ML20093N529

First Set of Interrogatories to Jacksonians United for Livable Energy Policies.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20093N529
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	07/30/1984
From:	Knotts J MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	JACKSONIANS UNITED FOR LIVABLE ENERGY POLICIES
References
OLA, NUDOCS 8408020027
Download: ML20093N529 (12)

Text

T'.@ (,7 . . . _ . . . . . . -.L. . . . . . -

t.

,.,. R ELA i 29 c~, . - ..

" - cCilDENCE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 221 :E' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EOARD, .

': n' :n3 In the Matter of: )

)

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, ) Docket No. 50-416 et al. ) OLA

)

(Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1) )

LICENSEE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO JACKSONIANS UNITED FOR LIVABLE ENERGY POLICIES (JULEP)

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $2.740b, and in accordance with the Licensing Board 's - Order dated April 23, 1984,l/

, Licensees hereby serve this first set of interrogatories upon Intervenors, Jacksonians United for Livable Energy Policies (" JULEP"). These interrogatories relate to the two admitted contentions in this proceeding (Renumbered Contention 2 and Renumbered Contention 3), which in turn relate to Amendment No. 10 to the Grand Gulf, Unit 1 license.

INSTRUCTIONS em ijgy@ (a) Each interrogatory shall be answered in writing, under bg IS6 oath or affirmation, and each answer shall include all og '

gg pertinent information known to JULEP, its officers, t directors, members, employees, advisors, or counsel.

lb ,

o i 1/ "Second Order Following Prehearing Conference (Admitting Intervenor and Ruling on Contentions) ," n April 23, 1984, slip op. at 16-17. [)

• ~

E '_ c

_, (G1 .

~

(b) In answering each interrogatory, please recite the interrogatory prior to each answer.

(c) Please state the full name, address, occupation, and

. employer of each person answering the interrogatories and fdesignate the interrogatory or part thereof he or she answered.

(d) Where the name or identity of a person is requested in an interrogatory, please state in the answer the person's full name, address, . employment, and telephone number.

-(e) - The term '_' document" as used in these interrogatories shall include any writings, drawings, graphs, charts, -

photographs, and other data compilations from which information can be obtained.

.( f) These' interrogatories are continuing in nature. Thus, any_ time' JULEP obtains-further or different information, JULEP-should supplement its previous response. JULEP should also supplement its responses as necessary with respect to.the identity of each person expected to be calledJat the hearing.as an expert witness, the subject

matter of his or her testimony, and the substance of that testimony. This information is necessary to assure that Licensees'have_ adequate _ time to prepare for hearing,

' including deposing.such witnesses if Licensees decide depositions are appropriate.

O m-_

C . ::.;. . . . . . - - . - .

.g-

-(g)

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $2.740b(b), JULEP should serve its answers within 14 days after service of the interroga-tories.

INTERROGATORIES

A. Renumbered Contention 2

1. Is it JULEP's position that the exception to Technical Specification 4.0.4, allowing a required surveillance test of the ADS Trip System safety relief valves within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> after the reactor attains the minimum

. pressure necessary to perform the test, is improper?

Please specify in precisely what way you contend such is improper. Please explain precisely why, and on what grounds you contend-it is improper. Does JULEP

propose or recommend that the main steam safety / relief valves be stroked (tested) " dry,".i.e., without steam flow subjecting valve parts, contrary to panufacturer's recommendations, to potential damage?

Please identify all references which support your l

L contention.

2 ., Is it JULEP's position that the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period allowed by Amendment 10 for t.he surveillance test is too long?

!' If so, please:

l-

• ' ,a. . ,. . --- ....---.:.

-c. State whether the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> time period involves an increase in-the probability or consequences of an accident. Explain your answer and identify any such accident sequence and consequences.

b. State whether the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> time period involves a reduction in a specific margin of safety.

Explain-your answer and identify any specific -

safety margins referred to.

3. Does or will JULEP propose a time period other than 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> after achieving minimum pressure in which the

' ADS Trip System surveillance test should be performed?

If so, what is the time period?

4. Please' identify each person Whom you will call or are considering calling as a witness to the hearing on this contention. Further, with respect to each such person, please:

a. State the substance of the fac~ts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify.

p. Give a summary of the grounds for each opinion.

c. Describe the witness' educational and pro-fessional background.

5.- ;Is JULEP's position on this contention based on one or more cal'culations? If so, please:

a. ' Describe each calculation and identify any document setting forth such calculation.

b. -Identify who performed each calculation.

, _5_

I

-c. State when each calculation was performed.'

d. - Describe each term or quantity used in each calculation and describe the source of your data,

e. State the results of each calculation.

f. Explain in detail how each calculation provides a basis for the contention.

6. Is JULEP's position on this contention based on one or more experiments or tests? If so, please: ,

a. Describe each experiment or test and identify any document setting forth such experiment or test.

b. Identify who performed each experiment or test.

c. State when each experiment or test was performed.

d. Describe each parameter or variable measured in each experiment or test.

~

'e. State the results of each experiment or test.

.f. Explain in detail how each experiment or test provides a basis for the contention.

7. Is JULEP's position on this contention based upon conversations, consultations, correspondence, or any other type of communication with one or more individuals? If so, please:

. a .- Identify each such individual,

b. State the educational and professional background of each such individual, including occupation and institutional affiliations.

~ -

- . . . . .= - . - . . . . - . .- -. .- -. - .

c. Describe the nature of each communication with such individual, when it occurred, and identify f

all other individuals involved.

d. Describe the information received from such individuals and explain how it provides a basis for the contention.

e. Identify each letter, memorandum, tape, note, or other record related to each conversation, con-sultation, correspondence, or other communication with such individual.

8. Is JULEP's position on this contention based on any experience at other nuclear power plants? If so, please:

a. Identify the experience on which JULEP relies,

b. Describe how, in JULEP's view, such experience is relevant to the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1.

9. ,Is JULEP's position on this contention based upon any

NRC Staff documents? If so, please identify the documento.

10. Is JULEP's position on this contention based upon any

! other documents? If so, please identify the documents.

! B. Renumbered Contention 3

. . .s- , , . ~ ..

>,.. s.., : =.:..=. . . - . .- .-

. . . 'n .

V

, , 1. Is it JULEP's position that the exception to Technical Specification 4.0.4, allowing a required Scram Discharge Volume surveillance test within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />

, after obtaining the control rod density necessary to perform the test, is improper? Please specify in

.g precisely what way you contend such is improper.

Please explain precisely why, and on what grounds you

. contend it is improper. Please identify all references which support your contention.

2. Is it JULEP's position that the 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> period allowed

, by Amendment 10 for the surveillance test is too long?

l If.so, please; i :'.

a. State whether the 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> time period involves an

. increase in the probability or consequences of an accident. Explain your answer and identify any such accident sequence and consequences,

b. State whether the 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> time period involves a reduction in a specific margin of safety.

. Explain your answer and identify any specific safety margins referred to.

I3. Does or will JULEP propose a time period other than 72

. hours after achieving the necessary control rod density in which the Scram Discharge Volume surveillance test should be performed? If so, what is the time period?

m, ,, , , , - . ~ . , , -, , - . - - - ,e - - - - , , , . . , , - - - - , ,-.,,a -- , - . - - - - - - ,.c,. . - , - , , , - . . - .

oa ,._ ._. . . _ . .

^

• s

. i.,  % %; s

_ ~

~x ,

_ +

4. . Please identify each 'per' son whom you will call or are '

considering calling as a witness at the hearing en this contention. Further; with respect to each such person, please:

a.  %. State the subst'ance of the facts and opinions to

' '% . 2 t

whi5h the witness is expected to testify.

f ,

e. b. Give 'a summary of the grounds for each opinion.

s

c. Describe the witness' educational and pro-fessional backgrodnd.

.c 5. Is JULEP's position on this contention based on one or more calculations? If so, please:

p# -

a. Describe each calculation and identify any

.  ;~

i

, t, document setting forth such calculation.

• t

+

^ b'.

g ti .Y /

Identify who performed each calculation.

,7c . State when each calculation was performed.

p ..

,d. Describe each term or quantity used in each 4'N Ao -

.I . t s calculation and describe the source of your data.

• jp c

I" N e. State the results of each calculation.

,2-

4. Explain in detail how each calcrlation provides a 6

basis for-the contention.

6. Is-JULEP's position on this contention based on one or more experiments or tests? If so,'please:

s a. Describe each experiment or test and identify any document setting forth such experiment or test.

er'

.b. Identify who performed each experiment or test.

9 r c. State when each experiment or test was performed.

,., yn '

11 .

• T. _

'~s - , ,, ,.

p.. .. ,_:

.(.,.._

.- - y

-. c = .

is, .+

3 i s

d. Describe each parameter or variable measured in each experiment or test.

e. -State the resulta of each experiment or test.

f. ' Explain in detail how each experiment or test provides a basis for the' contention.

7. Is JULEP's position on this contention based upon conversations, consultations, correspondence, or other

-type of communication with one or more individuals?

If so, please:

a. Identify each such individual.

b. State the educational and professional background iG of each such individual, including occupation and institutional affiliations,

c. Describe ' the nature of each communication with such individual, when it occurred, and identify all other individuals involved.

d. Describe the information received from such individuals and explain how it provides a basis

, for the issue.

e. . Identify each letter, memorandum, tape, note, or other record related to each conversation, con-

. .sultation, correspondence, or other communication I with such individual.

g 8. Is JULEP's position on this contention based on any experience at other nuclear power plants? If so,

( please:

1 i

-- ,. .. .c .

_,n.  : -'.p

. n . { , a. - .. --- . . wt-ecf*' -.  :; ~ - > n - - - - -

• t v p-

• * ~

y, . .g- .

,, ..y

/ .

s r- .

, f "

~ 44/ -$ , f

p ..

a - f.Y , ,

10 -

( < 'a

. t

-- * ,j

'(.

/

u 1 'r e -

, d .,> , - Ide_ sntify the experience on which JULEP relies.

,2 c . "t -;5 = 1 7 .

I ,"

% b. Describe;how, in JULEP's view, such experience is

. if- , L- , ., .

a. -

-~ 2'- ' relevant .to the Grand',' Gulf Nuclear Station,

., __y

. ,, , ") , ';. '

4 ,' '

7 ~ ,,; U n,.i i t. 1 . ee - ./-

a__'

,- ' . -m ,

?

4 .h.3: .Is JULEP's position ~ on: this, .conkcntion based upon any , .,

s, .

r <

~ M.NEC, Staff documents? 'If so, please id'entify the

.1 r .. ,- ,

( ~1 , r

[

'+ ' docuinents .

,) >

b -10. .Is JULEP's position on-this contention based upon any a .

n otheMdocume.nts? ,If so, please identify the a.

. ~. ..

documents. % ..,,'

e

, f

,\ ae

,I~, _ Respectfully sub:nitted ,

i \

j N'ch las S. Reyrbid s 7 ,. Jos ph B. Knotts

,j David A.fReyka

...( '

Bishop, Litprmanl\ Cook,

-! fri Purcell &'Reynolds

-e /, , ,;l% '

1200 Seventeenth Street, 17.W.

~ 4, . /'r Washington 'D.Ci ;20036

> j} 6,f (202) 857-?800-g

's s,

v

,  ;,  ; Counsel fo:,r; Licensees

.,  ;,; , - ;c ;  ; "'.* ,

4 s T/ July 30, . 1984..' 1/ , ~

'YT 'A r

4 s

'-3'.

'.y

,',. s

. f- .-

l-

- n i

.$ f

? !, ~

a 7'

't F,

/- ,'1 e -

-j e.,5 Y

' t .

2

$ 9 p r- %

1,_g

• . / .

Ci? ,-. ... .,:2.__~ .. _ ._ -.;_.._. _ _u. - . ~ . -

a; *

, i.

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

)

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT )

COMPANY, et --

al. ) Docket No. 50-416 (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, )

Units l'and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

,- I hereby certify that copiesHof " Licensees' First Set of Interrogatories to Jacksonians United for Livable Energy Policies

-(JULEP)" was served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail on July 30, 1984:

Herbert Grossman, Chairman Docketing and Service Atomic Safety and Licensing Branch

'~

Board. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission . Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. .20555 Dr. James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing

' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

_. Board U.J. Nuclear Regulatory

.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis siota Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

' Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Peter A. Morris Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U .' S . Nuclear Regulatory- Commission

' Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

. Washington, D.C. 20555 Mitzi Noung, Esq. Robert B. McGehee, Esq.

Counsel for NRC~ Staff \lise, Ca rter , Child &

Office of Executive Legal Caraway Director 600 Heritage Building

-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Jackson, Mississippi 39201

. Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 U _

=

4 h

Mississippi Power & Light Ken Lawrence l Company- Jacksonians United for '

Attn: J. 3. Richard Livable Energy Policies Senior Vice President - Nuclear P.O. Box 3568 P.O. Box 1640 Jackson, Mississippi 39207 Jackson, Mississippi 39201 '

Cynthia Ann Stewart Jacksonians United for Livable Energy Policies Route 3 Box 314W (Brame Road)

Jackson, Mississippi 39202 ph B. Knottis , Jr.

4 A

d

,- - _. -. , , , , - - - , - - , . , ,,n-