|
|
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:- - - - | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| mnu coamaro.sDE:O.
| |
| September 30s DM$tED*
| |
| - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMNISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board '82 ET -5 #1:34
| |
| ~
| |
| " * * "# ' CFFCE OF SECfiETAF.'.' ,
| |
| CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Docket Nos. 50Wo $ sic!ERE
| |
| '? 50-441
| |
| ~
| |
| COMPANY, Et A1. ) .
| |
| (Operating License)
| |
| )
| |
| (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
| |
| Units 1 and 2) )
| |
| )
| |
| OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY SEVENTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICAh"fS AND EIGHTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO NRC STAFF Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy ("0CRE") hereby propounds'its seventh set of interrogatories to Applicants and its eighth set of interrogatories to the NRC Staff, pur-suant to the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of July 28, 1981 ( LBP-81-24, 14 NRC 175).
| |
| Issue #7 TO . APPLICANTS Statem'ent of
| |
| | |
| ==Purpose:==
| |
| The following interrogatories pertaining to Issue #7 in this proceeding constitute a follow-up cn Ap-
| |
| - plicants' answers to OCRE's Pourth Set of Interrogatories to s Applicants.
| |
| 7-1. The response to Interrogatory 4-8 states that Applicants 88
| |
| *a ha,ve no plans to use chlorination to control Corbicula.
| |
| t a-Lin Does this mean that chlorination has been eliminated as 8 .
| |
| 3 p a Corbicula control method, or that Applicants have no t o8 j0 plans at all for Corbicula control? If Applicants have any plans for Corbicula control, please produce them.
| |
| k' 7-2. The response to Interrogatory 4-5 states that the openings l
| |
| in the intake structure itself are too large to be blocked hO3 .. __ .. .
| |
| | |
| . 2 by Corbicula. Please give the factual bases for this statement, including dimensions of the intake openings and citation to authority stating that blockage by clams of openings of this size is not possible.
| |
| 7-3'.- Will the intake structure be periodically inspected 1for
| |
| .possible flow blockage conditions? If so, give the
| |
| ,",4- frequency of inspections and the methodology to be em-
| |
| . ployed.
| |
| 7-4. The response to Interrogatory 4-9 states that. sedimentation in the intake and discharge tunnels presenti no ' problem.
| |
| Does this mean that sedimentation will not occur, or that the sedimentation that will occur is not expected to cause problems?
| |
| 7-5. Define what type of " problem" was' referred to in the response to Interrogatory 4-9.
| |
| 7-6. To what depth is sediment expected to accumulate in the intake and discharge tunnels over the operating life of PNPP7 What is the nature.of the sediment expected, e.g.,
| |
| mainly sand, or largely organic matter?
| |
| 7-7. Can the response to Interrogatory 4-9 be construed to mean that Applicants will have no provisions to control sediment in the intake, discharge, or E5WS? If this is not what was meant, please clarify.
| |
| 7-8. What is the flow rate of water in the intake structure and tunnel (in both gallons / minute and feet /second), maximum-expected, for:
| |
| (a) normal operation .
| |
| (b) ESWS in use.
| |
| | |
| ,3-7-9. Is any temperature difference expected tatween the water in the inzake tunnel and the water in the lake?
| |
| Provide the bases for the answer.
| |
| 7-10. The response to Interrogatory 4-13 states that visual monitoring of certain potential locations in the ESWS for Corbicula blockage will occur during plant outages.
| |
| Define each and every potential location for Corbicula blockage, and explain why these locations would be susceptible to flow blockage by clams. -_
| |
| 7-11. Applicants state that they are not familiar with the design of the RER heat exchangers used at Brunswick or Pilgrim I. It would seem that General Electric, NSSS vendor'for PNPP, would have such information. Please refer the applicable portions of Interrogatories 4-15 and 4-20 to GE.
| |
| 7-12. The response'to Interrogatory 4-16 states that there is no possibility of bypass leakage between the tube and shell sides of the RHR heat exchangers. Would this statement be true even in the situation which occurred at Brunswick, i.e., displacement of the baffle plate which divides . the water box of the heat exchanger, which allowed service water to bypass the tubes. Explain why i or why not'.
| |
| 7-13. The response to Interrogatory 4-16 states that devia-tions between measured performance of the RER heat ex-changers and design data will be corrected. Explain how this would be corrected.
| |
| | |
| 7-14. The response to Intereogatory 4-18 states that the
| |
| " dead spot" in the RHR heat exchangers will be drained and refilled with demineralized water when the ESWS is shut down. Is this the only portion of the ESWS so treated? List all portions of the ESWS so treated.
| |
| INTERROGATORIES TO STAFF 8-1. Does the Staff agree with Applicanta tnat the only .way tnat the intake tunnel could become blocked would be as the result of a seismic event? Explain _the answer.
| |
| 8-2. Does the Staff agree with Applicants that blockage of the intake structure is not possible because of the size of tne openings? Explain the answer.
| |
| 8-3. Assuming the presence of Corbicula at the PNPP site, does the Staff consider the event occurring at Brunswick on April 25, 1981 to be possible at Perry? Explain why or why not.
| |
| 8-4. Produce all documents in the possession of the Staff per-taining tb tne Brunswick event.
| |
| Respectfully submitted,
| |
| /
| |
| \
| |
| L44^
| |
| Susan L. Hiatt l
| |
| ' OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Rd.
| |
| Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158
| |
| | |
| CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify' that copies of the foregoing OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY SEVENTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND EIGHTd SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO NRC STAFF were served by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 30th day of September, 1982 to those on the Service List below.
| |
| JSNPC Susan L. Hiatt 12 Gn -5 N1:34 0FFICE OF SELHt1/m .
| |
| 00CKETING & SERVtC!-
| |
| BRANCH
| |
| - - . . . _ _ . _ . . . ' ' ~ ~ ~ .--.
| |
| SERVICE LIST Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Daniel D. Wilt, Esq.
| |
| Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Bo'x 08.159 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Cleveland, OH 44108 Washington, D.C. 20555 .
| |
| Dr. Jerry R. Kline Ronald G'. Wiley CEI-PNPP Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. B^ox 97 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Perry, OH 44081 Washington, D. C. 20555 Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Whshington, D. C. 20555 '
| |
| Stephen H. Lewis, Esq. -
| |
| Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D. C. 20555 Jay Silberg, Esq.
| |
| 1800 M Street, N.W.
| |
| Washington, D. C. 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Fanel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
| |
| Washington, D.C. 20555 '}}
| |
