ML19270G128: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:}} | {{#Wiki_filter:3 - | ||
. | |||
REttTED conn | |||
;A - | |||
" | |||
[ U. S. NUCLEAR REGULA O h M lISSION # | |||
4 $. | |||
>[ BEFORE THE ATOr!IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA 9' b%9" d | |||
1 ,bematterof: ' )' ' ' CM a | |||
$ \o7 2 | |||
2 o'uaton Lighting & Power Co. I h ,, g''f! | |||
'' | |||
diens Ureek tiuclear Generating ) | |||
Docket #50-46e T4b I e.. | |||
g Station, Unit 1 # | |||
EIRST | |||
:,2 SET OF INTERROGATORIES & FIRST REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM | |||
(, THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .BY JOHN F. DOHERTY | |||
; :.; | |||
s John r. Doherty, of 4438S Leeland, Houston, has been admitted r .- | |||
l* ;iis a party .LNterVneor in the above proceedings on March 15, 1979, No raise a single contention with regard to the Anticipated Transi- | |||
; n | |||
] 'ent Without Scram Accident (ATWS-). . Pursuanc to 10 UFR 2.740 (b) 1 7' | |||
s , | |||
2.741 the Staff is to answr eqch question below separately . | |||
' . ' .,,and ful.ly in writing, making them no lator than 14 days af ter ser-- | |||
vice of these interrogatories. | |||
" | |||
',-" r.ach Interro6atory is to be answered as follows: | |||
[*B'.ga.a.Frovideadirectanswertothequestion. | |||
. | |||
' | |||
jf.. [..b'. identif / all documents and studies, and th particular parts - | |||
.g%., 7 | |||
: f. . thereof, relied uoon by the staff, which serve as the basis for | |||
..the answer. Provide copies of any st'ch document in 30 day,s 4 | |||
.W g under 10 CFR 2.741. | |||
' | |||
.1,}$.Identifybyname, title, and affiliation each Staff or Conmission | |||
.:/y/ - employee, consultant, contractor or subcontractor that has the | |||
. | |||
. | |||
"- | |||
arg .i ; | |||
' . expert knowledge required to support- the answer to the question. | |||
y,4 | |||
.....- | |||
. Identify in the same manner who6 answers each InterroCatory. ._, | |||
9?J.d. Explain wheter the Staff or Commission is engaged or intends to | |||
- | |||
engage in further research which may affect the answer, and - | |||
''A" | |||
<. identify such work. M.,- | |||
e r. p. | |||
e'.-Identify the witnesses whom the Staff or Commission intends to 'g 1 | |||
:J.v.i. ,, have testify on the subject questioned. ''t , | |||
"e" .f,) | |||
q$.p;f. Provide a summary of the testimony that each, witness in part | |||
. | |||
;m 23 g. | |||
*/ l (above) is exuecged to offar and state the factual basis for each | |||
.. | |||
.$7 - | |||
~2 conclusion or opinion each witness epects to present. $,ps . | |||
m | |||
. , g. Provide ooies of any document such witness will rely upon in .. | |||
7/r.) formin opinions and conclusions for testimony. ''@ | |||
. p' -y . . . 3: | |||
* | |||
- | |||
. | |||
v.+ | |||
- | |||
..7'.,i . 79060500* .%, | |||
. :. . . | |||
Y ?' .. *Oh? | |||
S. 1 N.',tr- | |||
- | |||
. t | |||
. , - | |||
. . | |||
INTERROGATORIES | |||
' | |||
- | |||
. | |||
: 1. What is the progrens of'the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe- . | |||
' ' | |||
guards on ATWS? q- | |||
: 2. Provile a copy of the sub-committec report as made available to be committee on January 4, 1979 | |||
: 3. What is the Staff's estimate of the p'robability of an ATWS , | |||
* in a BWR plant? ' | |||
- | |||
. | |||
: 4. How does. the Ctaff justify moving ahead with hearings on , | |||
- | |||
, | |||
I., | |||
; Apolicants ATWS system when the June, 1976 review by the | |||
: s. sl. | |||
- | |||
- | |||
Environmental e | |||
Protection A 5encyjsays, , | |||
' | |||
e As incidents occur in the nuclear power industry, 'M - | |||
their significance relative to reacbor safety should be evaluated and placed into m,eaningful perspective. (?) _' | |||
. | |||
a- Specifically the incident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2, beginning March' 28, 1979 | |||
, | |||
.,- | |||
b- Reserved | |||
: 5. How much credit 'is assigned the Doppleer effect in reactivity . | |||
d increase in an ATWS where the: | |||
: a. Main Steam Isolation Valve Trips | |||
: b. Turbine trips. , | |||
: 6. Has the Staff taken the position (and is it the current posi-tion) that the recirculation pump trip feature combined with the ability to manually shutdown the reactor (by inserting ** | |||
control rods or by initiating the Standby Liquid Control System | |||
_t (SLCS) provide sufficient protection in view of the very low | |||
* probability of complete failure to 'ucram? (This is a paraphrase of 15.1.28 of bhe PSAR') | |||
, | |||
- | |||
: 7. Does the NRC take the position that all SCRAMS are reported to it because licensee recording devices cannot be fud6ed, charts | |||
* Reactor Safety StuM.y (WASH-14CO): A Review of the Final Report. | |||
U. S. Enviranrental Protection Acency, Office of Radiation ' | |||
' | |||
- " | |||
Programs, ~.!as hington I . C. 20460, June 1976, Pa6e 1-8. | |||
.. | |||
manually | |||
. | |||
* | |||
$. | |||
. | |||
. | |||
s.j%h | |||
. - | |||
. :,. . ..... | |||
' )l,,1v :.', | |||
. | |||
.; d:(. .. | |||
' - | |||
.% | |||
' ]g Y | |||
.. , - - - ~3- y,i-p h qh | |||
:.~ . a M. | |||
, | |||
hidden or other subterfuges won't evade NRC surveillance? .TO I | |||
< .v..r : | |||
' | |||
G. NUREG-0460, V. III, Pg. 4, states: ,p 3 | |||
The principal criterion for choosing among the alter-S$$y | |||
., native olant modifications is'the level of safety jud- l{f],. | |||
ged by the NRC to be necessary. Another impor tant c eu. | |||
.~ consideration is the cost of the modifications. | |||
' T4r'' | |||
v , | |||
, .. | |||
' | |||
. | |||
: a. Isn'b it against policy to consider costs in safecy gg'ah u systems? (This intervenor recognizes that cost-benefit )y[, | |||
. | |||
analysis are a part of the commission rules in regard ;:.f. s. . | |||
. | |||
to environmental, safety, such as with 10 CFR 20 guide- .55 | |||
'wg* | |||
. | |||
lines onradwaste systems.) 'qw | |||
: b. Will costs be a determining factor in the ATWS solution 4C, | |||
, for Allens Creek ( ACNGS-)? ;;hh | |||
:. If answer to "b" is "yes", please explain how costs will 'M.!5, | |||
' '*% | |||
. | |||
. | |||
1 be fi5ured in. For example, how wil'1 the Applicant be permitted to not use the full solution, assuming it is '') . | |||
Alternative #4, of NUREG-0460, v. III, Page. 18, 19? | |||
: 9. Wilt the NRC be able to present data from the Three Mile Island occurence on the adquacy of Regulatory Guide 1.77, | |||
, | |||
with regard to adecuate conservation in assumptions rel- | |||
' | |||
ative to peak fuel enthalpy? . | |||
- | |||
: a. Will the results of the' December 9, 1978, LOFT tests be analyzed by that time, and available? | |||
: 10. What is the Staff's current progress in the analyris of . '? | |||
, | |||
General Electric Document, NED)-10802, " Analytic Methods ', | |||
. of Plant Evaluacions of Gene'r al Electric BUR's"? | |||
' | |||
11 Referring again to NUREG-0460, v.III, Pg 4, how many dollars per chance of ATWS accident was the limit on modifying . | |||
standard design Mark-III, BWR-6 plants?(Of answer in another ,, | |||
way if convenient this cost-benefit type question) , | |||
; | |||
. | |||
: 12. How.will the risk of an ATUS stay acceptably small in view of the fact that the limited number of aperating reactors ; | |||
will increase ? (See NUREG-0460 v.III, P. 43). . | |||
9 9 | |||
i | |||
...s., , | |||
n;.;,'.t.;: . | |||
. | |||
-- | |||
. ' | |||
4 ' l+, | |||
~&'l!s :. " - . | |||
: 4. . , | |||
3.b..'L nym .?!.t; n- | |||
~ | |||
.7;'f.f T,.,' 13. How much more 13.4% sodium rentaborate solution in g Lions | |||
,. _ | |||
- | |||
.e | |||
. | |||
f' ,,_. will be required of licensees to meet the"high capacity g;'g liquid poison injection" requirement of Alternate y4, . | |||
-PJe.d in Table 1 on Page 18 of UUREG-0460, v. III.? | |||
a '. | |||
Tihr | |||
' g ,f 14. Has Apolicant committed to a rapid fuel failure (less than | |||
?[k[ | |||
, | |||
, | |||
' | |||
. | |||
.. | |||
, | |||
one minute) detection system? | |||
.]7 '. 4,, d .L, a. Is there such a system for applicant to commit to? | |||
. | |||
- | |||
.t,.., s1 | |||
.. | |||
h... | |||
u .w .v . .M 15.r. State what consequence of ATWS events' alternative #4 (See 4 ,'' i UUREG-0460, v.III, Pg.18) would not mitigate and indicate | |||
- | |||
, what you propse t'do about the consequences? | |||
. l) ).Y | |||
' ' | |||
.. - | |||
:%0b eb: 6,, . | |||
SERVICE OF PROCESS | |||
..- | |||
y.3@.1.< | |||
-P I have served'c5pibs.oftFIRST SET OF INTERRO.GATORIES & FIRST n, , | |||
' | |||
.. | |||
. | |||
'*' REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM .THE NUCLEAR REGULATORI COMMISSION BY | |||
' ,.'.. .., # JOEN F. DOHERTY on this day, April 7 , 1979 via U. S. Postal | |||
, | |||
. Service., nespbetfully submitted, | |||
. . y. ' | |||
f@n d. Doherty ' | |||
'' , | |||
R 33% Leeland I.? y;e.' . | |||
, | |||
douston, Te::n.s 77023 | |||
_.j- 9' PARTIES SERVED . | |||
'l l ' Sheldon J . Wolfe , Esq. (HRC) | |||
. | |||
' | |||
/,. .'. ,', Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum (NRC) | |||
. | |||
-c?'- Gustave Linenberger (NRC) | |||
Tl'.t. Docketing & Service Section (HRC) 5;-.' Steve Schinki (NRC Staff) | |||
'" | |||
, '.F.i. chard A. Lawerre, Esq. (TEXAS)' | |||
P- 4 J. Gregory Copeland, Esq. (Applicant) | |||
-:fp;;*d l | |||
e | |||
, R. Gordoa Gooch, Esq. (Applicant.T | |||
-r ' Carro ninderstein, Esq. | |||
," $ # Brenda McCorkle, Esq. | |||
' | |||
.g,,s; dames Scott, Esq. (Texpirg) vu,, | |||
,.,r. ' | |||
JL | |||
~ | |||
*l'l . to | |||
.i : '- . | |||
, -'.^ 'f k'* | |||
'ir .&: | |||
- | |||
,'[, , | |||
; . g .- | |||
*. | |||
. y .' .t ' | |||
, | |||
' | |||
.* | |||
'' | |||
. | |||
,,. | |||
.g g s,;r..; l | |||
(< .' | |||
, | |||
}}} |
Revision as of 19:15, 27 October 2019
ML19270G128 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
Issue date: | 04/09/1979 |
From: | Doherty J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
To: | |
References | |
NUDOCS 7906050016 | |
Download: ML19270G128 (4) | |
Text
3 -
.
REttTED conn
- A -
"
[ U. S. NUCLEAR REGULA O h M lISSION #
4 $.
>[ BEFORE THE ATOr!IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA 9' b%9" d
1 ,bematterof: ' )' ' ' CM a
$ \o7 2
2 o'uaton Lighting & Power Co. I h ,, gf!
diens Ureek tiuclear Generating )
Docket #50-46e T4b I e..
g Station, Unit 1 #
EIRST
- ,2 SET OF INTERROGATORIES & FIRST REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM
(, THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .BY JOHN F. DOHERTY
- .;
s John r. Doherty, of 4438S Leeland, Houston, has been admitted r .-
l* ;iis a party .LNterVneor in the above proceedings on March 15, 1979, No raise a single contention with regard to the Anticipated Transi-
- n
] 'ent Without Scram Accident (ATWS-). . Pursuanc to 10 UFR 2.740 (b) 1 7'
s ,
2.741 the Staff is to answr eqch question below separately .
' . ' .,,and ful.ly in writing, making them no lator than 14 days af ter ser--
vice of these interrogatories.
"
',-" r.ach Interro6atory is to be answered as follows:
[*B'.ga.a.Frovideadirectanswertothequestion.
.
'
jf.. [..b'. identif / all documents and studies, and th particular parts -
.g%., 7
- f. . thereof, relied uoon by the staff, which serve as the basis for
..the answer. Provide copies of any st'ch document in 30 day,s 4
.W g under 10 CFR 2.741.
'
.1,}$.Identifybyname, title, and affiliation each Staff or Conmission
.:/y/ - employee, consultant, contractor or subcontractor that has the
.
.
"-
arg .i ;
' . expert knowledge required to support- the answer to the question.
y,4
.....-
. Identify in the same manner who6 answers each InterroCatory. ._,
9?J.d. Explain wheter the Staff or Commission is engaged or intends to
-
engage in further research which may affect the answer, and -
A"
<. identify such work. M.,-
e r. p.
e'.-Identify the witnesses whom the Staff or Commission intends to 'g 1
- J.v.i. ,, have testify on the subject questioned. t ,
"e" .f,)
q$.p;f. Provide a summary of the testimony that each, witness in part
.
- m 23 g.
- / l (above) is exuecged to offar and state the factual basis for each
..
.$7 -
~2 conclusion or opinion each witness epects to present. $,ps .
m
. , g. Provide ooies of any document such witness will rely upon in ..
7/r.) formin opinions and conclusions for testimony. @
. p' -y . . . 3:
-
.
v.+
-
..7'.,i . 79060500* .%,
. :. . .
Y ?' .. *Oh?
S. 1 N.',tr-
-
. t
. , -
. .
INTERROGATORIES
'
-
.
- 1. What is the progrens of'the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe- .
' '
guards on ATWS? q-
- 2. Provile a copy of the sub-committec report as made available to be committee on January 4, 1979
- 3. What is the Staff's estimate of the p'robability of an ATWS ,
- in a BWR plant? '
-
.
- 4. How does. the Ctaff justify moving ahead with hearings on ,
-
,
I.,
- Apolicants ATWS system when the June, 1976 review by the
- s. sl.
-
-
Environmental e
Protection A 5encyjsays, ,
'
e As incidents occur in the nuclear power industry, 'M -
their significance relative to reacbor safety should be evaluated and placed into m,eaningful perspective. (?) _'
.
a- Specifically the incident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2, beginning March' 28, 1979
,
.,-
b- Reserved
- 5. How much credit 'is assigned the Doppleer effect in reactivity .
d increase in an ATWS where the:
- a. Main Steam Isolation Valve Trips
- b. Turbine trips. ,
- 6. Has the Staff taken the position (and is it the current posi-tion) that the recirculation pump trip feature combined with the ability to manually shutdown the reactor (by inserting **
control rods or by initiating the Standby Liquid Control System
_t (SLCS) provide sufficient protection in view of the very low
- probability of complete failure to 'ucram? (This is a paraphrase of 15.1.28 of bhe PSAR')
,
-
- 7. Does the NRC take the position that all SCRAMS are reported to it because licensee recording devices cannot be fud6ed, charts
- Reactor Safety StuM.y (WASH-14CO): A Review of the Final Report.
U. S. Enviranrental Protection Acency, Office of Radiation '
'
- "
Programs, ~.!as hington I . C. 20460, June 1976, Pa6e 1-8.
..
manually
.
$.
.
.
s.j%h
. -
. :,. . .....
' )l,,1v :.',
.
.; d:(. ..
' -
.%
' ]g Y
.. , - - - ~3- y,i-p h qh
- .~ . a M.
,
hidden or other subterfuges won't evade NRC surveillance? .TO I
< .v..r :
'
G. NUREG-0460, V. III, Pg. 4, states: ,p 3
The principal criterion for choosing among the alter-S$$y
., native olant modifications is'the level of safety jud- l{f],.
ged by the NRC to be necessary. Another impor tant c eu.
.~ consideration is the cost of the modifications.
' T4r
v ,
, ..
'
.
- a. Isn'b it against policy to consider costs in safecy gg'ah u systems? (This intervenor recognizes that cost-benefit )y[,
.
analysis are a part of the commission rules in regard ;:.f. s. .
.
to environmental, safety, such as with 10 CFR 20 guide- .55
'wg*
.
lines onradwaste systems.) 'qw
- b. Will costs be a determining factor in the ATWS solution 4C,
, for Allens Creek ( ACNGS-)? ;;hh
- . If answer to "b" is "yes", please explain how costs will 'M.!5,
' '*%
.
.
1 be fi5ured in. For example, how wil'1 the Applicant be permitted to not use the full solution, assuming it is ) .
Alternative #4, of NUREG-0460, v. III, Page. 18, 19?
- 9. Wilt the NRC be able to present data from the Three Mile Island occurence on the adquacy of Regulatory Guide 1.77,
,
with regard to adecuate conservation in assumptions rel-
'
ative to peak fuel enthalpy? .
-
- a. Will the results of the' December 9, 1978, LOFT tests be analyzed by that time, and available?
- 10. What is the Staff's current progress in the analyris of . '?
,
General Electric Document, NED)-10802, " Analytic Methods ',
. of Plant Evaluacions of Gene'r al Electric BUR's"?
'
11 Referring again to NUREG-0460, v.III, Pg 4, how many dollars per chance of ATWS accident was the limit on modifying .
standard design Mark-III, BWR-6 plants?(Of answer in another ,,
way if convenient this cost-benefit type question) ,
.
- 12. How.will the risk of an ATUS stay acceptably small in view of the fact that the limited number of aperating reactors ;
will increase ? (See NUREG-0460 v.III, P. 43). .
9 9
i
...s., ,
n;.;,'.t.;: .
.
--
. '
4 ' l+,
~&'l!s :. " - .
- 4. . ,
3.b..'L nym .?!.t; n-
~
.7;'f.f T,.,' 13. How much more 13.4% sodium rentaborate solution in g Lions
,. _
-
.e
.
f' ,,_. will be required of licensees to meet the"high capacity g;'g liquid poison injection" requirement of Alternate y4, .
-PJe.d in Table 1 on Page 18 of UUREG-0460, v. III.?
a '.
Tihr
' g ,f 14. Has Apolicant committed to a rapid fuel failure (less than
?[k[
,
,
'
.
..
,
one minute) detection system?
.]7 '. 4,, d .L, a. Is there such a system for applicant to commit to?
.
-
.t,.., s1
..
h...
u .w .v . .M 15.r. State what consequence of ATWS events' alternative #4 (See 4 , i UUREG-0460, v.III, Pg.18) would not mitigate and indicate
-
, what you propse t'do about the consequences?
. l) ).Y
' '
.. -
- %0b eb: 6,, .
SERVICE OF PROCESS
..-
y.3@.1.<
-P I have served'c5pibs.oftFIRST SET OF INTERRO.GATORIES & FIRST n, ,
'
..
.
'*' REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM .THE NUCLEAR REGULATORI COMMISSION BY
' ,.'.. .., # JOEN F. DOHERTY on this day, April 7 , 1979 via U. S. Postal
,
. Service., nespbetfully submitted,
. . y. '
f@n d. Doherty '
,
R 33% Leeland I.? y;e.' .
,
douston, Te::n.s 77023
_.j- 9' PARTIES SERVED .
'l l ' Sheldon J . Wolfe , Esq. (HRC)
.
'
/,. .'. ,', Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum (NRC)
.
-c?'- Gustave Linenberger (NRC)
Tl'.t. Docketing & Service Section (HRC) 5;-.' Steve Schinki (NRC Staff)
'"
, '.F.i. chard A. Lawerre, Esq. (TEXAS)'
P- 4 J. Gregory Copeland, Esq. (Applicant)
-:fp;;*d l
e
, R. Gordoa Gooch, Esq. (Applicant.T
-r ' Carro ninderstein, Esq.
," $ # Brenda McCorkle, Esq.
'
.g,,s; dames Scott, Esq. (Texpirg) vu,,
,.,r. '
JL
~
- l'l . to
.i : '- .
, -'.^ 'f k'*
'ir .&:
-
,'[, ,
- . g .-
- .
. y .' .t '
,
'
.*
.
,,.
.g g s,;r..; l
(< .'
,}