ML19270G128: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(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

First Set of Interrogatories & First Request for Documents Submitted to Nrc.Certificate of Svc Encl
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

(< .'

,}