ML20083N008: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
StriderTol Bot insert
 
StriderTol Bot change
 
Line 17: Line 17:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:,
{{#Wiki_filter:,
                                    ...,,m.,-'
...,,m.,-
Filed: January 29, 1983 DOCK TED UL'l C 75
Filed:
                                                                            '83 JA,'I 31 p;; ;gg
January 29, 1983 DOCK TED 75 UL'l C
                                                                                          ,j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                             i.
'83 JA,'I 31 p;; ;gg
,j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
                                                      )
)
In the Matter of                     )
In the Matter of
                                                      )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW         )   Docket Nos. 50-443 OL HAMPSHIEE, et al.                   )               50-444 OL
)
                                                      )
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)       )
)
                                                      )
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL HAMPSHIEE, et al.
)
50-444 OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
)
APPLICANTS' ANSWERE TO "THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, INC."
APPLICANTS' ANSWERE TO "THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, INC."
(
(
l Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.740b, the Applicants hereby respond to "The State of New Hampshire's Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Inc.,"
l Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.740b, the Applicants hereby respond to "The State of New Hampshire's Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Inc.,"
served on them by mail on January 7, 1983.
served on them by mail on January 7, 1983.
B302010529 830129 PDR ADOCK 05000443                                                 -c   -G O
B302010529 830129 PDR ADOCK 05000443
    ,~
-c
PDR                                             ~-
-G Q)
Q)              >
O
,~
PDR
~-


SPECIF!C INTERROGATORIES Interroc tory No. 9.46 Question:
SPECIF!C INTERROGATORIES Interroc tory No. 9.46 Question:
Is the emergency operations facility equipped with necessary indicators to monitor containment conditions and releases of radioactivity from the plant? If the answer is yes, please indicate whether these indicators and associated circuitry meet Class 1E requirements.
Is the emergency operations facility equipped with necessary indicators to monitor containment conditions and releases of radioactivity from the plant?
If the answer is yes, please indicate whether these indicators and associated circuitry meet Class 1E requirements.
Answer:
Answer:
The Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) will be equipped with the necessary indicators to monitor containment conditions and releases of radioactivity from the plant. The indicators and associated circuitry do not, and are not required to, meet Class 1E requirements.
The Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) will be equipped with the necessary indicators to monitor containment conditions and releases of radioactivity from the plant.
The indicators and associated circuitry do not, and are not required to, meet Class 1E requirements.
Interrogatory No. 9.47 Question:
Interrogatory No. 9.47 Question:
Some problems associated with the accelerated aging technique used in environmental qualification of Class 1E electrical equipment are discussed in the literature (W.W. Weaver, Aging Techniques and Qualified Life for Safety System Components, Nuclear Safety, Vol. 21, P.51, January 1980). If the Applicant is using this l         technique to qualify Class 1E instruments, such as the Manipulator Crane Monitors, the Containment Structure Monitors, the Plant Vent Monitors, and the Control Room Air Intake Monitors, please provide documentation as to 1
Some problems associated with the accelerated aging technique used in environmental qualification of Class 1E electrical equipment are discussed in the literature (W.W. Weaver, Aging Techniques and Qualified Life for Safety System Components, Nuclear Safety, Vol. 21, P.51, January 1980).
                                          ,"s .
If the Applicant is using this l
(                                                               >
technique to qualify Class 1E instruments, such as the Manipulator Crane Monitors, the Containment Structure Monitors, the Plant Vent Monitors, and the Control Room Air Intake Monitors, please provide documentation as to 1
,"s
(


how these problems (such as synergistic effects) have been resolved for each instrument tested.
how these problems (such as synergistic effects) have been resolved for each instrument tested.
Answer:
Answer:
The qualification programs for Class 1E equipment are developed by the equipment manufacturer and test laboratory. During the development of the test program, the equipment is reviewed to determine if any problems such as synergistic effects exist. If any problems are identified, they are then accounted for in the test program. In addition, these programs are reviewed by us. Our review of the qualification programs is discussed in Section 3.11 of the FSAR.
The qualification programs for Class 1E equipment are developed by the equipment manufacturer and test laboratory.
As can be seen from the above, we agree with the author of the reference article, in that each equipment type must be reviewed independently for the specific applicant to develop a meaningful test program. The documentation of these equipment test programs is maintained as indicated in Section 3.11 of the FSAR.
During the development of the test program, the equipment is reviewed to determine if any problems such as synergistic effects exist. If any problems are identified, they are then accounted for in the test program.
In addition, these programs are reviewed by us.
Our review of the qualification programs is discussed in Section 3.11 of the FSAR.
As can be seen from the above, we agree with the author of the reference article, in that each equipment type must be reviewed independently for the specific applicant to develop a meaningful test program.
The documentation of these equipment test programs is maintained as indicated in Section 3.11 of the FSAR.
Interrogatory No. 10.20 Question:
Interrogatory No. 10.20 Question:
a) What are the critical plant variables and parameters which will be presented by the safety parameter display system (SPDS)? Explain how these variables were selected. Identify all documents which describe the basis on which parameters were selected.
a)
What are the critical plant variables and parameters which will be presented by the safety parameter display system (SPDS)?
Explain how these variables were selected.
Identify all documents which describe the basis on which parameters were selected..


b)   Where will the SPDS be located?
b)
c) Please provide a pictorial representation of the SPDS display, d) Explain how the SPDS is designed to incorporate accepted human factor principles.
Where will the SPDS be located?
e) Does the Applicant intend to rely on the Preliminary Design Assessment or on the Detailed Control Room Design Review forlicensing? Explain the basis of this decision.
c)
Please provide a pictorial representation of the SPDS display, d)
Explain how the SPDS is designed to incorporate accepted human factor principles.
e)
Does the Applicant intend to rely on the Preliminary Design Assessment or on the Detailed Control Room Design Review forlicensing?
Explain the basis of this decision.
Answer:
Answer:
(Items a through d:)
(Items a through d:)
Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 was issued by the NRC on December 17, 1982 and provided clarification for Items I.D.1 and I.D.2. Supplement 1 also called for
Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 was issued by the NRC on December 17, 1982 and provided clarification for Items I.D.1 and I.D.2.
!    development of plant-specific schedules for implementation of the requirements in Supplement 1. We will submit our proposed schedule for implementing the requirements of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 by April 15, 1983. Design details will be available consistent with the overall schedule.
Supplement 1 also called for development of plant-specific schedules for implementation of the requirements in Supplement 1.
We will submit our proposed schedule for implementing the requirements of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 by April 15, 1983.
Design details will be available consistent with the overall schedule.
(Part e:)
(Part e:)
l       A Detailed Control Room Design Review is currently in progress and upon its completion will be submitted to the NRC for their review. A Preliminary Design Assessment of the Control Room is not required of 4_
l A Detailed Control Room Design Review is currently in progress and upon its completion will be submitted to the NRC for their review.
A Preliminary Design Assessment of the Control Room is not required of 4_
l-
l-


Applicants who will complete the detailed review prior to issuance of a license.
Applicants who will complete the detailed review prior to issuance of a license.
Interrogatory No. ("I.B.1")
Interrogatory No.
("I.B.1")
Question:
Question:
Please provide design date and specifications of the steam generator of the Seabrook plant. Indicate whether the specifications have been modified or
Please provide design date and specifications of the steam generator of the Seabrook plant.
,  changed from the original version. If they have been modified, please specify the changes and the basis for l   them. Identify and produce, purusuant to 10 C.F.P.
Indicate whether the specifications have been modified or changed from the original version.
If they have been modified, please specify the changes and the basis for l
them.
Identify and produce, purusuant to 10 C.F.P.
2.741 all documents pertaining to any modifications in the specifications of the steam generator.
2.741 all documents pertaining to any modifications in the specifications of the steam generator.
t   Answer:
t Answer:
With respect to design date of steam generators contained in the Seabrook Plant, said design date is September, 1976.
With respect to design date of steam generators contained in the Seabrook Plant, said design date is September, 1976.
With respect to the specifications of the steam l   generators of the Seabrook Plant refer to section 5.4.2 of the FSAR.
With respect to the specifications of the steam l
With respect to the changes and bases, see Table 1.2-2 of the FSAR. Additionally, the major changes and I   bases for such major changes are identified as follows:
generators of the Seabrook Plant refer to section 5.4.2 of the FSAR.
l l
With respect to the changes and bases, see Table 1.2-2 of the FSAR.
l l
Additionally, the major changes and I
Y                                                           >
bases for such major changes are identified as follows:
l l l l
Y


Design Change                   Basis for Change Feedwater introduced           Alternate design with no change via a feeding and J             to physical layout of containment nozzles from above the         or operating conditions which offers top of the bundle               increased conservatism and simplicity while maintaining plant performance.
Design Change Basis for Change Feedwater introduced Alternate design with no change via a feeding and J to physical layout of containment nozzles from above the or operating conditions which offers top of the bundle increased conservatism and simplicity while maintaining plant performance.
J. nozzles minimize the potential for water hammer.
J.
Tube dimensions                 Maintain tube bundle height 0.688" OD x 0.040" wall         and primary volume criteria within existing containment design limitations.
nozzles minimize the potential for water hammer.
5626 steam generator tubes,     Compensate for preheater effeciency 55,000 ft2 heat transfer       by increasing the heat transfer area                           area.
Tube dimensions Maintain tube bundle height 0.688" OD x 0.040" wall and primary volume criteria within existing containment design limitations.
Tube material:   thermally     Additional resistance to treated Inconel 600             corrosion.
5626 steam generator tubes, Compensate for preheater effeciency 55,000 ft2 heat transfer by increasing the heat transfer area area.
Quatrefoil tube support         Minimizes the potential for plate holes                     local concentration around the tube support plate. Provide additional circulation flow.
Tube material:
Ferritic stainless steel       Additional resistance to tube support plate material     corrosion.
thermally Additional resistance to treated Inconel 600 corrosion.
Quatrefoil tube support Minimizes the potential for plate holes local concentration around the tube support plate.
Provide additional circulation flow.
Ferritic stainless steel Additional resistance to tube support plate material corrosion.
Interrogatory No. I.B.l.2 Question:
Interrogatory No. I.B.l.2 Question:
Please describe the chemical water treatment process used for the steam generator, identifying and producing all documents relating to this process pursuant to 10 C.F.R., 2.741.
Please describe the chemical water treatment process used for the steam generator, identifying and producing all documents relating to this process pursuant to 10 C.F.R.,
2.741.
Answer:
Answer:
[To be supplied.]
[To be supplied.] k
k


Interrogatory No. I.B.1.3 Question:
Interrogatory No.
Have any alternatives been or are any being considered to lessen the reliance on the steam generator as the means of residual heat removal in the event of an accident? If so, please describe those alternatives. If not, please explain why no such consideration was undertaken.
I.B.1.3 Question:
Have any alternatives been or are any being considered to lessen the reliance on the steam generator as the means of residual heat removal in the event of an accident?
If so, please describe those alternatives.
If not, please explain why no such consideration was undertaken.
Answer:
Answer:
No. The steam generators are relied upon to provide the first phase of residual heat removal until plant conditions permit the use of the Residual Heat Removal System. Because only two steam generators are necessary to perform the residual heat removal function, and the Seabrook design provides four steam generators, redundancy is inherent in the design and other alternatives are not being considered.
No.
Interrogatory No. I.B.1.4 Question:
The steam generators are relied upon to provide the first phase of residual heat removal until plant conditions permit the use of the Residual Heat Removal System.
Please describe the efforts that have been or are being made to deal with the generic safety issue of tube rupture problems in steam generators of PWR plants. Please identify and produce pursuant to 10 C.F.R., 2.741 all documents relating to such an effort.
Because only two steam generators are necessary to perform the residual heat removal function, and the Seabrook design provides four steam generators, redundancy is inherent in the design and other alternatives are not being considered.
Interrogatory No.
I.B.1.4 Question:
Please describe the efforts that have been or are being made to deal with the generic safety issue of tube rupture problems in steam generators of PWR plants. Please identify and produce pursuant to 10 C.F.R.,
2.741 all documents relating to such an effort.
Answer:
Answer:
The Westinghouse Owners Group Committee is preparing guidelines for the development of procedures L_
The Westinghouse Owners Group Committee is preparing guidelines for the development of procedures L


i to deal with tube ruptures should they occur during station operation. Please refer to our response to '
i to deal with tube ruptures should they occur during station operation.
SAPL Supp. 3.13.
Please refer to our response to SAPL Supp. 3.13. -_.


l Signatures As to answers:
l Signatures As to answers:
I, Wendell P. Johnson, being first duly sworn, do depose and say that the foregoing answers are true, expect insofar as they are based on information that is available to the Applicants but not within my personal knowledge, as to which I, based on such information, believe them to be true.
I, Wendell P.
                                                                                        ,\
Johnson, being first duly sworn, do depose and say that the foregoing answers are true, expect insofar as they are based on information that is available to the Applicants but not within my personal knowledge, as to which I, based on such information, believe them to be true.
Wer(dell P. J6hriefo           '          '
,\\
Sworn to before me this
Wer(dell P.
          ' day of Janu y 29, 1983:
J6hriefo Sworn to before me this (r
(r              w-7 __
' day of Janu y 29, 1983:
l
w-7 __
[      /                 n, Notary Public/
[
My Commissio( expires:                                 ._
/
l n,
Notary Public/
My Commissio( expires:
ROCERT K. GAD, !!!
ROCERT K. GAD, !!!
f!CTARY PUBLIC f.'y Cece:s.::: Ex,9cs 3:pt 5,1936 As to Objections:
f!CTARY PUBLIC f.'y Cece:s.::: Ex,9cs 3:pt 5,1936 As to Objections:
                                                --              ,/
,/
                                                                    /~ l   ..
/~ l
                                                                  ' ,- c .   '
',- c.
h               v N Thomas G. Oggnan, Jr.
h N
R. K. Gad TII Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts               02110 Telephone:     423-6100
v Thomas G.
Oggnan, Jr.
R. K. Gad TII Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Telephone:
423-6100 -


l 0
l 0
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, R. K. Gad III, one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on January 29, 1983, I made service of the within "" Applicants' Answers to 'The State of New Hampshire's Third Set of Interrogatories and Requirest for Production of Documents to Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Inc.'", by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,
Helen Hoyt, Chairperson               Rep. Beverly Hollingworth Atomic Safety and Licensing           Coastal Chamber of Commerce Board Panel                         209 Winnacunnet Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission     Hampton, NH   03842 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke                   William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing           Harmon & Weiss Board Panel                         1725 I Street, N.W.
R. K. Gad III, one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on January 29, 1983, I made service of the within "" Applicants' Answers to 'The State of New Hampshire's Third Set of Interrogatories and Requirest for Production of Documents to Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Inc.'",
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission     Suite 506 Washington, DC 20555                   Washington, DC 20006 Dr. Jerry Harbour                     E. Tupper Kinder, Esquiro Atomic Safety and Licensing           Assistant Attorney General Board Panel                         Office of the Attornay General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission     208 State House Annex Washington, DC 20555                   Concord, !!H 03301 Atomic Safety and Licensing           Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esquire Board Panel                         Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission       Director Washington, DC 20555                   U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC   20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal     Robert A. Backus, Esquire Board Panel                         116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission     P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555                   Manchester, NH 03105
by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Helen Hoyt, Chairperson Rep. Beverly Hollingworth Atomic Safety and Licensing Coastal Chamber of Commerce Board Panel 209 Winnacunnet Road U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hampton, NH 03842 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A.
Luebke William S.
Jordan, III, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Harmon & Weiss Board Panel 1725 I Street, N.W.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 506 Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20006 Dr. Jerry Harbour E.
Tupper Kinder, Esquiro Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Office of the Attornay General U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 208 State House Annex Washington, DC 20555 Concord, !!H 03301 Atomic Safety and Licensing Roy P.
: Lessy, Jr.,
Esquire Board Panel Office of the Executive Legal U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Robert A. Backus, Esquire Board Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O.
Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105.


o Philip Ahrens, Esquire             Edward J. McDermott, Esquire Assistant Attorney General         Sanders and McDermott Department of the Attorney         Professional Association General                         408 Lafayette Road Au gu sta, ME 04333               Hampton, NH 03842 David L. Lewis                     Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing       Assistant Attorney General Board Panel                     Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of the Attorney General Rm. E/W-439                       One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Washington, DC   20555             Boston, MA 02108 Mr. John B. Tanzer                 Ms. Olive L. Tash Designated Representative of       Designated Representative of the Town of Hampton               the Town of Brentwood 5 Morningside Drive               R.F.D. 1, Dalton Road Hampton, NH 03842                 Brentwood, NH 03833 Roberta C. Pevear                 Edward F. Meany Designated Representative of       Designated Representative of the Town of Hampton Falls         the Town of Rye Drinkwater Road                   155 Washington Road Hampton Falls, NH C3844           Rye, NH 03870 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Designated Representative of the Town of Kensington RED 1 East Kingston, NH 03827
o Philip Ahrens, Esquire Edward J. McDermott, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Sanders and McDermott Department of the Attorney Professional Association General 408 Lafayette Road Au gu sta, ME 04333 Hampton, NH 03842 David L.
                                        \                       ,
Lewis Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of the Attorney General Rm. E/W-439 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02108 Mr. John B. Tanzer Ms. Olive L. Tash Designated Representative of Designated Representative of the Town of Hampton the Town of Brentwood 5 Morningside Drive R.F.D.
Gad III[ '
1, Dalton Road Hampton, NH 03842 Brentwood, NH 03833 Roberta C.
                                                                    ~
Pevear Edward F. Meany Designated Representative of Designated Representative of the Town of Hampton Falls the Town of Rye Drinkwater Road 155 Washington Road Hampton Falls, NH C3844 Rye, NH 03870 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Designated Representative of the Town of Kensington RED 1 East Kingston, NH 03827
R. K.
\\
m}}
R. K. Gad III[ '
~ m}}

Latest revision as of 05:21, 14 December 2024

Answers to 830107 Third Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence
ML20083N008
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  
Issue date: 01/29/1983
From: Dignan T, Gad R
PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:
NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8302010529
Download: ML20083N008 (10)
v • d • e


Text

,

...,,m.,-

Filed:

January 29, 1983 DOCK TED 75 UL'l C

'83 JA,'I 31 p;; ;gg

,j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of

)

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW

)

Docket Nos. 50-443 OL HAMPSHIEE, et al.

)

50-444 OL

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)

)

)

APPLICANTS' ANSWERE TO "THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, INC."

(

l Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.740b, the Applicants hereby respond to "The State of New Hampshire's Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Inc.,"

served on them by mail on January 7, 1983.

B302010529 830129 PDR ADOCK 05000443

-c

-G Q)

O

,~

PDR

~-

SPECIF!C INTERROGATORIES Interroc tory No. 9.46 Question:

Is the emergency operations facility equipped with necessary indicators to monitor containment conditions and releases of radioactivity from the plant?

If the answer is yes, please indicate whether these indicators and associated circuitry meet Class 1E requirements.

Answer:

The Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) will be equipped with the necessary indicators to monitor containment conditions and releases of radioactivity from the plant.

The indicators and associated circuitry do not, and are not required to, meet Class 1E requirements.

Interrogatory No. 9.47 Question:

Some problems associated with the accelerated aging technique used in environmental qualification of Class 1E electrical equipment are discussed in the literature (W.W. Weaver, Aging Techniques and Qualified Life for Safety System Components, Nuclear Safety, Vol. 21, P.51, January 1980).

If the Applicant is using this l

technique to qualify Class 1E instruments, such as the Manipulator Crane Monitors, the Containment Structure Monitors, the Plant Vent Monitors, and the Control Room Air Intake Monitors, please provide documentation as to 1

,"s

(

how these problems (such as synergistic effects) have been resolved for each instrument tested.

Answer:

The qualification programs for Class 1E equipment are developed by the equipment manufacturer and test laboratory.

During the development of the test program, the equipment is reviewed to determine if any problems such as synergistic effects exist. If any problems are identified, they are then accounted for in the test program.

In addition, these programs are reviewed by us.

Our review of the qualification programs is discussed in Section 3.11 of the FSAR.

As can be seen from the above, we agree with the author of the reference article, in that each equipment type must be reviewed independently for the specific applicant to develop a meaningful test program.

The documentation of these equipment test programs is maintained as indicated in Section 3.11 of the FSAR.

Interrogatory No. 10.20 Question:

a)

What are the critical plant variables and parameters which will be presented by the safety parameter display system (SPDS)?

Explain how these variables were selected.

Identify all documents which describe the basis on which parameters were selected..

b)

Where will the SPDS be located?

c)

Please provide a pictorial representation of the SPDS display, d)

Explain how the SPDS is designed to incorporate accepted human factor principles.

e)

Does the Applicant intend to rely on the Preliminary Design Assessment or on the Detailed Control Room Design Review forlicensing?

Explain the basis of this decision.

Answer:

(Items a through d:)

Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 was issued by the NRC on December 17, 1982 and provided clarification for Items I.D.1 and I.D.2.

Supplement 1 also called for development of plant-specific schedules for implementation of the requirements in Supplement 1.

We will submit our proposed schedule for implementing the requirements of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 by April 15, 1983.

Design details will be available consistent with the overall schedule.

(Part e:)

l A Detailed Control Room Design Review is currently in progress and upon its completion will be submitted to the NRC for their review.

A Preliminary Design Assessment of the Control Room is not required of 4_

l-

Applicants who will complete the detailed review prior to issuance of a license.

Interrogatory No.

("I.B.1")

Question:

Please provide design date and specifications of the steam generator of the Seabrook plant.

Indicate whether the specifications have been modified or changed from the original version.

If they have been modified, please specify the changes and the basis for l

them.

Identify and produce, purusuant to 10 C.F.P.

2.741 all documents pertaining to any modifications in the specifications of the steam generator.

t Answer:

With respect to design date of steam generators contained in the Seabrook Plant, said design date is September, 1976.

With respect to the specifications of the steam l

generators of the Seabrook Plant refer to section 5.4.2 of the FSAR.

With respect to the changes and bases, see Table 1.2-2 of the FSAR.

Additionally, the major changes and I

bases for such major changes are identified as follows:

l l l l

Y

Design Change Basis for Change Feedwater introduced Alternate design with no change via a feeding and J to physical layout of containment nozzles from above the or operating conditions which offers top of the bundle increased conservatism and simplicity while maintaining plant performance.

J.

nozzles minimize the potential for water hammer.

Tube dimensions Maintain tube bundle height 0.688" OD x 0.040" wall and primary volume criteria within existing containment design limitations.

5626 steam generator tubes, Compensate for preheater effeciency 55,000 ft2 heat transfer by increasing the heat transfer area area.

Tube material:

thermally Additional resistance to treated Inconel 600 corrosion.

Quatrefoil tube support Minimizes the potential for plate holes local concentration around the tube support plate.

Provide additional circulation flow.

Ferritic stainless steel Additional resistance to tube support plate material corrosion.

Interrogatory No. I.B.l.2 Question:

Please describe the chemical water treatment process used for the steam generator, identifying and producing all documents relating to this process pursuant to 10 C.F.R.,

2.741.

Answer:

[To be supplied.] k

Interrogatory No.

I.B.1.3 Question:

Have any alternatives been or are any being considered to lessen the reliance on the steam generator as the means of residual heat removal in the event of an accident?

If so, please describe those alternatives.

If not, please explain why no such consideration was undertaken.

Answer:

No.

The steam generators are relied upon to provide the first phase of residual heat removal until plant conditions permit the use of the Residual Heat Removal System.

Because only two steam generators are necessary to perform the residual heat removal function, and the Seabrook design provides four steam generators, redundancy is inherent in the design and other alternatives are not being considered.

Interrogatory No.

I.B.1.4 Question:

Please describe the efforts that have been or are being made to deal with the generic safety issue of tube rupture problems in steam generators of PWR plants. Please identify and produce pursuant to 10 C.F.R.,

2.741 all documents relating to such an effort.

Answer:

The Westinghouse Owners Group Committee is preparing guidelines for the development of procedures L

i to deal with tube ruptures should they occur during station operation.

Please refer to our response to SAPL Supp. 3.13. -_.

l Signatures As to answers:

I, Wendell P.

Johnson, being first duly sworn, do depose and say that the foregoing answers are true, expect insofar as they are based on information that is available to the Applicants but not within my personal knowledge, as to which I, based on such information, believe them to be true.

,\\

Wer(dell P.

J6hriefo Sworn to before me this (r

' day of Janu y 29, 1983:

w-7 __

[

/

l n,

Notary Public/

My Commissio( expires:

ROCERT K. GAD, !!!

f!CTARY PUBLIC f.'y Cece:s.::: Ex,9cs 3:pt 5,1936 As to Objections:

,/

/~ l

',- c.

h N

v Thomas G.

Oggnan, Jr.

R. K. Gad TII Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Telephone:

423-6100 -

l 0

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,

R. K. Gad III, one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on January 29, 1983, I made service of the within "" Applicants' Answers to 'The State of New Hampshire's Third Set of Interrogatories and Requirest for Production of Documents to Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Inc.'",

by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:

Helen Hoyt, Chairperson Rep. Beverly Hollingworth Atomic Safety and Licensing Coastal Chamber of Commerce Board Panel 209 Winnacunnet Road U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hampton, NH 03842 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A.

Luebke William S.

Jordan, III, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Harmon & Weiss Board Panel 1725 I Street, N.W.

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 506 Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20006 Dr. Jerry Harbour E.

Tupper Kinder, Esquiro Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Office of the Attornay General U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 208 State House Annex Washington, DC 20555 Concord, !!H 03301 Atomic Safety and Licensing Roy P.

Lessy, Jr.,

Esquire Board Panel Office of the Executive Legal U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Robert A. Backus, Esquire Board Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O.

Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105.

o Philip Ahrens, Esquire Edward J. McDermott, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Sanders and McDermott Department of the Attorney Professional Association General 408 Lafayette Road Au gu sta, ME 04333 Hampton, NH 03842 David L.

Lewis Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of the Attorney General Rm. E/W-439 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02108 Mr. John B. Tanzer Ms. Olive L. Tash Designated Representative of Designated Representative of the Town of Hampton the Town of Brentwood 5 Morningside Drive R.F.D.

1, Dalton Road Hampton, NH 03842 Brentwood, NH 03833 Roberta C.

Pevear Edward F. Meany Designated Representative of Designated Representative of the Town of Hampton Falls the Town of Rye Drinkwater Road 155 Washington Road Hampton Falls, NH C3844 Rye, NH 03870 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Designated Representative of the Town of Kensington RED 1 East Kingston, NH 03827

\\

R. K. Gad III[ '

~ m

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20083N008&oldid=4364108"