ML20054E777

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

ML20054E777
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	06/07/1982
From:	Netzel R COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., SARGENT & LUNDY, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20054E730	List: ML20054E729 ML20054E733 ML20054E739 ML20054E747 ML20054E750 ML20054E751 ML20054E753 ML20054E755 ML20054E757 ML20054E758 ML20054E759 ML20054E760 ML20054E763 ML20054E766 ML20054E767 ML20054E768 ML20054E772 ML20054E773 ML20054E777
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206140210
Download: ML20054E777 (10)

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.)