ML20054F668
| ML20054F668 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1982 |
| From: | Hodges M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054F661 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206170202 | |
| Download: ML20054F668 (7) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPEISSION p
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ll n
/
Docket Number 50-322
)1 I
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (ShorehamNuclearPowerStation,
- )l Unit 1) l' f
f NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF MARVIN W. (WAYNE) H0DGES REGARDING REDUCTION OF SRV CHALLENGES SC Contention 28 a v)
SOC Contention 7 a 6 l
l 8206170202 82061405000322 PDR ADOCK PDR T
OUTLINE OF TESTIMONY l
Intervenors contend that Applicant has failed to resolve certain generic safety issues resulting from the THI-2 accident by attempting to reduce challenges to safety / relief valves by procedural techniques a
rather than by systems modification. This allegation is incorrect. The Applicant will utilize a new two-stage design to replace the three-stage pilot operated valves used in the past.
In addition, emergency procedures, operator training, and an improved pneumatic control system to the safety relief valves will be implemented by Applicant to reduce SRV challenges.
4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket Number 50-322 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF MARVIN W. (WAYNE) H0DGES ON SC CONTENTION 28(a)(vi) AND SOC CONTENTION 7(a)(6)
Q.
Please state your name and position with the NRC.
A.
My name is Marvin W. (Wayne) Hodges.
I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a Section Leader in the Reactor Systems Branch in the Division of Systems Integration. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached.
Q.
What is the purpose of your testimony?
A.
The purpose of this testimony is to respond to SC Contention 28(a)(vi)andSOCContention7(a)(6)whichstates:
S0C [and SC] contend that the NRC Staff has not adequately assessed and LILC0 has not adequately resolved, both singularly and cumulatively, the generic unresolved issues applicable to a BWR of the Shoreham design. As a result, the Staff has not required the Shoreham structures, systems, and components to be backfit to current regulatory practices as required by 10 CFR 9 50.55(a),
5 50.57, and 5 50.109, with regard to the following:
...... :. ~: ~ ~
(a). LILC0 has failed to resolve adequately certain generic safety items identified as a result of the TMI-2 accident and contained in NUREG-0737, Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements (1980).
(6). LILC0 hopes to accomplish a reduction in challenges to safety / relief valves (NUREG-0737, Item II.K.3.16) by procedural techniques, rather than by system modifications. But the reliability of the SRV's chosen for Shoreham has been historically poor. Thus, LILC0 has not demonstrated SRV compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A Criterion 30.
Q.
How does LILC0 propose to reduce challenges to safety / relief valves?
A.
Most of the failures of safety / relief valves reported are attributable to the three stage pilot operated valves.
The original three-stage pilot operated safety / relief valve design was changed to two stages to improve valve perfonnance. The Applicant states that the advantages of the new two-stage design are the following:
(1) the probability of spontaneous valve opening due to pilot valve leakage has been reduced, (2) the possibility of setpoint changes due to bellows leakage has been reduced, and (3) the probability of air operator diaphragm failures has been reduced. Shoreham safety / relief valves are manufactured by Target Rock Corporation.
In addition to this, LILC0 intends to implement emergency procedures and operator training to provide the Low-Low Set " equivalent manual action" called for in the Emergency Procedures Guidelines, Rev.1, which will reduce the total number of SRV challenges by limiting
~.
.~~.~
~
.T.'; ' ~
the number of second and subsequent SRV openings via operator action.
The above combination should effectively achieve a reduction in challenges.
In addition to the above, an improved pneumatic supply control system to the safety valves will be implemented on Shoreham. This should result in an additional improvement in the frequency of challenges.
Q.
What are your conclusions concerning this contention?
A.
Contrary to Intervenors allegations, systems modifications (rather than just procedural techniques) are being utilized by Applicant t
to reduce challenges to safety / relief valves. As point out, the Applicant will utilize a new two-stage pilot operated valves used in the past.
In addition, emergency procedures, operator training, and an improved pneumatic control system to the SRV will be implemented by Applicant to reduce SRV challenges.
I t
I rvin W. (Wayne) Hedoes Professional Qualifications Reactor Systems Branch
_ Division of Systems Integration U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- I am employed as a Section Leader in Section B of the Reactor Systems Branch, DSI.
I graduated from Auburn University with a Mechanical Engineering Degree in 1965.
I received a Master of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Auburn University in 1967.
In my present work assignment at the NRC, I supervise the work of 6 graduate engineers; my section is responsible for the review of primary and safety systems for BWRs.
I have seryed as principal reviewer in the area of boiling water reactor systems.
I have also participated in the review of analytical models use in the licensing evaluations of boiling water reactors and I have the technical review responsibility for many of the modifications and analyses being implemented on boiling water reactors post the Three Mile Island, Unit-2 accident.
As a member of the Bulletin and Orders Task Force which was formed after the IMI-2 accident, I was responsible for the review of the capability.of BWR systems to cope with loss of feedwater transient and small break loss-of-coolant accidc$nts.
I have also served at the NRC as a reviewer in the Analysis Branch of the NRC in the area of thermal-hydrulic performance of the reactor core.
I served as a consultant to,the RES representative to the program management group for the EWR Blowdown / Emergency Core Cooling Program.
~-' -~.~.
,i.e._w...m
.r:.'
Prior to joining the 1.'RC staff in Iiarch,1974,1 was employed by.E. I. DuPont at the Savant.ah River Laboratory as a research engineer.
At SRL, I conducted hydraulic and heat transfer testing to support operation of the reactors at the Savannah River Plant.
I also performed safety limit ca'1culations and participated in the development of analytical models for use in transient analyses at Savannah River.
1ty tenure at SRL was from June 1967 to 1tarch 1974.
From September 1965 to June 1967, while in graduate school, I taught courses in thermadynamics, statics, mechanical engineering measurements, computer prograr.rt.ing and assisted in a course in the history of engineering.
During the surn.er of 1966, I wori:ed at the Savannah River Laboratory doing hydraulic testing.
m M
e e
9
- - -