ML19274D806
| ML19274D806 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1979 |
| From: | Vinson J HUNTON & WILLIAMS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19274D797 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902260173 | |
| Download: ML19274D806 (6) | |
Text
^
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensine Board In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COM"ANY
)
Docket No. 50-322
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
Motion for Summary Discosition of SC Contention 12a(ii) 1.
Suffolk County (SC or County) contention 12a(ii) was accepted by the Board only for purposes of discovery because it was insufficiently particularized.
Tr. 75, 121-22.
This contention reads as follows.
12a.
Intervenors contend that the Applicant and Regulatory Staff have not adequately demonstrated that the Shoreham nuclear system meets the requirements of 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants with regard to the design adequacy of the following system components:
ii.
Susceptibility of local power range monitors (LPPM) to flow-induced vibration failures.
SC's Amended Petition t-Intervene at 16 (Sept. 16, 1977).
2.
In order to better understand the issues raised by this contention, the Applicant asked the County to:
790226e(13
' state precisely.
. under which particular criterion (la) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A che alleged design inadequacy arises at Shoreham.
Second Set of Applicant's Interrogatories to Suffolk County at 12 (Dec. 8, 1977).
In its answer, SC stated without elab-oration that the relevant criteria were 4 and 12, dealing with environmental and missile design bases, and suppression of reactor power oscillations, respectively.
SC's Response to Applicant's Second Set of Interrogatories at 25 (Jan. 31, 1978).
Subsequently, SC stated that this contention was based on the allegedly poor performance of LPRMs in operating plants.
SC's Particularized Contentions at 12-2 (Nov. 30, 1978).
SC also claimed that General Electric's (GE's) extensive flow-induced vibration tests were conducted on equipment designed to simu-late a BWR-6 core and, therefore, that the resulcing design modifications and improvements may not be applicable to Shoreham's BWR-4 configuration.
Id. at 12-3.
3.
This contention, as clarified by the caterial referred to in 1 2 above, raises no genuine issue of fact for the following reasons:
a.
As conceded by SC, extensive testing regarding the effects of flow-induced vibration on LPRM's has been conducted by GE.
Contrary to SC's allegation, however, tests were conducted specifically for a BWR-4 Hence, the result-ing design modifications are directly applicable to Shoreham.
See Affidavit of Ronald E. Engel at i 2.
. b.
GE's testing demonstrated that vibration failures could be eliminated by plugging certain bypass flow holes in order to change the water flow pattern around the LPRM's.
Id.
The NRC approved the design mcdification, which has been used successfully in operating reactors for Ip to 1-1/2 years.
Id.
at 1 3.
Elimination of the flow-induced vibration assures that fuel channels and incore detectors will conform to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criteria 4 and 12.
See id. at if 2, 4.
4.
For the above reasons, SC contention 12a(ii) raises no genuine issue of fact concerning susceptibility of local power range monitors to flow-induced vibration failures.
Accordingly, under 10 CFR S 2.749, this contention is ripe for summary disposition in the Applicant's favor.
We request that disposition.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ob b.
ns o n. --
John B. Vinson W. Taylor Reveley, III F
Case Whittemore Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
February 5, 1979
SC 12a(ii)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
0.-ket No. 50-322
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF RONALD E. ENGEL Ronald E. Engel, being duly sworn, states as follows:
1.
I am Manager of Operating Licensing I within the Safety and Licensing Operation of General Electric Company.
A statement of my professional qualifications is attached.
2.
The phenomenon of flow-induced vibration of local power range monitors (LPRM) has been studied extensively on several plants.
Informa-tion gathered from operating plants as well as test programs designed specifically to study flow-induced vibration was used by a special GE task force.
This group postulated that flow-induced vibrations could be eliminated by plugging the bypass flow holes.
This design modification was tested in a facility simulating a BWR-4 core like Shoreham's.
These tests demonstrated that the modification eliminated the LPRM's flow-induced vibration and reduced channel wear.
The same modification was made on operating plants experiencing LPRM vibration and on plants ; hat aere under construction, including Shoreham.
, 3.
The NRC Staff evaluated the LPRM vibration phenomenon and approved the modification discussed in S 2 above.
No plants that have received the modification have reported any problems due to incore detector vibration.
This experience includes sev esi plants, including Brown's Ferry Units 1, 2 and 3, Brunswick Unit 1 and Cooper, that have operated for up to 1-1/2 years since the modification was completed.
4.
Incorporation of the design modification described in S 2 above provides further assurance that Shoreham's fuel channels and incore detectors will conform to Criterion 4, which requires that components important to safety be designed to accommodate the effects of normal and postulated accident conditions.
Compliance to Criterion 12 is demonstrated by the stability analysis in FSAR Section 4.4.3.5.3.
This analysis is independent of any incore detection signal input.
There is no connection between incore vibration and compliance with Criterion 12.
/t %,.c.ll Y kQ ifanald E. Engel s
Subscribed and sworn to before me this /~'
day of.E -
1979.
,)
W f.i
~
-/ ;j.
s s~
Notary Puolic
/
OFFICIAL SEAL
)
. /1, 9f j}l # e@ 'QUTHE M. KINNAMCN k My commission expires:
M a-t-
%,2
- 0TARY PUSUC - CAUFOR*:lA i
2
) @-i"dS?Q a
uw =~ ::.n.rv My :eem. er: ires VM 23. 1331 W,- - - m -
n, ::n ;cm ca ws
- See, e.g., the generic NRC " Safety Evaluation Report on the Reactor Modification to Eliminate Significant In-Core Vibration in Operating Reactors with 1-inch Bypass Holes in the Core Support Plant" (February 1976).
QUAI.IFICATIONS OF RONALD E. ENGEL My name is Ronald E. Engel.
My business address is General Electric Company, 175 Curtner Avenue, San Jose, Cali-fornia.
I am currently the Manager of Operating Licensing Group I within the General Electric Company.
In 1964, I received a Bachelor of Mechanical Engineer-ing degree from the University of Calife.rnia at Berkeley.
From 1964 to 1971 I worked for Bechtel Po* 'r Corporation in San Fran-cisco, California.
In my last position with Bechtel, I was their senior licensing engineer for the Dwane Arnold Energy Center project.
I joined General Electric in July 1971, as a project licensing engineer responsible for technical support work for GE's licensing interfaces with various utilities and the NRC.
I have also been involved with licensing activities associated with in-core detector vibration programs.
In April 1975, I was appointed to my current position, in which I an responsi-ble for all General Electric licensing activities on eleven operating reactors.
These activities include GE's reload stan-dardination, margin improvement, systems availability, single loop operation and extended exposure fuel licensing programs.
I am a registered Professional Nuclear Engineer in the State of California and a member of the American Nuclear Society.