ML20062H558

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 28 on Control Rod Ejection Accidents.Excerpts of Jf Doherty Deposition Encl.Pp 185-200
ML20062H558
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 8008190124
Download: ML20062H558 (16)
v • d • e


Text

O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S

S

!!OU3 TON LIGHTING & POWER S

COMPANY S

Docket No. 50-466 S

(Allens Creek Nuclear S

Generating Station, Unit S

No. 1)

S Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard 1.

Because of the configuration of the systems, it is physically impossible for SCRAM Discharge Volume pressure or Containment pressure to exert a force on a control rod drive (CRD) in a direction which drives it out of the core.

(Affidavit, pp. 4-7) 2.

Even assuming a breach below the CRD drive piston, the resulting rod withdrawal velocity is much less than that assumed for the design basis rod drop event.

(Af fidavit, pp.

7-8) 3.

Even assuming that the control rod drive separates l

from the vessel, the resulting ejection cannot produce a reactivity insertion rate greater than that calculated for the bounding red drop accident because the CRD can eject only as far as the gap between the CRD and a specifically provided support housing; l

this passive, physical restraint limits the distance and time of 1

9

  • goE1 185

rod withdrawal and, hence, the reactivity addition rate.

(Affidavit, pp. 8-10) 4.

The SL-1 reactor is totally dissimilar to the reactor configuration and operation of a BWR.

The SL-1 incident cited by Intervenor does not provide any meaningful comparison with BWR rod ejection possibilities.

(Affidavit pp. 10-11) l l

t l )

l l

t l

l l

l 6,

_B 80-8 55 COST $

  1. ,9."# / CO MP Doherty Contention Noo 23/

~

Control Rod Ejection PAID BV PLF.OEF.

8

(

3

)

IN THE Ut1ITED S TATES OF AMERICA g

14UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION kl M

i.

,e

.l.:

III THE MATTE R OF :

)

l hq HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER

)

j

COMPANY, DOCKET NO. 50-466 g

(ALLENS CREEK NUCLEAR

)

p, GEtiE RATIN G SIATION, UNIT NO. 1)

)

l 9a at S

3 i

O t_l 7

1 DEPOSITION OF:

JO!!N F.

DOHERTY T

I r

L

[

(

f

.~..., :. : G,u/)

=

/

'- -...*:,, 3 s

...y,.

y' v.

187

e

/

-~ '.3

! -.l.

, ; z

  • c p'? y,,,,,< t {&

W n<

+

1917 Sang of the Southwest Suiling. Houston, Texas 77002. (7th 652 5911 7

2 f' 3

1

(

'i l c title in " 'I ' ' I

.7,

Le2 n s o rt o learned 2

'I u s h force I' c t. o r t, "

and it is referenced in your

'e 3

contention.

/

b.

'i h a n k you,

r.

F i r' r' l e.

I

<'en't I.a v e e v1 cel y of that c o n t. e n t i e n

t. i t h rr.

c

'9 r3

'J.

thy <' o n ' t you borrow this c o l 'y ?

e 7

l.

Thank you.

In "UHrr-057f, the n t a t e rn e n t

~

i ed that e n ] <!

sit u t d ow n l' e 7

was that whey recontcnr t'8 M

C ochievatlc in 7/ hours wit!out etference to m

1r ceccter tvi e.

e 11 c.

/11 richt.

I still don't think I u n d c r.i t a n r1 then ulat its relevanco ir in thic j2 C o n t C ri t i C ri.

Ib i C.

just it l c C orir e n t' d t { O tt ?

J

~

It

?.

' ha t ev e r force the Three t' i l e Island w

1 9

^

le investijation has is r e l.o r t e ri to the.tki.C-Or79 p,

J r-c.

I' u t does it (rove or <' i s t. c o v e any fcet okt 17 relevent to teh e t h e r or not A c t. r c c o n t.c broucht

!T to a cold s h u t e' o t> n c o rir' i t i n n ir 7/ !

uru7 7

J" A.

It

<:a k e s no staterent a... o t / c.' r F.

F 7I f'.

In Ci: 8. ' n !' O t. C C tO 1:y G U C r. t. i c !!

ri c '

7}

YeG.

" !! a t ' O COIrPCt.

.a C.

I. c t ' C 10 into your contention en contr01 an e

.3 22 rod e j t: c t i o n.

"h!E is ycur n 'J a i h ? r 7 I'.

2/

1* n u l t! See c y [ l a i ri te r.e sLct cn counc a

.pt 7 '.

CCnirQ1 T o t' t j 6 e t 5 n ?

F4 188

1 A.

If the c o r. c: i t i o n for centrcl red deep extats o t t: se;aret:cn c n

c e n t r o., rec

c. c i v e E
c t. s i r :; n t.r. ; o r t, I helieve it's allee, then i

t

,1 ejection is ;; o s s i b l e.

S r.j e c t i o n is also possible if the suprer I

'I is s e ; a r a t er: f r e rn the vessel.

  • nat is the c u :. t. o r t inat you nave

^

7 l

l referer.ce to, a r. d hc. in : : r.; r t i n e n t to.. h e t h e r i

i ce not a centrol t e r.: ic e3 ecto;?

i t

l c

l 1

a. s.

e.. e. s.. a p..r.a, 3.

n e c,., a. n. e o.. s. w. e..t

e.. c; l

s

.a

.arto;a, some other acri'ents, t.cre'n a ty; e of 4.

I

nyc
cal structure wh ici is l o c a t e d.

beneatn which l

'e 1

i e t u.t l l.- li:erally tv i l l stor

  • c v i ti --.entrol
rod,

('.

I i

, ically s t o r.

t.,

i m. ;: e d e it, F l o c 'd it.

34' l

i Ir

cilure of that phjuical eechanical device would 15 5t3h an e]CCtiON.

sup esedly going to 17 s'.

io v is this device c

1e f a 1'.1 7 19 In the event of crackinc of the c'etallic l

1 "O

c o r.n e c t i o n to tre reactor vessel.

I 21 c.

' hat.:. a < e s that

-.e a l l i c cennection i

i 2:

cracx?

5 t

22 A.

'co l l, part of it een 5, e due ta bu171ne f

i t

i 24 of the reactor.

l 25 C.

. hat causes tne reactor to nul"e?

i l

t I

i a,

,1...

,r' u;s.

.s

?.

..=..,..;

l,,&,.

1 e. c :a,,

r.,.-. 6 =,

.J

.e 1R9

s. w W4ElemD em m

esuna.

l I

l L

I J.

Ce r ta in reactivity incidance.

C.

hich do you have reference to, and i

?

what's the factual nacis for tha t?

1 ould you retneat yo u r cuestion?

I ' v.e

/

A.

t i

5 lost you.

r' PP.

PITEL":

t:o u l d you r e a t.

the last c, u e s t i o n back?

I i

l l

f I : ':' E 3 E L'.c c :., t ii e r e c. u e s t e c te s t i: e n' l

i i

i

.a s r tu !: 0 0.< by the reporter.

I l

11 i

A.

!n one of the older :' I 'r C ' s, it cites i

I a r ta in tyres u: a c e i r' e n t s +:here reactivity le c e! :l i t i o n s can be crest enough to cause bulejinc of the reactor which would subject the retal to stress hich night result in c r a c '< i n g.

17 C.

  • /o u say there is 1 CE document whier out-

!?

lines tais scenario w h e r e t, y overpressurication ir wocid cause a bulcing in the reactor and a i.

I

1.. the connection between the c3 stressine 21 cus or t.ousing and the vessel itselC' 22 A.

It doesn't nention One support.

It j

t 21 neations the c u l g i n e.-

however.

o 1

24 There is a CI d o c u t.. e 9 0 wi'ich talks accur 25 reacter v a s :.; 41 b u l g i.9 q ?

i I,

i i,

v........,

.c.

-, i s.. g y., t er

- c.

.e..

u..

, e r,.. C.", " Y " c.

(~)

t e. 7

e..' '.
n...n

._ %J %'

-__~

1 A.

Yes.

I C.

7. h a t ' s the magnitude of this deflection?

il 2

A.

I'n ceing to locate that n o t!.

a 0

Co you have the :: E T C which discusses 5

this phenonenen in your possession?

4 f'

O.

h* o.

7 c.

Co you nave reference to it?

e A.

I'n trying to l oca te one now.

Yes.

5 c

It's AFF0 SJ55.

f LC C.

Fnd this GE document dincusses the

)

1 e

11 reactor vessel hulging which you contene vill j

12 cause the CRC support housing to f a 11; is that u

12 correct?

le A.

It describes hulging.

IF C.

And you take this descriptica to mean l

If C.T a t there is a nechanism whereby the CnD support

.[

t 17 housing will fail; is that correct?

12 A.

Yes.

Th a t's one mechanism.

i I

j 19 C.

hhat are the other nechanisus if'they I

(

\\

i e

2C exist?

2 i

21 A.

According to Clenn Er ig h t who is now i

22 ene of the l ic e n s i ng board = embers, et Muclear 1

/

f, 2:

Safety, volune 9,

nunber 2,

page 119, ha argues I

23 that a pressure pulse fece a-reactiv!:y initiated

,P I

25 accid en t would be a possible mechanism fcr a red t

i i

I 1: 1 e > a c I r /- u L,. c.1 n. ! t i.. :. ; ;,

...t.

c t: 0 '. C M, "i F.< /. T (712)
~a : - S
  • 1 1 -

1$1

1 ejection o v e r. t.

~

O.

Oces Fr.

Eright discuss the failure of 4

Cir. housirg c u t. p o e t ?

t, e

A.

I don't 'celieve he does.

d 4

5 c.

Dut I at correct in a s s ur. i ng that your

1:othetical c o r. t t c I rod e,ectio is derendent i

d P-upon 1 f a i l t. r c of

-*is

.: u ;. r s r t heusing i nsofar

  • s i

i f

?

-e've cl i c c c c s e e the c r. '. y

.ecnanism failure; t r. e t I

o ceing

.9 a e,: a r a t i c, n ' r a.-

. ;; e reactor vossel duc l

t i r te vessel P u l - i n. ; :s tnat coercet?

i i

l 4

! c ; te<

~5 t r e has.:een.= secone I

l' c r.' e s. s which have been found in the

f. e n e t r a t i o n I

i j

12 u'ic :, t t r. e :; 'ock nuclear station.

i-

...:cn I: e n o t r a t i. n wellu do you.:a v a 15 ceference to?

l t

1 :~

A.

T.e y are called partial

,r a n c t r a t i o n 1-w c 1,a s.

t I c, C.

A n e: thev connect what to

'.h a t ?

l 19 A.

I'm unclear at this t i..e if they co nect I

the tyte of housing or ufety struerure

-!. c P j

l 1

wil' te

r. a r t of ACNCE,

,e hether this i n an i

l I

l

~;

cider systen hich doca

r. o t r.' a v e tnis t.< e: e., f l

I i

22 safety device.

I

,ou don't k n o t-wr. ether Or no t';tse 2

O.

SO

f i

g enetra-ion weil crac6.a reve

r. c e n releva:.

t-i i

N f

O g M

a.f: F gg A N..$

.B "

u C s '

M.

  1. -FM.'.B9F..f E

g

.F i

4

..,.e.

f-,.)

-.. e n.i i.

po

, c...,

o.. s...

i..

JH s

====---=.i=.-------------%----

1 L.

Y I

your centention or net at thic tice?

I 2

A.

! ' -- not certain they do.

Fut I t h i :- 4 I co not knot, t o e.

1 2

hat's i r. p o r t a n e in the e

exact tern.

The type of notal, age or t.h a t e v e r 1

1 5

it's called that is d e s ig n ed to physically block

+

t P

4 that as a final safety device.

+

t,;.

1e're trying te dircuss s.a y s in *hich t

L 0

t h r. : cupport.ight fail.

l i

i C.

b.

Yes.

1" C.

.s e have en the record your P.y i. o t h e i l s t!

t a r2 actor hulce 111 cause such.a failure.

l l

t i

j 1:

to you have under. consideration any l,

1.7 cther etencnism for fa.ltre OC thic supicrt 1/

. i e e c, or is reactor b u l g i n<; it?

15

/.

Einply cracking j

t I?

7 hhat causes the crackinq teyonc tue I?

bulge in a reactor vousel?

la A.

Cistress, corossion.

4 19 C.

Is your belief that this support housing I

20 is susceptible tc. stress, corossion, c r c e,. i n e- ?

I i

i 21 A.

Yes.

t 22 C.

lia s there ever been anything l i '< e this 1

4 1

for these components?

i 2d

.a.

!'o t to., y knowledge, but I'-

not certain 25

nese cceponents ever existed be fo r e.

j i

J i

v.....,.., c-a c..a.

m

=...,

.c.

, e. r. e.. r..,. r.v ;s c.

t.. 1,. i, c c.;,_ ;. r..-

193 l

--.,,-_,y..w.

4.

r

.9

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

y

_.,,>.y,.mi m.

-..-..c-

-.... - =

..w i'

4 l

C.

'n n a t do you u n d e r s t a n t.'

to :, e t h.9

.2 necessary environment to induce strecs, c o r :i c s i o n,

\\

t cracking?

e'.

A.

Intensive heat.

The presence of oxygen 5

cissolved into liquid would be ideal for that.

s 6

The presence of iodine cas-dissolved would.also 7

cause that.

that is your belief, or is i t-your l

l

?

kno ledge tnat t h'i a housin" s e p t. o r t c :: i s t s in r

1r such an envirennen ?

A.

It does exist in an area -hich is cu i te-l t

r

}

1:

hot and damp.

I don't believe it e :< ! s t s in an I

1:

area o t' any todine.

I f

1/

co it's your conclusion t h'a t i r.

is or is I

{

i t

I j

15 not ti i

1 4

is A.

I believe it's susceptible, and-I 4

1 17 believe that tais abould be investigased.

~

i 1

j if C.

But to your knowledge, there has been no 19 incidence of thic cracking for-this cceronent or 6

2r eny conpon=n located in similarity?

l 21 A.

For this cenponent, I have no kno-ledge f

22 of that.

l 22 C.

Are there any other mechanisms whereby I

i.

sut. ort can fail beyond reactor 2r thic nousing

?n J

25 vessel cnd intergral tress, coression, crackin;?

t

. 4. 9, r-

,e e- - e... r r.

.e n-

.cw

. s

=p

&a % e w.3. r e.9 4 =, e n L LV=so %. =e

[

.v.r. n

>,. g I' f

e 4

e t e. < tu

. s. 4 6 s

o. s.."

(

  • l.* *)

,q C..*.

P O..t 9

6e 9 r

._______________________._______________;_g4.___.

l L

m.

1 A.

t'c.

I don't-Anow of any right now.

C.

.Co these are the two mechanisns whereby 9

your hypothesis will cause failure.cf tPu CFP e

support housing?

5 A.

Yeu-i G

7 If thic housing fails, how far ccn a r m.

4 9

7 be e: cted?

a ! ears enere's no limit to hov for A.

It r

i i

's Other t.*. J n Cha f10Cr.

I i t c.

"here's no 11rit'except the ficer?

l l

.. a h.

3 1.

l

)

1.-

So in your hypothesis, the ro? can he I

12

(; ce ted totally cut of core?

k It A.

That it can be ta ke n out o t" any i

j i

15 controlling cf the core a distance of 12 feet,-

l J

l' approxinately.

17 C.

Is the answer to cy question yes, or did 13 you re s ta te your answer to cualify it?

19 A.

hhat was your cuection again?

"C C.

I.c w far ou-can the rod be ejectec?

I i

s 11 guess more p r o p e r l v.

I a c r. e d you if it was 'our 22 understanding that it can be ej ec ted out of.the 22 cere?

i i

I.

r 24 A.

't e s.

25

~.. h a t rod w!thdrawal speeds is obtained I

e r

t._

C..,..._

. t.,.,.r.

.- t.

.e s.t

..c

'1 ". C.' ',

""'n'^.

( '.'." ) < ' '. :. 0.' '

O.

---es.

I c u r i r.o.

v. o c e n v. r. o t." ? u 1. A.

I don't b e '. i e v e t ha t's never ':een calculated tor a E '^ P.

4 C.

1.a v e you c a l c u l a t.* d a rod w i t t.<' r a w a l 4

c s,

e.

a,.., e e..

J s

c

..,o,..4 I

'...'*.i...

w'.. -

i

6. a *.

o.. *... '.. j-

-w s.

Obtaine witn thic 00'-trol r e '.

e j e c - i o r. ?

i 1

. w. e...,. u

.. c.

e p.. 4, o.

r <. '.

s

~a i

t..;, r.1 c : e you ta n t l

I I

.a.,.

.i *.

i c

u-dor: nrd.

r.* y- >. *.

'..'.<....T

. '.. -. c.s '..... ' '

c..-

i

- e u..

7 N

I asked you acout reactivity addition i

,s l ',

rates.

I think you misundersteed ne.

rot e n e r.j y l

!?

c e r.o s i t i o n rates.

t if A.

Cive me core unite tnat

v. o u e x r. e c t in j

a l

uur answer.

g Ic f

i I

r

...o.,...

,3, t.. c-r.>a.-..'<..' - y

.^;

l.

l

' <r i l, in excess of

.l.

I s'.

.here did you ge-

na t figure?

i l

r,.

1.i 1

l nia..o u s a ' e. "..' ti te

  • h.).

.....i..5.

f s.

4 1e

.o,

~e s

i t

.t Lp. b

,,....n.,

u..,.

s.t -

u

.....r-

{-t.2e

c...., 2. ?. T.

?

w*

,,,,.-4..,

e 3

r w

k

1 C.

Then -hy did you volunteer that ans-er?

2 Snere did you get that an wcr7 2

A.

i;e l l, all the 1

a C.

Precu-ahly, enat's not a rate, de'11 i

j 9

start with that.

he'll work our way along.

f:

A.

All r!-ht.

711 the liter:ture that I've I

rece s;.echc that if

t. o rev ejectico ec-I ont l

i i

occura, that the re:ults

,.o u ; J be

/cc.

2rious.

t f

C-C.

This liteteture thc; you'v2 r,Ad,

.:c e s I

I It it adcrouc the rcd ejection far T. ' e"

e I

i e-have ny;othes:cee?

i; varietg f are ve ; p e a '< t.' <- of 1 *.

's.

I don't recc11

,. C....,

6. c.

6

/

?.

That's the only russen. : 1<

.e're r.e r v.

15 A.

I don't thinx enat'c true.

1 14 C.

r:u t I'm asking you if you've dona 1

1 17-calculations or other studies that gave you I

10 f a c tua l conclusions as to the reactivity addition I

!?

rate t ha t's to be a n t i c i,. a t e d for the control rod r

i 20 ejection accidents that you have hy ;;c t n a s i z e d ?

t i

21 A.

'J o.

Not for tnc A C 'I C S systar.

f f

22 C.

have you done any calculation; as to the 1

22 energy d e po si t ion that would result fror this l

1 e

reactivity?

l l

.o.

.o c.

ii.

i l

I c, 7 4 c y==.

r' c',.. - "..

[*.= f

~~

- ~ " '

e. ~r.\\ 4,.. *.- s. s.s..r r t *t.~
  • v 6

9 3

,s= (. e e= a.I,

a. g* +s s s C

( *.}

t, T g *, C. (=

A

.4 t.

MM M W-MM6m

_m L

I c.

lave you r e a ('

the F F,i F secticnc or a.m y 2

other oC applicants analysis on reactivit./

\\

2 incertion accidents?

A.

Yes.

's e l i e v e I nave.

5 C.

'i h a t do

,cu believe to te in error about c

tnose analyses?

?

A.

et une..on e n t, :'r not certain thc: a l

cantrol red e j ec t ion accit ent was cuaziJered.

4 ccn't elieve it was.

i.

l' You -ean it w a. s t o t.- 1 1 y icncred i., the I

1" e

l 11 analyc s?

i 1:

! think it was declared it eculd ce t 1

7 l

t 12 n a p t. e n.

a i

1..

r.

Jo you recall why it was declared ?c Ir incredible?

i i

I l 's A.

CeCJune of the Support Gtructure that We i

ii t

l' were speaking of a ninute ago.

l 16 C.

So your exception to applicant's j

19 analysis centers on ahather or not this C F.'

C support houcine can recain intact for the l

l 21 acc id en t?

I A.

Yes.

22 7

You agree that if it remains intact, 2/

that a control roc ejection accident i s u

3, 25 impossi le?

a I

4 9

.m a.tiv.

i

.,.... I u..,..

tc. e *..;,

=..y-g/A. ~..

e e.. _ c. e.

c.

v.,.

4 66 6 6m N 6m m mMM N m.6 m m m M. m mmmmm A- - - - - -

-N.m assume w emuAup. W

-6 m m enumme w

1 A.

That's right.

c.

All right.

I'd like to rove next to l

7

, ell, wait a rinute.

Excuse e.

e e

I believe in your contention you make 5

referocce to the fact that this contrci rod

jection :On ha

,c u s p e d in Sy a t t a i n.m e n t preccurec n.. C c i: A t' discharge v o l u r.e tank pressure 3.

l

  • ould you explein to

.m e how those i

'..a

ressures act to eject e control rod?

I l

l l

l

/.

nat iu t.. e source of your

'a e l i e v e of I

l ir ii i

I f

.?.

g.6 a e.1 I

Cf your contention.

i, l

4' i

i..

7: you have a O c t. y oC that, er de you j

L 1.*

2Ve a recopy of that?

15 c.

Fere you are.

l' A.

Th i s is r e '- o r d e d.

I'd ifke to check on 17 it, but enere in ac=e differences in our 13 understanding of what the contention in at this I

IC

aint.

l t

l cxay.

Mayne : can nhart cut :: if : :an rr i

.-ave acceca in what you believe is the proper I

22 aording.

I se are agreeino fo r present purposes

{

24 i

c :: a t y:ur contention as adnitted by the 5:ard, as 2~

you intenG to li:1 7 ate it.~ a k e s

r. c r + : e r e. c e to 1
... a.,' i I c. A I.

c : u.s : c i. r c c 7 t ',

7sc.

-- =--,.

y r.. c e. %., -. A.\\ c 7.,.,,I

.s

  • 'i

>L4 s.

f

_129 u

l I

c a r; t a i n ri e n t pressures or S C P A !*

diccharge v o l u: e I

tank pressurcs?

well, let's get our te r :s u t r a ir-h t.

.i n.

t.' o T 1. i :; s a v. s the crescurc fr:- t i: e reactor vesrcl.

I 5

You're speaking of the centainment 0.

Yes.

I 000t'S Ctt.

7 A.

!#o.

(.l e a r l'i tnere is l

l Ye, sir.

end tae a :. n e r p r o l: l e.,

t :.* n is :ne E c c l. -

ir disenar e v o l u., +.

1

'he incarnation I '- a v e of yet:r l

i

.s.

contention n a k e :- reference to, which nav be an r

l r

  • I

...r1iei

On0,

'~ r' ii h ** d i J c ii. r,r c vo!une t ra.. s j

l V

p r e ',Otar e s.

F

!?

ii.

ell h

.P c.

I need to know whether er no t t

17 A.

I don't believe that's reicvant.

t 1^

C.

Co

-e are agreeing ti: e n tha t the reactor 19 vescel anc internal 1: r o s s u r e are the only e

It otivating force for ejecting a control rod l

4 21 ejec. ion?

i i

-, g s.,..

,.s.

ni i,

2 C.

And gravity?

a 2

A.

Ye s.

l i

}

O.

All riqnt.

  • e w,

I'?

like to turn ::

^'

i 4

..,sc

.s

c...

( v.

u.

i.

i.

.,3 J,,. e.

.s -,

..s t

,3

---.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20062H558&oldid=4453653"