ML20058J662

Response to ASLB 820803 Request for Refs from Prefiled Written Testimony,Attachments & Exhibits Re Safety Relief Valves.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20058J662
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	08/05/1982
From:	Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8208110150
Download: ML20058J662 (6)

Text

. -

, LILCO,, August 5, 1982 00CKETro Ui:,1<

? an a _

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ^?

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , _ ,

u

• Cr n c, ,.

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ckd6hj ' .

In the Matter of ) ,

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY )

)

Docket No. 50-322 (OL)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

LILCO'S RESPONSE TO BOARD REQUEST OF AUGUST 3, 1982 FOR SRV RECORD REFERENCES At the close of the hearing session on Tuesday, August 3, 1982, the Board requested that LILCO provide it with references from prefiled written testimony, attachments and exhibits, and oral testimony already in the record from LILCO or the Regulatory Staff regarding two matters concerning Safety Relief Valves (SRVs).

The first of these dealt with differences between Two-Stage and Three-Stage Target Rock SRVs, as these differences would relate to the different designs' respective resistance to (A) stuck-open relief valve events (SORVs) and (B) spurious openings. (Tr. 8874 line 24 - 8875 line 20.) References in Part I below respond to this request, and also include record references to basic physical and design differences between the two valve designs which underlie their performance differences.

.20e1101w 820e05 PDR ADOCK 05000322

=

(

$ D3 G PDR

l

\

I The Board's second request was for record references from testimony by either LILCO or Regulatory Staff witnesses which would be responsive to a hypothetical scenario posed by Suffolk County in which a SRV might be closed then rapidly reopened during operation in the alternate shutdown cooling mode, initiating I water flow in a SRV discharge line which might be partially or fully filled with water above the level of the suppression pool. (Tr. 8875 line 21 - 8877 line 1.) The fact that this condition was not specifically tested for by the BWR Owners' Group was the source of the Suffolk County question. Specifically, the Board requested references to assertions by these witnesses relating to the questions whether (a) the loads expected to be experienced by SRVs and piping under such conditions would be bounded by those tested for by the BWR Owners' Group tests; and (b) the consequences of failure either of the SRVs to close or of the associated discharge piping would be bounded by the con-

sequences of design basis accidents. The references in Part II below respond to the Board's requests with respect to this hypothetical scenario.

I. Differences Between 2-Stage and 3-Stage Target Rock Safety Relief Valves A. Differences Respecting SORV Events l

l 1. Prefiled Testimony and Exhibits l

l

• LILCO Direct Testimony on SRV Challenges (following Tr. 7959 (July 27))

l Q&A 18-20 (pp. 12-14) i

! Attachment IV, 88 3.2 (pp. 19-20), 4.3-4.3.1 (pp. 23-24)

I l

• FSAR Request 212.51 (following Tr. 8448 (July 29))

2. Transcript References July 28: Tr. 8145 line 15 - 8147 line 15 July 29: Tr. 8498 line 14 - 8499 line 23 B. Differences Respecting Spurious Openings

1. Prefiled Testimony and Exhibits

• LILCO Direct Testimony on SRV Challenges (following Tr. 7959 (July 27))

Attachment IV, 8 3.3 (pp. 20-22)

• Page entitled "SRV Description" in attachment entitled " Generic Review of BWR Experience (s) with the Target Rock 2-Stage Safety Relief Valve Design Model No. 7567F," attached to Board Notification (following Tr. 7968 (July 27))

2. Transcript References July 29: Tr. 8471 line 14 - 8472 line 8 8498 line 14 - 8499 line 23 8508 line 14 - 8509 line 7 l July 30: Tr. 8655 line 14 - 8656 line 1 C. General Physical Differences (Not Already Referenced)

1. Prefiled Testimony and Exhibits

• LILCO Testimony on SRV Challenges (following Tr. 7959 (July 27))

Attachments VI, VII

• LILCO Testimony on SRV Testing (following Tr.

7954 (July 27))

Attachment III at Appendix A, Q&A 1 II. -

Loads and Potential Consequences Associated With i Hypothetical SRV Cycling l

A. Relationship of BWR Owners' Group test loads to loads on SRVs and associated piping resulting from the Suffolk County scenario l

July 30: Tr. 8566-8587, especially pages 8568-8569, 8572, 8574-8580, 8584-8587.

B. Relationship of consequences of events not tested to those of design basis accidents, postulating failure of a SRV or its associated discharge piping July 28: Tr. 8214-8244, especially pages 8215-8217, 8220, 8222-8225, 8227-8228, 8231-8232, 8238-8240 Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY i

• l i cs-

~

DonYld P. Irwin Hunton & Williams Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: August 5, 1982 I

l l

1 ,

l .

In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGilTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322 (OL)

I certify that copics of "LILCO's Response to Board i

i Request of August 3, 1982 for SRV Record References" were served upon the following by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first-class postage prepaid, or by hand on August 5, 1982, as indicated

. by an asterisk:

4 Lawrence Brenner, Esq.* lierbert 11. Brown, Esq.*

Administrative Judge Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Karla J. Letsche, Esq.

Board Panel Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, 11111, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Christopher & Phillips Commission 1900 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 washington, D.C. 20036-l Dr. Peter A. Morris

• Secretary of the Commission t Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory j Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission 4

Iloard Panel 1717 11 Street, N.W.

U.S. Nuclear Itequlatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ' Atomic Safety and 1.icensing Appeal Board Panel I

Dr. James II. Carpenter

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

! Administrative Judge Commission -

Atomic Safety and Licensing 1717 II Street, N.W.

! Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory I Commission Marc W. Goldsmith Washington, D.C. 20555 Energy Research Group 400-1 Totten Pond Road Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.* Waltham, Massachusetts 02154

' David A. Repka, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory David J. Gilmartin, Esq.

Commission Attn: Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq.

1717*11 Street, N.W. County Attorney Washington, D.C. 20555 Suffolk County Department of Law

Veterans Memorial liighway llauppauge, New York 11787

MHB Technical Associates Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

1723 Hamilton Avenue Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.

Suite K 9 East 40th Street San Jose, California 95125 New York, N.Y. 10016 Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.

Twomey, Latham & Shea State of New York 33 West Second Street Department of Public Service P. O. Box 398 3 Empire State Plaza Riverhead, New York 11901 Albany, New York 12223 Howard L. Blau, Esq. Mr. Jay Dunkleberger 217 Newbridge Road New York State Energy Office Hicksville, New York 11801 Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 l

(.

Donald P. Irwin Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: August 5, 1982 I

,1 i

, _ _ __. _ ._ __ -.