Similar Documents at Byron |
---|
Category:AFFIDAVITS
MONTHYEARML20098G8821984-10-0101 October 1984 Affidavit of Kj Green Re Integrated Design Insp Concerning Mechanical Engineering Work ML20098G8741984-10-0101 October 1984 Affidavit of Br Shelton Re Integrated Design Insp ML20098G8881984-09-29029 September 1984 Affidavit of RW Hooks Re Integrated Design Insp Concerning Structural Design ML20098G8871984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of EM Hughes Re Idvp ML20098G8781984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of RW Manz Concerning Findings 3-11 Through 3-14 & 3-17 of NRC 830930 Integrated Design Insp Re Westinghouse ML20098G8791984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of RP Tuetken Re Readiness for Fuel Loading ML20098G8831984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of W Faires Re Findings 3-15 & 3-16 of NRC 830930 Integrated Design Insp Rept ML20098G8811984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of Cw Dick Re Independent Design Review ML20098G8851984-09-27027 September 1984 Affidavit of Rl Heumann Re Costs of Delay in Startup & Operation of Unit 1 ML20095F1071984-08-18018 August 1984 Affidavit of KT Kostal Re Prefiled Testimony of C Stokes. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20094S6421984-08-16016 August 1984 Affidavit of Gt Klopp Re Wh Bleuel Proposed Testimony Concerning Need for Failure Modes & Effects Analysis. Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20080L0601984-02-13013 February 1984 Affidavit of LO George Re Date Accumulated by Reinspection Program Final Rept.Evaluation Will Clearly Indicate That Quality of Work Performed Is Satisfactory.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079N4081984-01-24024 January 1984 Affidavit of Rl Heumann Re Costs of Delay in Startup & Operation.Notice of Appearance for Pp Steptoe,Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance for G Herrin,Rg Fitzgibbons & P Murphy & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079N3971984-01-24024 January 1984 Affidavit of C Reed Re Const Status & Target Fuel Load Dates ML20083J6231984-01-0606 January 1984 Affidavit of L Delgeorge Re Reinsp Program.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080R1101983-10-10010 October 1983 Affidavit of DD Ed,Clarifying Testimony Re EPA Rept, Protective Action Evaluation Part Ii,Evacuation & Sheltering as Protective Actions Against Nuclear Accidents Involving Gaseous Releases ML20076J1091983-06-14014 June 1983 Affidavit of DC Thomas Supporting Extension Until 830628 to File Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re Contentions 22 & 9(c).Time Needed Due to Heavy Trial & Teaching Schedule.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20074A7711983-05-11011 May 1983 Affidavit of RP Tuetken on J Hughes Allegations Re Welding. Welding of Brace to Pressure Pipe Proper,If Performed Per Design Specs.Util Conducting Reinsp of Work Performed by Contractor QC Inspectors ML20064N4211983-02-10010 February 1983 Affidavit of KA Ainger Re Changes to Plant Design to Mitigate Potential for KRSKO-type Bubble Collapse Water Hammer in Feedwater Bypass Line.Westinghouse Ltr, Bypass Drawing & Notice of Appearance by Vg Copeland Encl ML20028B9051982-11-0808 November 1982 Affidavit Re Westinghouse Application for Withholding Proprietary Info Encl in App C to FSAR in TR Tramm 820818 & 0902 Ltrs to NRC Concerning Turbine Missiles ML20027C5431982-10-0505 October 1982 Affidavit of La Bowen.Util Does Not Intend to Install Temp Sensors on Feedwater Bypass Sys Piping.Existence of Constant Feedwater Flow Precludes Water Hammer Event Similar to Event at Krsko ML20058G8601982-07-30030 July 1982 Affidavit Consisting of Documents Supporting Response in Opposition to NRC Motion for Summary Disposition of Dekalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy/Sinnissippi Alliance for Environ Contention 9c.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20058E2291982-07-26026 July 1982 Affidavit of Jc Petersen on Waiver of or Exception to Financial Qualification Regulations.League Petition & Exhibits Do Not Demonstrate Special Circumstances Warrant Exception to Financial Qualification Regulations ML20058E2011982-07-26026 July 1982 Affidavit of DA Nash.Rockford League of Women Voters Exhibits Do Not Substantiate Claim of No Need for Power or Existence of Alternative Energy Sources.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20069C8941982-07-19019 July 1982 Affidavit of DD Malinowski on Contention 9c Re Various Phenomena Affecting Steam Generator Tube Integrity & Water Chemistry Measures to Be Taken to Eliminate or Minimize Adverse Effects of Phenomena ML20069C8991982-07-19019 July 1982 Affidavit of EM Burns on Contention 9c Re Flow Induced Vibration & Tube Wear in Preheater Section of Westinghouse Model D Steam Generators ML20058G9571982-07-19019 July 1982 Affidavit of Ej Sternglass.Cumulative Affects of Radioactive Release from Reactors Located in Northern Il Should Be re-evaluated.EPA Min Dose of Radiation Probably Cannot Be Met for Some Local Populations ML20054M9431982-07-0909 July 1982 Affidavit of Aw Serkiz Re Dekalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy/Sinissippi Alliance for Environ Contention 9(a).NRC Has Not Completed Evaluation of Krsko Plant Water Hammer Event.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054M9411982-07-0909 July 1982 Affidavit of MP Phillips Re Dekalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy/Sinissippi Alliance for Environ Contention 3(e) on Worst Case Weather Evacuation Planning. Util Committed to Provide Revised Evacuation Time Estimates ML20054M9281982-07-0101 July 1982 Affidavit of Wl Forney Re Dekalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy/Sinissippi Alliance for Environ Contention 1.Util Performance Compares Favorably W/Other Licensees ML20054E7771982-06-0707 June 1982 Affidavit of Rj Netzel Re Contention 9(d).Steam Generator & Reactor Coolant Pump Support Design Took Into Account Fracture Toughness Properties of Matls Making Up Supports. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054E7511982-06-0707 June 1982 Affidavit of GP Lahti Re Contention 2.Describes Regulatory Criteria Considered in Analyzing Cumulative Routine Releases from Plant & Other Nuclear Plants in Il.Design Objectives Considered Described ML20054E7531982-06-0707 June 1982 Unexecuted Affidavit of Ji Fabrikant Re Contention 2 on re-evaluation of Health Effects of Projected Routine Release of Radioactivity for Residents of Dekalb,Sycamore & Rockford Areas ML20054E7551982-06-0707 June 1982 Affidavit of G Klopp Re Contention 2A.Incremental Risk from Nuclear Accidents to Area Residents Cannot Be Zero.Risk Should Be Determined by Risk from Byron.Other Plants Pose Insignificant Risk ML20054E7601982-06-0707 June 1982 Affidavit of T Tramm Re Contention 7 That Util Will Comply W/New Regulatory Requirements on Hydrogen Control/Generation Matters ML20054E7671982-06-0606 June 1982 Affidavit of La Bowen Re Contention 9(a)on Water Hammer. Possible Courses of Action Being Discussed,Including Westinghouse Recommendations Re Krsko Plant Events ML20054E7661982-06-0404 June 1982 Affidavit of RW Carlson Re Contention 9(a) on Water Hammer. Steam Generator Bypass Sys Design,W/Listed Mods,Is Adequate to Minimize Likelihood of Bubble Collapse Waterhammer Events in Steam Generators to Acceptable Level ML20054E7721982-06-0404 June 1982 Affidavit of Rj Netzel Re Contention 9(b).Reactor Vessel Supports Designed for Asymmetrical Blowdown Loads & Stress Limits within ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Allowable ML20054E7681982-06-0404 June 1982 Affidavit of R Pleniewicz Re Contention 9(a).Operating Procedures Re Operation of Feedwater Bypass Sys Will Implement Westinghouse Recommendations ML20054E7631982-06-0404 June 1982 Affidavit of Jc Blomgren Re Contention 8.Primary Sys Decontamination Would Result in No Significant Adverse Impact to Human Environ Quality ML20054E7591982-06-0404 June 1982 Affidavit of Hm Ferrari Re Contention 6.Concerns Raised Carefully Considered & Reviewed in Fsar.Sufficient Assurance Exists to Assure Containment of Radioactive Matls Under Worst Postulated DBA ML20054E7581982-06-0404 June 1982 Affidavit of G Klopp Re Contention 4.Intervenor Interpretation of Single Failure Demonstrates Misunderstanding of NRC Requirement on Accident Analysis ML20054E7571982-06-0404 June 1982 Affidavit of Jc Golden Re Contention 3.Plant Emergency Plan Provides Reasonable Assurance Prompt & Effective Actions Will Be Taken to Protect Public Health & Safety ML20054E7331982-06-0303 June 1982 Affidavit of C Reed Re Contention 1.Expresses Util Strong Commitment to Safe Plant Operation to Protect Public Health & Safety & to Operate Plant within NRC & Other Requirements ML20054E7731982-06-0303 June 1982 Affidavit of WT Bogard Re Contention 9(b).Asymmetric Blowdown Loads Adequately Addressed in Plant Design ML20054E7501982-06-0303 June 1982 Affidavit of R Querio Re Personnel Qualifications,Personnel Commitment to Plant Safety & Plant Plans for Packaging & Transport of Waste Matls.Plant Has Necessary Technical Qualifications ML20054E7471982-06-0303 June 1982 Affidavit of Wj Shewski Describing Util QA Program.Util History of Compliance W/Applicable QA Criteria Does Not Indicate Util Unwilling or Unable to Operate Plant Safety ML20054E7391982-06-0303 June 1982 Affidvait of Wl Stiede That Specific Incidents Listed in Contention 1 Do Not Prove Util Unable or Unwilling or Lacks Technical Qualifications to Operate Plant Safely ML20054M9331982-05-25025 May 1982 Affidavit of Jr Creed on Dekalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy/Sinissippi Alliance for Environ Contention 1(f).Allegations Re Security Violations at Quad Cities Resolved ML20039C2481981-12-21021 December 1981 Affidavit of Mm Cherry Per ASLB 811208 Order Re 790926 Meeting.Affidavit Never Implied or Stated That Position in Case Was for Purposes of Delay 1984-09-29
[Table view] Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20207E0051999-03-0202 March 1999 Transcript of 990302 Public Meeting with Commonwealth Edison in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-104.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20236H9381998-06-30030 June 1998 Transcript of 980630 Meeting W/Commonwealth Edison in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-123.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20198P3001997-11-0404 November 1997 Transcript of 971104 Public Meeting W/Ceco in Rockville,Md Re Measures Established by Ceco to Track Plant Performance & to Gain Understanding of CAs Put Into Place to Improve Safety.Pp 1-105.W/Certificate & Viewgraphs ML20149M2951996-11-29029 November 1996 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.60 Re Safety Margins Recommended in ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Case N-514 TXX-9522, Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources1995-08-26026 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources ML20059C2351993-12-17017 December 1993 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-21-2 Re Commercial Grade Item Dedication ML20044A8111990-06-27027 June 1990 Comment Opposing Closure of Lpdr of Rockford Public Library ML20245J0191989-04-14014 April 1989 Comment Re Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20214X1871987-06-11011 June 1987 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $25,000 Based on Four Severity Level III Violations Noted During 860721-0808 Insp ML20205Q1711987-04-0202 April 1987 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $25,000. App Re Evaluations & Conclusions Encl IR 05000812/20100311987-02-26026 February 1987 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $100,000 Based on Violations Noted During Insps on 850812-1031 ML20210T7321987-02-11011 February 1987 Unexecuted Amend 6 to Indemnity Agreement B-97 Substituting Item 3 of Attachment to Indemnity Agreement in Entirety W/ Listed License Numbers,Effective 870130 ML20209J3251987-01-30030 January 1987 Transcript of 870130 Commission Discussion/Possible Vote on Full Power OL for Facility.Pp 1-72.Supporting Viewgraphs Encl ML20213G4381986-10-24024 October 1986 Unexecuted Amend 5 to Indemnity Agreement B-97,substituting Item 3 of Attachment to Agreement in Entirety W/Listed License Numbers,Effective on 861106 ML20211B0841986-08-0505 August 1986 Transcript of 860805 Meeting Between Region Iii,Computer Interference Elimination & Util in Redmond,Wa Re Plant as-built Drawing Review.Pp 1-200 IR 05000506/20070221986-05-0202 May 1986 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $25,000 for Violations Noted During Insp on 850506-0722.Violations Noted:Failure to Establish Radiological Safety Procedures & to Adequately Train Personnel ML20138C7301985-12-0909 December 1985 Order Imposing Civil Penalty in Amount of $25,000 Per 850606 Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty.Licensee May Request Hearing within 30 Days of Date of Order ML20205E8741985-10-28028 October 1985 Exemption from GDC 4 of 10CFR50,App a Requirement to Install Protective Devices Associated W/Postulated Pipe Breaks Primary Coolant Sys.Topical Rept Evaluation Encl ML20102A2981985-01-0707 January 1985 Petition Requesting Aslab Grant Intervenor Appeal & Order Further Hearings on Safety of Plant ML20099L2581984-11-27027 November 1984 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20099G5381984-11-23023 November 1984 Supplemental Appeal Brief in Response to Intervenor 841106 Supplemental Brief on Appeal & in Support of ASLB 841016 Supplemental Initial Decision Authorizing Issuance of Ol. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20100K0411984-11-22022 November 1984 Submits Concerns Re Safety of Local Residents in Event of Accident & Excessively High Cost of Projected Operation of Facility ML20107H7841984-11-0606 November 1984 Supplemental Brief on Appeal of ASLB 841016 Supplemental Initial Decision Granting Authority for Issuance of Ol. Decision Should Be Reversed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20140E4081984-10-31031 October 1984 Executed Amend 1 to Indemnity Agreement B-97,deleting Items 2A & 3 in Entirety ML20098G8841984-10-0202 October 1984 Joint Statement of RW Manz & W Faires Re Findings 3-11 Through 3-17 of NRC 830930 Integrated Design Insp Rept. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20098G8681984-10-0202 October 1984 Answer to Intervenor Motion to Reopen Record Re Bechtel Independent Design Review.Motion Should Be Denied ML20098G8901984-10-0202 October 1984 Joint Statement of Kj Green & RW Hooks Re Integrated Design Insp ML20098G8911984-10-0202 October 1984 Joint Statement of Cw Dick & EM Hughes Re Independent Design Insp ML20098G8821984-10-0101 October 1984 Affidavit of Kj Green Re Integrated Design Insp Concerning Mechanical Engineering Work ML20098G8741984-10-0101 October 1984 Affidavit of Br Shelton Re Integrated Design Insp ML20098G8881984-09-29029 September 1984 Affidavit of RW Hooks Re Integrated Design Insp Concerning Structural Design ML20098G8831984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of W Faires Re Findings 3-15 & 3-16 of NRC 830930 Integrated Design Insp Rept ML20098G8811984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of Cw Dick Re Independent Design Review ML20098G8791984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of RP Tuetken Re Readiness for Fuel Loading ML20098G8781984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of RW Manz Concerning Findings 3-11 Through 3-14 & 3-17 of NRC 830930 Integrated Design Insp Re Westinghouse ML20098G8871984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of EM Hughes Re Idvp ML20098G8851984-09-27027 September 1984 Affidavit of Rl Heumann Re Costs of Delay in Startup & Operation of Unit 1 ML20098E2371984-09-24024 September 1984 Reply to Intervenor 840918 Proposed Supplemental Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20097E7221984-09-13013 September 1984 Agreed Motion for Time Extension Until 841101 to File Petition for Hearing Re Emergency Planning Commitment W ML20097C5311984-09-12012 September 1984 Motion to Reopen Record to Include Plant Design as Issue. Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20097B7791984-09-10010 September 1984 Proposed Supplemental Initial Decision Re Reinsp Program. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20096A6391984-08-30030 August 1984 Rebuttal Testimony of RW Hooks Re Validity of Info in Attachment 7 to Stokes Testimony Concerning Design Assumption for Plant.Stokes Info Inapplicable to Plant. Related Correspondence ML20096A6191984-08-30030 August 1984 Rebuttal Testimony of B Erler Re Stokes Allegations Concerning Evaluations of Discrepancies in Calculated Actual Stress Performed by Sargent & Lundy.Related Correspondence ML20096A6261984-08-30030 August 1984 Summary of Rebuttal Testimony & Testimony of ML Somsag, Eb Branch,D Demoss,Mr Frankel,Bf Maurer & Jk Buchanan Re Plant QC Inspector Reinsp Program & C Stokes Allegations Re Welds.Related Correspondence ML20096A6441984-08-28028 August 1984 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Related Correspondence ML20112D5271984-08-24024 August 1984 Applicant Exhibit A-R-4,consisting of Feb 1984 Rept on Bryon QC Inspector Reinsp Program ML20112D5031984-08-24024 August 1984 Applicant Exhibit A-R-5,consisting of June 1984 Suppl to Rept on Bryon QC Inspector Reinsp Program ML20112D7441984-08-23023 August 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-R-1,consisting of Undated List of Teutken Safety Category Insp Types ML20112D7511984-08-21021 August 1984 Staff Exhibit S-R-1,consisting of 840813 Instruction for Walkdown of Cable Tray Hanger Connection Welds ML20112D4641984-08-21021 August 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-R-11,consisting of Undated Chronological Date Listing of Util Responses to Interrogatory 12.VA Judson to Mi Miller Re Interrogatory 12 & Supplemental Responses Encl 1999-03-02
[Table view] |
Text
~
7 em h - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In The Matter of )
)
-)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-454 OL
) 50-455 OL
)
(Byron Nuclear Power Station, )
Units 1 & 2) )
AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD J. NETZEL The attached questions and answers constitute my testimony in the above-captioned proceeding. The testimony is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
, A* .
Rich J. Ne Subscribed and sworn to befoce me this 7 K day of ','/k% , 1982.
,I i J ,' ,
,/ /L O.,L Lt - c i. e. g Notary Public
,s b
\J
~
~
82061402IO B206dh PDR ADDCK 05000454 g PDR
i-b '.
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD J. NETZEL O. ON'DAARE/ SAFE CONTENTION 9d
. Q. Please. state your name, employer, and present position.
A. My name is Richard J. Netzel. I am employed by Sargent and Lundy Engineers as the Senior Structural Project Engineer on the Byron /Braidwood project.
Q. State your educational and professional qualifications.
A. I have a Master of Science degree in structural engineer-ing and I have been practising structural engineering at Sargent and Lundy for twelve. years. Of those twelve years, I have been assigned to the Byron /Braidwood pro-ject for eight years.
Q. Could you describe your responsibilities in connection with the Byron /Braidwood project.
A. As Project Engineer, I coordinate the activities of hydrologists, geologists, soils engineers, architects and structural engineers who are engaged in the design and engineering of the structural and civil portions of Byron /Braidwood. I establish the basic structural framing system for the project, select the foundation system, and prepare detailed design criteria that are used to design the individual components of the plant's structural system. In addition, I am responsible for coordinating the work of the Structural Department with that of the Electrical and Mechanical Departments and
() with field personnel during construction. I establish
w *.
O(_j the scope of work for contracts, technical requirements for materials, and schedules for completion of the work. I represent Sargent and Lundy in meetings with manufacturers, equipment suppliers, contractors, and government regulatory agencies.
Q. To which contention is this testimony addressed?
A. DAARE/ SAFE Contention 9 (d) . The text of the contention reads as follows:
Intervenors contend that there are many unresolved safety problems with clear health and safety impli-cations and which are demonstrably applicable to the Byron Station design, but are not dealt with adequately in the FSAR. These issues include but are not limited to:
Fracture toughness of steam generators and reactor coolant pump supports. The steel used as steam generator and reactor coolant pump support materials may be subject to cracks in the material near a weld under lower-than-normal temperature condi-tions. For this reason, under certain circumstances, auxiliary electric heating should, according to NRC generic problem analyses, be provided to keep the temperatures of these structural elements high enough to avoid brittle fracture. The problem may become severe under a LOCA condition. Auxiliary heating is not provided for in the Byron design, as indicated at FSAR 5.2.3.3 or 3.9.3,4.
Q. Please define fracture toughness.
A. Fracture toughness is the ability of a material to absorb energy despite the presence of flaws in the material. Flaws in steel, such as that used in the steam generator and reactor coolant pump supports, result from the manufacturing and fabricating processes which introduce non-metallic inclusions in the steel.
() In addition, flaws in steel are produced from welding.
i
. s.
Q. ' What impact does temperature have on fracture toughness?
A. The lower the temperature, the more prone.a material is I
to brittle failure. In other words', as the temperature increases, the material becomes more ductile.
Q. In designing the steam generator and reactor coolant :
, pump supports did you take into account the fracture f toughness properties of the materials which make up.the supports?
i A. Yes. In establishing the procurement specification requirements for steel used in the supports a test method was specified for measuring fracture toughness.
i Charpy impact tests were performed to evaluate the
! fracture toughness of the specified steel used in the
. supports.
Q. Please. describe the Charpy impact test.
A. The Charpy impact test is best described in American
! Society of Testing Material (ASTM) Standard'A370 to be:
"A dynamic test in which a selected specimen, machined or surface ground and notched, is struck and broken by j a single blow in a specifically designed testing machine and the energy absorbed in breaking the speci-
- men is measured. The energy values determined are
! qualitative comparisons on a selected specimen and
(
5
+ = - - - . , - - , a- . . . . . - - , - , , . - - . . ,p . , . . , , , ,,-,.,,,,...y., .+--..,,..,c, - ~ - -
. _ , -.---,-.....,--,,o,...m., . - , , .
_4-g- although frequently specified as an acceptance criterion, V they cannot be converted into energy figures that would serve for engineering calculations. Percent shear fracture and mils of lateral expansion opposite the notch are other frequently used criteria of. acceptance for Charpy V-notched impact test specimens."
Q. What is the acceptance criteria used for measuring the fracture toughness of the support material used at Byron /Braidwood?
A. The acceptance criteria is as given in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (7 F,ME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1, Subsec-tion NF 2331. The criterion specifies fifteen mils lateral expansion for material 5/8 inch to 1 inch in thickness and twenty-five mils lateral expansion for material 1 inch and over.
Q. The ASTM description of the Charpy impact test states that "the energy values determined are qualitative comparisons on a selected specimen and although fro-quently specified as an acceptance criterion, they cannot be converted into energy figures that would serve for engineering calculations." How is that statement relevant to the Charpy impact test performed on the Byron /Braidwood support materials?
o h
J
7- A. The quotation explains that when a structure is designed
() to an energy criterion, the Charpy impact test should not be used to determine the capacity of the structure.
The Charpy impact test can only be used to determine the fracture toughness properties of the steel used in the structure.
Q. Was the Charpy impact test performed on materials in Byron used to determine the energy capacity of the structure?
A. No, it was only used to determine the fracture tough-ness properties of the steel used in the structure.
Q. Can you describe the sampling procedure that was used in performing the Charpy impact testsoon the Byron steam generator and reactor coolant pump support materials?
A. The sampling procedure for the Charpy impact tests was s
performed in accordance with the requirements of ASME Boiler and Dressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1, Subsection NF 2340 and NF 4335. This sampling procedure was performed with respect to base materials, bolting materials and welding qualifications, that is, all of the materials which make up the supports. In general terms, this sampling procedure requires that one test is made for each lot, where a lot is defined as one heat of material heat treated in one charge or as one continuous operation. These procedures were established by the ASME to assure that sufficient and
c'] representative samples are tested to demonstrate that V
the actual materials used in constructing the supports have adequate fracture toughness properties.
Q. What was the temperature of the metal samples subjected to the Charpy impact tests?
A. The Charpy impact tests were performed at 10*F.
Q. Why was this temperature chosen?
A. The assumed lowest service metal temperature of the supports is 40 F. The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code requires that Charpy impact tests be performed at 30 F below the assumed lowest service' metal tempera-ture. Thus, the temperature of metal tested was 10*F.
It should be noted that the minimum operating tempera-ture in the containment structure, where these supports are located, is 65*F. (Byron Station FSAR Table 3.11-2)
Thus, using a 10*F test temperature.added additional conservatism to the test results.
Q. The contention states that "the problem may become severe under a LOCA condition." Can you comment on this assertion?
A. The supports have been designed to withstand the LOCA load condition. The Charpy impact test of the support materials assures adequate fracture toughness at minimum operating temperature. The minimum temperature during a LOCA is greater than or equal to the minimum o
\)
operating temperature for the containment structure.
Therefore, fracture toughness of the support materials is also assured during LOCA conditons.
Q. Does the Byron Station design include auxiliary heating systems for heating the supports?
A. Auxiliary heating of the steam generator and reactor coolant pump supports is not provided in the Byron design.
Q. In your opinion, is auxiliary heating required to assure fracture toughness in the supports?
A. No, because, as stated earlier, the support materials
- were chosen and qualified to assure more than adequate fracture toughness at temperatures below the minimum operating temperature for the Byron containments.
A U
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION kg BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-454 COMMONWEALTH EDISON ) 50-455
)
[ Byron Station, Units 1 and 2] )
NOTICE OF FILING AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the original and two copies of the attached MOTION OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSI-TION, with all attachments were filed with the Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and copies were served on the fol-lowing by deposit in the United States r.. ail, first-class postage prepaid on June 7, 1982.
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Ms. Mitzi A. Young Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal Board Panel Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20055 Washington, D.C. 20055 Dr. Richard F. Cole Ms. Diane Chavez Atomic Safety and Licensing SAFE Board Panel 602 Oak U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockford, Illinois Washington, D.C. 61104 20055 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Dr. Bruce von Zellen Department of Biological Sciences Union Carbide Corporation Northern Illinois University P.O. Box Y Dekalb, Illinois 60115 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Secretary Mr. Steven C. Goldberg Attn: Chief, Docketing and Office of the Executive Legal Service Section Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7_ Washington, D.C. 20055
() Washington, D.C. 20055
Chief Hearing Counsel Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20055 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington.D.C. 20055 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ilashington, D.C. 20055 Q
C-
/ ALAN P. W LAWSKI One of the Attorneys for Applicant, Commonwealth Edison Company
(
w.)