ML19224D710: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:" | {{#Wiki_filter:" | ||
@ s pTLD ConymoWN O ewm rg | @ s pTLD ConymoWN O ewm rg | ||
; NRC PUBLIC DOCUENT tof>M - , | ; NRC PUBLIC DOCUENT tof>M - , | ||
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA b igg 31973) L3 NUCLEAR REGULisTORY COMMISSION % | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA b igg 31973) L3 NUCLEAR REGULisTORY COMMISSION % | ||
| Line 24: | Line 23: | ||
gas s | gas s | ||
~ | ~ | ||
9 BEFORE THE ATOMIC S AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _ _ | 9 BEFORE THE ATOMIC S AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _ _ | ||
\r | \r | ||
| Line 38: | Line 36: | ||
,;- _ | ,;- _ | ||
7907160 /66 | 7907160 /66 | ||
Reactor Reculation Relative to a Pronosed Increase in Storare Caracity of the Scent Suel Pool (hereafter re-ferred to as EIA), dated April 2,1979, that "any additional | Reactor Reculation Relative to a Pronosed Increase in Storare Caracity of the Scent Suel Pool (hereafter re-ferred to as EIA), dated April 2,1979, that "any additional | ||
. atmospheric effects' of its oceration such as ' fogging and | . atmospheric effects' of its oceration such as ' fogging and | ||
| Line 53: | Line 47: | ||
What percentage of le total water from the lake lost through evaporation will be due to the additional heat to be dis-sipated if the proposed modification is carried out? | What percentage of le total water from the lake lost through evaporation will be due to the additional heat to be dis-sipated if the proposed modification is carried out? | ||
Contention 2: Radioactive Emissions 2-1 The Safety Evaluation by the office of Nuclear Reactor Reculation Relatine to Modification of Ine Spent Puel Storace Rackr (hereafter referred to as SER), dated Jan. | Contention 2: Radioactive Emissions 2-1 The Safety Evaluation by the office of Nuclear Reactor Reculation Relatine to Modification of Ine Spent Puel Storace Rackr (hereafter referred to as SER), dated Jan. | ||
29, 1979, states that "The fuel racks could slide under | 29, 1979, states that "The fuel racks could slide under seismic conditions..." What would the effect be on the 350 310 | ||
seismic conditions..." What would the effect be on the 350 310 | |||
pool and racks, and'on the keff in the_ pool, if these seismic conditions were to cause 2 or more. racks to slide closer together than the planned 14" center-to-center spa-cing? How far, and in what lirections, are the racks de-signed to slide under seismic conditions? - | pool and racks, and'on the keff in the_ pool, if these seismic conditions were to cause 2 or more. racks to slide closer together than the planned 14" center-to-center spa-cing? How far, and in what lirections, are the racks de-signed to slide under seismic conditions? - | ||
2-2 The SER states that "we conclude that the likelihood of a heavy load handling accident is sufficiently small so that the acceptability of the porposed modification is n ;t af-fected..." On what basis is this conclusion reached? In what specific way was such a likelihood calculated? | 2-2 The SER states that "we conclude that the likelihood of a heavy load handling accident is sufficiently small so that the acceptability of the porposed modification is n ;t af-fected..." On what basis is this conclusion reached? In what specific way was such a likelihood calculated? | ||
%-3 Section 4.4.1 of.'the. 'EIA states that "most of the gaseous fission proddets have sh'crt half-lives and decay to insig- | %-3 Section 4.4.1 of.'the. 'EIA states that "most of the gaseous fission proddets have sh'crt half-lives and decay to insig-nificant levels within a few months." What are the res't'of e | ||
nificant levels within a few months." What are the res't'of e | |||
the gas'ous fission product's,-those with' longer half-lives? | the gas'ous fission product's,-those with' longer half-lives? | ||
Provide a detailed list' o'f- als gaseous fission proddct's ex-pected -from spent fuel' assemblies to be stored in the pool. | Provide a detailed list' o'f- als gaseous fission proddct's ex-pected -from spent fuel' assemblies to be stored in the pool. | ||
2-4 Section 4.4 3 of the EIA states Storing additional spent fuel assemblies should not in-crease the bulk water temperature during normal refuel-ings above the 140*F used in the design analysis. There-fore, it is not expected that there will be any sig-nificant change in the annual release of tritium or iodine from that previously evaluated in-the FES. | 2-4 Section 4.4 3 of the EIA states Storing additional spent fuel assemblies should not in-crease the bulk water temperature during normal refuel-ings above the 140*F used in the design analysis. There-fore, it is not expected that there will be any sig-nificant change in the annual release of tritium or iodine from that previously evaluated in-the FES. | ||
How do the bulk water temperatures relate to the expected releast of H3 or I from the spent fuel pool? | How do the bulk water temperatures relate to the expected releast of H3 or I from the spent fuel pool? | ||
Contention : Corrosi on | Contention : Corrosi on 5-1 What will be the effect of the 40,4 heat load increase (as 350 311 | ||
5-1 What will be the effect of the 40,4 heat load increase (as 350 311 | |||
cited in the SER) on tne rate of corrosion of the zir-conium alloy cladding of the spent fuel assemblies? What will be the effect on the corrosion rate of the stainless steel racks? | cited in the SER) on tne rate of corrosion of the zir-conium alloy cladding of the spent fuel assemblies? What will be the effect on the corrosion rate of the stainless steel racks? | ||
5-2 The SER states, in section 2.6, that "the additional spent fuel in the pool will increase the amount of corrosion and fission proddcts introduced into the cooling water to some extent.,." What effect on workers is postulated through maintenance of the fuel pool purification system (e.g. | 5-2 The SER states, in section 2.6, that "the additional spent fuel in the pool will increase the amount of corrosion and fission proddcts introduced into the cooling water to some extent.,." What effect on workers is postulated through maintenance of the fuel pool purification system (e.g. | ||
| Line 83: | Line 64: | ||
5-4 What procedures are required or recommended by the NRC in the event of discovery of defective spent fuel storage racks? | 5-4 What procedures are required or recommended by the NRC in the event of discovery of defective spent fuel storage racks? | ||
5-5 What are the costs, advantages, end disadvantages of using (a) boron panels, and (b) borated water, in spent fuel pools? | 5-5 What are the costs, advantages, end disadvantages of using (a) boron panels, and (b) borated water, in spent fuel pools? | ||
Respectfully submitted, | Respectfully submitted, Irwin B. Yeoot, for CEF Dated this 31st day of May, 1979, in Bethesda, Maryland. , | ||
Irwin B. Yeoot, for CEF | |||
Dated this 31st day of May, 1979, in Bethesda, Maryland. , | |||
_50 | _50 | ||
'> LI! | '> LI! | ||
| Line 100: | Line 76: | ||
Michael Maupin, Esq. | Michael Maupin, Esq. | ||
* Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1538 Richmond, Va. 23212 Steven C..Goldberg,.Esq.. Dr. Quentin J. Stober Office of the Executive Legal Fisheries Research Institute Director University of Washington US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seattle, Wash. 98195 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Valentine 3. Deale, Esq., Chairman Panel Atomic Safety a .d Licensing Board US Nuclear Reculatory Commission 1001 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20036 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Mr. Ernest Hill Board Panel Lawrence Livermore Laboratory US Nuclear Regulatory Commission University of California Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 800, I,-123 Livermore, Califormia 94550 | * Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1538 Richmond, Va. 23212 Steven C..Goldberg,.Esq.. Dr. Quentin J. Stober Office of the Executive Legal Fisheries Research Institute Director University of Washington US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seattle, Wash. 98195 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Valentine 3. Deale, Esq., Chairman Panel Atomic Safety a .d Licensing Board US Nuclear Reculatory Commission 1001 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20036 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Mr. Ernest Hill Board Panel Lawrence Livermore Laboratory US Nuclear Regulatory Commission University of California Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 800, I,-123 Livermore, Califormia 94550 | ||
/Db77 Ir. win 3. Kroot, for CEF | /Db77 Ir. win 3. Kroot, for CEF 7 | ||
7 | |||
,lJ | ,lJ | ||
) | ) | ||
}I}O}} | }I}O}} | ||
Revision as of 02:58, 2 February 2020
| ML19224D710 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1979 |
| From: | Kroot I CITIZENS ENERGY FORUM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907160156 | |
| Download: ML19224D710 (5) | |
Text
"
@ s pTLD ConymoWN O ewm rg
- NRC PUBLIC DOCUENT tof>M - ,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA b igg 31973) L3 NUCLEAR REGULisTORY COMMISSION %
q ,, ,w*
gas s
~
9 BEFORE THE ATOMIC S AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _ _
\r
'h4 O.
In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-338 SP VIRG;NIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY ) 50-339 SP
)
(Nocth Anna Power Station, ) (Proposed Amendment to Units 1 and 2) ) Operating License NPF-4)
INTERROGATORIES TO NRC STAFF FRCT.i CEF Intervenor Citisens' Energy Forum (CEF) hereby requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NhC) Staff, pursuant to 10 CFR E2 740b, answer separately and fully, in writing under oath or affirmation, the following interrogatories wi+hin 14 days of service hereof. The person answering each question should set forth his or her name and title, and should identify any other individual who fcrnishes information on which the answer to the question is based. In addition, for each contention herein named, identify the person or persons (if any) whom the NRC staff intends to have testify on the subject matter of that issue.
State the professional qualifications of that person, and pro-vide a summary of his or her proposed testimony. Also identify fully an}- books or other documents to be relied upon in presenting testimony on that contention.
Cont _antion 1 : Thermal Effects
, 1-1 What is the basis for the statement in secticn E.3 of the Environ ~. ental Impact Aporai. sal by tl.e Offica of Huclear
,;- _
7907160 /66
Reactor Reculation Relative to a Pronosed Increase in Storare Caracity of the Scent Suel Pool (hereafter re-ferred to as EIA), dated April 2,1979, that "any additional
. atmospheric effects' of its oceration such as ' fogging and
- icing are unlikely to occur offsite"? Provide the facts and. analyses leading to such conclusion.
1-2 What is the basis for the statement in section 4 3 of the 6
EIA that "The addition of 5 6 x 10 Btu /hr to the total dis-charge from Units 1 and 2. . . would not have noticeable in-cremental effects on aquatic biota or the environment. "?
Provide the facts and analyses leading to such conclusion.
1-3 How much of the 1,905,600 gpm of water which is drawn from Lake Anna to circulate through the steam generators is~ -
returned to the Lake after going through the waste heat treatment facility? How much is lost through evaporation?
What percentage of le total water from the lake lost through evaporation will be due to the additional heat to be dis-sipated if the proposed modification is carried out?
Contention 2: Radioactive Emissions 2-1 The Safety Evaluation by the office of Nuclear Reactor Reculation Relatine to Modification of Ine Spent Puel Storace Rackr (hereafter referred to as SER), dated Jan.
29, 1979, states that "The fuel racks could slide under seismic conditions..." What would the effect be on the 350 310
pool and racks, and'on the keff in the_ pool, if these seismic conditions were to cause 2 or more. racks to slide closer together than the planned 14" center-to-center spa-cing? How far, and in what lirections, are the racks de-signed to slide under seismic conditions? -
2-2 The SER states that "we conclude that the likelihood of a heavy load handling accident is sufficiently small so that the acceptability of the porposed modification is n ;t af-fected..." On what basis is this conclusion reached? In what specific way was such a likelihood calculated?
%-3 Section 4.4.1 of.'the. 'EIA states that "most of the gaseous fission proddets have sh'crt half-lives and decay to insig-nificant levels within a few months." What are the res't'of e
the gas'ous fission product's,-those with' longer half-lives?
Provide a detailed list' o'f- als gaseous fission proddct's ex-pected -from spent fuel' assemblies to be stored in the pool.
2-4 Section 4.4 3 of the EIA states Storing additional spent fuel assemblies should not in-crease the bulk water temperature during normal refuel-ings above the 140*F used in the design analysis. There-fore, it is not expected that there will be any sig-nificant change in the annual release of tritium or iodine from that previously evaluated in-the FES.
How do the bulk water temperatures relate to the expected releast of H3 or I from the spent fuel pool?
Contention : Corrosi on 5-1 What will be the effect of the 40,4 heat load increase (as 350 311
cited in the SER) on tne rate of corrosion of the zir-conium alloy cladding of the spent fuel assemblies? What will be the effect on the corrosion rate of the stainless steel racks?
5-2 The SER states, in section 2.6, that "the additional spent fuel in the pool will increase the amount of corrosion and fission proddcts introduced into the cooling water to some extent.,." What effect on workers is postulated through maintenance of the fuel pool purification system (e.g.
changing filters) given this additional load on the puri-fication system? -
5-3 What procedures does the NRC require or recommend for the detection of defective spent fuel storage racks?
5-4 What procedures are required or recommended by the NRC in the event of discovery of defective spent fuel storage racks?
5-5 What are the costs, advantages, end disadvantages of using (a) boron panels, and (b) borated water, in spent fuel pools?
Respectfully submitted, Irwin B. Yeoot, for CEF Dated this 31st day of May, 1979, in Bethesda, Maryland. ,
_50
'> LI!
, , RE.LiTED COMU'5 POST)DEE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Interrogatories to NRC Staff from CEF has been mailed this 31st day of May, 1979, by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, to the following:
Secretary p. W N
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission #
Washington, D.C. 20555 o02 ,
Attn Chief, Docketing and Service Section ac 2 6- 1 James Dougherty, Esq. ; JUN 5197.8) -
P.O. Box 9306 g .ao% AY Washington, D.C. 20005 *gt " D th Y k
Michael Maupin, Esq.
- Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1538 Richmond, Va. 23212 Steven C..Goldberg,.Esq.. Dr. Quentin J. Stober Office of the Executive Legal Fisheries Research Institute Director University of Washington US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seattle, Wash. 98195 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Valentine 3. Deale, Esq., Chairman Panel Atomic Safety a .d Licensing Board US Nuclear Reculatory Commission 1001 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20036 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Mr. Ernest Hill Board Panel Lawrence Livermore Laboratory US Nuclear Regulatory Commission University of California Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 800, I,-123 Livermore, Califormia 94550
/Db77 Ir. win 3. Kroot, for CEF 7
,lJ
)
}I}O