ML20217J916
| ML20217J916 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1998 |
| From: | Jacob Zimmerman NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Dennis Morey SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. |
| References | |
| GL-92-01, GL-92-1, TAC-MA0301, TAC-MA0302, TAC-MA301, TAC-MA302, NUDOCS 9804070068 | |
| Download: ML20217J916 (10) | |
Text
.e.;
c, S
)
'p '
r UNITED STATES
'j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
?
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-4001 April 3, 1998 g
g g
. Mr. D. N. Morey Vice President - Fariey Project Southem Nucisar Operating Company, Inc.
1 Post Office Box 1295
- Birmingham, Alabama 35201-1295 i
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING REACTOR i
L PRESSURE VESSEL INTEGRITY AT JOSEPH M.- FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, -
-l UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. MA0301 AND MA0302)
Dear Mr. Morey:
Generic Letter (GL) 92-01, Revision 1, Supplement 1 (GL 92-01, Rev.1, Supp.1), " Reactor Vessel Structural integrity" was issued in May 1995. This GL requested licensees to perform a review of their reactor pressure vessel (RPV) structural integrity assessments in order to identify, collect, and report any new data pertinent to the analysis of the structural integrity of their RPVs and to assess the impact of those data on their RPV integrity analyses relative to
)
the requirements of Section 50.60 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 1
50.60),10 CFR 50.61, Appendices G and H to 10 CFR Part 50 (which encompass pressurized thermal shock (PTS) and upper shelf energy (USE) evaluations), and any potential impact on low temperature overpressure (LTOP) limits or pressure-temperature (PT) limits.
After reviewing your response, the NRC issued you a letter dated August 13,1996, for Farley Units 1 and 2. In this letter we acknowledged receipt of your response, noted that additional RPV information may become available as a result of Owners Group efforts and requested that you provide us with the results of the Owners Groups' programs relative to your plant. We further indicated that a plant-specific TAC Number may be opened to review this material. In July 1997, the Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG) provided a report with additional RPV weld chemistry data for RPVs fabricated by CE. This additional RPV weld chemistry data may affect previous RPV integrity analyses supplied by licensees with CE fabricated RPVs. As a follow-up to the letter and the CEOG report, and in order to provide a complete response to items 2, 3, and 4 of the GL, the NRC requests that you provide a response to the enclosed request for additional information (RAI) within 90 days of receipt of this letter. If a question does not apply to your situation, please indicate this in your RAI J
response along with your technical basis and, per GL 92-01, Rev.1, Supp.1, provide a l
certification that previously submitted evaluations remain valid.
The information provided will be used in updating the Reactor Vessel Integrity Data Base.
Also, please note that RPV integrity analyses utilizing newly identified data could result in the need for license amendments in order to maintain compliance with 10 CFR Part 50.60, 10 CFR 50.61 (PTS), and Appendices G and H to 10 CFR Part 50, and to address any potential impact on LTOP limits or PT limits. If additional license amendments or assessments are necessary, the enclosed RAI requests that you provide a schedule for such submittals.
M h
hh hh-9804070068 900403 PDR ADOCK 05000348 p
i 1
I D. N. Morey April 3,1998 in order to permit a timely review of this issue, it is requested that the information be provided 4
within 90 days of receipt of this letter. If you should have any questions regarding this request, please contact me at (301) 415-2426.
Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Jacob 1. Zimmerman, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-2 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364
Enclosure:
As stated j
cc w/ encl: See next page Distribution:
Docket File PUBLIC PD 11-2 Rdg.
JZwolinski HBerkow LBerry JZimmerman AHiser GVissing OGC ACRS LPlisco, Rll PSkinner, Ril To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE PM:PD1ff LA:PDilf t lp PRpil(2bl l
l NAME JZimp64# nan:en LBerry V6f HBudw /
DATE
!/ // /s8 h /2A/98 i/)/98
/ /98
/ /98
/ /97 4
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 4
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\FARLEY\\MA0543.RAI
/
D. N. Morey In order to permit a timely review of this issue, it is requested that the information be provided within 90 days of receipt of this letter. If you should have any questions regarding this request, please contact me at (301) 415-2426.
Sincerely, l
y, y, ~
%=
J b ic Zimmerman, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-2 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/ll Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl: See next page I
i 1
)
1 1
' Joseph M. Fariey Nuclear Plant cc:
Mr. R. D. Hill, Jr.
General Manager-Southem Nuclear Operating Company Post Office Box 470 Ashford, Alabama 36312 Mr. Mark Ajiuni, Licensing Manager Southem Nuclear Operating Company Post Office Box 1295-
~-
Birmingham, Alabama 35201-1295 Mr. M. Stanford Blanton Balch and Bingham Law Firm Post Office Box 306 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Mr. J. D. Woodard Executive Vice President Southem Nuclear Operating Company Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 State Health Officer Alabama Department of Public Health 434 Monroe Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1701 Chairman Houston County Commission Post Office Box 6406 Dothan, Alabama 36302 Regional Administrator, Region ll U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Suite 23T85 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7388 N. State Highway 95 Columbia, Alabama 36319
j REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL INTEGRITY Section 1 A Assessment of Best-Estimate Chemistry The staff recently received additional information that may affect the determination of the best-estimate chemistry composition for your RPV welds or your surveillance weld material. This information was provided to the NRC by the Combustion Engineering Owners' Group in report CE NPSD-1039, Revision 02, "Best Estimate Copper and Nickel Values in CE Fabricated Reactor Vessel Welds," dated June 1997.
Based on this information, in accordance with the provisions of Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1, Supplement 1, the NRC requests the following:
1.
An evaluation of the information in the reference above and an assessment of its applicability to the determination of the best. estimate chemistry for all of your RPV beltline welds. Based upon this reevaluation, supply the information necessary to completely fill out the data requested in Table 1 for each RPV beltline weld material.
Also provide a discussion for the copper and nickel values chosen for each weld wire heat noting what heat-specific data were included and excluded from the analysis and the analysis method chosen for determining the best-estimate. If the limiting material for your vessel's PTS /PT limits evaluation is not a weld, include the information requested in Table 1 for the limiting material also. Furthermore, you should consider the information provided in Section 2.0 of this RAI on the use of surveillance data when responding.
With respect to your response to this question, the staff notes that some issues regarding the evaluation of the data were discussed in a public meeting with the staff, NEl, and industry representatives on November 12,1997. A summary of this meeting is documented in a meeting summary dated November 19,1997, " Meeting Summary for November 12,1997, Meeting with Owners Group Representatives and NEl Regarding Review of Responses to Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1, Supplement 1 Responses" (Reference 1). The information in Reference 1 may be useful in helping you to prepare your response.
In addition to the issues discussed in the referenced meeting, you should also consider what method should be used for grouping sets of chemistry data (in particular, those from weld qualification tests) as being from "one weld" or from multiple welds. This is an important consideration when a mean-of-the-means or coil-weighted average approach is determined to be the appropriate method for determining the best-estimate chemistry. If a weld (or welds) were fabricated as weld qualification specimens by the same manufacturer, within a short time.
span, using similar welding input parameters, and using the same coil (or coils in the case of tandem arc welds) of weld consumables, it may be appropriate to consider all chemistry samples from that weld (or welds) as samples from "one weld" for the purposes of best-estimate chemistry determination. If information is not available to confirm the aforementioned details, but sufficient evidence exists to reasonably assume the details are the same, the best-estimate chemistry should be evaluated both by assuming the data came from "one weld" and Enclosure
, by assuming that the data came from an appropriate number of " multiple welds." A Justification should then be provided for which assumption was chosen when the best-estimate chemistry was determined.
Section 2.0. Evaluation and Use of Surveillance Data The chemical composition report referenced in Section 1.0 includes updated chemistry -
estimates for heats of weld metal. These reports not only provide a suggested best-estimate value but also include the source data used in estimating the chemical composition of the heat of material. This permits the determination of the best-estimate chemical composition for the various sources of data including surveillance welds. Since the evaluation of surveillance data rely on both the best-estimate chemical composition of the RPV weld and the surveillance weld, the information in these reports may result in the need to revise previous evaluations of RPV integrity (including LTOP setpoints and PT limits) per the requirements of 10 CFR 50.60, 10 CFR 50.61, and Appendices G and H to 10 CFR Part 50.
Based on this information and consistent with the provisions of Generic Letter g2-01, Revision 1, Supplement 1, the NRC requests the following:
2.
(1) The information listed in Table 2, Table 3, and the chemistry factor from the surveillance data be provided for each heat of material for which surveillance weld data are available and a revision in the RPV integrity analyses (i.e., current licensing basis) is needed or (2) a certification that previously submitted evaluations remain valid.
Separate tables should be used for each heat of material addressed. If the limiting material for your vessel's PTS /PT limits evaluation is not a weld, include the information requested in the tables for the limiting material (if surveillance data are available for this material).
The information discussed in Section 1.0 of this RAI regarding the chemistry reports should be considered in this response along with the following questioris and comments.
All surveiltence program results for the heats of material in an RPV should be considered in evaluating its integrity regardless of source per 10 CFR 50.61 (" Surveillance program results means any data that demonstrates the embrittlement trends for the limiting beltline material, including but not limited to data from test reactors or from surveillance programs at other plants with or without surveillance program integrated per 10 CFR 50, Appendix H."). If any of the data provided in Table 2 are not used in the calculation of the embrittlement trend for a particular RPV weld, the technical basis for not including /using the data should be provided.
When assessing credibility of surveillance data that come from more than one source, adjustments to the surveillance data may be needed to account for differences in the chem' cal composition and irradiation environment of the different sources consistent with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.61. A method for accounting for these differences is discussed in Reference 1.
w
, bw.d on the information provided in Table 2, the credibility of the surveillance data can be evaluated. The results of these analyses including the slope of the best fit line through the surveillance data can be provided in a format similar to that of Table 3. If the method for adjusting and/or normalizing the surveillance data when assessing credibility differ from the methods documented in Reference 1, provide the technical basis for the adjustment and/or the normalization procedure. If the chemical composition of the surveillance weld is not determined in accordance with Reference 1 (i.e., the mean of all chemistry analyses performed on the surveillance weld), provide the technical basis for the estimate.
When determining the chemistry factor for en RPV weld from surveillance data, adjustments to the surveillance data may be needed to account for differences in the chemical composition and irradiation environment between the surveillance specimens and the vessel being assessed consistent with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.61. A method to account for these differences is provided in Reference 1.
In addition,10 CFR 50.61(c)(2) specifies that licensees shall consider plant-specific information (e.g., operating temperaSre and surveillance data) to verify that the RT, for each vessel beltline material is a bounding value.
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.99, Revision 2, describes two methods for determining the amount of margin and the chemistry factor used in determining RTw. Position 1.1 describes the use of the Generic Tables in the Regulatory Guide. Position 2.1 describes the use of credible surveillance data, if the surveillance data are credible, the o, may be reduced in half to calculate the margin term and the chemistry factor is to be determined from the best-fit line of the surveillance data. If the evaluation of the surveillance data indicate that the surveillance data set is not credible and the measured values of ARTm are less than the projected mean from the Tables plus the generic 20, the chemistry factor may be calculated using either 4
Position 1.1 or Position 2.1; however, the full margin term must be applied. The method chosen must bound all the surveillance data to be in compliance with 10 CFR 50.61(c)(2).
Based on the information provided in Table 2 along with the best-estimate chemical composition of the heat of material and the irradiation temperature of the plant whose vessel is being assessed, the chemistry factor of the RPV weld can be determined. Note that the adjusted ART, for a particular surveillance data point may be one value when determining credibility and another value when determining the chemistry factor as a result of the different normalization procedures. If the method for adjusting and/or normalizing the surveillance data when determining the chemistry factor differs from the methods documented in Reference 1, provide the technical basis for the adjustment and/or the normalization procedure.
In a meeting between the staff and industry representatives at the NRC on February 12,1998, an industry representative requested a clarification as to when the ratio procedure should be used to evaluate surveillance data. The ratio procedure is described in the PTS rule and RG 1.99, Revision 2. The ratio procedure is used to adjust the measured value of ARTa to account for differences in the chemical composition between the surveillance weld and the vessel beltline weld. The PTS rule and RG 1.99, Revision 2, indicate that when there is clear
4 evidence that the copper and nickel content of the surveillance weld differs from the vessel weld, i.e., differs from the average for the weld wire heat number associated with the vessel weld and the surveillance weld, the ratio procedure must be used.
Section 3.0: PTS /PT Limit Evaluation 3.
If the limiting material for your plant changes or if the adjusted reference temperature for the limiting material increases as a result of the above evaluations, provide the revised RTm value for the limiting material in accordance with 10 CFR 50.61. In addition, if the I
adjusted RT value increased, provide a schedule for revising the PT and LTOP limits.
The schedule should ensure that compliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix G is maintained.
Reference 1.
Memorandum from Keith R. Wichman to Edmund J. Sullivan, " Meeting Summary for November 12,1997, Meeting with Owners Group Representatives and NEl Regarding.
Review of Responses to Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1, Supplement 1 Responses,"
dated November 19,1997.
Attachments:
- 1. Table 1
- 2. Tables 2,3 i
a 1
t ne m
hca t
m A
t T L R O roE t
Ta RA ingra M
3o a
s l
,o ia r
e ta r
M o)g T
g R e r
n i
la T, it im it R i
L n(
i r
o
/
d g
n f
)
oin a
1 n
d di2
(
omP 0
1 le h
reC E
W et 1
t L
n B
V Me io D
A P
t a
t c
T R
e e
S H
n
)
o yF n
e dl d
eatrC i
i r
e nis(
d W
r i gemr e
ts t
t d
isaeto s
e l
u sMh c e
e A
Ca u
W qe F
q r
e h
r n
c o
s a
D e *)
a E
it c
a l
I m
Le1 ia r
n0 o
r a f
Ou et ro t a d
f elf (x ad e
n me s
m I
c U
u gn s
a s
e n a t
t l i
- ae i
a u
smk it l
l t
eic ime D
cs v
i r
d D
i l
BtsN eu n
E hs a
t m
d fo o o
r h
e r nf t
ta e or e
t p
t o M
i smp a
ei Bt o ic s s
sC e
i f
s l
E it b y
n a l
r et a
n e
e dm A
i ru irI lar e
o V W "t tc ifr h
t a
P a
t a
d ed Rl e t
fu eH a e f
e n
o H
na W
mi n
e m
o M
er is ir h e W
-yl t t s
e t
r e a
iis od d
l 1 2 im cs l
) )
e ae D
W FV
((
e.
Table 2: Heat xxxx Capsule ID Cu Ni irradiaten Fluence Measured Data Used in (including Temperature (x10"n/crn')
ART.
Assessing Vessel source)
(*F)
(*F)
(Y or N)
Table 3: Heat xxxx Capsule ID Cu Ni irradiation Fluona Measured Adjusted Predicted (Adjusted -
(including Temperature Factor ART.
ARTc ARTc Predicted) ARTc source)
(*F)
(*F)
('F)
('F)
('F) i 6
.