ML20054B774

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Testimony of RM Kascsak on Suffolk County Contention 9 Re ECCS Pump Blockage
ML20054B774
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 04/13/1982
From: Kascsak R
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20054B760 List:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8204190187
Download: ML20054B774 (12)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. e 00f.V"IF' r, UNITED STATES OF AMERICX82 ff? 15 P1 9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISblGN Before the Atomic Safety ano Licensing Boara In the Matter of ) ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL) ) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) TESTIMONY OF ROBEAT M. KASCSAK FOR THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 9 -- ECCS PUMP BLOCKAGE Purpose This testimony establishes that the shoreham orywell piping and equipment insulation will not block the ECCS suction strainers in the unlikely event of a'LOCA. First, the insula-tion has been designed to remain in place curing a Design Basis Eartnquake. Second, the insulation used is metal-encapsulated and will not break apart or deteriorate in water. Third, cown-comer battling and seismically-designed grating innibit the path of insulation from the drywell to the suppression pool. Fourth, tne ECCS suction strainers are designed to pass rated flow to the pumps, even with 50% blockage. And fifth, assuming a section of metal insulation were to work its way through the downcomer to the suppression pool, the section would be too small to block more than 50% of the suction strainer screen. 4 T

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety ano Licensing Board In the Matter of ) ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL ) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ) Unit 1) ) TESTIMONY OF ROBERT M. KASCSAK FOR THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 9 -- ECCS PUMP BLOCKAGE 1. Q: Please state your name and business address. A: My name is Robert M. Kascsak; my business address is Long Island Lighting Company, 175 East Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York. 2. Q: What is your position with LILCO? A: I am currently Manager of the Nuclear Systems Engineering Division with the LILCO Nuclear Engineering Department. This Department is a Headquarters Engineering Organization that provides support to the Office of Nuclear. 3. Q: Please state your professional qualifications. A. The attached resume summarizes my professional quali-fications. My familiarity with the ECCS pump blockage issue stems from my position as Shoreham Project Engineer for LILCO when design decisions relating to this issue were formulated. i

_2_ 4. Q: Are you familiar with Suffolx County Contention 9? A: Yes. 5. Q: What issue is presentea in that contention? A: Suffolk County contends that drywell piping and equip-ment insulation loosened or damaged during a loss ot coolant accident (LCCA) will block the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) pump suction strainers, degrading the ECCS flow through the strainers. 6. Q: In designing the Shoreham primary containment, cia LILCO include design features that would prevent drywell piping and equipment insulation from blocking ECCS strainers in the suppression pool? A: Yes. LILCO, in concert with our architect engineer Stone & Webster, established design criteria for the insulation for structures and components within the primary containment to preclude those materials from inhibiting ECCS pump operation during design basis ano lesser events. 7. Q: What specific design criteria were involved? A: We used primarily three criteria to prevent material from entering the suppression pool:

. First, all structures and components, sarety-related or non-satety related, are seismically designed not to fall off during a Design Basis Earthquake (DBE). Second, the available piping insulation designs were evaluated. The insulation chosen is the one least likely to deteriorate, reach the ECCS pumps, and block the pumps. And third, downcomers are provided with a lip and a cover baffle plate to prevent material from entering them and travelling through them to the suppression pool. 8. Q: You said you chose to use a particular insulation in the drywell. Would you elaborate on the criteria used for the design of insulation within the primary con-tainment? A: As I stated above, the insulation used at Shoreham was selected with the concern of pump suction blockage in mind. The insulation installed is fabricated entirely of metal or, if space prevents the use of that insula-tion, then a fiberglass insulation enclosed in metal has been used. LILCO selectea this more costly insula-tion in lieu of insulation containing material that could break apart, become suspenced in water, ano

. potentially inhibit the flow of ECCS pumps by blocking the pump strainers in the suppression pool. 9. Q: Please explain in more detail the design of the equip-ment insulation in the drywell. A: Essentially all of the pipe insulation in the crywell is made of metal reflective material. This insulation is composed of 0.043" inner and outer stainless steel jackets with 0.0015" retlective aluminum layers between the jackets. A few wall penetrations are insulated with metal encapsulated temp-mat (borated fiberglass mat blanket). The temp-mat encapsulated insulation is composed of a 0.016" type 304 austenitic stainless steel outer jacket and a 0.01 inch stainless steel inner jacket with temp-mat between the jackets. Both types of insulation are supplied primarily in panel lengths between 18 and 36 inches. These panel lengths are hinged along the length of the panels to fit arouna the pipes, fastening at the top with buckles.

10. Q:

Is there an event that could dislodge the insulation in the drywell? A: There is a remote possibility that during a high energy pipe break less-of-coolant accident -- a highly unli-kely event -- the jet from the pipe break or movement

. of the faileo pipe could dislodge a section or sections of insulation. If the reflective or encapsulated insu-lation were to fall off the pipe due to a LOCA, it is estimated that a maximum of only one or two panels on each side of the pipe break or on adjacent piping (due to jet impingement) would be involveo. These few panels would be somewhat deformed and misaligned, but would remain primarily intact. Thus, their size would prevent them from entering the downcomer.

11. Q:

Are there any seismic events that would cause insula-tion in the primary containment to break free? A: No. Seismic analyses on the mechanical fasteners used to secure the insulation have been performed to insure that the insulation remains in place during a DBE event.

12. G:

Even though it is unlikely that insulation will fall i off, has LILCO addressed the consequences of a section i or sections of insulation falling into the suppression i pool? I l A: Yes, but let me first explain that even if a section of insulation is dislodged it is doubtful that the section would ever find its way into the suppression pool. The insulation would have to traverse a tortuous path to reach that location. l t

. 13. Q: How might insulation reach the suppression pool? A: Insulation falling off above the 76' 4-1/2" 2evel in the reactor building (where essentially all insulated piping exists) will be caught at that elevation by a Category i seismically designea grating. The grating mesh is 4" x 1 3/16" or smaller and covers approxi-mately 70% of the area at that level. The openings are mostly occupied by conduit, piping, and duct work, with the exception of heist ano stairway / lauder access ways. An insulation panel falling off below that level (or that somehow passeo through open areas in that grating) would most likely f all to the drywell floor. The only pathway into the suppression pool from the drywell is through the downcomers. As notea on Figure 1 at page 9 of my testimony, the baffle plate on the downcomer and the 6" lip above the drywell floor leave only a small area for access into the downcomer. Assuming a piece of metal insulation worked its way through the downcomer to the pool, the insulation would most likely sink to the suppression pool floor. Since the bottom of the ECCS suction strainers is approxi-mately 9 feet above the suppression pool floor, the insulation would not come into contact with the strainers. I

14. C:

Were the insulation to make its way to the ECCS suction strainers, would it block the strainers? A: No. The ECCS suction strainers are designed to allow adequate flow even witn 50% blockage. The screens are constructed of 14 gage stainless steel with 1/8" diame-ter perforations staggered on 3/16" centers. Insulation sections small enough to travel through the downcomers are too small to block more than 50% or the screen, in the unlikely event the insulation traveled that far. Each of the low pressure systems taking suction from the suppression pool have fully redundant suction lines physically separated by 180 degrees at the outer cir-cumference of the pool. Each suction has its own strainer. This design further reduces the potential for simultaneous blockage or the redundant ECC5 sys-tems.

15. Q:

Are you aware of any incidents of insulation blocking the suction strainers at plants witn the metal-panel insulation used at Shoreham? A: No.

! 16. Q: Would you summarize your conclusions concerning the ECCS suction strainers and blockage of them? t A: The design of the insulation used at Shoreham and the physical layout I've described indicate it is highly unlikely that the Shoreham ECCS suction strainers will be blocked by drywell insulation in the postulatea LOCA. In the unlikely event that blockage does occur, it would constitute less than the 50% blockage for which the system has been aesigned. Finally, redundant ECCS suctions and pumps have been provideo to insure that the system operates properly. i \\ r

s i -3 susa%. $CRIEi4T TTOM-PLA41.. \\.; y-J . gg*g ' CL. I-49-. telC271 ' -[.,x l. .N/A-1 i N SCALE:n 40 1 r--- f ',' -l 4X,,<{X 3 2 9. i a.. / -{ry .,:b NGLE J S ' Y*LC?fG ~ gl-

OovE TC UBA

' f '...... \\ h. -'f.)Fi ' g' ', \\ B 3k

d. '(p

~ p 71.- [8t'h Q l [( z./

f. ' '

,-DOWNCouER PIPE - g b ~.. q E '.

  • T;.?

',v/$ . 'a,; -Ja L ~ ~"7p'j %g - - o -..._f ..f. .'6. ~. (g )a u

  • / /, ' '~

^:a h.: %.. r m f u / I ts. ,t o .'t., l /,,. n .q r. ! '*a $4,* p,;' m W 0g[/.c.E;k., t Whe8L's.f{y A i 4 'y. ,J 3.. s.i s-7 I 6 L. . *,,g 6

Cgp gu g.',j..

f .,g. c, ,/ .i., o ~ ,n h ,&4av g A 4y y., , p,/ _. d' *m.u,u

asu,

. \\ aq;. 9 38,.-.,,e $PE y, 3l N [=zhoit

  1. {

..g, e . sts: a, m #Yiosa t.

ory, f.

a n%* t,,0,. & + 34 v .f. C ' ,p,,, t ry, .m: :.2 a 2-2( ;3 1 d '7 scytg.., g) e- .;,5 f% 6 "l e.dr 'i 4 ha '.- .r', RIlh . ^' r. g -l: d, (' ( sq, CTYPFOR FED f .c- / A STUDS. y .)v*V'

+ p q

4 '/c s .L.f. f ISILE STRENGTH F04 5T005 6040C95! rq, g g y ,y ELv. s-yTo 304o 1 LD STRCNGTH t'OR STUDS E SO.00CPSI ~~'" g. [g *+ '.~,-l ~. /' h *

  • H A INSTALL ACCODDING TO SFEC. SHI064 w-L-

. #-M. , e-- T ' 'c gN ' M II AND. mat 4UFACTURERS RECOMENDEO INSTRUCitONS I ~

  • EL etc..

I, . ~ " - -/' .,g SPACING'CAtl BE Ar,R ANGEO TO SUlt .i

5 c 9ft. AN

' p' ..i, 3RCING Bel 45 f/tN SPACING 6* VERTICAL 8. y -- BAFFLE 1 PO$lil0N FOA JNTAL min.EDCE DIS TAN CE TO.i OF S TUD

  • 8j..

,.

  • I')Omc".A'h F/* 6-r,.5 Pt. A*E g FLOOR SL AB FRESWRL TEGT

/ M lO202 fr4) ~ c. T ' 55'o0'ov f.- ScAi.tifyi'-c f/h ~ g/( 4 MAT'l FOC BR ArtNG C

  • s rc es Asucris sa%.

" *T. .. ~. LiFTsuo lug l t/,is T L N O T E Att alt.TE int ( y:M

  • d (, ;, y ASU V BL 'E ~, TO 4

ANois 'Occ u o [:, i ,, P; '.

7...

~ ', - CF gC$ Q,g g,.g,g,, pgpg. e y .s

  • A'*

26- ./ y*n".e N,, ;c--- BAFr t it,, o

  • ,u'1~ ~

ta ru,,., '. O d b. . 1 . f - 15'2*. YMW. / h;v ;,F*.- Y,,,.. fciapeti . U '

4. 5-W NO E E M"Y' 4*J A S k 3 9 f wt A 4.

e. . ~ e.: p on to, ; Q':,q.Le, V > 'em ', j d;.i.L..y, (m'Aa. '.u, D&M!z. l' [i y

.- e r(h cn n y-
s. : s eu, n vau o.a r, P /.a caC+ turM.m. ' E

' i.. .l ~~ - -a, , \\ u:.' Y m * *.*x C.,* 17.H '. P.) li 8. N ; I. Lt 2 - 5lU: ';r,3 mr " wy.. ;* t' st..,v.cH :,Le acct.am 'K /- g 3.c.a w.,,o N ,- *i ,1 li. f TO' !- E 6'k' MSM

    • LT :

-\\ ,.? o s ..,.' { \\. i.~~g.--.-. -,'a J.. L o' ^ '.:*r.:": u. wr"W ~ ^ c%E;.M C 7tT ,f"-_,.. j ,{ s 9 ,W c * ~f 1-p wr N rLCOn ! g ~ y-.. e ~-9 i..I'.. s - 7/ & K. r; ) **'# *""' '/t ; Q,-.,. r24.a. - -. -. '- - --- --h( 2AS?. ft. f"C'

  • 4 ' JS "iMM t >~d O

--DI / 1 ---/ 'h --:-L -.. " &, :,n..,,,,? =, =* - .,, N , e \\ r.. M CR s c.- . ^., - _, m -..._ -..-. ; F

  • , J. 3 r~ ~ ~,

t 6Aa.ET.LA~E.9. I i \\. 4 4 i 5 SW O*t.U.y /b -- M-l / i N = : ..a. 'T u.. igrC A ALL OTHER S 4. p'- d.n-- v c a , g %... /. q., l b ~~ ~{~:.* ' ': W ' 'cI [ t s 6~0 ~;C , r. l

p, Tyc

i.: 0 ..a. ,; my;,e.xn..e } }y1l e W.'LI*t - u ,_ i.a i:- ~ .}.y. --- +;.: tw. es L 1 --g J , u, _, .e p i 7,.qt r. .m y,1, o r r. T.-g y,, t'y ? ie y 't / t, \\ _eiti a?*J J $- D ?, my m sus:.%,t- , 'f * '..'. x

  • ll" C"2 d 4.
  • 1 1

?.. F /,. . 'M s i.

u.,;,5..,,

L s ^ R. +' 3.P2. m

  • SLT ;OC *. 3 9

3 d / O '\\ N, /.,

    • ?^.

o4.;A,-,,, g\\g" p.1dr ,- 4 P2 A %'.'? ',0t 2 5 - 5 +?stw t$ ao*) ,F-3 .g% % A i wo2e2 so c-o ~ . \\ L.. -

. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Robert M. Kascsak Nuclear Systems Engineering Division Manager Long Island Lighting Company My name is Robert M. Kascsak. My business address is Long Island Lighting Company, 175 East Old Country hoad, Hicksville, New York. I am currently the Nuclear Systems Engineering Division Manager. My responsibilities include overseeing an engineering staff organization capable of analyzing and coordi-nating activites associated with nuclear plant design, opera-tion, reliability and safety, including approving Architect Engineer designs and vendor designs and developing an in-house support organization associated with future plant mooifica-tions. I graduated from Manhattan College in 1969 with a Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering. In 1977 I received a Master of Science degree in Nuclear Engineering from Polytechnic Institute of New York. I have completed training courses in BWh and PWR tech-nology. I joined LILCO in 1969 as an Assistant Engineer in the Mechanical and Civil Engineering Department. I workeo on var-ious fossil fuel power station projects in the capacity of Associate and Senior Engineer, inclucing the Northport Power

_11 l Station Unit 3 and Unit 4 mechanical engineering designs. From July 1974 to March 1975, I serveo as LILCO Lead Mechanical Engineer for Shoreham and for the Jamesport Nuclear Power Station. In March 1975 I joined the Shoreham Project Group as an Assistant Project Engineer, after which I assumea the responsibilities of Project Engineer. From harch 1975 to January 1979, I was Project Engineer for bhoreham. In this position I was responsible for the review and approval of design activities preparea by our Architect / Engineer, Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor and LILCO in-house engineering departments. I am a registered Professional Engineer in New York State ano a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. i l

}}
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20054B774&oldid=4499662"