximum individual rod worth under these

(

worst case assumptions is restricted by the operation of the Rod Pattern Control System (RPCS).

(Affidavit, pp. 4-5) 3.

The maximum incremental rod worth possible i

under the restrictions of the RPCS and technical specifications is approximately.8 percent 21 K.

This calculates to a maximum of 135 calories / gram specific fuel enthalpy, or 145 calories /

j gram below the design limit.

(Affidavit, p. 5) l l

l g() 0819 01 11 l

159

}

4 880-8 55 COSTS EAF/ COMP Doherty Contention No. 24/

D. )

Rod Drop PAID BY PL_. DEF.

e

(

)

IU TI!E UtlITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RE G UL ATO RY COM".ISSION e.1

~

IN THE MATTE R OF :

)

I! C US TO N L IGH TI:!G A:ID PONER

)

COMPANY, DOCKET NO. 50-466 m

(ALLENS C RE EK NUCLEAR

)

[j GE!IE R ATIN G S T AT IO:1, l

UNIT lIO. 1)

)

O d

J M

E I

i i

Q h;l DE POS ITIO!! OF:

~

JOHN F.

DOIIE RTY i

1 P

tl 3

.L' j

m i

C J

,y

,,... '., -. ',,, :,; G.j !

1.C O 3

s M

x.

. ~, -

u

,7. -

.. s.

p*

Y)

.. y;. r' r..;/sf...//)

./

,p w w

r a YN 1917 Cank of Te Southwest Building. Houst:n. Texas 77002.(7:3i 652 5311 k

]

thiough.

I 2

C.

Do you do fee] yourcelf in a ;. o c i t i o n to i

j 2

3 exercice a superior judgnent?

i 4

A.

I think there w o u l r*

be no rearon for

-1 5

admitting the contention unless c o r. c t b i n g were t

C expected or at least sone right.

7 C.

You'll have to take thet u t.

uith the i

s' rcard.

r A.

All right.

g 10 C.

I.c t ' s nove to your contention on rod W

31 d ro p?

E 12 A.

inat s

<2 g

1.7 C.

Yes, sir.

'; h i s fs another one that'c i

14 h e c ti re s ta ted bi the Foa:d.

3.<

e 15 A.

All right.

Perhaps you could r e c.d that s

l e, to ra e.

I don't have the roced's order 5.ith re.

I 17 C.

I:c r e deu are.

l 1P A.

All right.-

t l

It e.

'oold you e r. p l a i n to me yo u r 70 i: u r' e r n t e n d i tuf of the r ela tionsbi r be twee n rod

]-

<. o r t h and reck ener,y yicid?

O 72 7.

!asically the -- ninf l i f' t i c a l l Y, the

.a 23 greatet thc worth of the rod the rote whet tra s 2e the s e c o nti I e r t?

75 Tcak en er-cy yield?

161

n. : i r r a r i c u r e m vrrenrer, r,<.

1s s

/,.

reak energy yield?

O C.

Yes.

A.

If the time is constant, then the red 1

r.

drop warth will be in direct relation to the reak S

whatever you said.

I :: i s s e d it.

l A

C.

Peak energy yield?

A.

Peak e n e r :: y yield.

~

So enet you have a rod of :: c x !:r uc. wo r t;.

9 in ene core that will generite a specific peak P

10 ener,y yicid and ce more, cince there's a >!1 rect j

e 11 ane to one correlation; is t n a r. your under-

[

r I:

standing?

7 1:

A.

My enderstanding is that if the rods i

l 1/

cove at the sane speed c

1 1 ":

C.

e ' r e talking about a drop rod.

r 1~

A.

All richt.

l' O.

Co that acceleration of the rod will he

.s n.

. ~. ~.--

IT A.

If you get a drop exactly fitting that 2C d r o p p i ng against the velocity li-it and 21 0

~.s e l l, I wasn't speaking as to the ac tua l 22 vclocity.

I was talking about the acceleration 2.'

that was trying to forca the rod down against 24 resistant forces.

That acceleration of gravity 6

I

3. e.

as...

I 162 n, a t n..

.i s,.

.,s.,.,

c. s.. -.

a orv A

., a.

...s r.-a.

e 9 }

~. ~ y.s.c.

( ~. 1 7. t, a

g. v- " <~.. w v, s

v.

i

. _ _-.= =_;

_--.a.

I t

1

7..

Gkey.

O.

So that it can only go so fast.

i i,

2 A.

All right, i

4 0

Any dropfrod is going tc go only co fast.

4 k

I E

Right.

A

?.

Fo, I was asking if yo u r understandinc t

was that if you

.m, v o O rod af.exinue. orth, that i

f that will produce a certa!a celculo919 peoh O

energy yield on a direction one to one i

j le correlation?

i i

11 A.

The lact r. art botherc 9e., little nit.

I currese the an s' e r 10 yes.

1 Le t ne state it bac<.uarda.

Is it 1.'

possible to linit rod wortn cc that the naxinun 15 rod worth cannot produce a peak energy y i e 1 <.5 1~

g rea ter then the design li=it?

l d

17 A.

I'm not sure.

j IC C.

Then on what do you base your conclusion 10 that it is possibic to have a drop rod which will

(

20 exceed CPC calories per gran peek enercy?

21 A.

' 'e l l, if the underlying calculations are 22 inadequa te, then you can get that.

O.

Pa s this been an erect in calculation or 24 an error in the prediction of naxinue red sorth i

l 25 as you under;tand it?

l l

1.*i'. s.i './ ; a'.' P /- L C C L ? ".' ;; ! F L ;i 7..' f., I c;C.

3

. e.. v. c.

p,.,)

v.- 2

c. '.-

.,...c.

.e.

w l

"6 6

L

_w_

__._______w-_~_w

.i e. S I

1 A.

The r e s ul t i ng red worth could

t. e in 7

error.

C.

Le t me try it again.

4 A.

7,ny of those can Le an error.

5 C.

Le t 's sa y thc CC p r <: i c t s and p r o v i c' e s e

that it's

.atinun red. orth will be one rereen:

7 t

any :!=e over core life, a n c; : net d r o r ;. I n ; thi:

I e,

roc will then p r o d t. c e e Joak energy yield of r e s' calories per gra..

I don't attast to ei her of b,

I

.... s,..

c.

u n.e..,;.

..,,. C

. u....a.

m

.a

.3 i

1; l

Is your c o n t e r. t i o n concerned witn the i

l calculation which translatec the one r. c r e e n *

=0 12 t

l 000 c.i l e r i e.s per g r a r:, or is, car con:ention Ce

.s. a 4 a

...,:... s..

.s.

,.... r.,

,, d

w. 4..

1!

!; e maxi =un rod wo::5 is one p e c en t?

a'le to figure I'

l..

hell, they o uq b t to

'c e c

l' cut what percentage the y "o

I think it's 1i

ne first part.

i 1

l?

0 The first rar being that you helleve 1

Oc tha: GE has incorrectly calculated or rred!ctec I

Ol the consequence of a c:a x i n un rod worth of oca I

rercent d r o ;; p i ng ?

1 23 A.

Yes.

71. c y incorrectly p r e -l i c t e d the l

r l

l,-

2*

consequences.

I f

.11 rignt.

So :ba t they have 25 C.

I t

c. 7 ^ *. s.'*{ - "..e...f g r t.'*.

pg 7*

s o (* v"* *.""

  • a.

d'*.C".(*g

' a*,..?.r. C. a. 7 7

p*

r a.

,c.

y,

.,.e

,a. _.c. n, 1 4

ss..

4 %

l l1 - - --

y 1

s 1

e :: t o t l i s h e d the :- a :: i ra ua rod wortn, but they are incorrect about their conclualons as to the peak i

2 energy yield which results free d ro pp i ng that red, t

4 and tha t's t ii e contention?

I i

5

t..

No.

I'u afraid noc.

I hate to e

frustrate you.

I snow you're upse: abcut it.

- hat is t !. e con ten t io n?

?

All right.

7 A.

T: o t h.

1 l

o fou contend that Coneral tioctrit

..a s j

et redicted the red of r a < i.m u n worth and, i

11

.d u r e n e r r.o r o, even if they,. e r e were so derb l u e :. y 1.~

to predict the rod maxinum worth, they cen't

'2

, r e.! i c t, f r o., what you base your conclusion on, I

t

{

1/

nat CE has not i: r e c' i c t e d the red of maxircr

,)

l' worth?

j i

I l ',

A.

Cn the data given ce by Mr. 1Je b b where l

17 he cited the d a ta supp1ied on the Pontague i

i

~

l?

nuclear plant.

i i

10 C.

This again is in his bock?

i i

i 20 A.

Yes.

21 C.

Can you give ne a chapter 22

1..

't o t really.

Out wi-h a little looking i

  • 2 arounn, I could get to it.

I 2."

C.

That's all right.

If it's in there, i

1 i

25 that's fine.

nis 10 bis occ id e n t Earard b o o r. ?

f i

i 2:4 i :. c. :. r... :A, s cl o. n :. r.. -.,._nr, i..t.

o P C t; S T r. >, ;;xA (712) cs:-;gli 33 I

\\

r--,.--

w

310 1

1 A.

Yes.

J 2

C.

Is there anything else that you have i

pro.erly p r.v i c t e c'

.axinur J

that s:ates CE hos not n

i rod worth?

5 A.

No.

I don't have any reference tha t-f i

r.

srecifically states that.

C.

All right.

That's your scle haric there.

e fio a acout the par. which Oays that 91VCU 3 i

E eaxinue rod worta, OE nas ciacalculated tne pai l

Ir energy yield?

'- h a t do you base

r. h i t concluston j

l Cn?

l I

12 A.

The $dde Jource.

i

'I n i s is Pr. kebb's b ri o P. ?

1.~

A.

Yes.

15 O.

Is that the only source o r that l'

conclusion as well?

.,e a,.

.i n.

13 C.

1:a v e you examined applicant's analysis I?

of the rod drop accident?

.~ C A.

I'r pretty sure ! have.

21 c.

You have examined that analysic?

l A.

., e s.

6a 22 C.

Can you point to me the part wtere (a) 23 the rod of n a x i m u.--

worth has been o v e r l o o P. e d, and

.,o.

.e e n.

n. r,. : L...
e. r,,.,

.,,.(*

L.... -

I.. m. [ 4..,n.. r,.,

a..

L s.

a C.,

Aw.-o e c. e.c. s.-.

.,. v. 3.-

(..,,;

..e,, _ : e, 1 i s.

- _ - -_-__wy_-

%3

..e__._,__--.-%%_-

IIJ I

c.

There's no indentifictic part in there where that occurs?

i 3

A.

At this time, I don't have anytnine te i

l 4

s h o t.

you,that.

f e.

Put you know it exists In there?

6 A.

Yes.

7 c.

Based on

t. r. Sebb's book?

A.

Yes.

C C.

nich precated this analysi
by hcw.-any 1r years do you think?

11 A.

Cne.

.an e '.

.., u.

1.

/

!ow dij ou dec id e tna t ::: e r e was a year

^

f Ic separation betweca t h e :- ?

I' A.

hell,

..y understanding and nencry and

.r.

hebb'c 17 perhaps not' perfect, but I thought 15 book ca.e out in

'75, and the P S A Ts 'i s acended up 1?

to 1977 here.

It apt. ears to have been 20 C.

At least a year?

i

., e d.

j

a. i

,.s.

,. 3.. i.

., ~..

Q.

a 22 A.

It appears that way, i

24' C.

roes tne nane hold true for the cecond 25

.crtion of the errors that is the,!
calculation i

.a..t

~...,

4

. p,7

.+.;.**A..

L i w...

-.3..-

(t

.? ) < c.a

. c 1.t

[. :. c. c.,

e..

.,..-w--

y

,.w.-,...--_.m

_v

,-7,..-m

i _. _; _ _

L_.._-._.._____

-- 5

___._.._w._._w_____

13 _ _

t f

3'.

t g>

s a rod worth?

1 cf I.ean ene rg f' y iele g iven 2

A.

Ye s.

f

-2 C.

.You don't have an ind en t i f iable ;; c r t i o n,

e but you believe it's in clN r e?

/

4 j

.5 A.

That's richt.-

2 4

L j

C.

r11 ritht.

' *r h a t red worth would you j

+

e l

,~

l 7

r. e e d to drop te ;roduce an energy deposition afs j

o 9

n c a l o r i u s rir,

or greatar?

l

<t r a r:

7 A.

-I think 7 bareent.

j 2

is~

1r 7

.hcre did

'.c o t.

..et

.~ rercent?

I i

.a t

.e e l

  • f 11

?..

That would &<ceed the s

i exceed tne reccentage of neutro:s in t! 9 i

l j

l 1

t i.:.: i o n i n g t.n i e n oula e auf:! ient te_incert

-i R

le

ecctivity.

i 15 C.

Excuse ce.

la A.

Curely.

{-

1 17 C.

You say tnat any rod worth greater than i

10

.7 percent will produca enercy depositions I

l' 19 greator than 22C calorios por cram?

l L

I f

Or

.\\.

C i d n '-t 4 you cay 200 a rinuto acc or Fr?

I i

21 0.

I o'ive the limit is 2 0 :'.

I nay have i

22 nisspo e

A.

I beiicve yo u ' 11 exceed the 1init '.. ! t h 6

1 s

that.

i s

l 25 O.

Tne basi; for that conclusion is f.

I r6-r C..r....,... c..

....s,.,..,. e... o n

. c...,.s. i.

c... r r.

t 1'.'.S e n.

)

.u_,.,,,

n. c

c..,

A l

b t

1 A.

Pr.

L-e h t ' s book.

W 2

C.

-- Mr. 'ehh's book a g a i r..

~ hat's the s

scic basis?

A.

Yes.

t i

.r.

tebb j

C.

Al1 eight.

have you spoken to e

about tcctifying in this procee d ire ?

sF Yes.

I think it *ould L:e fair-to say U

7 I

.s.

}

i that.

s r!.

I. i d he indicate any interest ahcut that?

1I A.

.o.

i 11 7

You ce not now

'7

l..

I don't t h i n *< 50 will t a k. c t !' e stond a n t' d

.eu.

4.c..

g.

le C.

Fe's a wise is :: a r..

.i, 15 A.

Fay again?

E

well, IC C.

Never mind.

he've ag reed that 1"

I shouldn't say that.

You've testified that a i

i 13 rod of

.7 percent or greater will exceed 200 10 colories per gram.

20

' o you believe that a rod of

.91s worth v

21 will oxist in ACNr5 core at a n v.

t im e over the 22 core life?

l 22 A.

Yes.

t i

2e C.

. hat's the basis for that conclusion?

s

' ?

A.

The bypassed rods

. '.' :'. m '. 1. ?- s- :

L C L is ~.

  • .0'.*.L:*1, i C.

y

~

i.ts. t.e. c, i,. r,.v g.e

( 7.i -)

v: e,e _ r c., i a

.8 s

4 I-

.~

e s1-1 1

C.

I'a r c o n :1 e ?

A.

Gypassec rods--- rods bypassed by ECIC 2

a y S t O rt.

C.

lic w do you typass a rod in tne F C I:'

}

S systen?

1 6

A.

You put i t in the closed position.

c.

Ia n sorry.

You put what in t.'e CloGed

[

,.c s i t i o n ?

9

f..

Tne control red in the fully onc norch Loyond the fully inserted

3. c s i c i o n.

Yo u leave it there enc /or park it-nere as they say.

1:

C.

You're saying tnat any rod one acech 1:

.c y o n c f u l l 'f insertec till ;i/c you a rod orth la of

.7 percent o r g rea te r?

15 A.

Cepending on the condition or the l'

insertion of the other rods.

17 C.

'n h a t does that have to do with bypassing IS the RCIC7 1C A.

hell, essentially it's to descrit:e the r

situation whereby the reactors

.a t low rower, the l

1 rods are nostly inserted and one is dropped Fron I

2:

the full in position.

4

3 p.

oll, I can understand that scenario.

t l

2.'

Lut. hat does that have to do with tv:assin-i f

25 nich intinates soce unauthorized o t. e r a t i o, of l

I s

l

{ 9 ed '

A g

sh

. e. e, 4% se e

g it A t' ; *

  • g*

'= *

  • g e,

g-

. -+

. es" y

sa w

u <s a e g

e ey

.gs tt 6 9

g e

s..

,e s'

  1. n 1 O 4 "* f. *...

b psY L.,2d s.e* sm 6 eb.* p a

,e.* M.f.

    • j
  • e d W.

en e

r..

mn_-r__--_=---_--=__3w..,m---.m.,_,,__.--,,

L

___c==_---

__._;__ __ __. _._ -.:. _:. e _..._ __

_._ ___ 2 =: _ :,22 _ c.~. :- --- -

  • 9 e'

&4 e t

I the systen?

i I t t: i n k 7

A.

The tern I used is p e r h a t. s thet's the t e r r.

they used.

C.

Who is they?

5 A.

I've seen it used in my r e a c i nrJ of well, it's 5.a r t of contention 12 which :-don't i

?

r.svc.. i t h na.

,7 C.

Your contentian 17 is

)'

9 A.

Cn arcs.

ic So you bellave tha t it is ;;c siLie to

.. a. 1 ;. u l a t e t !. e RPCF.;ystem One produce a rod af sufficient worth to ex ec ed ' des ig red reak ener~y 1:

use?

1.*

.E.

Yes.

15 C.

Is it necc sary to canipulate the FFCC le systen to get this rod worth?

17 A.

I'n not certain tha t's the only way you 12 can do it or not.

19 C.

Is it your und e r s t a nd ina that the CFCS f

8 Cr system exists to ascure that roc worth - a x i.' u n s 21 are not exceeded?

2^

A.

Yes.

22 C.

.co that coincides with your belief that f

I 22 you have to alter or sc=ehow f 3 !! the f u n c t i e r, of l

I.

25 the

.' C S to produce thic excessive rod sorth?

j i

n, m u r:c.:n :cc.-.u rc m..v.

.c.

n.. g e. C N,

""'s','"

( ~ '..' )

45.'

C^l'

", 1' 4

,.c,w

y---

l-1 A.

Yes.

That would be sufficient.

I C.

So that your dropped red and 30C0 :: i c k e d l

2 up at the sanc point or coincice?

s f

e A.

They tend to coincide there, yes.

5 c.

All r ig h t.

Tell

.m e t h i :,, since se have r-presaged tha t contention:

yoc( t,e l i e f that the 7

SFCC syste can be ao m a n i ;. u l a t e d, ? o e s t!.a t

t. l s o e

.i l

upring fron "r. ' a b t: ' a b e e t: l i :.e t"i:

~

~

6 No.

I icn't think ne mentions that.

Il 1

j Ic you're intereated, ! think it's the Scok callet.

n 11

""ugget C il e.*

i 1'

f 1:

C.

he'll c; e t to that contentica in a little I

. 3

.... t. c.

A.

Csay.

4 i

15 C.

Le t ne see if I can c u n :- o r i r.e where we i

1.~

are on this contention.

17 You believe tha t it is possible to I '3

=0nipulate the FFCC syster and produce a red of

\\

i 19 caximum worth greater than that accounted for by i

20 Caneral El ec t r ic, and that droppine this red will i

1 21 then exceed 2"O calories per g r e.-- contrary to en calculations performed by Coneral El ec t r i e?

22 A.

Yes, sir.

l 2/

C.

All right.

Le t in e try o r. e other th in;.

f 25 I believe that the only references we've nade to t

l I :n t. a N A T I c < A L c c t:a 7 r.F r c ;i T 7 ; S, : :- c.

n o i: 3 7 C.':, ':ExAC

( ' 12 )

<r:-5c11 r2 4

...~.-.-.----,.--__,;,,-

_--.-wm.__==-.,.n.,._.-

- = -. - - - -

,m

..-_,m--

_..-__,-,.--.a

.m 1

1 a fcetual !asie i :-

&r.

1-obb'c b e o l. ?

y s

4 7

A.

Y O f,.

I 2

0 J

<1 1 d n ' t want to overlock anythinc.

l t

1.

Ycs.

1 52 5

O.

C1ay.

3 a

6

7..

I ' s:-

t r e'l a r e C to

ta y t;u i t e late, ir 7

that's your with.

M I

I C.

[.0 t l' 0 G G t.

It O b f.12 0 f f.O I C hC h P. V O.

P b.

Probar3y quite a 10t.

j 10 P !;. I I P P I. r :

Cfr the record.

Q-I

^

11 12 (l'1l P Fl* pot:,

there won a <ilscussion g

13 held aff the r e c o'e r!. )

h 14 m

d 15 tP.

P I r r. I.1. :

Le t 's take :- breek.

b.

I r, 17

( r.h o r t It e c e e n )

18 l

19 0

(Py Pr.

F i d t' ] c )

All r i t: li t.

Ict'4 el i S C U S S l

20 your c o n t en t i a ri c, n red rattorn control s y r t e r.

t I

which i s your nunhcr

)?.

g 22 ro you kno. for a fact that if r c s c' e n III i

a

'3 72 has an T<rrs systen id e n t i e ni to that d e siq ned for 1

24

/, C N C S ?

25

/.

ro 30u va ri t to alve het en> thing?

i 173

. 3

.. <,. - -, -. -, -,,,,...,,, + -

rwr

~ve~-

e

>tr-----

-e-

-r--

w

  • e---i--r----
  • w----
  • '*i-e-

- - * + + ~ + - < - - - - - - - - - -

'

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20062H549&oldid=4453660"