ML17229A234
| ML17229A234 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 02/14/1997 |
| From: | Elliot B NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Hebdon F NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| TAC-M95484, TAC-M95485, NUDOCS 9702190181 | |
| Download: ML17229A234 (5) | |
Text
February 14, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO:
Frederick J.
- Hebdon, Project Director Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects, I/II FROM:
SUBJECT:
Barry J. Elliot. Acting Section Chief Material Integrity Section Materials and Chemical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering ST.
LUCIE UNITS 1 AND 2 PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK EVALUATION Plant Name:
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2
License:
Florida Power and Light Company TAC Nos.:
H95484/M95485 Review Status:
Continuing By letter dated Hay 14, 1996, the licensee submitted a pressurized thermal shock (PTS) evaluation for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2.
A request for additional information (RAI) was issued by the staff on October 15, 1996.
The licensee responded to the RAI by letter dated January 14, 1997.
The Materials and Chemical Engineering Branch of the Division of Engineering has reviewed the licensee's response to the RAI, and has developed additional questions needed to complete its assessment.
In the Attachment, Request for Additional Information, the staff has listed the outstanding questions.
Docket Nos.:
50-335 and 50-389
Attachment:
As stated cc:
L. Wiens K. Wichman (Acting Branch Chief)
CONTACT:
A. Lee, NRR 415-2735 DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC Central Files JStrosnider HHayfield EHCB RF/PF 6:NLEEN2NDSTLUC.RAI To receive a copy of this document.
with attachment/enclosure N
No co tIKIC IrrIQ ~>ltd% CWW I
indicate in the box C-Copy w/o attachment/enclosure E-Copy ~l I
OFFICE NAME DATE DE:EHCB ALee 2/ 0/97 DE:EMCB BElliot 2/g97 330029 97Oii9Olsi 9702ie PDR ADQCK 05000335 I
P PDR
e 1
P."
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
February 14, 1997 Frederick J.
Hebdon, Project Director Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects, I/II Barry J. Elliot. Acting Section Chief Material Integrity Section Materials and Chemical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering ST.
LUCIE UNITS 1 AND 2:
PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK EVALUATION Plant Name:
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 License:
Florida Power and Light Company TAC Nos.:
M95484/M95485 Review Status:
Continuing By letter dated May 14, 1996, the licensee submitted a pressurized thermal shock (PTS) evaluation for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2.
A request for additional information (RAI) was issued by the staff on October 15, 1996.
The licensee responded to the RAI by letter dated January 14, 1997.
The Materials and Chemical Engineering Branch of the Division of Engineering has reviewed the licensee's response to the RAI, and has developed additional questions needed to complete its assessment.
In the Attachment.
Request for Additional Information, the staff has listed the outstanding questions.
Docket Nos.:
50-335 and 50-389
Attachment:
As stated cc:
L. Wiens K. Wichman (Acting Branch Chief)
CONTACT:
A. Lee, NRR 415-2735 DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC Central Files JStrosnider MMayfield EMCB RF/PF NAME ALee G:KLEEN2NDSTLUC.RAI To receive'a copy of this document.
with attachment/enclosure N
No co OFFICE OE: EHCB indicate in the box,C-Copy w/o attachment/enclosure E-Copy DE:EHCB BElliot DATE 2/ 0/97 2/497
Attachment Request for Additional Information The staff requests additional information for the Florida Power and Light Company pressurized thermal shock (PTS) evaluation.
1)
The licensee's response to question 2 of the staff's RAI provided the basis for determining initial Ropy (RTNpT) values for several weld wire heats.
The licensee's responses with respect to three of the five heats were acceptable.
However, the following information is necessary to complete our evaluation of the remaining two heats:
a)
The limiting weld in the St. Lucie 1 reactor vessel beltline is fabricated from weld wire heat 305424.
This heat of weld wire was also used to fabricate the Beaver Valley 1 surveillance weld and welds in the LaSalle 1 reactor vessel beltline.
The licensee's response 2 to the RAI indicated that the LaSalle and St. Lucie 1
Charpy data were not used to assess the RT>>
for the St. Lucie 1
vessel.
Explain the effect on the value oPVF>><>> that would result from including the Charpy data from St.
Lucie T and LaSalle l.
Verify whether the RT>> >> value for heat 305424 remains drop weight controlled (i.e.
does t~Ãe lower bound Charpy curve become controlling).
bl With regard to heat
- 83642, St. Lucie 2 reported an RT>> value of-80'F:
and Beaver Valley 2 reported a value of -30'F.
%~e response stated that an RT>> >> of -80'F would be used for the St.
Lucie 2 weld.
Provide the basis for selecting the non-conservative value of
-80'F.
If justification cannot be provided, use a generic value in which plus or mi'nus 2 sigma would'ound the St. Lucie 2 and the Beaver Valley 2 data points.
2)
The licensee's response to question 3 of the RAI stated that
",the fluence at the St. Lucie 1 limiting weld...has been updated".
The fluence value was 1.20 E19n/cm'n the original submittal.
Table 3 of the response to the RAI shows a value of 1.06 E19n/cm'.
Provide supporting documentation that justifies the decrease in the fluence value. for St. Lucie 1.
This includes an explanation of the analysis that was used to determine the revised fluence.
3)
Where applicable, update the RT, tables as described in the response to the RAI. Specifically, Tables 1 and 2 from Attachment B pages B-4 and B-51, respectively'nd Table 3 of Attachment A, page A-13.
I 4
~
I 4