ML20054B798
| ML20054B798 | |
| 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 8204190205 | |
| Download: ML20054B798 (12) | |
Text
l w-a DCC F,IT Er UNITED S1ATEs GF ANERICA NUCLEAR hEGULATORY CGMhldSION 7
'82 APR 15 P 1 O Betore tne Atomic Safety und Licensing Boaro i
In the Matter of
)
i
)
l LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Snoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
l Unit 1)
)
(
6UMMARY OF THE TESTIMONY OF RLBERT M.
KASCSAK FOR THE LONG ISLAND LIGH1IhG COMPANY ON SCC CONTENTICN 19(j) -- TURBANE ORIENTA1 ION i
j Purpose This testimony establishes that the reinforced concrete i
barriers provided at Shoreham protect essential systems (as definec in Regulatory Guide 1.115 Revision 11 in the event or a l
low-trujectory turbine missile.
'Ihere is nine feet of rein-forced concrets between the turbine ano the systems in ene reactor building, and six feet of reintorcea concrete between the turbine ano the systems in the screen well.
Tests using worst-case turbine missiles inoicate that the criteria useo to establish the widtn or these concrete barriers are conserva-tive.
I i
i
)
i 8204190205 820413 PDR ADOCK 05000322 T
~
Apr11 13, 13o2 UNITEC S'ialES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATGnY CCMhlSSICh Before the Atomic Satety ana Licensing boato In tne Matter of
)
)
LONG LSLAND LIGHTING CCMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)
TES11 MONY OF RGBcRT M.
KASCSAK FOR THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Oh SCC CONTENTIGN 19(3) -- TURBINE GRIE61aTICN 1.
C.
Please state your name and business udoress.
A.
hy name is Robert M.
Kascsak; my buoiness address is Long Island Lignting Company, 175 East 010 Country Road, Hicksville, New York.
2.
C.
What is your position witn LILCO?
A.
I am currently Manager or tue Nuclear oystems Engineering Division within the L1LCO huclear l
Engineering Department.
Tnis Department 1o a Headquarters Engineering Grganization that provices support to the Office or Nuclear.
1 1
3.
C.
Please state your proressional qualtrications.
A.
The attacheo resume summarizes my protessional qualitications.
My familiarity with tne turoine ori-entation issue stems from my position ao Project
_2_
Engineer on shoreham anu as a member of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Plant Materials Subcommittee.
In my capacity as Project Engineer, I was involved in the NRC Statf review or snorenam's turbine orientation, culminating in the abR approval of the plant o e sig n.
As a member or the Subcoma.ittee, I receiveu information concerning programs on turbine orientation sponsored by EPR1.
4.
C.
are you familiar with Snoreham Opponents Coalition (SGC) Contention IS(j)?
i A.
Yes.
5.
L.
What issues are presenteo in that contention?
A.
SGC contends that the turbine generator orientation at Shorenam results in an increased-probebility of a turbine missile damaging an essential system at Shorenam, and that L1LCO's oesign for protec tion against low-tra]ectory turbine missiles does not com-ply with Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.115.
6.
O.
Are any of Shoreham's essential systems located within the turbine missile strike zone?
A.
'Ihe only essential systems (as detined by Regulatory Gulce 1.115, Rev. 1) at Shoreham that are in the turbine missile strike zone are those systems in a portion of the reactor building and the acreen well.
J :
7.
C.
Are the reactor bulloing ano the screen well protected?
A.
Yes.
At Shoreham, there is a total or nine feet or i
reintorced concrete between the turbine ano the systems in the reactor building, anu six teet of rein-forceu concrete between the turbine ano the systems in the screen well.
1 6.
C.
What criteria were useo to arrive at these barrier thicxnesses?
A.
lhe concrete barriers were analyzeo in accordance with criteria that considered the angle of impact on the atfected structure and the thickness of tne concrete between the turbine ano the essential system.
See FSAR Section 10.2.3.
9.
C.
To your Knowledge is there any recent testing that has been performed to confirm the adequacy or those criteria?
A.
Yes.
EPRI ano the NhC sponsoreo tests using worst-case turbine missiles to evaluate concrete barrier acceptability.
The results of thesa tests inoiccte the criteria in Section 10.2.3 of the FSan are conservative.
)
-r
---.--.v.
I a
.. 10. C.
Does Regulatory Guide 1.115, Revision 1 require a par-ticular turbine orientation to protect against low-t trajectory turbine missiles?
A.
No.
Regulatory Guide 1.115, Revision 1 requires a showing that the risk f rom turbine miss11es is accept-ably small, either because design features are pro-vided to prevent damage or because tne probability or a strike by a turbine missile is sutfielently low.
4 This can be accomplished in three ways:
(1) by showing that the turbine generator is orientea so that essential systems are not located within the missile strike zone; (2) by using barriers to protect essential systems that are within the missile strike lone; or (3) by demonstrating that unprocectea essential systems are so small or far away from the turbine that, assuming the release of a low-tra]ectory missile, the sum or the probacilities of those systems being damageo is less than 10" (one in 1000 per year).
although turbine orientation is designated as the pre-ferred method of protecting essential systems, the Staff acknowledges that " plants witn less than favorable turbine orientation have been rounc
-S-acceptable."
Reg. Guide 1.115 at 1.11d-3.
An essential plant system in the missile strike zone is adequately protecteo against low-trajectory turbine missiles "if no missile can com romise the final e
barrier protecting an essential system."
Reg. Guice 1.115, Rev. 1 at 1.115-4.
LILCO meets this require-ment at bhoreham.
- 11. G.
Are you aware of tne more recently documented inci-dents of turbine oisc cracking on General Electric turbine generators?
A.
- Yes, L1LCU has been apprised of thesc incloents bi both the Gensral Electric Company ano EPRI.
lhe information we have receiveo inoicates that turbine disc cracks are occurring on non-reneat cycle tur-b1nes.
Shorenam nas two-stage reneet cycle turbines.
i Further study of turbine disc cracKb may snow that two-stage reheat cycle turbines like Shoreham's ao not have the cracking problems found in the non-reheat cycle turbines.
We await further intormation on this sub3ect.
However, even if it is found that two-stage reheat cycle turbines may crack, that intormation will not dlter tne probability of a missile causing damage to l
l
.==
. o essential systems at Shoreham.
The barriers provioeo-at Shoreham will prevent damage to essential systems.
4 from a low-trajectory missile.
- 12. Q.
Would you summarize your conclusions as to the issue 3
of turbine missiles at Shoreham?
A.
The reintorceo concrete barriers provioed at Snoreham are an adequate and acceptable alternative to usAng i
turbine orientation to prevent aamage to essencial systems in the event of a low-trajectori turbine i
missile.
1 I
4
.. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Robert M.
Kascsak Nuclear Systems Engineering Division Manager Long Island Lighting Company My name is Robert M. Kascsak.
My business adoress 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 ano 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 l
York.
I have completed training courses in BWh and PWh 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 l
Associate and Senior Engineer, incluaing tne Northport Power l
1
-
- Station Unit 3 and Unit 4 mechanical engineering designs.
From July 1974 to March 1975, I servea as LILCO Lead Machanical Eng inee r 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.
s I
N,
'82 IIR? 15 P1 J39 In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 4
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No._ 50-322 (OL)
CERTIFICAPE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the following testi-mony:
McCAFFREY'S TESTIMONY ON SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 2--
DIESEL GENERATOR RELAYS; HILL'S AND FORTIER'S TESTIMONY ON SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 4--WATER HAMMER; PRICE'S TESTIMONY ON SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 5--
LOOSE PARTS MONITORING; KASCSAK'S TESTIMONY ON SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 9--
ECCS PUMP BLOCKAGE; HILL'S TESTIMONY ON SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 10--
ECCS CORE SPRAY; FORTIER'S TESTIMONY ON SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION ll--
PASSIVE MECHANICAL VALVE FAILURES; McCAFFREY'S TESTIMONY ON SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 17--
FIRE PROTECTION; and KASCSAK'S TESTIMONY ON SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION CONTENTION 19(j)--TURBINE ORIENTATION were served upon the following people by first--class mail, postage prepaid, on April 13, 1982, except for those with an i
asterisk who were served by hand on April 13, 1982:
Lawrence Brenner, Esq.*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Appeal Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dr. Peter A.
Morris
- Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.*
Administrative Judge David A.
Repka, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
Attn:
Patricia A.
Dempsey, Esq.
Dr. James H.
Carpenter
- County Attorney Administrative Judge Suffolk County Department of Law Atomic Safety and Licensing Veterans Memorial Highway Board Panel Hauppauge, New York 11787 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Howard L.
Blau, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 217 Newbridge Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Matthew J.
Kelly, Esq.
Commission Staff Counsel, New York Washington, D.C.
20555 State Public Service Commission 3 Rockefeller Plaza Herbert H.
Brown, Esq.*
Albany, New York 12223 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Karla J.
Letsche, Esq.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, New York State Energy Office Christopher & Phillips Agency Building 2 8th Floor Empire State Plaza 1900 M Street, N.W.
Albany, New York 12223 Washington, D.C.
20036 Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Mr. Mark W. Goldsmith Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.
Energy Research Group 9 East 40th Street 400-1 Totten Pond Road New York, New York 10016 Waltham, Massachusetts 02154
.. m -
'o
+
3 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K San Jose, California 95125 4
Stephen B, Latham, Esq.*
Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street P.
O.
Box 398 Riverhead, New York 11901 4
(,a q j#$44 I
4 *wn L d-/
g(
Daniel O.
Plan'agan
/
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street I
P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
April 13, 1982 i
i i
1 l
i i
i
.. _. _ _. _. _... _ _ -, - _ _. _ -