ML20065A522

Fifth Set of Interrogatories Re Issue 7 on Control/ Prevention of Bifouling Caused by Asiatic Clams,Pursuant to ASLB 810728 Memorandum & order,LBP-81-24.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20065A522
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	09/07/1982
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
LBP-81-24, NUDOCS 8209130249
Download: ML20065A522 (4)

Text

-_--___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________ ___ _ ________

~

\ .

i e

WTED CORRESPONDEP'C l

September 7, 1982 U'NITED STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

DocgkC USN Before the Atomic Safety and Li_ censing Board .

In the Matter of )

j N '9 All:4 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING Docket Nos. 50-440 COMPANY, Et A1. )

EbOIYS 50-441 88SNCH

) (Operating License)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

)

OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO NRC STAFF Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy ("0CRE") hereby pro-pounds its fi'fth set of interrogatories to the NRC Staff, pursuant to the Licnesing Board's Memorandum and Order of July 28, 1981 (LBP-81-24, 14 NRC 175).

Issue #7 Statement of

Purpose:

The following interrogatories concerning Issue #7 are designed to evaluate the Staff's requirements for the control / prevention of biofouling at PNPP caused by Asiatic clams.

5-1. In the reply to OCHE's first set of interrogatories (#1-19 and #1-21) Staff claims not to have analyzed methods for

' pfeventing/ controlling flow blockage at PNPP caused by Corbicula. If such methods have been analyzed at this time, please supply the results of this analysis.

~

5-2. If the analysis described above still has not been performed, 3 does the Staff intend to do so? If not, why not? If so, when will it be performed?

5-3. In the reply to OCRE's first set of interrogatories (#1-25) 8209130249 820907 gd

6 .s '

b

~

00iL%ETED

- USNRC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9 gj *.48 This is to certify that copies of the fo ing s 6P, CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY FIFTH SET OF INTERROG [BSG M'C STAFF

~

were served by deposit in the U.S. Mail, firs clE@I postage prepaid this 7th day of September 1982 to those on the service list below.

&Y Ys Susan L. Hiatt

....~*~~--~~..-..

SERVICE LIST I

Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Daniel D. Wilt, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Bo'x 08159

! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Cleveland, OH 44108 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n

! Washington, D. C. 20555

! Frederick J. Shon l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 3 U.S. Nuclear.Hegulatory Comm'n

!' Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n '

Washington, D.C. 20555

-Stephen H. Lewis, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C. 20555 Jay Silberg, Esq.

1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

s Staff claims not to have reviewed whether, if Corbicula were to enter the PNPP Emergency Service Water System (ESWS) and decompose therein, any effects on the safe

~

operation of the plant would occur. If the Staff has now made this analysis, please supply same.

5-4. If the analysis described above still has not been per-formed, does the Staff intend to do so? If not, why not?

If so, when will it be performed?

5-5. 'Section 9.2.1 of the Perry SER (NUREG-0887) states that Applicants have a program for detecting Corbicula in Lake Erie and'in various systems at PNPF. In the Staff's opinion, is this program acceptable? Describe in detail any defi-ciencies ide'ntified.

5-6. In the reply to OCRE's second set of interrogatories (#2-3)

Staff claims not to have analyzed the Perry ESWS to determine what parts are most susceptible to biofouling.

If this analysis has now been performed, please supply the results.

5-7,. If the analysis described above still has not been per-formed, does the Staff intend to do so? If not, why not?

If so, when will it be performed?

5 -8'. The response to OCHE interrogatory #2-7 contains the following statement: "(t)he Staff would review methods for controllin~g Corbicula if it should be decided that such methods are required to ensure the safe operation of the plant."

(a) Describe all criteria the Staff would use to determine if Corbicula control is necessary to ensure safe operatior

_ J

s r o

-3_

of the plant.

(b) Give the name, position, and qualifications of the person responsible for making such a decision.

(c) Upon what information would such a decision be based?

I.e., information supplied by the Applicants or.

from independent NRC inspections?

(d) What means will be used to ensure the Applicants' compliance with Staff's requirements?

5-9. Produce all documents in the possession of the Staff concerning the presence of Corbicula in Lake Erie (excluding those documents supplied with earlier responses).

Respectfully submitted, Susan L. Hiatt OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Rd.

Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158 4

0

.