ML20024E263
| ML20024E263 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1983 |
| From: | Hodgdon A NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | LEWIS, M. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308100144 | |
| Download: ML20024E263 (10) | |
Text
.
o 08/08/83 UiiITED STATES OF AMERICA
!!UCLEAR REGULATORY C0f'MISSI0fi BEFORE THE AT0!11C SAFETY Af;D LICEf:SIf;G BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket flos. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVEf!OR LEWIS' "SEC0fiD ROUND OF IllTERR0GATORIES IN THE LIMERICK OPERATIf;G LICENSE HEARINGS"
- 1. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the Licensing Board's Special Prehearing Conference Order, dated June 1,1982, which, among other things, admitted flarvin Lewis' Contention I-62, alleging that the Limerick nuclear power plant can suffer a major break of containment due to pressurized thermal shocx,I/
and to the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order Confirming Schedules Established During Prehearing Conference (May 16,1983), flarvin Lewis propounded his "Second Round of Interrogatories" on July 13, 1983.
The flRC Staff responses to f1r. Lewis' Second Round of Interrogatories are set forth below.
-1/
Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-43A,15 f;RC 1423 at 1508-1509.
gktitled 3 O ORIGINg*
m 1
8308100144 830808 PDR ADOCK 05000352 O_50 ]
O PDR f
kr II. RESP 0ftSES TO INTERROGATORIES IfiTERR0GATORY 1 When was Pressurized Thermal Shock first raised as an issue in any flRC commercial nuclear power plant hearing? Which hearing? Page nos. of Transcript?
RESPONSE
By agreement reached in a telephone conversation between Intervenor Lewis and Staff Counsel, this question is addressed in the letter from f!RC Staff counsel which covers these responses.
IllTERR0GATORY 2 Present a history or explanation of the development of pressurized thermal shock (PTS) as a problem and show how PTS has been investigated and raised to its present level of concern.
RESPONSE
The issue of pressure vessel thermal shock has been considered for many years in the context of assuring integrity when cold emergency core cooling water is injected into the reactor vessel following a large loss of coolant accident. A series of thermal shock experiments was conducted at Oak Ridge fiational Laboratory starting in 1976. Utilizing the results of these experiments with an unpressurized vessel along with fracture mechanics analyses which supported the experiments, it was confirmed that a postulated flaw would not propagate through the reactor vessel wall during a large LOCA. Therefore, it was concluded that vessel integrity would be maintained during reflooding with cold water at relatively low pressure following the large LOCA. However, repressurization following a LOCA was not considered in this early work.
i
!.lR,
As a result of operating experience including the overcooling transient that occurred at the Rancho Seco nuclear plant on March 20, 1978, it was recognized that it was necessary to consider severe overcooling transients in pressurized water reactors followed by i
repressurization of the primary system.
In these pressurized thermal shock transients, reactor vessels would be subjected to pressure stresses superimposed on thermal stresses resulting from the overcooling transient.
i Preliminary efforts to define what conditions would be necessary to t
propagate a flaw through the entire vessel thickness, thus potentially failing the vessel, were initiated in early 1980. These included:
1 (1) definition of transients and accidents that could result in overcooling with subsequent pressurization, and their probability of occurrence; (2) development of analytical techniques to perform pressurized overcooling transient and fracture mechanics analysis; (3) a survey of operating plant reactor vessel material properties at present 4
integrated radiation fluence levels; and (4) planning for conducting pressurized thermal shock experiments as part of the Heavy Section Steel Technology (HSST) program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).
Beginning in early 1981, the staff initiated an intensive investigation of the pressurized thermal shock issue which has involved meetings with P'WR Owners Groups, reactor vendors, and the ACRS. That investigaticn resulted in a recommendation given to the Commission at meetings held on December 1 and December 9,1982. The recomcendations are detailed in SECY-82-465 and its attachment, copies of which have previously been provided to Mr. Lewis.
.y
_4_
INTERR0GATORY 3 A. For the NRC Staff:
Include dates when pertinent NRC memo's and NUREG's were issued, presentments before the ACRS, boards and professional societies and agency conferences on the subject of PTS.
RESPONSE
The first four pages of SECY-82-465 address this matter.
INTERROGATORY 4 The resume or credentials of Demetrios Basdekas are requested.
RESPONSE
See Response to Interrogatory 1.
INTERROGATORY 5 The staff is requested to present Demetrios Basdekas as a witness.
Please explain what steps would be necessary to get Demetrios Basdekas as a witness.
RESPONSE
See Response to Interrogatory 1.
INTERR0GATORY 6 Applicant and NRC documentation admits that neutron bombardment affects the " brittleness" of metals. This increase in brittleness and decrease in toughness is measure (d) by a change in the value of Charpy V-notch test.
Is this increase in brittleness the only change observed directly attributable to neutron bombardment?
RESPONSE
Neutron bombardment affects all mechnical and physical properties, including the Charpy V-Notch impact test properties of reactor vessel steels.
Neutron bombardment generally increases the yield strength and
4 decreases the ductility of reactor vessel steels. The change in physical properties of reactor vessel steels has been studied, but the effect upon reactor vessel integrity is insignificant. The effect of neutron bombardment on materials is discussed in Chapter 7 of a text by Glasstone and Sesonske, titled " Nuclear Reactor Engineering," published by D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.
INTERROGATORY 7 Have other changes in any properties been attributed, observed or theorized to change due to neutron bombardment?
RESPONSE
See response to Interrogatory 6.
INTERROGATORY 8 Do metals, which have been embrittled by neutron bombardment show any changed behavior when previously, subsequently or concurrently exposed to environments which cause chloride sensitization, ordering reaction or any other deleterious effect? vs metals not embrittled by neutron bombardment?
RESPONSE
The integrity of a ccmmercial nuclear reactor vessel pressure boundary, which is constructed of carbon-manganese steel, is not affected by chloride sensitization cr ordering reactions during exposure to neutron bombardment. As a result the synergistic effect of these reactions and neutron bombardment de not affect the integrity of the reactor vessel.
INTERR0GATORY 9 Have these sets of permutations and environmental testing been explored experimentally or in actual reactors? Give dates and extent of evaluation.
-4 !
l RESP 0f;SE l
Comercial nuclear reactor vessels in the United States have accumulated several hundred years of service. f;on-destructive inspection l
of these reactor vessels and destructive testing of irradiated surveillance samples are done periodically, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50. These inspections have not resulted in any observations which would indicate that the synergistic effects 1
identified in Interrogatory 9 have occurred in reactor vessel pressure boundary materials.
i IllTERROGATORY 10 1
Is there any theoretical or physical reason that neutron embrittlement should or should not affect properties other than toughness?
RESP 0tlSE fleutron bombardment affects a material's mechanical and physical I
properties, as discussed in our response to Interrogatory 6.
The most significant property affected is toughness.
Hence, the staff requires that a large safety margin against brittle fracture be provided during l
operation. These safety margins are defined in Appendix G,10 CFR Part 50.
4#V[%
W
'Y p
l Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for fiRC Staff I
Dated in Bethesda, f4aryland this 8th day August 1983 i
)
e l
r Ul11TED STATES OF AMERICA ltVCLEAR REGULATORY C0lif tISS10f; 1
1 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY A!!D LICEllSIllG BOARD In the flatter of
')
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC'COMPAliY Docket tios. 50-352 i
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
1
^
AFFIDAVIT OF BARRY J. ELLIOT
}
I, Barry J. Elliot, being duly sworn, state as follows:
j i
1.
At present I am a Materials Engineer in the Materials Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, fluclear Reactor Regulation.
4 2.
In this capacity, my responsibilities include the writing of safety evaluations concerning reactor vessel materials and reactor vessel material surveillance programs.
3.
I am responsible for the written responses to Questions 6-10 propounded by Intervenor Marvin Lewis concerning his contention I-62.
4.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, the information contained in the attached response is true and correct.
N gtf g
N Barry J. Elliot x
fj L
Materials Engineer, W[
l'-
Materials Engineering Branch si jf Division of Engineering
',1 fluolear Reactor Regulation UdlN '-
duvaribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of August, 1983 Mh &
%O liotary Public
~
My commission expires:7 /il8
o e
j Uf1ITED STATES OF A!1 ERICA fiUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!Y11SS10fi BEFORE THE AT0!11C SAFETY Af4D LICEllSIfiG BOARD In the Matter of
)
~)
4 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COllPAriY
)
Docket tios. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF HUGH WILR0Y UOODS I, Hugh Wilroy lloods, being duly sworn, state as follows:
1.
At present I am the Task Force 14anager for Pressurized Thermal Shock, Generic Issues Branch, Division of Safety Technology, fluclear Reactor Regulation.
2.
In this capacity, I am responsible for the overall management 4
and coordination of the Commission's Pressurized Thermal Shock Program 3.
I am responsible for the written responses to Questions 2 and 3 propounded by Intervenor Marvin Lewis concerning his i
contention I-62.
t l
4.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, the information contained in the attached response is true and correct.
baI% b e,.1 Hugh Wfiroy Woods /
Task Force llanager for Pressurized Thermal Shock, Generic Issues Branch, Division of Safety Technology fluclear Reactor Regulation Subscribed and sworn to before me tW s 4th day of August, 1983
/
. fLNr
\\L
~~s bil liotary Public
!!y commission expires:7// !f8
-w,w.-.,.
y
-m,.--
n,.-----e..
,m-.
,---,-n,
,,--=.m-,
,,--.-_w.--
.,,.,w.,
,g-,. -
,m.-
e,-
Ui;ITED STATES OF AI1 ERICA fiUCLEAR EEGULATORY C0l;i11SSI0f!
BEFORE THE AT0! IC SAFETY AfiD LICEilSIf!G BOARD In the 11atter of
)~
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC C0!!PAftY
)
Docke; I;cs. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "f;RC STAFF RESP 0llSE TO Il4TERVEl;0R LEWIS'
'SEC0!!D ROUtlD OF IllTERR0GATORIES Ill THE LIl1ERICK OPERATIf;G LICEfiSE HEARIf;GS'" in the above-captioned proceeding has been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the fluclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 8th day of August 1983:
- LawrenceBrenner,Esq., Chairman (2)
!!r. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Administrative Judge Vice President & General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Philadelphia Electric Company Washington, D.C.
20555 2301 11arket Street Philadelphia, PA 19101
- Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ilark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Conner and Wetterhahn 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue,it.W.
- Dr. Peter A. f torris Washington, D.C.
20006 Administrative Judge U.S. liuclear Regulatory Commission lir. Iiarvin I. Lewis Washington, D.C.
20555 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, PA 19149 f tr. Frank R. Romano Air and Water Pollution Patrol Joseph H. White III 61 Forest Avenue 8 I; orth Warner Ave.
Ambler, PA 19002 Bryn flawr, PA.
19010 Judith A. Dorsey, Esq.
!! artha W. Bush, Esq.
Limerick Ecology Action Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.
1315 Walnut Street, Suite 1632 1500 I:unicipal Services Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107 15th and JFK Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
/
2-Thomas Gerusky, Director Thomas Y. Au Bureau of Radiation Protection Office of Chief Counsel Dept. of Environmental Resources Dept. of Environmental Resources 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Building 505 Executive House Third and Locust Streets P. O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17120 l
Director Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Pennsylvania Emergency !!anagement Associate General Counsel Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency Basement, Transportation & Safety Room 840 Building 500 C St., S.W.
Harrisburg, PA 17120 Washington, D.C. 20472 Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.
Robert L. Anthony Sugarman and Denworth Friends of the Earth of the Suite 510 Delaware Valley liorth American Building 103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 121 South Broad Street licylan, PA 19065 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Jacqueline I. Ruttenberg Angus Love, Esq.
The Keystone Alliance 101 East Main Street 3700 Chestnut Street florristown, PA 19401 Philadelphia, PA 19104 Charles W. Elliott, Esq.
Brose & Poswistilo
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 1101 Building U.S. fiuclear Regulatory Commission lith & fiorthampton Streets Washington, D.C.
20555 4
Easton, PA 18042
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal David Wersan Panel Consumer Advocate U.S. fluclear Regulatory Conmission Office of Attorney General Washington, D.C.
20555 1425 Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120
- Docketing and Service Section U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Ben (amin H. Vcgler Deputy Antitrust Counsel 1
1
.v.---.
c
-m
,,m,
=
--~
,.cr-
-,-r--_-
e.