ML17292B382
| ML17292B382 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1998 |
| From: | Poslusny C NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Parrish J WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| References | |
| GL-92-01, GL-92-1, TAC-MA1213, NUDOCS 9805190345 | |
| Download: ML17292B382 (12) | |
Text
~p,R RE0g
~4 ~
~o 0O IVl 0
0
~O
+)t**+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASMINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 Hay 14, 1998 5 o-3g7 Mr. J. V. Parrish Chief Executive Officer Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 (Mail Drop 1023)
Richland, Washington 99352-0968
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATIONREGARDING REACTOR
'RESSURE VESSEL INTEGRITYFOR THE WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 (WNP-2) (TAC NO. MA1213)
Dear Mr. Parrish:
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 F
'10 CFR 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 (P-T) limits.
After reviewing the Supply System's response for WNP-2, the NRC issued you a letter dated August 22, 1996.
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'rograms relative to your plant. We further indicated that a plant specific TAC Number may be opened to review this material.
Following issuance of these letters, the BWR Vessel and Internals Project (BWRVIP) submitted the report "Update of Bounding Assessment of BWR/2-6 Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity Issues (BWRVIP46)." This report included bounding assessments of new data from (1) the Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG) database released in July 1997 which contains all known data for CE fabricated welds in PWR and BWR vessels; (2) Framatome Technologies Incorporated (FTI) analyses of Linde 80 welds which are documented in NRC Inspection Report 99901300/97-01 dated January 28, 1998; (3) FTI's analysis of electro-slag welds which was referenced in a Dresden and Quad Cities P-T limits submittal dated September 20, 1996; and (4) Chicago Bridge and Iron quality assurance records.
New data for one vessel fabricated by Hitachi was also included in the BWRVIP report.
The staff is requesting that you re-evaluate the RPV weld chemistry values that you have previously submitted as part of youp licensing basis in light of the information presented in the CEOG, FTI and BWRVIP reports.
The staff expects that you willassess this new information to determine whether any values of RPV weld chemistry need to be revised for your facility.
Therefore, 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 within 9805190345 9805i4 P
POR
- 000K 00000307 I
g ~j7<g P~ggp P ',"Ill~~
1 0
Mr. J. V. Parrish Hay 14, 1998 90 days of receipt of this letter. Ifa question does not apply to your situation, please indicate this in your RAI response along with your technical basis and, per GL 92-01, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, provide a certification that previously submitted evaluations remain valid.
The information provided willbe used in updating the Reactor Vessel Integrity Database (RVID). 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, and Appendices G and H to 10 CFR Part 50, and to address any potential impact on P-T limits.
Ifadditional license amendments or assessments are necessary, the'enclosed requests that you provide a schedule for such submittals.
Ifyou should have any questions regarding this request, please contact me at 301-415-1341.
Sincerely, Original Signed By Chester Poslusny, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate IV-2 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-397
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information ccw/encl: See next page Docket Files PUBLIC PDIV-2 r/f EGA1 WBateman CPoslusny EPeyton GVissing ALee ACRS OGC KPerkins, RIVWCFO PGwynn, Region IV DOCUMENT NAME:WN9201.RAI To receive a copy ofthis docu ent, Indicate In the box: "C" = Copy without enciosures "E" = Copy with enciosures "N"= No copy OFFICE PM/PDI -
'A/PDIV-2 NAME DATE CPoslus 05/0/98 EPeyton 05Qf98 OFFICIALRECORD COPY
L' if 4
h i
~2 Mr. J. V. Parrish Hay 14, 1998 cc w/encl:
Mr. Greg O. Smith (Mail Drop 927M)
WNP-2 Plant General Manager Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352-0968 1
'r. Albert E. Mouncer (Mail Drop 1396)
Chief Counsel Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352-0968 Ms. Deborah J. Ross, Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council P. O. Box 43172 Olympia, Washington 98504-3172 Mr. D. W. Coleman (Mail Drop PE20)
Acting Manager, Regulatory Affairs Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352-0968 Mr. Paul Inserra (Mail Drop PE20)
Manager, Licensing Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harris Tower & Pavilion 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, Texas 76011-8064.
Chairman Benton County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 69 Prosser, Washington 99350-0190 Mr. Scott Boynton, Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 69 Richland, Washington 99352-0968 Mr. Perry D. Robinson, Esq.
Winston 8 Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3502 Mr. Rodney L. Webring (Mail Drop PE08)
Vice President, Operations Support/PIO Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352
0 C
A DT N
MA RP EVE E
I E
N W
LEA TN D
ETN 0-t'~n1.
- Assessment of Best-Estimate Chemistry The staff recently received the BWRVIP report "Update of Bounding Assessment of BWR/2-6 Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity Issues (BWRVIP-46)".
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 bounding assessment in the reference above and 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 fillout the data requested in Table 1 for each RPV beltline weld material. Ifthe limiting material for your vessel's P-T limits evaluation is not a weld, include the information requested in Table 1 for the limiting material also.
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 between the staff, NEI, 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 NEI 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.
ln 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.
Ifa 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.
Ifinformation is not available to ggnf~r 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 by assuming that the data came from an appropriate number of "multiple welds". Ajustification should then be provided for which assumption was chosen when the best-estimate chemistry was determined.
Gang>~2-P-T LimitEvaluation Ifthe limiting material for your plant changes or ifthe adjusted reference temperature for the limiting material increases as a result of the above evaluations, provide the revised RT>>, value for the limiting material.
In addition, ifthe adjusted RT>>, value increased, provide a schedule for revising the P-T limits. The schedule should ensure that compliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix G is maintained.
~Rfe~rn y Memorandum dated November 19, 1997, from Keith R. Wichman to Edmund J. Sullivan, "Meeting Summary for November 12, 1997 Meeting with Owners Group Representatives and NEI Regarding Review of Responses to Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1, Supplement 1 Responses."
Attachment:
Table 1
f 1
I
TABLE 1 Facility:
Vessel Manufacturer:
Information requested on RPV Weld and/or Limiting Materials RPV Weld Wire Heat <'>
Best-Estimate Copper Best-Estimate Nickel EOL ID Fluence (x 10")
Assigned Material Chemistry Factor (CF)
Method of Determining CF<'>
Initial RT (RTwov<ui) o~
Margin ART or RTndt at EOL (1) or the material identification of the limiting material as requested in Section 1.0 (1.)
(2) determined from tables or from surveillance data Di c sion fthe nal isMet d
dD taU df rE chW ir H a Weld Wire H at Disiu~ion
7 J
l f