ML20073P112

Responses to 830401 Discovery & Document Production Requests Re Carolina Environ Study Group Contention 18 & Des Contention 17.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20073P112
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	04/20/1983
From:	Raymond Gibson DUKE POWER CO.
To:	CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP
References
NUDOCS 8304250024
Download: ML20073P112 (10)

Text

I

. .i. . ,

1 g

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

.,e m -

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND' LICENSING BOARD In the Matter ) 33 [F 22 @ 36

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. -

) Docket Nos. 50-413

) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' RESPONSES TO CESG'S DISCOVERY AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION REQUESTS TO NRC STAFF AND TO APPLICANT RE CESG CONTENTION 18 AND RE DES CONTENTION 17 Duke Power Company, et al. (" Applicants"), pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.740b(b), hereby respond to "CESG's Discovery And Document Production Requests To NRC Staff And To Applicant Re CESG Contention 18 and Re Des Contention 17" filed April 1,1983.

CESG Contention 18 .

1. Cracks have reportedly been found in used reactor welds by ultrasonic testing, including an Oconee reactor. These reactors have presumably not been submitted to stress under other than ductile conditions, i.e. at temperatures above RT . By what mechanism do you account for the formation of cracks undh$hese conditions?

Applicants are not aware of any cracks in any of its reactor vessels, including the reactor vessels at Oconee. Complete inspections of the Oconee I, II, and III reactor beltline welds were performed recently.

These inspections were conducted to meet ASME Section XI code requirements, and the results of the inspections confirmed that the reactor beltline welds at Oconee were within the acceptance criteria of the OvaQg h.

L. m applicable ASME code provisions. No cracks were identified during these

,o or any previous inspections. All flaw indications, as identified in Section re:c 88 XI of the ASME code, in' any welds resulting from the manufacturing 85 ,

(DQ.Q m

r I i

. l'

?

process are within ASME acceptance criteria. The results of the recent complete inspections are set forth in the Oconee 10 Year In Service Inspection Reports. (CWH) grow?

Under what conditions would you expect these cracks to 2.

Specifically, relate crack growth to stress at temperatures normally If you encountered both above and below a RT o are not in a position to answer this quNon,f 100why explain F; of it is50notF.of concern.

Growth of flaw indications, Not applicable. See response to No.1.

including cracks, by stress fatigue is evaluated by considering cyclic as conservatively defined in the equipment loading conditions specification . These loading conditions span the full operating range of pressure and temperature (temperatures above and below RTNDT)*

Calculations show that growth of flaw indications of the sizes experienced at Oconee by stress fatigue is negligibly small. (CWH) (RHF)

3. What is the effect of stress fatigue, whether isothermal tensile, temperature gradient-induced in the absence ofPlease applied stress, or a quantitate your combination of applied and thermal, on RT  ?

response for a) routinely encountered grad!hnIs and stress levels in a ~

reactor and b) under the rapid rate of cooldown encountered in a large break LOCA.

Stress fatigue has no effect on RTNDT. (RHF)

4. The values of RT required under 10CFR Part 50 Appendix G III A and B and AppeM H,11 and III are performed on How coupons. What many samples plates, welds, welding materials, etc. are exposed?

are there of each type of material?

See Section 5.3.1.6 of the FSAR. (RHF)

5. Pursuant to 4, foregoing, Is the neutron fluence of the coupons identical?

How does it relate to the neutron fluence of the reactor?

Within each surveillance capsule, the neutron fluence seen by each coupon is essentially identical. The neutron fluence seen by each surveillance capsule may not be identical due to the location of each capsule around the vessel. The neutron fluence seen by the samples in the surveillance capsules is greater than the maximum fluence at the w

7 reactor wall by a factor of 4.05 for four of the capsules and by a factor of 3.37 for two of the capsules. (RHF) to be employed at Catawba,

6. Pursuant to 4. , foregoing, For the core diagram relative neutron fluences around the beltline.

(RWO) (RHF) -

See Attachment A and FSAR Table 5.3.1-5.

7. How many heating and cooling cycles are anticipated for the lifetime of the Catawba reactors?

See FSAR Table 3.9.1-1. (RWO) (RHF)

8. Does RT NDT change with the fatigue history of reactor materials?

No. (RHF)

9. If the answer to 8 is affirmative, provide quantitative estimates of the differences between reactor materials and corresponding coupons at 25, 50, 75 and 100% of estimated reactor operating life.

Not applicable. See response to No. 8. (RHF)

10. Why are Charpy specimens V notched?

The purpose of the notch is to simulate a crack and create a stress concentration at the tip of the notch. (RHF) 11.

Will a notched specimen fail under tensile stress levels that an unnotched specimen of the same material and minimum cross-sectional area will withstand?

Yes. (RHF) 12.

Will a notch result in failure of a specimen in a ductile state at a lower level of stress than an unnotched specimen of the same effective minimum cross-sectional area? Is the same true of a crack?

Yes; yes. (RHF)

13. What is your understanding of the mechanism of crack growth?

Crack growth can proceed by the application of cyclic stresses The fatigue process can be assisted arising from operating conditions.

by corrosion and it is the " corrosion fatigue" data that are used in the evaluation of crack growth . By using " corrosion fatigue" data , the

?*

ir presence of the clad is ignored, thus incorporating about a factor of 10 conservatism in the crack growth rate. (RHF)

14. What is your understanding of mechanisms of crack propagation to failure?

The possibility of failure due to crack-propagation is evaluated by comparing the size of an initial flaw, adjusted for crack growth, to the

" critical" flaw size for unstable extension. Critical flaw sizes are very large and the rules of ASME Section XI require that the critical flaw size be at least 10 times larger for normal operating conditions and 2 times larger for faulted conditions than the initial flaw size adjusted for crack growth. (RHF)

Respectfully submitted, Albert V. Carr, Jr.

Ronald L. Gibson DUKE POWER COMPANY P.O. Box 33819 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 (704) 373-2570 J. Michael McGarry, III Anne W. Cottingham DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9833 Attorneys for Duke Power Company, g al.

April 20,1983 1

i ..~

MRtMUM IFRST A)EUTRc0 r ., .

DISTkGUTioO GF ,

ALMOTHAL NMEl-~ ~.ICOEQ i PREA50RE

' .', T FwrME >To~Me.VY ATH~fHE .

CRTm084 LU0iTS ___ Lt3_

s _ _ .

- i s L_ RADIOS -

t d t___ '

i . ,

i. i .

f - i, i,

i.

e

- j, ,

i

.n g ,

e

'i. I g , .

._,_I .

J. .

9

.~

9 i

...._. 4 i

} g j

._ -fj - I t

{

g.-. -.

t j

.. .j. ,. .

l ', ,

. ...)

j. .,

, . . . . . . _ . . ~ . . ,.

g

. .. .4 . . . _ -

o 3..; ,

= .q_. w .g._

j\ l _ . . -

i m - m p=a.m.e

' i ' ' l I ~~~# *

. .. . ..- . . . -. .d "O_' .: -. 7E

[ A, g * **==" i - .

'~~~' d

"#*'"'.'. .;'~..~#'~~~~-$ E E ~Z".'~; . . . _a

..-  : :=... -:.:: Q -=. _ . . .r_ .: :. ..:....;..-. ! .: . .

~~~~ # . . ...

_: ., . - . .r 1 .,- . =_ _-] . . :: .. . . .- .

1. ; . . : .:: g. ..

T .

'i 5-*I~

(-  ; ,. . ;

! : "L : . .~ .1 ~ -C ' ' ' O.~ 1 .: ! L:

';." L . ~ ~ " *.J

~=~1 .M. .. :. ..=::.~ - t~::... - :~:1-: -: ~ '

"- - V :: -

J "~..:~8 ~

!~.1'~.

) ,

~T

':: T _~ m . -

T ~-12 i : _ - d. - .

1-  : . 9

1. c_ .9..:.;..-).,=i.~~~~~.. .

g__I- -

1 H.E. .- ~d'i.l i i R 2 .

g.

s i

(y s- .1 g

=-

- =

. ; - =; - 'i- i ;

i 9- j ._:. : j .- 3-i .

-1 w a_ .h [- _:@ .i :-; i : j . : a . . -j .. .. . .

-- : : .,3 l

9} _ .___ .... . . .

. - . . q . . - . 1,::_.- _- : .=.. =:= -. ~=.- . ~ . . . jl i+i++ ~ . <{~-it:

y =r  : .- .. .- ..

l~

. Ej : : . ;=-d=H=.yl""=E =LEf==-}.

3 .. ..

4 .. . (

-a. -- . . . ...

_ -_. ,,..-g. _._

u. i. .

, . . . . _ . .._..4..._ .

.,..a.

. . _ _ . ..J_. ,

....~..~.~

. i.

p.....

4....

,, .. .s . ....- __ _ J ..

_- .. . . _ - . _ ._.m.,..

I j .. .f -., .. .

Q

...p..

..i .

q . . .. . g . g

.-m. . . . .. 9

, . _ _ . 1- . ., ,

g

- O g

....4,. .. ...

.q. .

,7-- . . -

.. Y . . . .-

,. .. l . . .

s y _ . _

,. _. p _. _ _ .

. j.

.__ _. $ .. . .- .~..~ . _-

_.k....,.. ..

• . . . . i .

. . . .- ._ 4

v. . . _ . .

>g _

. ,s -.... . . . . ._ .

i . . __._. p ~ I l

i. -

l

4... -

I -

l U) ol _ . 1 8

• *a;  :-

}

U_S .

j-  : ; }

r' i .

IU -

I l.

. -t .

27 E p. . - -

l e 1. . - . ..

.l

l. - ._  ;

4 I

m '

~

.i j

i .

.: 5

}.

6 ,;

h *

4. l 1 .~. J.

i .

da .l i.  :

N g I ,

)

r

.i

• • I  :

U.J -* ... f * '

j l

3

%# t ~ -

. . l : f~j . l j mio f . . ~ --'

3 -

' I - j .

a

'  ! j .1 ,... .

.-l J, . . .

3 [i -

l . .

e . . . .. . .

.' j e

. ..... ' ' ' ' ~ '

j .

. .j..... '

' ~ ~ ' '

.j j a ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

. . . . . 4.. .. . .. 7 2..  ;

l 3 i

j j 4 4  ; .

a 9 g j  ;

} ,, , ,; .

r ,

j .

I ..

. . . ....J.

i s

s. . : .

i ..

40 50 a

40 JG o jo S OGLE. U f-S. )

_AbMOTMAL

9 tP . i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFEIT AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413

) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) ).

AFFIDAVIT I,. Roger W. Ouellette, being duly sworn, hereby state that I am employed by Duke Power Company as Assistant Engineer - Licensing, Nuclear Production Department.

I have been responsible for furnishing the basic information used in responding to those Interrogatories on Carolina Environmental Study Group's Contention 18 by which my initials appear. Those responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Roger W. Ouellette Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of April, 1983 ul Notary Public

~

My Commission Expires: September 20, 1984

't y

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, e_t_

t al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413

) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

AFFIDAVIT I, C. W. Hendrix, being duly sworn, hereby state that I am employed by Duke Power Company as Maintenance Engineer, Nuclear Production Department.

I have been responsible. for furnishing the basic information used in responding to those Interrogatories on Carolina Environmental Study Group's Contention 18 by which my initials appear. Those responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

C. W. Hendrix, Jr.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of April, 1983 Notary Public My Commission Expires: September 20, 1984 b

3,

(

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. Docket Nos. 50-413

. 50-414 (CatawbaNuclearStation, Units 1 and 2)

AFFIDAVIT I, Robert H. Faas, being duly sworn, hereby state that I am employed by Westinghouse Electric Corporation as an Engineer - RCS Components Licensing, Nuclear Safety Department.

I have been responsible for furnishing the basic information used in responding to those Interrogatories on CESG Contention 18 by which my initials appear. Those responses are true and correct to the best of my.

knowledge and belief.

IP M.M,.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this // day of April, 1983.

~

U/11$L {/3 d Notary Public My Com.ission expires:

mit<.nuto%a taim Maut MOM:1U:n!00:0, AntMNTC00Nft MY C0Hi'!!310 GP HS MARCN 10,1988 pomber, Pennsylvania Associstloa of Netsfies

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter ) , g 72 f(0 Ob DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. .) Docket Nos. 50-413

) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, ) '"T Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Response To CESG's Discovery And Document Production Requests To NRC Staff And To Applicant Re CESG Contention 18 And RE Contention 17" in the above captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 20th day of April,1983.

James L. Kelley, Chaim9n George E. Johnson, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal Board Panel Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dr. A. Dixon Callihan J. Michael McGarry, III Union Carbide Corporation Anne W. Cottingham P.O. Box Y Debevoise & Liberman-Oak Ridge, Tennessee - 37830 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. Richard F. Foster - Richard P. Wilson, Esq.

- P.O. Box 4263 Assistant Attorney General

. Sunriver, Oregon 97702 State of South Carolina Chairman P.O. Box 11549 L Atomic Safety and Licensing Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Robert Guild, Esq.

Commission - Attorney-at-Law Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 12097 Charleston, South Carolina 29412 l

l t

T' y.

Chairman Palmetto Alliance Atomic Safety and Licensing 2135 1/2 Devine Street Appeal Board Columbia, South Carolina 29205 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Scott Stucky Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Jesse L. Riley Commission 854 Henley Place Washington, D.C. 20555 Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Carole F. Kagan, Attorney Henry A. Presler Atomic Safety and Licensing Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board Panel Environmental Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 945 Henley Place Commission Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Washington, D.C. 20555

_ =Y e