ML19305B922

Forwards Response to NRC 800225 Ltr Re Potential Turbine Disc Cracking in Operating Westinghouse Nuclear Low Pressure Turbine.Affidavit & Nonproprietary Version Encl.Proprietary Version Withheld (Ref 10CFR2.790)

ML19305B922
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	03/18/1980
From:	Clayton F ALABAMA POWER CO.
To:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8003200641
Download: ML19305B922 (15)

Text

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

, 600.N:rth 18tn Street i ost offic] Box 2641 Birmingnam. Alabama 35291 Telghtn] 205 323-5341 hk l

hM'C ist Alabama Power rne scornem erec:nc s6 tem March 18, 1980 Mr. D. G. Eisenhut, Acting Director Division of operating Peactors Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Begulatory Ommission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Eisenhut:

'Ihis letter is in response to your letter of February 25, 1980 concerning potential turbine disc cracking in operating Westinghouse nuclear icw pressure turbines.

Your letter stated that both the generic and site specific responses should be trarsnitted to NPC within tanty (20) days of the issuance of the letter.

Subsequent verbal agrement between Mr. Bill Ibss of your office and Mr.

Wayne Stiede of the Turbine Disc Integrity Task Force on March 13, 1980 and between Mr. Bill Ibss and Mr. T. N. Fpps of Alabama Power Ccnpany on March 17, 1980 confi M that an extension to March 17, 1980 for the site specific and to March 24, 1980 for the generic responses was granted.

Per your request in the February 25, 1980 letter, responses to the generic questions have been coordinated through a task force whose representation includes all owners of Westinghouse low pressure turbines and is chaired by Mr. Wayne Stiede c,. Ocamenwealth Edison. 'Ihe consersus responses to the generic questions have been sutznitted to you by Westinghouse at the request of the task force. Alabara Power Company is in concurrence with the re-sponse provided by Festinghouse.

In resperse to the site specific questions of your letter, Alabama Power cenpany subnits Enclosure 1. Enclosure 1 contains proprietary inferration of the Westinghouse Electric 03rp3 ration. In conformance with the require-ments of 10CFR 2.790, as amended, of the Ocmmission's regulations, an application for withholding frcm public disclosure and an affidavit are en-closed. 'Ihe affidavit sets forth the basis on which the information ray he withheld frcm public disclosure by the Otmnission. Corressendence with ,

respect to the affidavit or applicatien for withholding should reference p-AW-80-1 and should be addressed to Mr. R. Willie<ri, Manager, Custczner g b

f E

y,e YL g PDCrop LPOE. i 9P 8003 209 Q7 m IO f

Mr. D. G. Eisenhut, Acting Director Division of Operating Beactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation March 18, 1980 Page Order Engineering, Westinghouse Electric (brporatica, Steam Turbine Divisions Imster Branch, Box 9175, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,19113.

Yours very truly,

, r _. ... .

F. L. Clayton,.,Jr.

MrM/d (SWOIN IV AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME Enclosure ingIs 3 DAY OF MAPCH,1980.

cc: Mr. R. A. Thcznas ff j f/ ,4 ,

Mr. G. F. Trowbridge , , [) i Jf tj, f(f 'L .,

NCfrAIU PUBLIC j My Cmmission Expires: f./.7 h)

AW-80-1 March 14, 1980 Darrell C.' Eisenhut Division of Operating Reactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation US Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington DC 20555 APPLICATION FOR WITHHOLDING PROPRIETARY INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

Subject:

Farley #1 Docket d50-348 Information in Response to NRC Request for Information of Feb ruary 25, 1980, Relative to Low Pressure Turbine Disc Integrity.

Reference:

Appendix A letter from F. L. Clayton, Jr. to Eisenhut, dated 3/17/80

Dear Mr. Eisenhut:

This application for withholding is submitted by Westinghouse Electric Corporation (" Westinghouse") pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations. Withholding from public disclosure is requested with respect to the subject information which is further identified in the affidavit accompanying this application.

The undersigned has reviewed the information sought to be withheld and is authorized to apply for its withholding on behalf of Westinghouse, STG-TOD.

The affidavit accompanying this application sets forth the basis on which the information may be withheld from public disclosure by the Commission and addresses with specificity the considerations listed in paragraph (b)(4) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations.

Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the subject infonnation which is proprietary to Westinghouse and which is further identified in the affi-davit be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations.

Correspondence wxth respect to this application for withholding or the accom-panying af fidavit should be addressed to the undersigned.

Very truly yours,

$~fY.JY R. Williamson, Manager Customer Order Engineering Westinghouse Electric Corporation

Ref: AW-80-1 AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF DELAWARE:

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Robert Williamson, who, being by me duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is authorized to execute this Affidavit on behalf of Westinghouse Electric Corporation ("Westin6 house") and that the averments of fact set forth in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief:

,.h b .c.~

Robert Williamson, Manager Customer Order Engineering Swom b a.91 smp;;;e3 bc cie me ines.).,$ ...daf ut.(b.I \19.'.'i..

d_A,. U.N . .

cr a' v,sCtM -s i

HENRY E. SQUILLACE Nvary Pneic. varple Tap Ot!sware Co.

My Cerr.r.ission hpues Oct. 15. 1980

~

(1) I am Manager, Customer Order Engineering in the Steam Turbine Generator Technical Operatier.s Division of Westinghouse Electric Corporation and as such, I have been specifically delegated the function of reviewing the proprietary information sought to be withheld from public disclosure in connection with nuclear power plant licensing, and am authorized to apply for its withholding on behalf of the Westinghouse Power Generation Divisions.

(2) I am making this Affidavit in conformance with the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2 790 of the Commission's regulations and in conjunction with the Westinghouse application for withholding accompanying this Affidavit.

(3) I have personal knowledge of the criteria and procedures utilized by Westinghouse Power Generation Divisions in designating informa-tion as a trade secret, privileged or as confidential commercial or financial information.

(4) Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, the following is furnished for con-sideration by the Commission in determining whether the information sought to be withheld from public disclosure should be withheld.

(1) The information sought to be withheld from public disclosure is owned and has been held in confidence by Westinghouse.

(ii) The information is of a type customarily held in confidence by Westinghouse and not customarily disclosed to the pub-lic. Westinghouse has a rational basis for determining the types of information customarily held in confidence by it and, in that connection, utilizes a system to determine when and whether to hold certain types of information in confi-dence. The application of that system and the substance of that system ccnstitutes Westinghouse policy and provides the rational basis required.

T Under that system, information is held in confidence if it falls in one or more of several types, the release of which might result in the loss of an existing or potential com-petitive advantage, as follows:

(a) The information reveals the distinguishing aspects of a process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.)

where prevention of its use by any of Westinghouse's competitors without license from Westinghouse consti-tutes a competitive economic advantage over other companies.

(b) It consists of supporting data, including test data, relative to a process (or component, structure, tool, metnod, etc.), the application of which data secures a competitive economic advantage, e.g., by optimization or improved marketability.

(c) Its use by a competitor would reduce his expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing a similar product.

(d) It reveals cost or price information, production capac-ities, budget levels, or commercial strategies of West-inghouse, its customers or suppliers.

(e) It reveals aspects of past, present, or future Westing-house or customer funded development plans and programs of potential commercial value to Westinghouse.

(f) It contains patentable ideas, for which patent protec-

' tion may be desirable.

'(g) It is not the property of Westinghouse, but must be treated as prcprietary by Westinghouse according to agreements with the owner.

( .

(h) Public disclosure of this information would allow un-fair and untruthful judgments or the performance and reliability of Westinghouse equtpment components and improper comparison with similar components made by competitors.

There are sound policy reasons behind the Westinghouse system which include the following:

(a) The use of such information by Westinghouse gives West-inghouse a ccmpetitive advantage over its competitors.

It is, therefore, withheld from disclosure to protect the Westinghouse competitive position.

(b) It is information which is marketable in many ways.

The extent to which such information is available to competitors diminishes the Westinghouse ability to sell products and services involving the use of the information.

(c) Use by our competitor would put Westinghouse at a ccm-petitive disadvantage by reducing his expenditure of resources at our expense.

(d) Each component of proprietary information pertinent to a particular competitive advantage-is potentially as J

valuable as the total competitive advantage. If com-petitors acquire components of proprietary information, any one component may be the key to the entire puzzle, thereby depriving Westinghouse-of a competitive advantage.

(e) Unrestricted disclosure would jeopardize the position of prominence of Westinghouse in the world market, and-thereby.give a market advantage to the competition in those countries.

( f) The Westinghouse capacity to invest corporate assets in research and development depends upon the success in obtaining and maintaining a competitive advantage.

("iii) The information is being transmitted to the Commission in confidence and, under the provisions of 10 CFR Sec-tion 2 790, it is to be received in confidence by the Commission.

(iv) The information is not available in public sources to the best of our knowledge and belief.

(v) The proprietary information sought to be withheld in this submittal is that which is appropriately marked in Appen-dix A to letter from F. L. Clayton, Jr. to Eisenhut, dated March 17, 1980 concerning infor-mation in response to NRC request for information of February 25, 1980, relative to low pressure turbine disc integrity.

The information enables Westinghouse to:

(a) Develop test inputs and procedures to satisfactorily verify the design of Westinghouse supplied equipment.

(b) Assist its customers to obtain licenses.

Further, the information has substantial commercial value as follows.

(a) Westinghouse can sell the use of this information to Customers.

(b) Westinghouse uses the information to verify the design of equipment which is sold to customers.

(c) Westindhouse can sell services based upon the exper-1ence gained and the test equipment and methods developed.

Public disclosure of this information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of Westinghouse because it would enhance the ability of competitors to design, manufacture, verify, and sell electrical equipment for commercial turbine-generators without commensurate expenses. Also, public disclosure of the information would enable others having the same or similar equipment to use the information to meet NRC requirements for licensing documentation without purchasing the right to use the information.

The development of the equipment described in part by the information is the result of many years of development by Westinghouse and the expenditure of a considerable sum of money.

This could only be duplicated by a competitor if he were to invest similar sums of money and provided he had the appro-priate talent available and could somehow obtain the requi-site experience.

' Further the deponent sayeth not.

.J

WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETAE EMCt.0SURE I.A. Turbine Type Response: The Farley Unit 1 turbine is a tandem compound four flow, three casings, condensing 1800 RPM unit utilizing 44 inch last row blades in each To,w pressure element. The low pressure element is designated as Building Block 281.

I.B. Number of Hours of Operation for each LP Turbine at Time of Last Inspection or if not inspected, Postulated to inspect' ,

Response: The first inspection of the low pressure turbines will be performed prior to startup after the third refueling outage presently scheduled for the fall,1981. Operating hours at that time will be less than 26,200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br />.

I.C Number of Turbine Trips and Overspeeds 3- overspeed trip tests (103%)

84 - turbine trips at power 13 - turbine shutdowns D. For each disc:

1. Type of material including material specification;.

,_ 2. Tensile properties data.

3. Toughness properties data including Fracture Appearance Transition Temperature and upper energy and temperature.

4. Keyway temperatures.

5. Calculated keyway crack size for turbine time specified in 'B' above.

6. Critical crack size.

7. Ratio of calculated crack to critical crack size.

8. Crack growth rate.

9. Calculated bore and keyway stress at operating design overspeed.

10. Calculated K lc data.

11. Minimum yield strength specified for each disc.

Response: 1. Type of material is Ni-Cr-Mo-V alloy steel similar to ASIN A-471.

The minimum yield strength specified for each disc is given in

. Table I. Disc composition is given in Table II.

2.&3. Tensile and toughness properties are given in Table I.

4. The keyway temperature is presented in Table I for each disc. This is the calculated temperature two inches from the exhaust face of the disc at the bore during full load operation with all moisture separator reheaters functioning.

5. The maximum keyway crack size, A, is presented in Table I.

This value is detemined by multiplying crack growth rate, dA/dt (given in Table:I) by the number of operating hours at the time the turbine is to be inspected. Operating hours used is given in response to question I.B. - 26,200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br />.

.~..~._- - - _ ___ _ _- _ _ _ ., _ o -

' - ~

EL@fEMis NON-PIOPRIETFW

6. Th3 critical crack size, ACR, AT 1800 RPM and at d2 sign overspeed (120%) is given in Table I. It is calculated using the rel'tionship below provided by Westinghouse: b,c e t

r i

7. The ratio of calculated to critical crack size A/ACR, is given in Table I.

8. Crack growth rate dA/dt is given in Table I.

9. Calcula^ed bore tangential stress at operating speed (1800 RPM) and design overspeed (2160 RPM) is given in Table I. There values include the stress due to shrink fit and centrifugal force loads only. Additional analyses to include thermal and pressure stresses are being made, but are not presently

__ available.

10. Calculated toughness, K IC, is given in Table I. These values are calculated from the harpy V-notch and tensile data.

These temperatures are at the upper shelf temperature or room temperature, whichever gives the lower result.

11. Minimum yield strength is given in Table I.

II. Provide details of the results of any completed inservice inspection of LP

__ turbine rotors, including areas examined, since issuance of an operating license. For each indication detected, provide details of the location of the crack, its orientation, and size.

Response: Inservice _ inspection has not been performed on the LP turbines.

WESTIflGHOUSE NCtF-PIOPPN' III. Provide the nominal water chemistry conditions for each LP turbine and describe any condenser inleakages or other significant changes in secondary water chemistry to this point in its operating life. Discuss the occurrence of cracks in any given turbine as related to history of secondary water chemistry in the unit.

Response

The steam is sampled upstream of the high pressure turbine. There are no sample points between the High Pressure Turbine and Low Pressure Turbine. The nominal water chemistry conditions upstream of the High Pressure Turbine are as follows:

Cation Conductivity - Nonnal opn: 0.16-0.25 Micromho/cm Startup: 4 0.5 Micromho/cm Silica - Normal opn: < 5 ppb Startup: < 15 ppb Nonnal _ operational chloride values in the steam generator blowdown are nondetectable (<0.05 ppm). The only significant deviations from this are discussed below. Since the moisture carryover is 40.25%, the resultant chloride concentration in the steam is nondetectable.

Identified condenser inleakage has occurred on three occasions:

December 13, 1977: A rain tray came loose inside condenser A, rupturing one tube and puncturing a second tube. The cation conductivities in the steam generators ranged from 38.5 to 52.3 Micromho/cm; the chloride concentrations ranged from 3.0 to 4.15 ppm. The unit was shutdown and the steam generators and secondary system was drained and rinsed while the rain tray was repaired and the

~-

tubes plugged. The steam generators were brought to within specifications within 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br />.

April 27, 1978: A leak occurred in B condenser. The unit was reduced in power; the affected condenser half was isolated and the leaking tube was plugged. Steam generator cation conductivities ranged from 53.3 to 57.4 Micremho/cm; the chloride concentra-tions ranged frcm 1.97 to 2.47 ppm. The steam generators were brought to within specifications within 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br />.

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

WESTINGHOUSE NCti-PTOPPJETAlW May 28, 1978: During an inspection of the condensers, two tubes in 8 condenser were found to have very minor leaks. The tubes were plugged. Prior to this time, both the steam generators and secondary system chemistry had been within specificTtions.

Correlation t,etween secondary water chemistry and the occurrence of cracks cannot be made since no inspection of the low pressure turbines has been performed.

IV. If your plant has not been inspected, describe your proposed schedule and approach to ensure that turbine cracking does not exist in your turbine.

Response: A regularly- scheduled ultrasonic examination will be per-formed on the Unit 1 LP turbines prior to startup after the third refueling outage. Our analysis shows that if cracking does occur, the maximum expected crack size compared to the critical crack size will be less than 1.0 at the proposed time of inspection. See Table I for values of A/A CR for each disc.

V. If your plant has been inspected and plans to return or has returned to power with cracks, provide your proposed schedule for the next

_ turbine inspection and the basis for this inspection schedule.

Response: Low pressure turbines have not been inspected.

VI. Indicate whether an analysis and evaluation regarding turbine missiles have been performed for your plant and provided to the staff. If such an analysis and evaluation has been performed and reported, please provide appropriate references to the availab.le documentation. In the event that such studies have not been made, consideration should be given to scheduling such an action.

Response: As stated in the FHP FSAR, Section 10.2.3, because of the extensive overspeed and backup controls designed into the turbine generator system (as described in FSAR, Section 10.2.2), no potential turbine missiles have been postulated. Upon receipt of turbine missile probability data from Westinghouse (anticipated July,1980), Alabama Power Company will consider scheduling an analysis i regarding turbine missiles.

i

i LE I ,

WESTINGif00SE FOti-FROPIUhT. AIN DISC PROPERTIES LP h0. 1 GOV. END LP th.1 GEti. END LP NO. 2 goy [hD LP NO. 2 GEtl. EhD

> PROFERTY 1l 2l 3l 4 l 5 1l 2l 3l4 l5 1l 2l 3 4l5 1 l 2 l 3 l 4l 5 s Hin. Yield Strength (KSI)

.- b,cg Yield Strength HUS (KSI) RIH UltizJte Tensile ifJD Strength (KSI) RIH Elin ation HUB (1 RlH Reduction Area 11U0 (in2) filH

' fract. Appearar.ce 10 8 Trar.sition Terp. (cF) RIH Rooa Temp HUD Terp. (Of )Ir. pact RIH Upper Shelf impact HUD o Temp.(OF) Rit!

Upper Shelf Impact HUB

• Energy (ft-lb.) RIH I

Upper Shelf KIC

• "10 (LSI-SQRT(in.))  !!! .

Sare Stress 1600 RPM w (KSI) 2160 RPH

{ Critical Size. A Crack 1800 RFil 2l00 RPH

ep

• H. b Xetal Terp. 1800 RPfl 4

(Of)  ! .

) -

J ,Est 'Hax.-h (in/hr.)

Hax. Crack Sire A (in) 1600 RPH Al#cr 2160 RPH

~

llllll ll l O 04 '

' e.

f c,

E4 b

N E

G3 2

O N2 P

L 1

5 D

N E4 V

O G

3 i

2 0

N 2

N P N L T

E I

R 1 P

O T

P- 5 J N D O I

I I T D I I N E S E4

S E O U L P .

O B M N H A O E G T C G N 3 I

C 1 T S S I .

E D 0 W N 2

P L

1 i

5 D

N E4 V

O G

3 1

01 1

z P

L l

T N

E U

T I

T C u i R . v l S B N L U s S

l f

n s C ,

i t A S S A C 0

C