ML20023B976
| ML20023B976 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1983 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305090443 | |
| Download: ML20023B976 (25) | |
Text
l 5/3/83 UtlITED STATES OF Af1 ERICA flVCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEttSIrlG BOARD In the Matter of APPLICATI0t1 0F TEXAS UTILITIES I
Docket Nos. 50-445 I
GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR I
and 50-446 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC I
STATION UNITS #1 AND #2 I
(CPSES) 73
_j q::,5 CASE'S ANSWER T0:
(1) llRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO BOARD QUESTION REGARDING LOCA-INDUCED THERMAL EXPANSION IN LINEAR PIPE SUPPORTS; and (2) APPLICANTS' BRIEF REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF THERMAL
_SFESSES IN DESIGN OF PIPE SUPPORTS Briefs were filed by the NRC Staff, the Applicants, and CASE on 4/20/83, 4/21/83, and 4/20/83, respectively, regarding whether or not LOCA must be considered in the design criteria for pipe supports, in accordance with the Board's directive in its April 7,1983, conference call with all parties.
Pursuant to the Board's instructions in its April 25, 1983, conference call with all parties, answers to those Briefs were to be filed and in the hands of the Board and all parties by May 4,1983. CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy), Intervenor herein, hereby files this Answer in response to the Board's directive.
(The Board in its April 25 conference call indi-cated that it felt there was a need for the Applicants and the NRC Staff to respond to CASE's Brief; although it did not direct specifically that the other parties, CASE and the State of Texas, file answers, the Board did not preclude such answers.)
8305090443 830503 PDR ADOCK 05000445 O
PDR l.
Throughout their-Brief, Applicants have made a very big point regard-ing the testimony of their 'kanel of experts highly qualified in the de-~
sign of piping and support systems for nuclear power reactors and eminent in the field of American Society of Mechanical Engineers ('ASME') Code requi rements. "
(Applicants' Brief, page 2.) Applicants further argue that in their testimony " Applicants' witnesses demonstrated that the ASME l
Code did not require consideration of such LOCA-induced stressesI in the design of pipe supports and that this aspect of the Code was based on sound engineering principles and judgment."
(Applicants' Brief, pages 2 and 3, Footnote 5 omitted.)
In the April 7 conference call, counsel for the Applicants suggested that LOCA could best be handled by an interpretation of the ASME Code by expert testimony (presumably Applicants' previous experts).
In light of this, and since Applicants have made such a big point of the testimony of their expert witnesses, it is necessary that CASE address this also.
CASE believes that when an expert gives an opinion, that opinio.0,
~.
while it may be the individual's true beliefs, is also necessarily colored j
by a variety of outside influences (such as deriving income by advising and testifying for clients who are building nuclear power plants, working for a utility or contractor who is building a nuclear power plant, etc.).
l Further, although an individual may truly believe what he/she is saying, it does not automatically and necessarily follow that he/she is correct.
l If an expert can obtain commonly recognized and accepted documents l
to support his/her opinion (and opinion it is, however " expert" it may I Defined by Applicants (Brief, page 2) as " stresses resulting from differential thermal expansion of pipe supports induced by elevated temperatures within containment following a LOCA"; however, it is not at all clear from the discussion in the Brief that this is indeed what is being talked about.
1 l
1 be), then those opinions become much more credible. Without getting into the possible motivations of such witnesses, it should be pointed out that the witnesses of both the Applicants and the f1RC Staff have generally been long on opinion and short on documentation to support those opinions (other than reports which the Applicants or the f4RC Staff 2
themselves have prepared ).
(It should also be noted that this long-standing practice of the Applicants and the f1RC Staff has been continued with regard to the two Briefs which are the subject of CASE's instant Answer.
It was CASE which supplied the Licensing Board with the actual documents supporting our opinions, whereas the Applicants and the f4RC Staff referenced only those portions of the documents which were supportive of their opinions.)
In proceedings such as these, with the tremendous pressures to get the plant on line as quickly as possible and the corresponding pressure to perhaps overlook or minimize the full implications of certain problems, it is imperative that the Licensing Board be' provided not only with,t,he s
opinions of expert witnesses b~ut also to documentation necessary for the Board to decide for itself whether or not those opinions are in fact valid, as well as to make its own evaluations of the credibility of all witnesses.
With regard to the testimony of specific witnesses, Applicants' witness Reedy testified throughout his testimony to his opinions and Applicants have relied upon Mr. Reedy's credentials rather than on documentation to 2 As a matter of fact, the flRC Staff had initially intended to rely exclusively on expert testimony of its witnesses and had not intended to introduce into evidence a single one of its own Inspection and Investigation Reports. See CASE's 2/21/82 Brief in Opposition to the flRC Staff's Exceptions to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Order Denying Reconsideration of September 30, 1982, before the ASLAB, especially pages 36 through 38.
4
prove that his opinions are in fact valid. However, Mr. Reedy himself in effect admitted that his interpretation of the ASME Code was in fact opinion (and'therefore not automatically and necessarily correct). As stated by Mr. Reedy (tr. 5061, emphasis added):
"Q: Mr. Reedy, does your company also clarify the ASME Code for its clients?
"A: Mr. Walsh, no, we do not clarify the Code. What we do is iden-tify or help the client understand the. meaning behind the Code.
"It takes a committee to clarify the Code o; change the Code."
At times the testimony of Mr. Reedy was somewhat confusing and contra-dictory.
For example, he stated at tr. 5203-3204:
"BY MR. REYNOLOS:
"Q:
Mr. Reedy, what is the difference between thermal stresses and thermal expansion?
"BY WITNESS REEDY:
"A: Well, quite simple. The difference -- let me explain the dif-ference between thermal expansion and thermal stress by consider-ing a simple bar.
I "If I were to heat a. bar 600 degrees, that bar would grow in'"
every direction. That would be thermal expansion.
"If I were to restrain the ends of that bar from expanding, that would be a thermal stress induced in the interior of the bar, due to its inability to expand.
"They are two different phenomenons.
" JUDGE COLE:
But related.
" WITNESS REEDY:
They are related."
i And at tr. 5215-5216, he stated:
"BY MR. WALSH:
h i
l "Q: Mr. Reedy, what is an expansion stress?
l "BY WITNESS REEDY:
l "A: An expansion stress is a stress caused by the growth of an item.
"Q: What is the difference between thermal stress and expansion stress?.
"A.
An expansion stress that would be restrained would set up a. stress in an item. A thermal stress that was restrained would also set up sanething." (Emphasis added.)
'"The basic difference is that in every case thermal stress is self-limiting.
"I might also point out, just to clarify this whole issue because it has been -- probably the core of a lot of the things that have come up in the last week. Thennal stress is not required to be analyzed by Section 3 for any type of component support.
"The fact that this is true can be pointed out by a revision to the Code that was passed'by the main committee of the ASME last March.
"There was an editorial rewrite of the whole NF design document for design of component supports.
In that document that was passed in March, it states very clearly -- extremely clearly
-- that thermal stresses need not be evaluated for any type of component supports.
"That is a clear statement passed by the committee as an e,di-torial change. And it's the core of what we have been talking-l about all of the time.
"When we talk about the thermal stresses in any of these com-i ponent supports that is something out -- tnat is above and beyond the requirements of the Code.
In addition, wherever thermal stresses are evaluated for any type of component in the Code, there is secondary stress.
"And the allowable stress for that secondary stress condition is three times the allowable for any other type of primary stress.
"In the cases that Mr. Walsh has demonstrated, he has always talked about the thermal stress being considered as a primary i
stress to meet the primary stress limits.
l l.
"And there is no place in the ASME Code anywhere that ties in a basic primary stress allowable for any secondary stress, including thermal stress.
"But, again, thermal stress for components supports is not to be evaluated."
Mr. Walsh continued his questions to Mr. Reedy regarding thennal expansion stresses or constraint of free-end displacement (tr. 5218):
"Q:
Mr. Reedy, is constraint of free -- excuse me -- constraint due to thermal expansion required to be considered in pipe supports?
"A: Would you say that again?
"Q:
Constraint of free-end displacements, is that required to be con-sidered -in pipe supports?
"A:
Constraint from free-end displacement is a secondary stress not requi. red to be considered.
"Let me give an example of that. A discontinuity stress is that type of example of that.
If there were two members which had
-- were joined together by a. weld which had different sections, and the condition was that the sections were cut loose, so to say, to grow due to their own stress pattern, they would move di fferently.
"The fact that they're welded together, analytically, you have to apply forces and moments to bring them back to form a con ~-
ti nui ty. That is a type of constraint of free-end displac'ements j
that is a typical secondary discontinuity stress.
"Q: Are you saying that constraint of free-end displacements is not required in the Code to be looked at under linear supports?
"A:
I didn't say that.
I will say that, however, that for linear supports, what you are looking at in the Code is -- for Class 2 and 3.
Let me be more explicit."- (Emphasis added.)
"You're looking at the design formulas which basically were taken from the AISC.
"Q: Does.AISC address thermal expansion?
"A:
Not as we have adopted it into ASME, no.
"We have not adopted the AISC document. We have taken.out the formulas that we felt were applicable."
i
CASE would call the Board's attention to these additional pages from the transcript for the continuing of questioning by Mr. Walsh to Mr. Reedy regarding these matters:
tr. 5219-5229.
From the testimony of Applicants' witness Reedy (their primary expert regarding the ASME Code), it is difficult to determine exactly what he meant by " thermal stress" as opposed to " thermal expansion stress," whether or not the ASME Code requires that constraint of free-end displacement for linear supports must be considered, and what criteria is being applied at Comanche-Peak in this regard.
In his testimony mentioned at the top of this page, Mr. Reedy:
seems to indicate that it is perfectly permissible for Applicants to pick and choose whatever rules from ASME they might find appealing; refers to
" confidential" changes which were made to the ASME Code (which CASE has not been able to locate, incidentally, from the references in the transcript);
and continued to refer to thermal stresses (rather than constraint of free-end displacement, or thermal expansion stresses).
s.
~
Mr. Reedy also gets briefly into the discussion regarding the "somewhat knowledgeable'? field engineers making design changes at Comanche Peak (tr.
4974-4975).
(See further discussion later in this pleading regarding Appli-cants' witness Finneran.
In Answer 94 of Applicants' prefiled direct testimony (Applicants Exhibit 142) for the September hearings, he stated:
"In establishing the design rules for the various types of components, the Code considers various factors."
In Answer 45, Mr. Reedy tries to justify the reason for thermal i
.g.
stresses (not part of the Walsh/Doyle allegations) not being considered by using analysis of strain and not stress. Using this philosophy, he arrives at a factor of safety against failure of 58 to 1.
Mr. Reedy neglects to consider the consequences of the displacement of the attached item. As specified in Regulatory Guide 1.124 under discussions of item 4, titled "Large Defomations" and item 6 titled " Deformation Limits":
"Since component supports are defonnation sensitive load-bearing elements, satisfying the service limits of Section III will not automatically ensure their proper function."
The intent of this statement was not addressed in the. testimony of Applicants' expert witnesses.
Another example of misinformation which has been supplied to the Board (whether intentionally or unintentionally) is Mr. Reedy's statement in his prefiled testimony (Applicants Exhibit 142, last sentence of page
- 18. continuing on page 19):
"Since linear component supports are not subject to a significant number of thermal fluctuations (a LOCA is assumed as a one-time condition), the Code does not impose this limitation of 'twice yield' for thermal stress.es, since elastic-plastic ' shakedown' is not a factor."
However, Regulatory Guide 1.124 under discussion, item 1, titled
- l
" Design by Linear Elastic Analysis," item 6, second paragraph, states:
"The range of primary plus secondary stresses'should be limited to 2S " (S is yield) "but not more than S to ensure shakedown."
(E5phasEsadded.)
u Shakedown is the ability of a material to behave in a ductile manner
.(that is, the material will not shatter like glass, for example).
In addition, Mr. Reedy agreed with Applicants' witness Chang in I.
Answers 47 and 48 when Dr. Chang stated:
"He" (Mr. Walsh) "has erroneously applied upset condition primary stress allowables to a LOCA (faulted) induced self-limiting thermal condition producing secondary stresses.
In short, he has taken it upon himself to set his own stress limit criteria beyond the requirements of the ASME Code."
(Emp!fases in the original.)
This statement is not supported by Regulatory Guide 1.124, Position 8, which states that the design limits are contained in Regulatory Position which states:
"... These-stress limits.may be increased according to the provisions of NF3231-1(a) of Section III and Regulatory Position 4 of this guide when effects resulting from constraint of free end displacements are added to the loading combination."
(Emphasis added.)
Applicants would have the Board believe that the Code does not require that any secondary stresses be considered. However, this is not what the Code says. Nowhere in the Code does it state that all secondary stresses will be ignored.
'f Applicants and apparently the NRC Staff as well have erroneously assumed that since the ASME Code does not require that thermal stresses be considered, and that since. thermal stresses are Secondary Stresses,-
s the Ccde does not require that any Secondary Stresses be considered.
On page 5 of Applicants' prefiled testimony (Exhibit 142 at 14-21, and especially on page 15), Mr. Reedy implies that secondary stresses are not to be considered in linear type supports. And he stated (see page 6 of this Answer) that " constraint from free-end displacement is a secondary stress not required to be considered..."
This is far from accurate, however.
NF-3231.la is explicit when it states that the effects of constraint of free-end displacement will be combined with mechanical loads (see CASE Exhibit 744).
Yet the definition e
a
- 10 _
of a secondary stress includes the effects of " constraint of adjacent material or self-constraint of the structure."
(NF-3213.8, CASE Exhibit 744). The Code is.also explicit.when it states in NF-1121a that it does not consider thermal or peak stresses.
(CASE Exhibit 659B, NF-ll21a.)
The problem here is a matter of terminology. Applicants, in their Brief, continually use terms such as " thermal stresses," " differential thermal expansion," " differential expansion," " thermal expansion," " secondary (i.e., self-limi ting) stresses," " secondary stresses," "LOCA-induced secondary stresses," " thermal expansion loads," etc., sanetimes interchange-ably. This battle of words, CASE is convinced, is an effort on the part of the Applicants (and the 'NRC Staff, by association) to cloud the real issue with terminology -- a battle of words, if you will, similar to the old shell game.
If it were true that the ASME NF Code does not require consideration 4
of any secondary stresses, then paragraph NF-ll21a would have read something like this:
"The rules of subsection NF provide requirements for ney.,
s, construction and include consideration of mechanical stresses but not
(
secondary stresses."
It does not.
It states:
"The rules of Subsection NF provide requirements for new construction and include consideration of mechanical stresses and effects which result from the constraint of free-end displacements, designated as P in NF-3222.3 but not thermal or peak stresses." (Emphasis e
added.)
Had the premise of Applicants been correct, it would not have been i
necessary for NF-1121a to have made the differentiation as stated above.
I I
l i
I.
I I
a
-n, n. -
r
~, - - -
Applicants' witness Scheppele indicates (tr. 5239-5240) that the thermal expansion of a member spanning from wall-to-wall would have an insignificant effect on the wall because of the flexibility. Howeve r.,
as demonstrated in CASE's 4/20/83 Brief (page 32, next-to-last paragraph),
this is not the case.
Even without Applicants having considered everything they should have considered, the support was close to failure.
In further reference to Applicants' statement (Brief, page 2; see also top of page 2 of this Answer) regarding their " panel of experts highly qualified in the design of piping and support systems for nuclear power reactors and eminent in the field of American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(' ASME') Code requirements," Applicants ' witness Krishnan stated (tr.
4939-4940):
"Q: Mr. Krishnan, getting back to 4Q, you stated that you believe the support was stable; correct?
"A: And also I stated -- Yes, I said that. And also I stated that I'm not an expert in pipe support desion."
(Emphasis added.)
In Applicants' prefiled testimony (Applicants' Exhibit 142, page j~l,
~,
~
A30), Applicants' witness Krishnan stated:
"Q30: Mr. Krishnan, do you agree with Mr. Walsh's statement at page 2 of his testimony (CASE Exhibit 659) that the ASME Code Section III, Subsection NF, Paragraph 3111(e) requires that thermal analysis be performed on pipe support structures?
"A30:
(Krishnan) Initially, when Mr. Walsh first presented his posi-tion to me, I felt that a valid question was raised. Because of the high stresses indicated by thermal loadings, a meeting was held on March 3,1982, with persons at the site knowledgeable in relevant structural iss~ues and ASME Code requirements. As a result of that meeting, a memorandum was issued which clarified that Section III, Subsection NF, does not require consideration of thermal stresses for linear pipe supports.
That memorandum is in evidence as CASE Exhibit 659E."
(Emphasis added.)
j e
s
The memorandum to which Mr. Krishnan referred (CASE Exhibit 659E, attachment to testimony of Mark Walsh) was discussed with Mr. Krishnan in his deposition.
(We are attaching copies of portions of that Deposition, l
CASE Exhibit 678, pages 24-28, 34-35, 45-52, 57-58, to the Board's copies j
of this pleading; Applicants and NRC Staff already have copies. We will also supply a copy to the State of Texas upon request.)
In Mr. Krishnan's deposition, he stated that he was the one who initiated tihe meeting because "I had certain doubts in my mind how the 1.0CA temperature should be treated... and I let the experts make the dete nnination."
(p. 45.) He stated that he attended the meeting (p. 45),
that he does "not claim to be an expert in the field that was being dis-cussed" (p. 25), that he is "not an expert in pipe support-design, so my interpretation of the" ASME " code may be totally wrong" (p. 26), that he did not know which of the attendees at the meeting were experts (p. 45-49),
and that it was primarily Dr. Chang who was doing the talking about the particular items that were later referenced in the March 8th letter,(p~. 57-58).
,~.
(Also, see discussion regarding misuse of Appendix F of ASME Section III, CASE's 4/20/83 Brief, beginning on page 13.)
Again referencing Applicants' statement (Brief, page 2; see also top l
of page 2 of this Answer) regarding Applicants' expert, highly qualified, witnesses, Applicants' witness Finneran testified (tr. 5044):
"Q: Mr. Finneran, have you ever designed a pipe support?
"A:
No, I have not."
See also discussion regarding June 25, 1983, TUSI Memorandum (CASE Exhibit 659G, attachment to Mark Walsh testimony), on page 14 of CASE's
4/20/83 Brief.
One of the most interesting portions of the transcript are to be found on pages 4953-4985, where Mr. Finneran discusses under cross-examination the "somewhat knowledgeable" field engineers who have modified pipe supports at Comanche Peak (see especially pages 4962-4963).
(It may interest the e
Board to know that thi~s entire portion of the transcript is also pertinent to problems identified in the CAT report.)
Apparently none of Applicants' expert witnesses saw anything wrong with these procedures, although they are clearly in violation of NRC regulations (as stated in the CAT report).
With further reference to Applicants' statements regarding their expert, highly qualified, witnesses (see preceding references), Applicants' witness Chang testified (tr. 5038):
"Q: Have you designed any pipe supports for a nuclear-power plant?
"A:
I'm fully responsible for all my people's design.
I review every bit of it.
"Q:
But have you persona'lly done one yourself?
"A:
No."
In the deposition of Dr. Chang, there are many pertinent pages which we would call to the Board's attention (so many, in fact, that we are sending a copy of Dr. Chang's entire deposition, which was rather brief, to the Board with this pleading; Applicants and NRC Staff already have copies. We will also supply a copy to the State of Texas upon request.
This was previously marked as CASE Exhibit 677.). We call the Board's attention particularly to pages 12-13, 18-24, 29, 38-42, 45-61, 66, 68, j
b.
o - -,._.-._ -,
70-72, 74-78.
In his deposition, Dr. Chang makes it very clear that he is involved supports 66, only with small-bore pipe / (p. 12,18,/81), that LOCA was never considered for small-bore pipe supports (p. 55-57,70-71), that he was representing himself as an expert on STRUDL, although he had not used STRUDL for the last four years and was not familiar with the STRUDL they use at Comanche Peak (p. 20-21), discussed the attendees' at the March 8 meeting regarding LOCA and their expertise'(p. 45,46,59-60), and stated that the meeting attendees (despite Mr. Reedy's statement that "it takes a(n ASME Code) committee to clarify the (ASME) Code or change the Code" - see page 4 of this pleading) all agreed that their interpretation was correct (p. 66-68).
Also see discussion regarding misuse of Appendix F of ASME Section III, CASE's 4/20/83 Brief, beginning on page 13.
It should be pointed out that the configuration of NPSI supports (using tube steel spanning between two Richmond inserts; for example, as shown in CASE Exhibit 669B, Attachments to Jack Doyle Deposition [-
Testimony, items 8T, 8W,13QQ,13TT,13WW,13XX,13CCC,13EEE, and 18) was not addressed in the cross-examination testimony at tr. 5233-76.
As admitted by Applicants' expert witnesses Krishnan, Finneran, Scheppele, Reedy, and Chang, none of them has ever seen the configura-tion used on NPSI supports at any other plants (tr. 5061-5065). However, this has not been addressed by the Applicants as required by 10 CFR 50.34(a)(2),
which states that special attention shall be given to " unusual or novel design features." CASE believes that the novel NPSI approach is one of the primary reasons CASE has had so many problems obtaining NPSI design i
e
{
a.
criteria -- not because it is necessarily proprietary, but because Appli-cants don't want this Licensing Board to know What is really being built i
at Comanche Peak.
During cross-examination, Applicants' witnesses Chang and Finneran discussed two immovable objects with a member between them which is trying to expand due to the temperature (tr. 5255) (such as the increase to 280 F 0
in two minu.tes created by a LOCA:
"BY WITNESS CHANG:
"... After it passes the yield point, you follow the stress and strain curve.
You use additional elongation or a shortening.
It depends on the tension and compression.
4 "Q: Well, now, sir, we're between two immovable objects so it's not going to get any longer. What happens to. it?
"BY WITNESS CHANG:
"A: So, it means the member getting shorter.
l "BY WITNESS FINNERAN:
"A:
I think he means a member kind of squashes.
s.
"BY WITNESS CHANG:
"A:
That's right. Kind of squashes."
When th-member squashes, you have exceeded the critical buckling strength of the member. And after you exceed the critical buckling strength, 4
all additional loads will have a catastrophic type failure; that is to say, the menber will continue to move out of the way with the additionai mechani-cal loads from the piping system. This philosophy of squashing members is not pennitted according to Regulatory Guide 1.124 (CASE Exhibit 743, Position 4, second paragraph), which directs the reader to ASME Section II, a
XVII-2110(b), which states that no stresses shall exceed 2/3 the critical buckling strength of the member.
Apparently the Applicants (and. presumably the NRC Staff as well) see nothing wrong with this philosophy of squashing members.
On page 18 of Applicants' Brief, it is stated:
"As discussed below, Regulatory Guide 1.124 provides that stresses created in pipe supports resulting from loads imposed on piping systems in the event of a LOCA, superimposed on prescribed seismic and normal operating loads, are to be considered in the design of those supports.
However, neither the applicable portions of the ASME Code nor NRC requirements and guidance require consideration of the LOCA-induced stresses in linear pipe supports arising from differential thermal expansion between the support members and the structures to which they are attached."
This statement would indicate that the Applicants did not read Regulatory Guide position 8, since position 8 does include the effects of thermal expansion and Applicants did not reference that position in their Brief.
Position 8 dictates how the supports are to be designed for those portions of the plant that did not receive a faulted load but receive the eff.ects s.
of the faulted condition; i.e., increase in air temperature resulting from the LOCA.
If they had addressed that regulatory position 8, as CASE has done, they would have discussed the section of ASME NF 3132.l(a) which states, in general terms, that constraint of free-end displacement (or thermal expansion stresses) will be considered inLthe design of linear-type pipe supports. As stated previously in our 4/20/83 Brief, constraint
.of free-end displacement is an expansion stress and not a thermal stress and is required to be considered by ASME, Regulatory Guide 1.124, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A.
On page 24 of Applicants' Brief,: Applicants attempt to mislead the Board with semantics. They state (second sentence on page 24):
"The general requirements, NF-3100, merely identify loads that should be included in the design specifications for the different types of supports."
(Emphasis added.)
t' NF-3100 actually states:
"The loadings as specified in the Design Specification (NA-3250) that shall be taken into account..."
(Emphasis added.)
This i.s not the first time -the Applicants have tried this tactic, as can be seen in Applicants prefiled testimony (Applicants Exhibit 142, pages14-15).
F Another matter which should be considered is the statement in ASME NCA-3240 (CASE Exhibit 764), which states:
"It is the responsibility of the owner to assure that structures adequate to support the items covered by this section are provided..."
It would seem reasonable, if Regulatory Gui'de 1.124 requires pipe supports to consider the effects of a LOCA, then the support structure should,also.
s.,,.
But apparently this is not the case at Comanche Peak. As stated in the
^
Applicants ' FSAR (Applicants ' Exhibit 3), Section 3.8.3.3.3 and 3.8.4.3.3, and referenced by the NRC Special Inspection Team (SIT) on page 18 of the SIT Report (Investigation Report 50-445/82-26, 50-446/82-14):
"... thermal loads are neglected when they are secondary and self-limiting in nature and when the material is ductile."
It appears to CASE that it would be necessary to have a structure for the pipe supports to attach to that would have the same capability and pre-i dictability as the pipe supports are required to have. However, this does i
i
-Tp P
---v=-
w-
.e
,.3--
-wy---
ew-----pye
..c.----g-
--,-yvy-
.-s.-n--
w.m
,w-s-m
&+++-
e-e,-
~
w--&-
y--
not appear to be the case at Comanche peak.
Because of their neglect of deformations, it would appear that Applicants are willing to have structures designed in a manner which is contrary to sound engineering principles.
One of the considerations in ASME is that it is assumed that under accident conditions the structural steel is not going to be moving, and that the structure is capable of withstanding all the loads it may ex-perience, that it has been designed to at least the same standards as ASME, and that it will not be the weak link (see CASE Exhibit 764 attached, ASME NCA-3240).
On page 19 of Applicants' Brief, it is stated:
" Regulatory Guide 1.124 is the principal document. establishing the NRC Staff position regarding consideration of loading combinations for Class 1 linear-type component supports. /32/
"/32/ Loading combinations for Class 2 and 3 linear supports are established in accordance with NUREG-0484, ' Methodology for Combining Dynamic Loads. ' SRP 3.9.3,Section IV.3."
.s It is almost humorous and' a little disconcerting that Applicants made this statement, since the NRC Staff did not specifically even mention this particular Regulatory Guide in its Brief (although CASE does not disagree with Applicants in the fact that Regulatory Guide 1.124 is applicable - see CASE's 4/20/83 Brief, beginning on page 5).
In reference to Footnote 32, Applicants direct the Board's attention to NUREG-0484 for the consideration of LOCA for Class 2 and 3 supports. However, the 11/20/81 Memorandum from Harold Denton (CASE Exhibit 749) clarified the termi-nology within 10 CFR, Appendix A (it'should be noted that he did not rewrite e
. Appendix A). He clarified the meaning of the term "important to Safety" (see CASE's 4/20/83 Brief, beginning on page 21). This clarification would encompass those structures, systems, and components that provide reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public, etc., which would include those structures, systems, and components identified in Applicants' FSAR Section 17A.1, including Class 2 and 3 pipe supports. Apparently the Applicants, by their own Brief, have admitted that they do not comply with the require-ments of 10 CFR, Appendix A.
The Applicants claim in their Brief on page 5, second sentence, that the NRC Staff concurs with the erroneous conclusions of Apolicants' expert witnesses; they stated:
"The NRC Staff has concurred in these conclusions."
(Footnote omitted.) Throughout Applicants' entire Brief, Applicants almost give the appearance that they were filing a joint Brief by the Applicants and the NRC Staff.
If this claim by Applicants is correct (and from all appearances it is), this means that not only the Applicants but the,4;RC,,,,
Staff as well are not complying with the NRC's own regulations as set forth in 10 CFR, Appendix A, and Regulatory Guide 1.124.
Further, it appears that what the NRC Staff is saying on page 8 of its Brief is that the Staff used only the SRP (with which the Staff states compliance is not required -
Brief at page 7) and not Regulatory Guide 1.124 which appears to be the applicable Regulatory Guide.
The Staff also states (page 8) that SRP Section 3.2.2 does not explicitly establish safety categories for pipe supports nor does it identify the code to be utilized in the design of pipe supports. And finally, the Staff states (page 6, Footnote 6) that there are no Regulatory Guides or SRP provisions directly related to the question of LOCA-induced differential thermal expansion in pipe supports. It would appear from this statement that the NRC Staff is unaware of Regulatory Guide 1.124 and its provisions.
It is also passing strange that neither the NRC Staff nor the Appli-cants discussed Appendix F except very lightly in passing, although in the past it had been cited as being the primary basis for Applicants' position that LOCA thermal expansion effects did not have to be considered in the design criteria for pipe supports (and other items). See discussion regarding. misuse of Appendix F in CASE's 4/20/83 Brief, beginning on page 13.
There are many other statements and conclusions contained in the Briefs of the Applicants and the NRC Staff with which CASE does not agree. Our failure to include them herein does not indicate in any way that we are,,,
in agreement with them. Some of them have already been covered in CASE's 4/20/83 Brief:
thermal stresses vs. thermal expansion stresses; slippage
'of Richmond inserts; applicability of Regulatory Guide 1.124 (see Footnote 33, page 20, of Applicants' Brief and page 6 of CASE's 4/20/83 Brief); etc.
'One of the nagging questions which has been raised i.s: how many other things have not been considered because of the way ASME is written and because
.of the NRC Staff's acceptance of Applicants' position, and how many other items have Applicants written off by memo and not shown in their design cri teria?
_ 21 -
-One final comment must be made, regarding the last sentence (page 28) of Applicants' Brief:
"Accordingly, Applicants submit that upon conclusion of the testimony of. the NRC Staff on these matters, the record should be closed."
CASE takes this as a motion, and is opposed -to it. We believe that the Board, in its April 25 conference call, made its. position clear in.
this matter in scheduling the upcoming two weeks of hearings the weeks of May 16 and June 13.
Respectfully submitted, ud W t
W.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 i
9 i
4 O
t p
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD J
In the Matter of
{
I APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES Q
GENERATING COMPANY, ET'AL. FOR Q
Docket Nos. 50-445 AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR Q
and 50-446 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC Q
STATION UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby ' certify that true and correct copies of CASE'S ANSWER T0 (1) NRC STAFF S RESPONSE TO BOARD QUESTION REGARDING LOCA-INDUCED THERMAL EXPANSION IN LINEAR PIPE SUPPORTS: and (2) APPLICANTS' BRIEF REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF THERMAL 5 IRE 55E5 IN DE516N UP FIFE buPPUKid have been sent to the names listed below this 3rd day of May
, 198 3__,
by:
Express Mail where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere.
- Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Bcard 4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Washington, D. C.
20555
- Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Member Division of Engineering, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Architecture and Technology U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oklahoma State University Washington, D. C.
20555 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Thomas S. Moore, Esq., Member
- Dr. Walter H. Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal' Board 881 W. Outer Drive U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D. C.
20555
- Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Debevoise & Liberman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1200 - 17th St., N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20036 4
Docketing and Service Section
- Harjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
Office of the Secretary Office of Executive Legal Director, USNRC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Maryland National Bank Building Washington, D. C.
20555 7735 Old Georgetown Road - Room 10105 Bethesda, Maryland 20814
- Ms. Lucinda Minton, Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 4350 East /Wes t Highway,- 4th Floor Panel Bethesda, Maryland 20014 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 4
i
, ' Ifb
Certificate of Service Page 2
- David J. Preister, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Supreme Court Building.
Austin, Texas 78711 John Collins 4
Regional Administrator, Region IV U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Mr. R. J. Gary Executive Vice President and General Manager Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 l-Lanny Alan Sinkin j
838 East Magnolia Avenue San Antonio, Texas 78212 4
l l
2d%f
-_ hA'
- s.) Juanita ETlis, President EASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 e
I i
I
a a'
CASE EXHIBIT 764 NCA.000 - RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES NCA 3220-NCA 3252 a
comportpnt or system and the location of one overpres-4 sure potection devices;3 Authon d inspection Agency (NCA-5121) is re.
(!) providing and filing the Overpressure Protection quired prior to app lication. The Owner shall notify the i;
Socie:y whenever th:s wntten agreement is cancetiec Report (NB 72CO) or the Overpresure Protection J
Analysis (NC 7200) required for the nuclear power or enanged to another Authon:ed Inspecnon Agency.
system
[
(m) reviewing and approving the Construction NCA 3240 PROVISION OF ADEQUATE E
SUPPORTING STRUCTURES E
Specification. Desizn Drawinzs. and Construction respons mm.
Owne to 2:sm cat
[
Report for Division 2 ' construction (Table
- s.
5, h 3200 4 t
structures adequate to support the items covered by (n) documenting Quality Assurance Program ecd n m p d and to assm that Ado
~
- (NCA-8121);
tional boundary mterfaces for Code items are dedned (o) obtaining a written agreement with an Autho-
- nd compatible. Loads unposed upon structures out-rized Inspection Agency (NCA-3230 and NCA-5121);
s e t e mpe of thh Section by items covered by this (p) designating Designer's responsibilities with re-Secti n shall be denned m the Design Specification.
spect to construction surveillance for Division 2 muere nacu vesse s a concete containments construction (NCA-3252);
bearing on soil or rock or on caissons or piles require fq1 providing for the desizn and arranzement of 2.5 a 2
y pasmre e abwsW M pu components to permit accessibility in accordance with
- "S#" #
?
- Section XI Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuc!est furnished to the Designer.
Power Plants and Containments:
, (r) designating records to be maintained and pro-NCA 3250 PROVISION OF DESIGN viding for deir maintenance (NCA 4134.17):
SPECIFICATIONS (s) performing other dutres 2s denned thecugheut NCA-3251 Provision and Correlation
')
this Section.
The activities necessary to provide compliance with responsibilities assigned to tne Owner by (c) through It is the responsibilir/ of the Owner to provide, or i
(s) above may be performed in his behalf by a cause to be provided. Design Specifications for compo-designee; however, the responsibility for ccmpliance nents, appurtenances, and component supports. The remains with the Owner.
Owner eitner d:rectly or tFrough his designee, shall be respenstcle for 2e proper,:ctrc!ation of.tl! Design Scecincaricas. Separate Deaign Spec:fications sre not recuired for parts. piping subassemblies, appurte-NCA 3230 OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF
"* *5 ' c compeent mp cr s when they are in-AUTHORIZATION ciuded m. the Design Spec:ncanon for a component The Owner, after receipt of notideation from the (NCA 1210). However, the applicable data from the regulatory authonty that an application for a Con.
component Design Speciscation (Division 1) or the struction Permit for a spect5c plant has been docketed, Construccon Spect5 cation and Design Drawings (Di-shall obtain a Cernacate of Authorization from the vision 2) shall be provided in sufficient documented Society for unit (s) docketed concurrently for each site detail to form the basis for fabrication in accordance with this Section.
prior to field installation. "Ihe information to be supplied by the Owner when making applicat:ons is given in Form N-40A.' A written agreement with an NCA.3252 Contents of Design Specidentions8 (a) The Design Speciscations shall contain suf!!cient detail to provide a complete basis for 8As explained in NB. NC. and NDJ000.' an overpensun protection dence or dences may be prended to protect one or Division I construction or Division 2 design' in more components. pomons of the nuclear power system or pornons of componenta. prended they an so designed and !ccated accordance with this Section. Such requirements shall t
so that the overpressure protecuon requirements of ait protected not result in construction which fails to conform with i
components and systems are fully complied with and that the the rules of this Section. All Design Specifications safety rehevtag dences cannot be tsolated from any component or shall m. elude (1) through (7) below:
system protected by them wtule the component or system is opersung.
' Copies of this form may be obtained from ASME Nuclear l
Carnacanon. J45 East 47th Street, New Yorit. N.Y.10017.
5See Appendia B except that for core support structuas see Appendix J.
19-N p, ~
s.
s
- ?
- CASE EXHIBIT 765 NCA 11WNCA 1210 SECTION !!! - SUBSECTION NCA r
e&:ts shall be taken into 2ccount with a siew to
' e earlier than dree years ;6 *c ^: R:c hat the realizmg the desip or the specuied life of the nuclear power piant construction perm:t appication is comt onents. The chang-s in properties of matenals decketed.
subjected to neutron radiation can be checked period:-
@ Ccde Editions 2nd Adde :da ! ster than those cally by means of matenal surveillance programs.
established by (a) above may be aed 6;. mutual These rules provide requirements for new construction consent of the Owner or his desipee and Certideate of concrete reactor vessels and containments. They are Holder.8 For Dinsion 2 desip and construenon. the applicable only to those components that are designed consent of the Designer shall also be obramed. 5nectric to provide a pressure re:sining or contaimn; barrier.
pr usicas uithin an Editien er Adu:ad; :at:r ::un They are not applicable to other concrete structures in nose established in the Design Specuicauens may be the plant, as for example to concrete shield and used provided that all related requirements are met.
support structures, except as they directly afect the (cf Code Cases are permissible and may be used components as defined in NCA-1120.
beginning with the date of approval by the ASSIE (b) The rules are not intended to be applicable to Council (and the American Concrete Institute for valve operators, controllers, position indicators, pump Division 2 design and construction). Only Code Cases impellers, pump drivers, or other accessories and that are speci$cally identified as being applicable to devices, unless they are pressure retaining parts or act this Section may be used.
2s core support structures or component supports. If di Code Cases may be used by murual consent ei such items are in a component support load path, the
+e Owner or his designee, snd the Certideste Holder provisions of NF 1100 apply.
on Or after the date permitted by tc) above. For
/d The rules of this Section do not apply to Dnision 2 desip and construction, the consent of the mstruments or permanently sealed duid filled tubing Desi;ner shall also be obtained.
systems furnished with instruments as temperature
<e Code Edinons. Addenda. [ including the use of pressure responsise devices.
specide prousiens of Editions or Addenda permitted
/dl Aux 21iary systems for concrete reactor vessels or by @]. and Cases used shall be reuewed by the containments that are required to assure functional Owner or his designee fer acceptability to the regula.
adequacy of the vessels in accordance with the cry' and enforcementM authorities hasing jur:sdic.
O requirements of the Design
- Spec:5 cation. including tien at the nuclear power plant site.
but net limited to concrete cooling systems. de=al insulation. corrosion protecnon, leakage monitors. and stram monitonng systems. must be delineated fully by SCA-1200 GENERAL REQUIRE 31ENTS appropnate pertormance, rehaotlity, and test require-meats. These rules are not intended to otherwise be FOR AND DEFINITIONSM OF ITE31S AND INSTALLATIO.N.
applicable to auxih.ary systems.
NCA 1210 CO5fPONENTS 1
The components of a nuclear power plant include NCA 1140 USE OF CODE EDITIONS, items such as vessels. concrete reactor vessels, con.
ADDENDA, AND CASES crete containments, piping systems, pumps. valves, (alfl) Under the rules of this Section, the Owners core support structures, and storage tanks. Data 7
or his designee shall establish the Code Edition and Reports and Stamping shall be as required in NCA-Addenda to be included in the Design Specifications.
3000.
All items of a nuclear power plant may be constructed to a single Code Edition and Addenda, or each item
"""" 'h* **"* C "N*" #*id" " # #" */ C'**#" */
may be constructed to individually specided Code AurAomanos are used,"at shall mean an orgamzanon holdmg a Editions and Addenda.
.aiid N. NY. Nrt or NA Cemocate of Authonranon issued by C1 In no case shall the Code Edition and the Society.
Addenda dates established in the Design Specifications
'#'rularon authonry den tes a Federal Government agency. such as the Umted States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. empowered to tssue and enforce regulanons concermng the design, construc.
t on, and operation of nuclear power plants.
'See NCA 32to for dedmtion of Ovier.
"Enfortement authomy denotes a regional or local govermns
'As used throughout this Section the word designee refers to any body, such as a State or Municipahty of the Umted States or orgam 2non that performs spec.ded acuvities at the request cf the Canadian Province, empowered to enact and enforce boiler code Owner. The Owner retains the responsibility for the acuvity as legislation.
performed by the designee.
" Glossary for Subsection NCA in course of preparation.
4
.,