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
//fy y P3;5g In the Matter of
)
rr.
)
iK CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-4407 COMPANY, Et A1
)
50-441 t_
)
(Operating Lic n_
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
03 Units 1 and 2)
\\
eg
}
/
A y
y:
e OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGL$ 'a f
THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO NRC STAFF
~,
/
' 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.
8205060390 820429 E!
m PDR ADOCM 05000440 O
n
-b pop
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 and 55 of Appendix h to 10 CPR Part 50 with regard to i
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.
I 3-16.
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.
Is pipe whip a design consideration for SDV piping s=
E E
design?
If so, to what extent?
E 3-19.
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_
E5 to J. 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 This is to certify that copies of OCRE's SECOND SET; 0F:
6r ;.
INTERh0GATORIES TO APPLICANTS and THIRD SET OF TO NRC STAFF were served by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first~
class, postage prepaid, this 29th day of April,1982 to those on the Service List below.
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.
&j Washington, D.C.
20555 Brecksville, OH 44141 h
Dr. Jerry R. Kline 4
11 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board y
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D. C.
20555 s,i e
Frederick J. Shon b
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Comm n 55 e
.L Washington, D.C.
20555 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
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1
Washington, D.C.
EE 20555 x
r.. -
=~ -
_3
~
~
l Y."_;#_ + :;..- J. x hef'*'.+ [ < d "?'.
~~
K ~
, ^
_. - "' -l'~~
~
~
A u-
~