Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories.Intervenors Alfred & Eleanor Coleman Are Represented by Public Advocate of Nj. Questions Are Based on Licensee'S Application for Increased Capacity Fuel Racks.Certificate of Svc EnclML19270E842 |
Person / Time |
---|
Site: |
Salem |
---|
Issue date: |
11/21/1978 |
---|
From: |
Potter R NEW JERSEY, STATE OF |
---|
To: |
|
---|
References |
---|
NUDOCS 7901020244 |
Download: ML19270E842 (8) |
|
Similar Documents at Salem |
---|
Category:INTERROGATORIES; RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
MONTHYEARML19259B7611979-02-15015 February 1979 Amended Answers by Intervenor Lower Alloways Creek Township, Nj,To Licensee'S Interrogatories.Professional Qualifications of G Luchak & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19282A5711979-02-0505 February 1979 Licensee'S Response to Interrogatory 20 of Intervenor'S First Set of Interrogatories Dtd 781121. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20064J0011978-12-11011 December 1978 Response by Licensee PSEG to Intervenors a & E Colemans' First Set of Interrogs Dated 781121.Interrogs Concern,Inter Alia,Spent Fuel Reprocessing & Radiat Levels in Spent Fuel Pool.Cert of Svc Encl ML19270E8421978-11-21021 November 1978 Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories.Intervenors Alfred & Eleanor Coleman Are Represented by Public Advocate of Nj. Questions Are Based on Licensee'S Application for Increased Capacity Fuel Racks.Certificate of Svc Encl 1979-02-05
[Table view] Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARLR-N980595, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes,Tests & Experiments.Pse&G Supports Comments Submitted by NEI in Their Ltr1998-12-21021 December 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes,Tests & Experiments.Pse&G Supports Comments Submitted by NEI in Their Ltr LR-N980588, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps.Util Agrees with General Principle Behind Proposed Rulemaking,But However,Concerned That Proposed Rule Contain Language Open to Interpretation1998-12-14014 December 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps.Util Agrees with General Principle Behind Proposed Rulemaking,But However,Concerned That Proposed Rule Contain Language Open to Interpretation ML18106A8811998-09-15015 September 1998 Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1633, Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide as Protective Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Believes That Discussion Contained in SECY-98-061 Should Be Included in Draft NUREG ML18106A8731998-09-15015 September 1998 Comment on Draft NUREG-1633 Re Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide (Ki) as Protetive Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Believes That NUREG Should Provide Balanced Discussion on Benefits & Risks of Use of Ki LR-N980284, Comment on PR-50 Re IEEE Std 603-1991 for Salem & Hope Creek Generating Stations.Lack of Adverse Comments to Draft RG Should Not Have Been Construed as Endorsement to IEEE 603-19911998-06-12012 June 1998 Comment on PR-50 Re IEEE Std 603-1991 for Salem & Hope Creek Generating Stations.Lack of Adverse Comments to Draft RG Should Not Have Been Construed as Endorsement to IEEE 603-1991 LR-N980149, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Stds. Comments Address Use of Engineering Judgment,Limitations on Use of Later ASME III Code Editions for Weld Leg Dimensions & Seismic Analysis1998-03-30030 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Stds. Comments Address Use of Engineering Judgment,Limitations on Use of Later ASME III Code Editions for Weld Leg Dimensions & Seismic Analysis ML18102B4361997-07-0707 July 1997 Comment Opposing NUREG-1606, Proposed Regulatory Guidance Re Implementation of 10CFR50.59 (Changes,Tests or Experiments). Util Endorses Comments Submitted by Nuclear Energy Inst ML20132A8961996-12-0606 December 1996 Comment Supporting Pr 10CFR50, NRC Draft Ps on Restructuring & Economic Deregulation of Electric Utility Industry ML20084H9251995-06-0202 June 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Change in State Cooperative Agreements Program Concerning NRC Intention to Reduce Scope of Work.Believes That NRC Should Maintain Environ Monitoring Program & Find Other Ways to Reduce Duplicative Svcs ML20134K5021995-02-24024 February 1995 Transcript of 950224 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re C Vondra.Pp 1-136 ML20134K4511995-02-0808 February 1995 Transcript of 950208 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re Plant.Pp 1-93 ML20134K4791995-02-0808 February 1995 Transcript of 950208 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re V Polizzi.Pp 1-115 ML20134K4971995-02-0808 February 1995 Transcript of 950208 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re L Reiter.Pp 1-64 ML20080G8321995-02-0606 February 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & low-power Operations for Npp.Encourages NRC to Reevaluate Regulatory Analyses in Light of Higher Costs.Concludes That Addl Rules on Shutdown & Low Power Operations Not Necessary ML20077L8631995-01-0303 January 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re NPP License Renewal.Util of Belief That Proposed Rev Reflect Positive Effort Towards Establishing Regulatory Process Requirements for Continued Operation of Nuclear Facilities ML20132B2281994-08-0202 August 1994 Transcript of 940802 Enforcement Conference in Salem,Nj W/Salem Senior Nuclear Shift Supervisor Involved in 940407 Event ML20067C1591994-02-17017 February 1994 Comments on NUREG/CR-5884 Re Analyses of Decommissioning for Ref PWR Power Station ML18100A5591993-08-26026 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Whistleblower Protection ML20126F2721992-12-21021 December 1992 Comment Endorsing Positions & Comments of NUMARC & BWROG Re Draft GL, Augmented Inservice Insp Requirments for Mark I & Mark II Steel Containments,Refueling Cavities & Associated Drainage Sys ML20091Q8661992-01-31031 January 1992 Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1022,Rev 1, Event Reporting Sys,10CFR50.72 & 50.73,Clarification of NRC Sys & Guidelines for Reporting ML20072T2421991-04-11011 April 1991 Comment Re Proposed Change to 10CFR50.55A Re Inservice Testing of Containment Isolation Valves.Proposed Rule Should Be Revised to Allow Plants within Last 12 Months of Current Interval to Substitute Deferred Rv Shell Exams ML20235T1861989-02-24024 February 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants, Extension of NRC Authority to BOP Portion of Plant & Misapplication of Adequate Protection Std of Backfit Rule ML20195H0331988-11-21021 November 1988 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Program Which Includes Random Drug Testing.Util Strongly Favors 180- Day Period for Implementation of Rule & 360-day Implementation Period for Random Drug Testing ML20153F9681988-08-17017 August 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensee Flexibility During Natl Crisis.Deferral of Issuance of Final Rule Until Proper Implementation Guidance Formulated Encouraged ML20154G1421988-04-20020 April 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 73 Re Policy Statement on Nuclear Power Plant Access Authorization Program.Nrc Should Establish Program Mutually Agreed Upon Between Union & Util,Per Hope Creek & Salem Programs ML20154G4601988-04-18018 April 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Notification of Inspector Visits to Facility ML18093A6331988-02-0101 February 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Proposed Policy Statement on Integrated Schedules for Implementation of Plant Mods ML20151B3641987-02-24024 February 1987 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State &/Or Local Govts Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning ML20079N4271984-01-25025 January 1984 Response to State of DE 840120 Motion to Withdraw Petition for Leave to Intervene.Licensee Concurs in Motion.Dismissal of Proceeding Requested.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079K9311984-01-20020 January 1984 Motion to Withdraw Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing Re Extension of Time for Type a Test.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078P6771983-11-0404 November 1983 Answer to State of DE Atty General 831021 Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing on License Amend Re Inservice Integrated Leak Tests.Notices of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078M1551983-10-21021 October 1983 Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing on Proposed Issuance of Amend to License DPR-70 Re Inservice Integrated Leak Tests.Affidavit of Mailing Encl ML18087A8331983-04-12012 April 1983 Petition for Order to Show Cause Why Util Should Not Be Restrained from Restarting Facility Until Qualifications for Operation Demonstrated at Public Hearing ML18087A8341983-04-11011 April 1983 Affidavit of DG Bridenbaugh Re Delay of Facility Restart. Full Review of safety-related Equipment Must Be Completed & Appropriate Changes Implemented.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20213E3601983-03-0808 March 1983 Testimony Before Subcommittee on Energy & Environ Re Plant Licensing Concerns ML18086A9691981-10-14014 October 1981 Affidavit Confirming Validity of Util 811009 Response to IE Insp Repts 50-272/81-15 & 50-311/81-14 ML20005B6831981-08-20020 August 1981 Petition for Review of Aslab 810717 Order,Permitting OL Amend,Allowing Installation of New Storage Racks & Increasing Pool Capacity.Notice of Appearance & Affidavit of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20010C1481981-08-14014 August 1981 Response in Opposition to Lower Alloways Creek Township 810803 Petition for Review of ALAB-650.Petitioner Has Raised No Issue Which Warrants Commission Consideration.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20009H2221981-08-0303 August 1981 Petition Supporting Review of Aslab Decision.Case Involves Matter That Could Significantly Affect Environ,Public Health & Safety & Involves,Important Procedural Issues & Public Policy Questions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18086A5181981-05-15015 May 1981 Answer Opposing AC Coleman 810504 Request for Stay of Initial decision,LBP-80-27,pending Appeal.Request Untimely & Fails to Meet Requirements for Issuance of Stay. Certificate of Svc Encl ML18085A8401981-02-17017 February 1981 Brief Supporting ASLB 801027 Decision Authorizing OL Amend to Permit Storage of 1,170 Spent Fuel Elements in Facility Spent Fuel Pool.All Exceptions Should Be Denied.Aslb Has Adequately Weighed Evidence.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18085A5231981-01-13013 January 1981 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Support of 801111 Exceptions to ASLB 801027 Initial Decision Re Applicant Proposed Expansion of Fuel Storage.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18085A4091980-12-0808 December 1980 Response to Intervenors Eg & a Coleman Motion for Extension Until 810131 to File Brief in Support of Exceptions.Opposes Motion But Would Not Object to 2-wk Extension.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18085A4081980-12-0404 December 1980 Appeal from ASLB Initial Decision Granting Util Right to Increase Spent Fuel Pool Storage Capacity.Nepa Requires Detailed Analysis of Safety & Health Problems Posed by Reracking.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19340D3431980-11-30030 November 1980 Request for Extension to 810131 to File Brief in Support of Exceptions to ASLB 801027 Initial Decision Re Spent Fuel Pool Proceeding.Certification of Svc Encl ML18085A2791980-11-20020 November 1980 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance as Counsel for Intervenors Coleman.Intervenors Coleman to Remain Parties to Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18085A2501980-11-11011 November 1980 Appeal from ASLB 801027 Initial Decision.Alleges Erroneous Finding of Facts Re Contentions 2 & 6,evaluation of Eia, Acceptance of Pasedag Testimony & Rejection of Benjamin Testimony.Counsel Withdrawal & Certificate of Svc Encl ML18085A2161980-11-0404 November 1980 Exceptions & Appeal from ASLB 801027 Initial Decision. Exclusion of as Benjamin of Sandia Labs Testimony Is Arbitrary Due to Relevant Evidence Re Oxidation That Could Propagate to Older Fuel.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062J4921980-10-21021 October 1980 Addl Testimony Presented Before ASLB to Correct & Clarify 800710 Testimony Re Loss of Water from Spent Fuel Storage Pool ML18082A7101980-07-11011 July 1980 Reply Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Form of Partial Initial Decision Substituting for Licensee 800613 Findings,In Response to ASLB 800509 Order & ASLB 800626 Question 5 on away-from-reactor Issues.W/Certificate of Svc 1998-09-15
[Table view] |
Text
&
NRC PUBLIC DOCU.'dEliI RQOM o a gyn D connLsN:iD12C3 e O 9
~ CN q$N 7 .[ .
LNITED STATES OF A" ERICA NUCLEAR FIGLUTCRY CCeNISSICN 5
S Mg@NA
- BEFCRE TEE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICE'; SING ECARD g *>Yo**I Q e#
, Gae 3 In the Matter of ) ~
)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC 5 ) Docket No. 50-272 GAS CCMPN N ) Proposed Issuance of Amendment
) to Facility Operating License (Salem Nuclear Generating ) No. DPR-70 Station, Unit No.1) )
INTER'2NCPS' FIPST SET OF INTERRCGATORIES TO THE LICENSEE The intervenors, Alfred and Eleanor Coleman, represented by the Public Advocate of the State of New Jersey, respectfully request the licensee, Publi.c Sertice Electric and Gas Ccenany, to an.wer fully, in writing, under oath or affirmation, the following interrogatories. In answering each interrogator /,
please provide the following:
- a. The direct answer to the question.
- b. The fact (s) and reasoning that sunport your answer.
- c. hhere the interrogatory requests a response which requires or suggests a numerical answer, please give the calculations which support your response.
- d. Identification of all documents and studies, and the particular parts thereof, relied ucon by you in answering the interrogatorf.
- e. Identification of the person or persons you rely on to substantiate your answers.
- f. Identify the expert (s), if any, you intent to have testify on the subject matter questioned.
790102 M'
~
Please note that the rules of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission,10 C.F.R.
2.740b require you to answer in full and under oath within fourteen (14) days after service of these interrogatories. In addition, please note that the definitions provided by the licensee in your interrogatories to the Colemans (dated June 28, 1978) are intended to apply here as well unless noted othenvise.
INERRCGATORIE The follcwing questions are based on the licensee's Aonlication for Increased Cacacity Fuel Racks No.1 Unit, Salen Nuclear Generating Station, Docket No.
50-272 and the Attachment 1 Descriotion and Safety Analvsis Snent Fuel Storage Rack Replacement, (hereinafter referred to as the " Safety Analysis") .
- 1. At p. 2 of the Safety Analysis, the licensee described the altematives which were considered and "detemined to be unsatisfactory" for a variety of reasons . Picase describe the changes, if any, which have taken place in the status of spent fuel reprocessing and the availability of the facilities of the General Electric Ccananv and Nuclear Fuel Sen' ices available insofar as they relate to away from reactor ("AFR") alternatives. For example, have the facilities applied for expansion of snent fuel storage? Will these facilities be available for reprocessing or AFR storage? If so, when? If not, why not?
1(a). Please explain the basis for the statement (bottom of p. 2) that
" storage in the existing racks is possible, but only for a short period of time."
Mcw long? hhat factors and assumptions underly the tine of availabili* (e . g. ,
fuel burnun, capacity factor of the unit, transshipment, etc.)?
1(b). Has the licensee considered the altemative in the intenrenors' contention 9(D), " ordering the generation of spent fuel to be stopped or restricted" 3 ,
(e.g., operation of the unit with existing racks until an offsite AFR alternative is availabic.) If so, please describe in full. If not, why not?
- 2. Please describe why the alternative of transshipment to other reactors is not considered a potential alternative. hhat reactors have been considered for transshipment?
- 3. Please provide a full update of the licensee's plans for discharge of spent fuel, the first batch of which is planned for discharge in January,1979 (p. 3) .
- 4. Please provide the basis and all calculations underlying the licensee's statement that "the additional cost to our custcmers for purchase of replacement power is estimated to be approximately $500,000 for each day the reactor is not operating."
- 5. lias the licensee evaluated the effect, if any, of a recommendation by the Generic Environmental Imoact Statement on the IIandling and Storage of Spent Fuel, NUREG-0404 infavor of (AFR) facilities? If so, please describe; if not, please state the reasons. -
- 6. hhat increase would occur in radiation levels in the storage water of the spent fuel pool in the event that the licensee's application is granted?
(see p. 7) 6 (a) . hhat increase in radioactive materials and in radiation levels would occur in the coolant water filters? hhat increase would occur in the screens, traps, drains, and pipes? Please provide all relevant calculations and the basis therefore.
6 (b) . Please explain the statement at p. 8 that "the anount of corrosion products released into the pool during any year would be the same regardless of the storage capacity of the pool," assuming increased compaction and several years of discharged fuel?
- 7. If the quantity of spent fuel is increased by a factor of four (4) how would the crud release rate be affected? Sinilarly, how would the total quantity of radioactive eaterials released into the snent fuel pool be affected?
(see p. 9)
- 8. Please quantify the amount of corrosion products which would be present in the spent fuel pool as a result of increased cccpaction.
- 9. Please explain why the " resin replacement frequency will not be significantly altered by the increase in spent fuel storage capacity" (p. 9).
Please describe how reliance on the " differential nressure increase" differs frem the " loss of capacity to remove radioactive contaminants" in detemining resin replacement (p. 8) . Show calculations for predictions in each case.
- 10. hhat other gases besides Kr-8" may be released frca the spent fuel storage area (p. 10)? Please identi; and quantify.
10(b). hhy is there intended to be no senarate nonitoring device to measure radioactive gases released from the spent fuel storage area? Identify any innediments to such a monitoring system, if any.
- 11. Please describe how the Table 2.0-1 (p. 39) relates to the detemination of expected radioactive gases released frca the spent fuel storage area during the period of storage.
11(a) . hhat is the purpose of Table 2.0-1?
11(b) . hhat is the icwer limit of detection applicable to Table 2.0-1?
11(c) . hhat techniques are available for measuring below this linit?
- 12. At p.14, you describe the "B-10 loading of 0.025 gm/cn2 ." Please explain this value in light of Table 3.1-1 which refers to 0.05 gm/ca, as minimum and Table 3.1-4 which shows 0.025 gm/cn2 as ninimum.
12(a). hhat are the correct values and the B-10 loadings?
12(b). hhat is the uncertainity in the value of the expected loadings?
- 13. Please describe why the licensee believes that the increased spent fuel compaction and storage will not affect the consequences of a spent fuel pool accident? /see p. 21) Explain how the consequences of an accident would be affected by acts of sabotage.
14 Please describe how the fuel cask would be handled and the basis for the chosen method. Also, please describe the specific controls to be employed to assure that the cask handling does not encroach upon the pool area.
- 15. Please descrioe the basis for the statement at p. 22 that "there is r;o o deterioration or corrosion of stainless stee.1 in this environment." (emphasis added) Please describe the variables which affect the rate of deterieration or corrosion, if any. hhat assumption underly the detemination that no deterioration or corrosion will occur.
- 16. Please describe the "non-destructive testing of the cells." -
16(a). What would be the consequences of a less than 100 percent leak tightness? -
16 (b) . Describe the basis for the 95 percent confidence level, including any calculations and methodologies.
- 17. If in-pcol surveilance finds problems requiring repair of spent fuel rods or racks, what are the licensee's contingency plans for removal and repair?
- 18. Does the page 28 reference to "two phase flow" signify that local boiling can occur? If so, how many bundles and for how long would such boiling have to occur to reduce the water level to the top of the fuel?
18 (a) . Please describe the. circumstances or situations which would lead to two phase flow.
18 (b) . Please provide a worst case analysis and an average or t>mical case analysis for the coolant mass ficw rate for each fuel assembly.
- 19. Regarding spent fuel cooling capacity (at p. 30) please provide the basis for the licensee's detemination that "the spent fuel cooling system can provide the necessary cooling for the normal annual discharge as early as 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> af ter reactor shutdown."
19M). hhat is the minimum delay between a shutdcwn and full core discharge?
19 (b) . Assuming a full spent fuel pool (but with full core discharge space available and after shutdcwn) when could the core be discharged to the spent fuel pool and still receive adeauate cooling from the spent fuel cooling system?
19 (c) . hhat are the volumes, masses, heat rates , ficw rates, temperatures, and all other pertinent variables calculated and plotted as a function of time after shutdown? Show the calculations.
- 20. Please describe the allowable distortion or danage for fuel storage cells. (see p. 33) hhat is the sensitivity of the K eff to damage or distcrtion of the cell dimensions?
- 21. hhat are the results of the seismic non-linear analysis and structural analysis described at the bottom of p. 34? Please provide a ccpy of the relevant analysis and study.
21(a). Similarly, please provide the results and a copy of (1) the analysis described on p. 36 (" Time history analysis"), (2) the postulated dropped fuel assembly accidents (p. 36), (3) the cases to be evaluated regarding fuel assemblies dropped inside de storage cell, and (4) the fuel assembly dropped from above the racks but with the assumption that the assembly rotates as it drops and impacts a rcw of storage cells. (see p. 37)
- 22. The calculated K eff values for ORNL Critical Lattices (p. 46) cases four and five sets forth central values which are outside the range of values for the 95 percent confidence level. Please explain hcw it is possible for the central value and K eff to be outside the range of values provided in the table.
Respectfully submitted, STANLEY C. VAN NESS -
PUBLIC ADVCCATE OF NEW JERSEY b
By:
R. WILLIN1 FOTTdR Deputy Director Division of Public Interest Advocacy Date: is/G'/ )3
_7_
' = -- O CO w rf w ,. - ,'NI'% /,9 .
. -h g* j?. (. ..*_
UNITED STATES OF MERIG [97 .
Oq =,1 j< ** p 7 '"
-~
NUCLEAR .EGULATORY COD'lSSICN . q .
1
- " j" f d BEFORE EE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LIGNSING BOARD k"9 In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVIG ELECTRIC 5 ) Docket No. 50-272 GAS CCf!PA.W ) Proposed Issuance of Amendment
) to Facility Operating License (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1)
)* No. DPR- 70
)
GRTIFICATE OF SERVIG I hereby certify that copies of "I.NTERVENORS' FIRST SET OF I.NTERRCGATORIES TO EE LICENSEE" in the above-cactioned nroceeding have been served unon persens listed on service list 'oy deposit in the United sr States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this al day of November, 1978.
s
/ ., ~ r/
l f % '. / d W R. hi1LLIRt FOI'fER Deputy Director Division of Public Interest Advocacy c-