ML20127B428
| ML20127B428 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1984 |
| From: | Houston R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20125C450 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-927 NUDOCS 8404050349 | |
| Download: ML20127B428 (8) | |
Text
.
(
March 19,1984 ME?iORAt'DUM FOR:
T. flovak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL FROM:
R. W. Houston, Assistant Director for Reactor Safety, DSI SUSJECT:
LICEtiSE C0tJDITIONS FOR CATAWBA, Ut IT 1 DOCKET #50-413 As a result of our ongoing reviews on Catawba, we recommend that the Catawba Unit 1 operating license include the following license conditions:
Hydrogen Control Measures (II.B.7) 1.
Before initial criticality, the distributed ignition system for hydrogen control shall be installed and operable, and shall be activated upon a safety injection signal.
2.
Prior to full power licensing, upgraded analyses shall be completed to resolve the following issues:
a) thermal response bf the containment atmosphere and essential equipment for a spectrum of accident sequences using revised heat transfer models; b) effects of upper compartment burns on the operation and survival of air return fans and ice condenser doors.
Revised Main Steam Line Break An>1ysis (Section 6.2.1.1, SER)
Prior to initial criticality, a revised main steam line break analysis acceptable to the Comission shall be completed, using a revised heat transfer model accounting for additional heat transfer to steam during tube bundle uncovery in the steam generator.
The rationale for including the second item under Hydrogen Control Measures is provided in the enclosure to this memo.
R. W. Houston, Assistant Director b
N b3 for Reactor Safety J
Division of Systems Integration
Enclosure:
As stated g(?"
- F
(
D 3
/
.v&
contact:
- h. Palla, CSS, X24762 2 ca:as.t.......dgh' W....... css on..(.....
u i
..g.' d.es1.
="*i
"='>I..................., n e.x.t. p.a.g.e,,,,
.ga1 },a:g,n
,,,,',y,oe9,o,n,,,
apa
,,,g,u t ),e 7,,,,,,,,
,,,3.!,,,3,er,,,,
" * > l...... c.d..'..S e,e
,,,,,,,,c
...u!..m.........udh4........u..k4......
.u.5.m.........
> msos..u..e.. cue:4e OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- v 5 c 'o ""-'" -
r
~~
8 m.
. T. Novak cc:
R. fiattson DISTRIBtJTION W. Butler C. Tinkler Docket F He H. Oyksuoger CSS Rdg. File RPalla R. Pakka K. Babbour JShapaker Rt! Houston H. Garg WButler a
t.,
pc.:r )t Nwtk;.......................................
.y :, y ;
9
- e n.,.- : e :... c v :. c-OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- vs.cro ***2
-t.
PROPOSED LICENSE CONDITION REGARDING HYDROGEN CONTROL MEASURES FOR CATAWBA, UNil 1.
' As a result of our ongoing review of hydrogen control matters for LWRs,
.the Containment Systems Branch recommends that the operating license for Catawba include the following license condition regarding Hydrogen Control Measures (Item II.B.7):
Prior to full power licensing, upgraded analyses shall be completed to resolve the following issues:
a) the'rmal response of the containment atmosphere and essential equjpment for a spectrum of accident sequences using revised 6
heat transfer models.
b) effects of upper compartment burns on the operation and sur-vival of air return fans and ice condenser doors.
1 The first proposed license condition stems from the staff's ongoing review of the CLASIX containment code used for degraded core accident analyses and recent results of confirmatory analyses performed by Sandia. As part of the CLASIX code review, CSB requested clarification of the structural heat sink heat transfer models used in the CLASIX containment code. The following pertinent points have been derived from the utility responses:
h e
0 e
a
. e o Heat transfer is at all times based on a temperature difference determined by (Tbul k T,,)) ),
o Heat transfer coefficients for degraded core accident analysis are determined from a natural convection (stagnant) correlation appli-cable to condensation heat transfer, even when T,,)) ) T,g, 3
o CLASIX does not model mass removal from the atmosphere due to con-densation heat transfer.
Based on the description of the CLASIX structural heat sink model, it appears a
that the CLASIX model differs dramatically from generally accepted approaches and is not, as is claimed, consistent with standard methods such as those used in CONTEMPT.
The differences are related to the treatment of the three items cited above.
By comparison, previously accepted approaches are character-ized by the following:
Heat transfer is based on ( sat Twall), when the surface temperature o
of the heat sink is less than sat; i.e.,
wall < T
,g, 3
Heat transfer coefficients are' based on condensation only when o
T,,) ) < Tsat.
o Condensed mass removal is based on condensation heat transfer with provisions for revaporizing a small fraction of the condensate.
e
- e e
e E
e-
, C The ef fect of the CLASIX models would appear to be the de-superheating of the atmosphere too rapidly thus reducing gas temperatures and possibly altering the combustion characteristics. The reduction of gas temperatures due to these modeling deficiencies is non-conservative since the thermal re-sponse of essential equipment is independently evaluated based on the con-tainment temperature profile.
As a result, CLASIX atmosphere temperature calculations and corresponding equipment response analysis may include smaller safety margins then were previously thought to exist.
The net effect of CLASIX model differences on the containment thermal re-sponse is not easily quantified since each aspect. appears to be important only during certain portions of the transient.
Specifically, the use of bulk T
rather than sat in the Uchida correlation results in greater calculated rates of heat transfer from the atmosphere to the heat sirAs. The difference is most significant during hydrogen burns, which time bulk typically exceeds 1000 F while sat remains below 300 F.
Similarly, the use of heat transfer coefficients applicable to the condensing mode of heat transfer at times when condensation is not expected to occur (for T,,)), Tsat) results in calculated heat transfer rates at those times that are approximately an order of magnitude too high. Our confirmatory analyses indicate that the use of condensing heat transfer coefficients is appropriate over only a limited portion of the degraded core transient.
0 6
~
-4 Finally, and perhaps most significantly, failure to remove condensate from the atmosphere, while continuously transferring energy to the heat sinks at a rate corresponding to condensation tends to drive the atmosphere towards saturation when it would otherwise remain superheated.
Thus, it is the view of the staff that the licensee should perform revised thermal analyses to address the aforementioned CLAS!X modeling deficiencies, and supplement these analyses with revised equipment response calculations to de-monstrate survivability for a spectrum of accidents.
The requirement to reassess equipment response for a spectrum of accidents and evaluate air return fan operation / survivability is prompted by the results of recent HECTR ice condenser analyses performed by Sandia as part of the RES Hydrogen Combustion Behavior and Hydrogen Burn Survival programs (References 1 & 2).
Results of these programs, as documented in Reference 2 are being forwarded to all Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards presiding over ice conden-ser plants.
As part of the Sandia work, degraded core accident analyses were carried out using two different steam and hydrogen release schedules. The first set of release rates was the same as used by ice condenser utilities support of their
[
deliberate ignition systems; the second set was developed by Sandia using a more recent version of the MARCH code.
Also, heat sinks simulating plant equipment were included in several compartments of the containment.
e W
e It
5 The HECTR analyses indicate that for certain variations of the S D degraded core sequence, equipment temperatures can exceed the qualification temperature.
- As a result of these findings, the staf f believes that additional parameter analyses should be performed by the licensee to demonstrate equipment survival for a spectrum of accidents.
Furthermore, numerous upper compartment burns were predicted in the nejcrity of the Sandia analyses, and suggest a somewhat greater likelihood of upper compartment burning than was indicated by previous analyses.
Although the staff has reviewed to a limited extent the matter of air return for operation and survival for upper compartment burns as part' of the Sequoyah and McGuire hydrogen control system reviews, we feel that a more detailed analysis and review of the matter of fan survivability is justified especially in light of A' ditional analysis of the ice condenser door the recent Sandia results.
d loads, failure modes, and failure consequences also needs to be performed as a result of the upper compartment burn issue.
f' B
l l-L
f.
~
REFERENCES 1.
Camp, A. L., et. al., MARCH-HECTR Analysis of Selected Accidents in an' Ice. Cont'enser Containment, Second Draft Report, Sandia National Laboratories, November 1983.
- 2.. Dandini, V.
J.,' et al., HECTR Analysis of Equipment Temperature Responses to Selected Hydrogen Burns in an Ice Condenser Contain-ment, Draft Report, Sandia National Laboratories, February 1984.
.=
s l
t l
y w w),.
WV
.s a reg f
g'e UNITED STATES PV
, n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
, s.,
f
,i
{4%;s/j WASWNGTON D. C. 20555 f
j May 8, 1984 Docket Nos: 50-413
' f and 50-414 4
1 s
Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President Nuclear Production Department Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
Dear Mr. Tucker:
Subject:
Requests for Additional Information -
Catawba Nuclear Station As part of the NRC staff's review of hydrogen control for degraded core accidents in ice condenser plants, the staff has identified the need for additional infci-mation in this area (Enclosure II. is a request for additional information regarding the financial qualification of Duke Power Company and other owners of Catawba Unit: I and 2.
Furthermore, the staff has performed a preliminary review of your submittal transmitted by letter dated February 29, 1984, regarding leak before break for Catawba Unit 2 oressurizer surge line. is a request for additional information relate:I to that area.
In order for the NRC staff to review, in a timely manner,"your respenses to the above issues, which have previously been discussed with your staff, We request r
that you provide your responses no later than May 25, 1984.
If you ' require any clarification of this matter, please contact the project manager, Kahtan Jabbour, at (301) 492-7800.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requiremer.ts contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, h
l 4m l
Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
See next page ch,/r-= n
.J
,p7 V lfd % AV T 0 4 n j LN
i o
CATAWBA Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President Nuclear Production Departnent Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte,. North Carolina 28242 cc: William L. Porter, Esq.
North Carolina Electric Membership Duke Power Company Corp.
P.O. Box 33189 3333 North Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 P.O. Box 27306 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds Saluda River Electric Cooperative, 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Inc.
Washington, D. C.
20036 207 Sherwood Drive Laurens, South Carolina 29360 North Carolina MPA-1 P.O. Box 95162 Mr. Peter K. VanDoorn Raleigh, North Carolina 27625 Route 2, Box 179N York, South Carolina 29745 Mr. F.'J. Twogood Power Systems Division Janes D. O'Reilly, Reofonal Administrator Westinghouse Electric Corp.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, P.O. Box 355 Region II Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100
~*
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. J. C. Plunkett, Jr.
NUS Corporation Robert Guild, Esa.
2536 Countryside Boulevard P.O. Box 12097 Clearwater, Florida 33515 Charleston, South Carolina 29412 Mr. Jesse L. Riley, President Palmetto Alliance Carolina Environmental Study Group 2135 i Devine Street 854 Henley Place Columbia, South Carolina 29205 Charlotte, North Carolina 28208 Karen E. Lono Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Assis' tant Attorney General N.C. Department of Justice S.C. Attorney General's Office P.O. Box 629 P.O. Box 115d9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Mr. Pierce H. Skinner Route 2, Rox 179N York, South Carolina 29745 r
}
CATAWBA.
2-cc:' SpenceLPerry, Esquire Associate General Counsel
- Fede'ral Emergency Mariagement Agency Room 840 500.C Street, S.W.~
Washington, D. C.
20472 Mark S. Calvert, Eso.
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 120017th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036
- M 2
A W
n
+
n e.--
,w,
-e
...n.
i.
Enclosure T REQUEST FOR ADDITI0ftAL INFOR!iATI0li
- 1. With regard to the CLASIX code, the staff has previously rer,uested
, clarification of the structural heat sink heat transfer models. The 3
following pertinent points have been derived from the responses:
i)
Heat transfer is based on a temperature differente determined bulk Twall) ii)
He,at transfer coefficients for degraded core accident analysis are determined from a natural convection (stagnant) correlation applicable to condensation heat transfer.
iii)
CLASIX does not explicitly model mass removal due to condensation heat transfer.
Based on the description of the CLASIX stru:tural heat sink model, it j
appears that the CLASIX model differs dramatically from generally accepted approe:hes and is not, as is claimed, consistent with standard methods such as those used in C0h' TEMPT. The differences are related to the treat-ment of the three items cited above.
By comparison, previously accepted approaches are characterized by the following:
1)
Heat transfer is based on (T r
sat T,g)), when the surface j
temperature of the heat sink is less than Tsat; i.e., T,g) (
T
,g.
3 I
l 1
2
- 11) Heat transfer coefficients are based on condensation only when T,,)) (
T sat'
.i ii)
Condensed mass removal is based on condensation heat transfer with provisions for revaporizing a small fraction of the condensate.
d more detailed description of accepted practice is contained in NUREG-DSBB and NUREG/CR-0255.
The effect of the CLASIX models would appear to be the de-superheating of the atmosphere too rapidly thus reducing gas temperatures and possibly altering the combustion characteristics.
Considering the aEove discussion, provide the results of analyses, with acceptable models, to det. ermine the effectiveness of deliberate ignition for the Catawba plant.
The analyses should address the effects of hydrogen combustion on containment integrity and equipment survivability.
Furthermore, the analyses should be performed to address a spectrum of appropriate degraded core accidents.
Specific items that should be addressed include:
a.
Model. input and analytical assumptions; b.
Calculated compartment atomsphere pressure, temperature, and gas concentration transiehts; Equipment temperature response profiles; c.
' d.
Dif ferential pressure transients between compartments which will allow for an evaluation of AP effects on interior structures and mechanical components (e.g. doors, fans) ; and
e.
Considering the capability of the containment shell, crane wall, and the operating deck, perform an analysis to determine the maximum concentration of hydrogen which could be accomodated in a deflagration.
Your estimate should consider realistic initial conditions and approximate combustion parameters.
2.
Provide a complete evaluation of fan (both, air return and hydrogen skierner as applicable) operability and survivability for degraded core accidents.
In this regard discuss the following items:
a.
The identification of conditions which will cause fan overspeed, in terms of differential pressure and duration,.and hydrogen combustion events.
b.
The consequences of fan operation at overspeed conditions. The response should include a discussion of themal and overcurrent breakers in the power supply to the f ans,the setpoints and physical locations of these devices, and the fan loading conditions required to trip the breakers.
c.
Indication to the operator of f an inoperability, corrective actions which may be possible, and the times required for operators to complete these actions.
d.
The capability of fan system components to withstand differential pressure transients (e.g., ducts, blades, thrust bearings, housing),
in ter=s of limiting conditions and components.
j.
3.
Provide an analysis of the pressure differential loading on the ice condenser doors created by hydrogen combustion in the upper plenum and upper compantment.
Describe and justify the assumed or calculated door positions. Provide an evaluation of the ultimate capability of the ice condenser doors to withstand reverse differential pressures.
Discuss the probable failure modes and the consequences of such failures; including the impact on a) adjacent equipment and structures, b) ice bed integrity, and c) flow maldistribution.
4.
Identify the essential equipment needed to function during and after a degraded core accident.
Provide the location inside coritainment for this equipment.
5.
In view of the recent TVA test results with Tayco igniters which indicate desirability of additional spray shielding, please discuss whether supplementary spray shields may be appropriate for the glow
~
plug igniters.
i
1 REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL INFORMATION '
5 OPERATING LICENSE 5 Indicate the estimated annual cost by _ year to operate each unit 1.
a.
of the subject facility for the first five full years of each unit's commercial operation..The types of costs included in the estimates should be indicated and include (but not necessarily be limited to) operation and maintenance expense (with fuel costs shown separately), depreciation, taxes and a reasonable return on investment.
(Enclosed is a form which should be used for each unit for each_ year of the five year period.)
Indicate the projected plant capacity factor (in percent) for each unit during each of the five years.
Provide separate estimates using 50 percent and 60 percent plant capacity factors.
b.
Indicate the unit price per kWh experienced by each applicant on
' system-wide sales of electric power to all customers for the most recent 12-month period.
Indicate the estimated costs of permanently shutting down each unit of 2.
I the facility _(decommissioning costs), stating what is. included in such costs, the assumptions made in estimating the costs, the type of shutdown contemplated, and the intended source of funds to cover these costs.
e La
3.
Provide an estimate of the annual cost to maintain each unit of the shutdown facility in a safe condition.
Indicate what is included in the estimate, assumptions made in estimating costs, and the intended source of funds to cover these costs.
4.
-Have future decommissioning costs for any nuclear and/or non-nuclear facility owned by the. applicant been collected through rates during the useful life of the facility?
If so, cite specific examples and describe the methodology used for inclusion in rates.
Provide the citation and relevant excerpts from any regulatory decisions allowing such decommissioning cost recovery.
Indicate the total amount of decommissioning funds accumulated thus far,"if any.
5.
If the facility is jointly-owned provide copies of the joint participation agreement setting forth the procedures by which the applicants will share operating expenses and decommissioning costs.
THE FOLLOWING FINANCIAL INFORMATION IS REOUIRED FOR EACH INVESTOR-0WNED PARTICIPANT:
6.
Provide copies of the prospectus for the company's most recent security issue and copies of the most recent SEC Form 10-K and 10-0.
I Provide copies of the preliminary prospectus for any pending security issue.
O l
l.
^
Describe aspects of its regulatory environment including, but note 7.
necessarily limited to, the following:
prescribed treatment of construction work in progress and allowance for funds used during construction; rate base (original cost, replacement, fair value, other); accounting for deferred income taxes and investment tax credits; fuel adjustment clauses in effect or proposed; historical, partially projected, or fully projected test year.
Provide citations and relevant excerpts from state and/or Federal B.
statutes, rules or regulations (if any) that designate and require regulatory authorities to establish rates such that the applicant may recover all reasonable costs of operation incurred in the providing of Also provide the citations and relevant utility service to customers.
excerpts from any administrative rulings or court decisions interpreting such statutes, rules, or regulations in the establishing of rates to allow recovery of costs incurred in the providing of utility service.
Describe the nature and amount of its most recent rate relief 9.
In addition, indicate the nature and amount of any pending action (s).
Use the attach,d form to provide this e
rate relief action (s).
Provide copies of the submitted, financially related information.
testimony and exhibits of the staff and company in the most recent rate relief action or pending action.
Furnish copies of the hearing examiner's report and recommendation, and final opinion last issued with respect to each participant, including all financially related exhibits referred to therein.
e e
- ~ -,.
10.
Complete the enclosed fom entitled, " Financial Statistics," for the most recent twelve-month' period and for the previous three calendar years.
e e
- %9
,'m 4
L.
-S-b ATTACHMENT FOR ITEM NO. 1.a.
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF OPERATING NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT:
FOR THE. CALENDAR YEAR 19
- W--.
(thousands of dollars)
Operation'and maintenance expenses Nuclear power generation Nuclear fuel expense (plant factor
%).........$
Other operating expenses...................
Maintenance expenses...........'..........
Total nuclear power generation...........
Transmission expenses.....................
Administrative and general expenses Property and liability insurance...............
Other A.&G expenses.....................
Total A.&G expenses..................
TOTAL 0&M EXPENSES...................
Depreciation expense.......................
Taxes other ~than income taxes Property taxes.........................
Other.............................
Total taxes other than income taxes i
Income taxes - Federal......................
Income taxes - other.......................
Deferred inccma taxes - net..................
Investment tax credit adjustments - net.
-Return-(rate of return:
%)...............
TOTAL ANNUAL COST OF OPERATION 5
4 5
m
-, _.. - - ~, -
n
--..-..m.--
-.4--
~. -
.b.
ATTACHMENT FOR ITEM NO. 9 RATE DEVELOPMENTS Electric Gas Steam Granted Test year utilized.
Annual amount of revenue increase requested -
test year basis (000's)
Date petition filed Annual amount of revenue increase. allowed -
test year basis' (000's)
Percent increase in revenues allowed Date of final order Effective date Rate base finding (000's)
Construction. work in progress included-in Rate base (000's)
Rate of return on rate base authorized Rate of return on -comon equity authorized Revenue Effect (000's)
Amount received in year. granted Amount received in subsequent year (If not available, annualize amounts received in year granted)
Pending Reauests Test year utilized Amount (000's)
Percent increase Date petition filed Date by which decision must be issued Rate of return on rate base requested Rate of return on common equity requested Amount.of rate base requested Amount of construction work in progress requested for inclusion in rate base t
ATTACHMENT FOR ITEM NO. 10 FINANCIAL STATISTICS 12-months' ended (dollarsinmillions) 3
--Earnings available to common equity Average comon equity Rate of return on average comon equity Times total interest earned before FIT:
Gross income (both including and excluding AFDC) + current and deferred FIT + total interest charges + amortization of debt discount and expense Times long-tenn interest earned before FIT:
Gross income (both including and excluding AFDC) + current and deferred FIT + long-tenn interest charges + amortization of debt discount and expense Bond ratings-(end of period)
Standard and Poor's Moody's Times interest and preferred dividends earned after FIT:
Gross income (both including and excluding AFDC) + total interest charges + amortization of debt discount and expense + preferred dividends AFUDC Net income after preferred dividends l
Market price of common Book value of common
~
Market-book ratio (end of period)*
I Earnings avail, for common less AFDC +
depreciation and amortization, deferred taxes, and invest. tax credit adjust.-
deferred 4
Common dividends Ratio Short-term debt Bank loans Co=ercial paper Capitalization ( Amount & Percunt)
Long-term debt Preferred stock Common equity
- If subsidiary company, use parent's data.
RE005STFORFINANCIALINFORMATION OPERATING LICENSES COOPERATIVE APPLICANTS c
1.
Is each participant's percentage ownership share in the facility equal to it's' percentage entitlement in the electrical capacity and output of the plant?
If not, explain the difference (s) and any resultant effect on any participant's obligation to provide its share of operating costs.
2.
Describe the rate-setting authority and rate convenants of the cooperatives and how that authority will be used to ensure the satisfaction of financial obligations 'in relation to operation and eventual permanent shutdown (decommissioning) of the facility.
3.
Provide citations and relevant excerpts from state and/or Federal
' ^~
statutes, rules or regulations (if any) that designate and require regulatory authorities or the applicant itself to establish rates such that the applicant may recover all reasonable costs of operation incurred in the providing of utility service to customers.
Also provide the citations and relevant excerpts from any administrative rulings or court decisions interpreting such-statutes, rules, or regulations in the establishing of rates to allow recovery of costs incurred in the providing of utility service.
4 Have future decommissioning costs for any nuclear and/or non-nuclear facility owned by the applicant been collected through rates during the useful life of the facility?
If so, cite specific
~
examples and describe the methodology used for inclusion in rates.
Provide the citation and relevant excerpts from any regulatory decisions allowing such decommissicning cost recovery.
5.
Describe the nature and amount of the cooperative's most recent rate relief action (s) and its anticipated effect on net margins.
In addition, indicate the nature and amount of any pending rate relief action (s).
6.
If membership cooperatives are involved, explain the contractual arrangements between the cooperative and its members that will
-provide funds for operation and eventual permanent shutdown (decommissioning) of the facility.
Provide representative copies of such contracts.
.7.
Provide copies of the latest annual and interim financial statements.
Also provide copies of similar statements for the corresponding periods ended in the previous year.
t
EncToTiWe m i
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION MATERIALS ENGINEERING BRANCH REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1.
Paragraph 5.2 on page 5-2 of Reference (a) below states that the pipe is subjected to internal pressure and an axial load (underlining added).
Similar statements appear elsewhere in the report, however, other informa-tion presented indicates that the axial force due to pressure is included in the axial load.
Please clarify.
2.
The paragraph at the top of page 3-2 of Reference (a) below identifies the weld connection between the surge line and the pressurizer nozzle as being the limiting location to be analyzed.
Figure 7-2, page 7-12, is a schematic drawing of this location.
Provide the materials properties for the weldment as well as for the base metal, preferably in the form of a J-resistance plot.
State the maximum value of J-material to be considered in your analyses and your basis for it.
References:
(a) Westinghouse Report WCAP-10487 (Enclosure A to the February 29, 1984, letter) " Technical Basis for Eliminating Pressurizer Surge Line Ruptures as the Structural Design Basis for Catawba Units 1 and 2", February 10, 1984, proprietary.
(b) Westinghouse Report WCAP-10488 (Enclosure B to the February 29,
+
1984, letter) " Technical Basis for Eliminating Pressurizer Surge Line Ruptures as the Structural Design Basis for Catawba Units 1 and 2", February 10, 1984, non-proprietary.
s b-O
- -