ML20052D237
| ML20052D237 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1982 |
| From: | Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205060390 | |
| Download: ML20052D237 (5) | |
Text
--
'w -+---m.m.,
I:
aELGED
- k UNITED STATES OF AMERICA iMU7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tGIISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 02 In the Matter of //fy y P3;5g
) .
rr . .
) iK CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Docket Nos. 50-4407 COMPANY, Et t_A1 ) 50-441
) (Operating Lic n_
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
03 Units 1 and 2) \ eg"
}/
y A
y: , e -
OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGL$
THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO NRC STAFF
'a
~,
/
f
' Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy ("0CRE e propounds its third set of interrogatories to the NRC Staff, pursuant to the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of July 28, 1981 (LBP-81-24, 14 Nhc 175 (1981)).
Statement of Purpose The following interrogatories are designed to determine j
'the Staff's assessment of the potential at PNPP for the type ':
i of accident described in NUREG-0785 resulting from a pipe break 4, 4
to the scram discharge volume and to determine the Staff's !
regulatory position o'n this problem. h
' ;i Interrogatories g.
3-1.
{
Does the so-called " hydraulic" solution or fix to the
~ g BWR ATWS problem involve any modification of the SDV system? If so, describe in detail these modifications 6 '
as they would be required for PNPP. "
3-2.
Does the NRC require temperature, humidity, or radiation :
i monitors / detectors at or near the SDV to detect breaks in-the SDV or SDIV?
3-3.
Has the Staff-submitted any guidelines or rules requiring. )
E!
m 8205060390 820429 PDR ADOCM 05000440 O
n pop _
-b
s break detection instruments as described in 3-2 above?
3-4. Has there ever been an SDV pipe break recorded by the
~
NRC? If so, give salient details.
3-5. What emergency operating procedures will the NRC require the Applicants to have available in the control room to use in the event of an SDV pipe break?
k 3-6. Does the NRC require training of reactor operators on responding to SDV pipe breaks? If so, describe such training requirements. ,
3-7. Does the Staff currently believe that the isolation of ;
i the SDV system can be assured in the PNPP design as is? !
What modifications, if any, would be needed to assure ;
such isolation? !
3-8. What arethe Staff's esticates of the maximum flow rate through an SDV pipe break in the Perry design?
3-9. Would water lost through the SDV in 'a break become avail- ,
able for subsequent cooling purposes? If so, indicate the flow path; i.e., from what point to what point would the coolant ultimately pass? !
3-10. If the response to 3-9 above is in'the affirmative, does the rationale include the possibility of that
{
water steaming (flashing) at the break point? {
[
3-11. Has the Staff required any modification of the SDV design i
for Applicants' plant? If so, enumerate and explain any such modifications.
3-12. Has the Staff required any changes in the metallurgy of the SDV system for PNPP? If so, describe in detail.
3-13. Will the Applicants be required to perform a fatigue -
analysis on-the Perry SDV system? If so, explain the G
.~
extent of such requirements.
3-14.
Does the Staff intend to hold the Applicants to GDC 54 i
and 55 of Appendix h to 10 CPR Part 50 with regard to isolation valves within the SDV system? If not, why not?
3-15.
Has the Staff established any surveillance requirements on the SDV system at PNPP? If so, produce those require-ments.
3-16. I Relevant to 3-15 above, will any surveillance include ,
radiography? If so, please elaborate. e r
3-17. r Has the Staff accepted the recommendations of C. Michelson _
L of the NRC AEOD that operability of the hi-level scram E i
be independent of the SDV venting or draining requirements? 5
[
(See 8/1/80 letter from Michelson to H. Denton, Office t i
of NMR, NRC.) ~E E
3-18. s Is pipe whip a design consideration for SDV piping =
E design? If so, to what extent? E 3-19. E In the Staff's opinion, did the suspected act of vandalism m E
described in PNO-81-109 cause any irreparable harm to E I_f z
the SDV system that could lead to scram failure or to b=.
a pipe break in the SDV piping? 5 3-20.
In the Staff's opinion, could the deficiency in the hk t ta stress ana,1ysis for the CRD hydraulic system described ==
in the March 11, 1982 letter from D. Davidson of CEI b_
to J. E5 Kepplcr of NRC Region III (water hammer loads from scram valve operation) lead to a . break in the SDV piping? $b EE Are the modifications proposed by the Applicants in said letter sufficient to preclude this't um
==-
M
=-
7:
.k.
3-21. In the Staff's opinion, could the concerns described in the 3-29-82 letter from A. Schwencer, Division of Licensing, NRC, to D. Davidson, l
A CEI, re " Fast Scram" Hydrodynamic Loads on Control Rod Drive. Systems, lead to a pipe break in the SDV system? -
3 Respectfully submitted, WW s$
Susan L. Hiatt OCHE Interim Representative 8275 Munson Rd.
' Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158 e
i e
_T
- ~
g eoW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ~3 P3:52 6r ;. -
This is to certify that copies of OCRE's SECOND SET; 0F:
INTERh0GATORIES TO NRC STAFF were served TObyAPPLICANTS deposit in the U.S.and Mail,THIRDfirst~ SET OF class, on the postage Service List prepaid, below.this 29th day of April,1982 to those I !
Susan L. Riatt i SERVICE LIST g
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman 5 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Daniel D. Wilt, Esq. $
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n 7301 Cliippewa Rd.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Brecksville, OH 44141 &j h
Dr. Jerry R. Kline 4 11 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D. C. 20555 e s,i Frederick J. Shon b Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 55 U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Comm n e Washington, D.C. 20555 .L g
Docketing and Service Section g 55 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n . M
- g Wkshington, D.C.. 20555 W
James Thessin, Esq. $
=..
Office of the Executive Legal Director ;
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n g Washington, D.C. 20555 n
- ==
m Jay Silberg, Esq. 555 Ein 1800 M Street, N.W.
washington, D.C. 20036 $
x 5s
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel b 1 U.S. NuclearD.C.
Washington, Regulatory Commission '
EE 20555 x r . . -
_3
~
=~ -
** * ~
~~
Y."_;#_
+ :;. .- J. x hef'*'.+ [ < d "?' . K ~
, ^ l
_. - "' -l'~~ -' ~ '
u-
~
~ A