ML20054B769
| ML20054B769 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1982 |
| From: | Fortier R, Hill R GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO., STONE & WEBSTER, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054B760 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8204190181 | |
| Download: ML20054B769 (18) | |
Text
a pr;nre-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.7
,b>
I '9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety ano Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham huclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)
TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND E.
FORTIER AND RICHARD A.
HILL FOR THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 4 -- WATER HAhMER Purpose This testimony establishes that the Shoreham piping system design not only considers the effects of water hammer but mini-mizes its effects (1) by using general design practices such as venting, slow opening and closing automatic valves, ano vacuum breakers, (2) by adding special safety-related systems such the loop level systems for as LPCI and HPCI, and (3) by pertorming a qualified computer-assisted time history analysis of water-hammer loads and designing a pipe support system to accommodate those loads.
Pre-operational and start-up tests are conducted to assure that piping has been designed to withstano oynamic effects.
Througn GE and Stone & Webster programs, incustry operating experience with water hammer is taken into account in i
those tests.
t 8204190181 820413 PDR ADOCK 05000322 T
PDR l
April 13, 19@2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing boara In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CCMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)
TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND E.
FORTIER AND RICHARD A.
HILL FOR THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 4 -- WATER HAMMER 1.
Q.
Please state your names and business addresses.
A.
My name is Raymond E.
Forrier; my business adoress is Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, 245 Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts.
My name is Richard A.
Hill; my business address is General Electric Corporation, 175 Curtner Avenue, San Jose, California.
2.
Q.
By whom and in what capacity are you employed?
A.
(Fortier)
I am employed by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) as a Leaa Power i
I m
. Engineer and have held this position since December 1979.
In this capacity, I am responsible for overall technical and administrative activities in the Power discipline on the Shoreham Project (Shoreham).
(Hill) I am employed by the General Electric Company (GE) as the Manager, Systems Evaluation Programs.
I have held this position since September 1980.
I am responsible for resolving generic BWR technical issues with the NRC.
3.
C.
Please state your professional qualifications.
A.
(Fortier) The attached resume summarizes my profes-sional qualifications.
My familiarity with the water hammer issue stems from experience throughout my career as a systems engineer.
While working on Shoreham as a systems engineer, principal nuclear engineer, and lead power engineer, I have been respon-sible for the design and engineering review of piping systems, including identifying the water-hammer
(
effects to be considered in system piping analyses.
(Hill) The attached resume summarizes my professional qualifications.
My f amiliarity with the water-hammer issue stems from my employment with Westinghouse Electric Corporation, where I was a senior engineer responsible for resolving the water-hammer issue for l
the Westinghouse pressurized water reactor (PWR).
1 l
. During my employment with the General Electric Company, I have had responsibility for resolving licensing issues resulting from water hammer.
4.
Q.
Are you familiar with suffolk County Contention 4?
A.
(Fortier/ Hill)
Yes.
5.
Q.
What issue is presented in that contention?
A.
(Fortier)
Suffolk County contends that LILCO has not adequately shown that the Shoreham safety-related pip-ing (e.g.,
ECCS, Residual Heat Removal System) will prevent or withstand water-hammer loads.
6.
Q.
What is water hammer?
A.
(Fortier)
Water hammer is a single shock or series of shocks (pressure waves) produced by suaden changes in the flow conditions of fluids in a pipe.
7.
Q.
Is water hammer a newly recognized phenomenon related solely to operating experience at BWR plants?
A.
(Fortier)
No, water hammer is not restricteo to BWR plants.
There is an abundance of history both in nuclear and non-nuclear applications concerning water hammer ano its effects on piping systems.
Water hammer is considered in the design basis of all fluid-carrying piping systems.
. 8.
Q.
Does the Shoreham piping design reflect a consideration of water hammer?
A.
(Fortier) Yes.
The Shoreham piping system design not only considers water hammer but minimizes its etfects.
The ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Section Ill, Nuclear Components requires that dynamic etrects, including water hammer, be considered in the design of piping systems.
Shoreham piping design specification SH1-171 addresses water hammer in the design of safety-related piping systems.
This specification complies with the ASME III Code.
(Hill) GE takes water hammer into consideration in the design of those systems for which we are responsible.
The piping design utilized prevents the occurrence of water hammer or mitigates its effects snoulo it occur.
9.
Q.
How does the Shoreham piping design prevent water l
hammer or minimize its effects?
A.
(Fortier)
In three ways:
(1) through general design practices, (2) by adding special systems to preclude or diminish the effects of water hammer, ano (3) by performing a qualified computer-assisted time history l
l analysis of water-hammer loads, and designing a pipe i
support system to accommodate those loads.
i
l 10.
Q.
Taking the first method you mentioned, what kinos of general design practices have been used at Shoreham to preclude water hammer or minimize its effects?
A.
(Fortier)
Five practices have been used at Shoreham:
First, all steam-line piping is aesigned to provide continuous draining to preclude the formation or water pockets.
Water pockets in steam lines can be acceler-ated by high-steam flows and cause water-hammer loads on the piping.
Such water pockets are preventea by installing sloping pipe, low-point traps, ano low-point continuous blowoown drains.
Second, pipe shock suppressors are utilizea exten-sively throughout the safety-related piping systems to dampen out the effects of water-hammer dynamic loaas.
Third, where allowed by system design function, slow opening / closing electric motor operators are used to open ano close automatic valves, minimizing the potential for dynamic-tluids effects.
Fourth, high-point vents are provided in water-filleo lines to allow system venting to eliminate the formation of air pockets.
And fitth, vacuum breakers are used to minimize potential dynamic effects by providing an air cushion l
. in fluid-carrying pipe lines that could otherwise be under an occasional vaccuum.
11.
Q.
What about the second method you mentioned -- aading special systems that preclude or diminish the effects of water hammer?
What systems have been adaed to Shoreham?
A.
(Fortier) Examples of specific safety-related designs used to preclude or diminish water-hammer effects are (1) the ECCS loop level fill system for low pressure core injection (LPCI), including portions of residual heat removal (RHR), core spray (CS), anc high pressure core injection (HPCI), and (2) the HPCI turbine steam supply preheating system.
t 12.
Q.
How do the ECCS loop-level fill systems preclude the occurrence of water hammer?
A.
(Fortier)
These systems operate continuously to maintain filled and pressurizea water lines.
The fill systems are electronically monitored; an alarm in the control room alerts operators to possible malfunc-tions.
In addition, periodic high-point venting in accordance with the technical specification provides surveillance to ensure that the system design tunction is satisfied.
. 13.
Q.
And, how does the HPCI turbine-supply preheating sys-tem minimize water hammer effects?
1 A.
(Fortier)
The system operates continuously to maintain the turbine supply piping at elevated temper-atures.
The higher temperatures reduce condensation so that during rapid startup the effects of water hammer are minimized.
The formation of water pockets is eliminated by proviaing continuous drains or traps at all low points, thus preventing water-hammer loads on the piping.
14.
Q.
What is the third method you mentioned -- time history analysis of water hammer -- and how does it minimize water hammer effects?
A.
(Fortier)
The overall piping-system stress analysis addresses the combination of loads, including the dynamic effects of water hammer.
The forcing func-tions generated by computer modeling are incorporated into the stress analyses used as the basis for design-ing a support system within the allowable ASME III Code limits.
15.
Q.
Has this analysis been performed at Shoreham?
. A.
(Fortier)
Yes.
16.
G.
For which systems has this analysis been perrormed?
A.
(Fortier)
It has been or is being performed by SWEC on all safety-relatea piping systems except those por-tions of the main steam and recirculation systems within the NSSS scope of supply.
(11111) GE conducts this type of analysis for the pip-ing in the main steam and recirculation systems.
17.
Q.
What factors determine whether the effects of water hammer are considered in the analysis?
A.
(Fortier)
Based on past experience, the phenomenon of water hammer occurs when various concitions are pres-ent.
Typical examples are (1) flow into empty piping systems or portions of systems, (2) rapid pump start /stop, (3) rapid opening / closing of valves, ana (4) rapid fluid-flow change events.
When these kinos of conditions occur, water-hammer erfects are consid-I ered in the stress analysis.
18.
G.
How do you obtain information regarding new conditions that might cause water hammer ano theretore should be l
considered in the analysis?
I i
_g_
A.
We monitor related industry experience.
19.
G.
How is that information useo at Shoreham?
A.
(Fortier)
SWEC has a program to review power industry problems and documents relating to those problems.
This program establishes company and project appli-cability and tne necessary follow-on action to be taken, if required.
(Hill) GE also monitors pre-operational and start-up testing at Shoreham.
GE personnel are at the plant during the construction phase ano turnover of plant operations to the utilities.
Part of GE's responsi-bility is to gather pre-operational and start-up testing data anc information, ano to generate reports summarizing the data.
These reports are distributed to GE personnel at other sites and in the main engi-neering and projects offices, for consideration in refining plant design.
l I
20.
Q.
Aside f rom piping design considerations, are there other methods available to take into account the effects of water hammer?
j A.
(Fortier)
Yes.
Testing is provided to confirm that i
the safety-related piping system functions properly l
and as anticipated under expected operational l
conditions.
t
. 21.
Q.
What type of tests will be performea at Shoreham?
A.
(Fortier)
The test program includes pre-operational and start-up tests.
The pre-operational tests are performed to verify proper operation of safety-related piping systems.
The start-up tests commence with preparation for initial fuel loading and can take place only after the required pre-operational tests have been completed.
(Hill) GE ensures that Shoreham conducts pre-opera-tional vibration dynamic effects tests during start-up and initial operation in accoreance with the ASME Code for all Class 1 and Class 2 piping systems and piping restraints.
These tests provide adequate assurance that the piping and piping restraints have been de-signed to withstand dynamic effects due to valve clo-sures, pump trips, and other operating modes associa-ted with the design operation transients.
22.
Q.
Does LILCO take into account industry experience con-cerning water-hammer occurrences in safety-related l
piping cystems?
A.
(Fortier)
Yes.
LILCO has procedures tnat require review of industry-related problems, incluaing effects from water-hammer loads.
. (Hill) In addition, prior pre-operational and start-up testing information obtained by GE from other BWR plants has been considered in the design and start-up preparation of Shoreham.
23.
Q.
Would you briefly summarize your testimony on the effect of water hammer at Shoreham?
A.
(Fortier)
LILCO has assured the ability of safety-related piping to prevent or withstand effects of water hammer.
This assurance is demonstrateo by general design practices, by designing systems to pre-clude or diminish the effects of water hammer, by per-forming analyses considering water-hammer loads and designing pipe support systems to accomodate those loads, and through an extensive testing program.
Also, by studying nuclear and non-nuclear industry experience and recent related BWR experience, LILCO further demonstrates the ability of the safety-related piping to prevent or withstand the effects of water hammer.
(Hill) The Shoreham systems design and Technical Specification requirements precluce the occurrence of water-hammer events.
These design requirements are founded upon a large data base of BWR experience.
The experience at other BhR's indicates that water hammer is adequately considered in the Shoreham design.
1
PROFESSICNAL QUALIFICATIONS Raymond E.
Fortier Senior Power Engineer / Power Division Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation My name is Raymond Fortier.
My business address is 245 Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02107.
I am employed by Stone &
Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) as a Lead Power Engineer and have held this position since December 1979.
In this capacity, I am responsible for overall technical and adminis-trative activities in the rower discipline on the Long Islano Lighting Company (LILCO) Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 (Shoreham).
i I
In 1963 I received a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering f rom the University of Rhooe Island.
Since 1974 1
through the present, I have completed graduate courses at Northeastern University in nuclear engineering, power plant design and economics, computer systems and engineering manage-ment.
In addition, I have participated in Stone & Webster's Continuing Education Department course o't" rings in technical and management subjects.
My engineering career began with Rohm ano Haas Company, Bristol, Pennsylvania (1963-1968).
As Field Engineer, I super-vised construction of plastics plants in Pennsylvania and l
l 1
l England.
As Project Engineer, I was responsible for design, estimating, development, purchasing and construction of various projects.
I also was assigned to the planning, estimating and designing of a blown film and plastic manufacturing facility.
Later with Cryogenic Technology, Inc. (CTI), Walthan, Massachusetts (1968-1970), I was a Product Engineering Manager responsible for the design and manufacture of miscellaneous cryogenic (extremely low temperature) laboratory equipment.
I was also the Program Manager responsible for the design and development of the Model 1400 helium refrigerator, liquefier and purification system.
In November 1970, I joined Stone & Webster as an Engineer in the Process Projects Division, responsible for the design of chemical plants and later transferred to the Power Division in November 3 471.
I was assigned to the %isconsin Electric Power Company, Point Beach Nuclear Plants (December 1970 - October 1973), with responsibility for the design and engineering or a liquid and gaseous radioactive waste treatment and disposal system.
My duties includea preparation of addenda to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
I also preparea flow diagrams, equipment and bidder lists, process equipment and pipe sizing calculations, system descriptions, preoperational instructions and miscellaneous specifications for the installation of a blowdown and waste evaporator, a gas stripper ano a cryogenic noble gas separation system.
]
I have been associated with Long Island Lighting Company pro-jects since March 1973.
Initially (March 1973 - May 1974) as an Engineer, I was assigned to the Jamesport Nuclear Power Plant Project and was responsible for the emergency core cool-ing system (ECCS), containment isolation, chemical and volume control, and reactor coolant systems.
I also functioned as nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) coordinator and prepared sections of the Environmental Report and Preliminary Safety Analysis Report.
In June 1974, I was reassigned to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 Project.
My experience on Shoreham covers a broad spectrum spanning eight years.
Formerly, I was involved in the day-to-day detail engineering and design decisions coin-cident to a project of this scope.
I was appointed Principal Nuclear Engineer in January 1978 with responsibility for over-all coordination with NSSS supplier and technical responsi-bility for nuclear ana radwaste portions of the plant.
Currently, I have overall responsibility for manpower, budget, planning, scheduling and sequencing of engineering and design efforts, including Three Mile Island-relateo items, for all power discipline groups.
This results from my appointment as Lead Power Engineer in December 1979.
In addition, I have overall responsibility for all Power discipline activities being performed at the Site Engineering Office and coordination of Hydraulic, Environmental and Nuclear Technology Division activities relating to Shoreham.
4 I am a registered Professional Engineer in New York and Massachusetts.
As Engineer on the Shoreham Project, I prepared the Design Specification Report entitled, " Thermal ano Pressure Transients of ASME III, Class 1 Piping Systems."
s 4
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Richard A.
Hill Systems Evaluation Programs Manager General Electric Company My name is Richard Hill.
My business address is 175 Curtner Avenue, San Jose, California.
I am employed by General Electric Company (GE) as Systems Evaluation Programs Manager and have held this position since September 1980.
In this capacity, I supervise technical program managers for several licensing issue topics.
I received a Bachelor of Arts in biochemistry from the University of California at Berkley in 1969, and a Master of Science in engineering management from the University of Pittsburg in 1977.
I have also completed a continuing eauca-tion course in reliability and risk analysis at George Washington University, and one in man-machine interface engi-neering at the University of Wisconsin.
Following five years' service in the United States Navy nuclear power program, I joined Westinghouse Electric Corporation, where I was Senior Engineer in the Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor Systems Division (1974-1977).
In that capacity I acted as program manager and was responsible for planning, implementing, and controlling multi-divisional research programs in human factors and systems integration.
I moved to GE in 1977.
From 1977 to 1980 I was Principal Engineer acting as program manager responsible for coordination and integration of programs in dynamic load analysis or equip-ment and BWR safety analyses in response to Three Mile Islano.
I became Systems Evaluation Program Manager in September, 1980.
m
-m
-~ -