ML20147B893

Affidavit of N Wagner.* Discusses If Issues Requiring Resolution Raised by Contention Iv.Chlorination & Distribution Sys Designed to Permit Safe Operation of Plant at Either Full or Low Power.Related Info Encl

ML20147B893
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/12/1988
From:	Wagner N Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20147B847	List: ML20147B842 ML20147B893 ML20147B911 ML20147B928
References
OL-1, NUDOCS 8801190024
Download: ML20147B893 (7)

Text

.

UNITED ST ATES OF AMERIC A NUCLE AR RE8UL ATOPY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOPIC S AFETY AND LICENSING RO ARD fn the Matter of )

i Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 PUBLIC SERVICE COPPANY OF 50-444 OL-01 N EW H AP PSHIR E, g g. On site Emergency Planning and Safety Issues (Seabrcok Station, Units 1 and ?)

A FFID AVIT OF NORP A N W AGNFR

1. Norman Wagner, being first duly sworn, hereby affirm that the responses to the ouestions set forth herein are correct tn the best of my knowledge and belief:

Q1: Mr. Wagner, by whom and in what capacity are you ernpinynd' At: I am em ployed by the N uclear Regulatory Commission as a Reactor Systems Engineer in the Plant Systems Branch of the Division of Engineering and Systems Technology.

02: Have you prepared a statement of your professional qualification?

l l A?: Yes, a statement of my professional qualificatiert. is atteched as l an exhibit to this affidavit.

l l

03: Mr. Wagner, what is the purpose of your affidavit?

3

!!OI OOSK$$

G

- P -

A3: My affidavit relates to the Gestion whether PECNP's Contention IV raises issues.which must be resolved prior to the reauthorization of low power (5% rated power) operations at the Seabrnnk Station.

My response discusses the cooling systems which might be P.*fected by aquatic organisms or debris. The methods te he employed by Applicants to detect and prevent blockage resulting from intrusion of marine s pecies or debris are discussed in the affida vit of ny colleague, Dr. Michael Masnik.

04: Mr. Wagner, NEC NP Contention IV states:

The A p plica nt must esta blish a surveillance and maintenance program for the prevention of the accumulation of mollusks, other aquatic organisms, and debris in cooling systens in order to satisfy the requirements of G DC 4, 30, 32, 35, 36, 39, and 39, which require cooling systems.

The design, construction , and proposed operatinn of Seabrook fail to satisfy these requirements.

Please explain which, if any, cooling systems may be affected by the direct infiltration of mollusks, other aquatie erganisms, or debris.

A4: Only two cooling systems might be affected by the infiltratier of aquatic organisms or debris: the station service water (SW) and the circulating water (CW) system. The function o' the service water (SW) system is to remove heat from various sources in the plent and to transfer that heat to the ultimate heat sink (the Atlantic Ocean or

the Cooling Tower). The circulating water (CW) system provides cooling water to the main condensers in order to transfer rejected heat to the Atlantic Ocean. The CW systen, however, is not needed I

. 3 .

or used to shut the plant down in the event of an emergency, and thus is not a "safety-related" system.

05: Are the service water and circulating water systems necessary from the viewpoint of plant safety?

A5: As my answer to the previous question indicates, only the SW t

system is a safety-related one. This is because during nnrmal operations the SW system provides cooling water to both safety-related and non-safety related systems; during operatier c'ter an accident the SW system supplies water only to safety related systems designed to ritigate the course of an accident and to shut the pla nt down. The CW system , however, is rnt required for accident mitigation or for pla nt shutdown followine ar accid e nt.

Thus, it is a non safsty related systen.

06: Mr. Wagner, please explain how A pplicants pla n to control biofouting, i.e. fouling of by narine species, of the SV and CW l systems 1 A6: As documented in the Seabrook Final Safety A nalysis Peport (FS AR), Applicants intend to inject sodium hypochlnrite (Na0CL) intA the intake tunnel and intake transition structure of the servire water I

! and circulating water systems. As M r. >'asnik ex plains in his affidavit, the in#ction of Na0CL will destroy any rarine species and thus should prevent intrusion of those specics into either the SW or I

M

. 4 .

CW cooling systems. In addition. Applicants may align the circulating water system so that hot condenser water is discharaed into the intake tunnel if such action appears to be necessary to prevent biofouling .

07:,

Mr. Wagner, how likely is it that debris will intrude into the service water system' A7: Debris is unlikely to enter the service water system because the three inlet tunnels to the system are located approximately 50 60 feet below mean sea level. Only in the event of a great storm could the bottom be churned up so as to cause sand and other debris to be lifted up and possibly adnitted into an inlet tunnel, i

The reason this is unlikely to occur is because most such debris would settle at the bottom of the 3 mile long inlet tunnel and at the bottom of the inlet structure at the end of the inlet tunnel. Ary remaining debris most likely would be trapped by the trave 11tne screens in the service water pump house which are capable of screening out objects

! as smail as 3/8 inches square. In addition, the basket type strainers located within the SW system are capable n* screening out objects larger than 3/8 inches in size and thus should prevent the fouling nf any of i

the heat exchangers in the SW system.

l In addition to the foregoing, the Seabrook Station is designed to enable the operators to monitor service water pump discharge header I

f 1-

. 5 -

- pressure, primary component cooling water (PCCW) beat exchanger temperatures, and P C C W flow rates. This capability allows operators to ascertain any degradation of heat exchanger capability resulting from any fouling of the system caused by debris and to take prorpt corrective action in the unlikely event that degradation of the system of sufficient magnitude werrants such ection.

Finally, as described more fully in the Affidavit of Winthrop E.

l. eland, who is the Chemistry and Health Physics Anager at the Seabrook Station, the system flow resistance for each SW train is checked at least 4 times each year f ouarterly) when the SW purr surve01ance tests are conducted. Further, according tn Mr. I elard, all service water heat exchangers are on line and are monitored during these tests and the SW pump differential pressure is verified to ressin within an acceptable band for the required flow rate. I agree that these action further minimize the possihuity that the SW system will experience any degradation causeo by the infetration of debris.

l 08: Mr. Wagner, WC1 the intrusion of debris prevent safe operation of the Seabrook plant, Units 1 and 2 at the power level of 5%?

A8: No. The means by which debris is prevented from entering the Seabrook $W system and the surveillance techniques used to determine intrusion of debris into the SW systems described abnve are sufficient to permit safe operation of the Seabrook Plant, Units 1 and ?, not only for low power operations, but for full power operatinns as well.

. .. ..- ~

. 6 -

Q9: Mr. Wagner, is the chlorination method which Applicants propose to employ to prevent the accumulation of aquatic organisms in the service water system adequate to permit safe operation of t.%

Seabrook Plant Units 1 and 2, at a power level of 5%?

AO: My reyfew of Applicants' intake chlorination and distribution system indicates that it has been designed to permit safe operation of the Seabrook Station at either full or low power level and I am unaware of anything which would suggest that this system will not i

perform as intended at either 5 percent or 100 percent power level.

l l Q10: Mr. Wagner, does this complete 3our affidavit?

A10: Yes it does, e . )

AbW Ylh Norman Wagn Sworn to and subscribed before me this /2 th day of January 1988:

O <'u N' c u:u 2

' My Commission expires: July 1,1990 x N

l

~

My name is Norman Hacner, ny education and experience are as follows:

1. Education

a. Bachelor of Chemical Engineering CCNY, 1948

b. Master of Science Univ. of Cincinnati, 1952

c. Miscellaneous courses in nuclear engineering at:

(1) Columbia University, circa 1956 (2) Knolls Atomic Power Lab,circa 1960 (3) Nuclear Regulatory Commission

a. BWR Basic - circa 1980

b. PRR (CE) Basic - 1987 7 Experience

a. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - 1975 to present

b. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (GE) - 1959-62, 1971-1975

c. Atomic Power Dev. Associates (Fermi-1) 1964-1969

d. United Nuclear Corp. 1962-1964

e. Columbia liniversity - Heat Transfer Laboratory - 1955-58

f. Job Shopper

1. 1969-70 Curtis Freight Corp.

9, 1970 Westinghouse Electric Corp.

a. Miscellaneous Positions - not in nuclear field prior to 1955 In both the positions with Knolls Atomic Power Lab., I was involved with testing of nuclear reactor components. While with the United Nuclear Corp., I was a member of the team designing a fast reactor core for a liquid-metal cooled reactor. While with Columbia University, I managed a group of engineers and technicians involved in heat transfer research for nuclear reactors. This task group designed test equipment and performed the testing. At Atomic Power Dev.

Assoc., I analyzed components and had repairs and modifications made as needed for Ferni 1, a sodium-cooled reactor. Since coming to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I have been involved in reviewing licensee's proposed reactor system and plant system designs to assure their compliance with applicable criteria.

In this position, I became aware of the potential for biofouling of open-cycle cooling systems and the problems that result from such biofouling.

l