ML18100A747
| ML18100A747 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1993 |
| From: | Labruna S Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18100A748 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-92-01, GL-92-1, NLR-N93179, NUDOCS 9312100137 | |
| Download: ML18100A747 (22) | |
Text
'l,
.... *~
~~'*
a Public Service Electric and Gas Company I
Stanley LaBruna Public Service Electric and Gas' Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-1700 Vice President - Nuclear Engineering DECO 11993 NLR-N93179 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 92-01, REVISION 1
- REACTOR VESSEL STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, 10CFR50.54(f)
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 PSE&G submitted the response to Generic Letter 92-01 (Rev. 1),
Reactor Vessel Structural Integrity, to the N~C in Letters NLR-N92081 dated June 30, 1992, and NLR-N92150 dated December 30, 1992 (for Salem Unit 2). By letter dated June 7, 1993, the NRC documented the results of their initial review of these responses and requested additional information to complete their review of Generic Letter 92-01, Rev. 1. PSE&G submitted the responses to the Request for Additional Information (RAI) for Salem Units 1 and 2 in Letter NLR-N93125 dated August 4, 1993.
In addition, PSE&G submitted to the NRC a supplemental response for Salem Unit 1 that included additional Charpy V-notch impact data which had been recently located by Westinghouse by Letter NLR-N93149 dated September 29, ~993.
The purpose of this letter is to address an additional request by the NRC in a telecon between the NRR Licensing Project Manager and PSE&G on August 19, 1993 concerning the PSE&G response to the RAI (NLR-N93125). The NRC requested PSE&G to provide additional initial upper shelf energy (USE) data representative of the Salem Unit 1 and 2 reactor vessel beltline welds that would provide a further basis that the end-of-life USE values would be above 50 ft-lbs. Initial USE for each weld was not required to be determined* at the time of vessel fabrication, and therefore, was identified as not available as part of the initial PSE&G Generic Letter 92-01 response. The requested additional data is provided as Attachment A.
I I
~---
0 70 {)*,I ("'l
_}I *.: ~~ ..;.*~. (.:;
( 9312100137 *.931201
! PDR ADOCK1 05000272
.P . ****pnR I
DEC 01 1993 Document Control Desk 2 NLR-N93179 On November 17, 1993, the NRC Licensing Project Manager contacted PSE&G with a Staff recommendation that PSE&G consider utilizing an NRC developed generic value for beltline weld initial USE. To allow PSE&G adequate time to assess the merits of the NRC request, an extension of the due date for this response from November 19, 1993 until December 1, 1993 was requested. PSE&G has carefully considered the NRC request to use the generic value provided, and cannot concur at this time. PSE&G is aware of ongoing discussion between the industry (NUMARC) and the NRC to address the use of a single generic USE value for Combustion Engineering reactor pressure vessel welds using combined data associated with four different flux types. USE data for two of the four Linde flux types that the NRC utilized to develop the generic value are applicable to Salem Unit 1 and 2 beltline welds. However, we do not believe inclusion of two additional flux types is appropriate for Salem 1 and 2. PSE&G has calculated generic initial USE values for the two Linde flux types (1092 and 0091) applicable to Salem 1 and 2. The generic initial USE values were determined for each Linde flux type by subtracting a two sigma standard deviation from the developed generic average values as discussed in Appendix A. PSE&G believes that adequate technical basis exists as discussed in Appendix A to support the use of these two generic initial USE values while discussions between the industry and the NRC continue. PSE&G will continue to follow this issue as it progresses to conclusion.
Also, the supplemental Salem Unit 2 response provided to the NRC in Letter NLR-N92150 dated December 30, 1992 contained initial USE data for beltline welds 2-442A, 2-442B and 2-442C in Table 8.
The weldments were tandem welds fabricated from weld wire heat numbers 13253 and 20291. However, the USE data provided in Table 8 was based only on weld heat number 13253. Therefore, the USE data contained in Table 8 was not representative of these welds and has been deleted. In addition, a specific value for RTNDT was deleted from Table 8. Tables 1 and 22 of NLR-N92150 contained summary USE data for these welds based on data provided in Table 8 which has been deleted. The Adjusted Reference Temperature provided in Table 21 has been revised based on the generic RTNDT of -56°F for these welds. The text of the response provided in NLR-N92150 was revised to indicate that the RTNDT generic mean value of -56°F is assumed for all Salem Unit 2 beltline welds. The revised text and Tables 1, 8, 21 and 22 are provided as Attachment B. Generic USE data for these welds has been provided in Attachment A in response to the NRC request.
Information contained in Attachment A to this submittal is considered proprietary to ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc ..
Attachment c contains an affidavit signed by ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. that sets forth the basis on which this
DEC 01 1993 Document Control Desk 3 NLR-N93179 information may be withheld from public disclosure. A non-proprietary version of Attachment A to this submittal is provided as a separate enclosure.
Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this submittal.
Sincerely,
>>~~=--
Attachments (3)
Affidavit C Mr. T. T. Martin, Administrator - Region I
- u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. J. c. Stone, Licensing Project Manager
- u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. c. s. Marschall (S09)
USNRC Senior Resident Inspector Mr. K. Tosch, Manager, IV NJ Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625
REF: NLR-N93179 STATE OF NEW JERSEY SS.
COUNTY OF SALEM
- s. LaBruna, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:
I am Vice President - Nuclear Engineering of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in the above referenced letter, concerning the Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
µ/fJ~
S,uJ;>scribe? and Sworn ~f_ ~e~~~e me
, Un~ / ,QX::. day of ~ ~ *, 1993
/-- ~
- &_vrn~ ~
Notary P~feW Jersey KIMBERLY JO BROWN NOT ARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY My Commission expires My GemmissieR [ipires April 21, 1998
NLR-N93179 ATTACHMENT C ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. AFFIDAVIT SALEM UNIT 1 AND SALEM UNIT 2
AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2.790 Combustion Engineering, Inc.
State of Connecticut County of Hartford SS.:
I, s. A. Toelle, depose and say that I am the Manager, Nuclear Licensing, of Combustion Engineering, Inc., duly authorized to make this affidavit, and have reviewed or caused to have reviewed the information which is identified as proprietary and referenced in the paragraph immediately below. I am submitting this affidavit in conjunction with the application of Public Service Electric & Gas Company in conformance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations for withholding this information.
The information for which proprietary treatment is sought is contained in the following document:
Attachment A to NLR-N93179, 11 Upper Shelf Energy Information Pertaining to Salem Unit 1 *and Salem Unit 2, 11 dated December 1, 1993.
This document has been appropriately designated as proprietary.
I have personal knowledge of the criteria and procedures utilized by Combustion Engineering in designating information as a trade secret, privileged or as confidential commercial or financial information.
Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b) (4) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, the following is furnished for
consideration by the Commission in determining whether the information sought to be withheld from public disclosure, included in the above referenced document, should be withheld.
- 1. The information sought to be withheld from public disclosure, which is owned and has been held in confidence by Combustion Engineering, is the specific mechanical properties of weld materials used by Combustion Engineering to fabricate reactor vessels.
- 2. The information consists of test data or other similar data concerning a process, method or component, the application of which results in substantial competitive advantage to Combustion Engineering.
- 3. The information is of a type customarily held in confidence by Combustion Engineering and not customarily disclosed to the public. Combustion Engineering 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 confidence. The details of the aforementioned system were provided to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission via letter DP-537 from F. M. Stern to Frank Schroeder dated December 2, 1974.
This system was applied in determining that the subject document herein is proprietary.
- 4. The information is being transmitted to the Commission in confidence under the provisions of 10 CFR 2. 790 with the understanding that it is to be received in confidence by the
- 3 -
commission.
- 5. The information, to the best of my knowledge and belief, is not available in public sources, and any disclosure to third parties has been made pursuant to regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements which provide for maintenance of the information in confidence.
- 6. Public disclosure of the information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of Combustion Engineering because:
- a. A similar product is manufactured and sold by major pressurized water reactor competitors of Combustion Engineering.
- b. Development of this information by C-E required hundreds of manhours and hundreds of thousands of dollars. To the best of my knowledge and belief, a competitor would have to undergo similar expense in generating equivalent information.
- c. In order to acquire such information, a competitor would also require considerable time and inconvenience to determine the specific mechanical properties of weld materials used by Combustion Engineering to fabricate reactor vessels.
- d. The information required significant effort and expense to obtain the licensing approvals necessary for application of the information. Avoidance of this expense would decrease a competitor's cost in applying the information and
marketing the product to which the information is applicable.
- e. The information consists of the specific mechanical properties of weld materials used by Combustion Engineering to fabricate *reactor vessels, the application of which provides a competitive economic advantage. The availability of such information to competitors would enable them to modify their product to better compete with Combustion Engineering, take marketing or other actions to improve their product's position or impair the position of Combustion Engineering's product, and avoid developing similar data and analyses in support of their processes, methods or apparatus.
- f. In pricing Combustion Engineering's products and services, significant research, development, engineering, analytical, manufacturing, licensing, quality assurance and other costs and expenses must be included. The ability of Combustion Engineering's competitors to utilize such information without similar expenditure of resources may enable them to sell at prices reflecting significantly lower costs.
- g. Use of the information by competitors in the international marketplace would increase their ability to market nuclear steam supply systems by reducing the costs associated with their technology development. In addition, disclosure would have an adverse economic impact on Combustion Engineering's potential for obtaining or maintaining
- f
' I foreign licensees.
Further the deponent sayeth not.
S. A. Toelle Manger Nuclear Licensing Sworn to before me 'Y\ /_
this e:/,;//ftJ day of u.__.i.-.:~:;.._::_....;__
_ _ _ _ _ _ , 1993
- My commission expires: 3 --3/- 91
NLR-;:-N93179
- NON-PROPRIETARY ATTACHMENT A UPPER SHELF ENERGY INFORMATION PERTAINING TO SALEM UNIT 1 AND SALEM UNIT 2
NLR**N93179
- NON-PROPRIETARY The following report has been prepared in response to the NRC request for additional information associated with Generic Letter 92-01 (Ref. 1). This report primarily consists of information supplied by ABB Combustion Engineering Inc., some of which is proprietary.
1.0 SCOPE This report provides a basis for the initial upper shelf energy for the welding consumables used in the Salem Unit 1 and Unit 2 reactor vessel beltline regions as presented in Table 1. Weld material certification reports (WMCs) for the specific weld wire heat and flux lot combinations were used in determining the initial USE where sufficient data exists.
Where fully applicable information was not available in the WMCS, surveillance welds fabricated using the same weld wire heat and flux lot were used. I£ no known value for the initial upper shelf energy exists, a generic value was determined based upon an average of available weld data for a given flux type.
2.0 BACKGROUND
Initial USE for each weld wire heat and flux lot combination was not required to be determined at the time of vessel fabrication. However, supplemental Charpy testing was often performed for vessel or surveillance program weldments either for the Salem Units 1 and 2 reactor vessels or for other reactor vessels. In all cases of welds presented in Table 1, similar welds were tested such that actual or generic values of initial USE can be established.
Table 1: Salem Unit 1 and Unit 2 Beltline Welds (Ref. 2 and 3) m Unit No. Weld seam No. Wire Heat No. Flux Type 1 2-042 A/C 34B009 Linde 1092 39B196 Ni-200 N7753A 1 9-042 13253 Linde 1092 1 3-042 A/C 34B009 Linde 1092 Ni-200 N9867A 2 2-442 A/C 13253 Linde 1092 20291 2 9-442 90099 Linde 0091 2 3-442 A/C 21935 Linde 1092 12008 2
NLR"*N93179 3.0 PROCEDURE
- NON-PROPRIETARY Weld material certification (WMC) reports (Ref. 4) at the ABB Combustion Engineering facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee were searched specific to the weld wire heat and flux lot combinations presented in Table 1. Where fully applicable information was available for these weld wire heat and flux type combinations, the initial USE was determined. The definitions necessary to establish the upper shelf energy are provided as follows:
Upper shelf energy is defined as the average energy value for all Charpy specimens (normally three) whose test temperature is above the upper end of the transition region. For specimens tested in sets of three at each test temperature, the set having the highest average may be regarded as defining the upper shelf energy (Ref. 5)
Charpy Transition Curve is defined as graphic presentation of Charpy data, including absorbed energy, lateral expansion and fracture appearance, extending over a range including the lower shelf energy (<5%
shear)'* transition region and the upper shelf energy
(>95% shear) (Ref. 5).
Transition Region is defined as the region on the transition temperature curve in which toughness increases rapidly with rising temperature. In terms of fracture appearance, it is characterized by a rapid change from a primarily cleavage (crystalline) fracture mode to primarily shear (fibrous) fracture mode (Ref. 5).
Charpy test data for the applicable weld wire heat and flux type combinations showing a fracture appearance of 95% shear or greater were compiled. The Charpy tests tended to be conducted in sets of three over a range of test temperatures.
This allowed each set of three tests to be averaged to determine the USE at given temperature. The highest averaged USE for each weld wire heat and flux type combination was taken to be the initial USE for the material.
Where fully applicable information was not available in the Chattanooga WMC records, surveillance program weld information was studied for matching weld materials. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory Power Reactor - Embrittlement Data Base (ORNL PR~EDB) *(Ref. 8) was accessed to identify the surveillance program welds fabricated using the specific weld wire heat and flux type as in the Salem 1 and 2 beltline regions. Where specific matches occurred, the initial USE value was used from the ORNL PR-EDB. In addition, responses to Generic Letter 92-01 and other pertinent documentation.were studied for matching weld material and, where applicable, initial USE values.
3
NLR"N93179
- NON-PROPRIETARY Where fully applicable specific information was not available either in the Chattanooga WMC records or in the ORNL PR-EDB, a generic value of initial USE based on available data was used. The available data used to determine the generic value of initial USE was from either the ORNL PR-EDB or Chattanooga WMC records for a specific flux type. Data was extracted from the ORNL-PR-EDB and presented in this report for those surveillance materials using the 1092 flux type where a generic value of initial USE was required. For the 0091 flux type where a generic value of initial USE was required, data was extracted from Chattanooga WMC records using the definitions in Reference 5 and presented in this report.
4.0 RESULTS 4.1 CMTR Data Weld material certification (WMC) reports (Ref. 4) at the ABB Combustion Engineering facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee were searched specific to Charpy impact test data for ~he welding consumables presented in Table 1.
One CMTR was found pertinent to one specific weld wire heat and flux type combination which contained Charpy data necessary to determine the initial USE of the material. This CMTR is for weld wire heat 13253 with flux type Linde 1092. This weld wire heat and flux lot combination is consistent with the Salem Unit 1 beltline weld 9-042. Using the definitions provided from Reference 5, the upper shelf energy of this weld wire heat and flux type was calculated to be [PROPRIE TARY]. This USE value is consistent with the 112 ft-lbs USE value reported in Reference 7 for the same weld wire heat and flux type.
4.2 surveillance Data The ORNL PR-EDB was searched specific to the weld wire heat and flux type combinations presented in Table 1.
Two reactor surveillance materials were found to be manufactured with the same weld wire heat and flux type as found in the Salem Unit 1 and 2 reactor vessel beltline.
- 1) The Diablo Canyon Unit 2 surveillance weld is fabricated from weld wire heats 21935 and 12008 with Linde flux type 1092. This is consistent with the Salem Unit 2 beltline weld 3-442 A/C.
The reported initial upper shelf energy for this combination is 114 ft-lbs (Ref. 8).
4
NLR~N93179 2)
- NON-PROPRIETARY The Salem Unit 2 surveillance weld is fabricated from the weld wire heat 13253 with Linde flux type 1092. This is consistent with the Salem Unit 1 beltline weld 9-042. The Ref. 7 reported initial upper shelf energy for this weld is 112 ft-lbs which is consistent with value reported in the CMTR discussed in Section 4.1.
In addition to the specific matches in weld wire heat and flux type found in the ORNL PR-EDB, one surveillance material is relevant to this search.
- 1) The Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 1 reactor has a surveillance weld fabricated from weld wire heat 34B009 with Ni 200 and Linde flux type 1092.
This is consistent with the Salem Unit 1 beltline weld 3-042 A/C. This surveillance weld has a reported initial upper shelf energy of 112 ft-lbs (Ref. 6).
4.3 Generic Data The upper shelf energies for the remaining weld wire heat and flux type combinations not matched with either a CMTR or surveillance program weld, were determined by a generic means. Three welds required a generic value for the initial upper shelf energy. They were the Salem Unit 1 weld 2-042 A/C fabricated with Linde 1092 flux, the Salem Unit 2 weld 2-442 A/C fabricated with Linde 1092 flux, and the Salem Unit 2 weld 9-442 fabricated with Linde 0091 flux. The approach used averaged USE data for the weld wire and flux combinations from available sources. Average values were generated for the two flux types Linde 1092 and Linde 0091.
5
NLR-N93179 4.3.1
- NON-PROPRIETARY Generic Initial USE for Linde 1092 Flux Type The generic initial upper shelf energy for the Linde 1092 welds was determined from an average of 13 surveillance welds fabricated using Linde 1092 flux as reported in the ORNL PR-EDB (Ref. 8). A summary of the weld wire heat and flux lot combination as well as the initial USE is presented in Table 2. The initial USE values ranged from a low of
[ PROPRIETARY ]. The average USE value was determined to be [
PROPRIETARY
] .
Table 2: Upper Shelf Enerqy Values for Linde 1092 Welds as Reported in Reference 8 count Wire Heat/Flux Lot Initial USE, ft-lb 1 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
2 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
3 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARYl 4 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
5 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
6 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARYl 7 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
8 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
9 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
10 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
11 rPROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
12 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
13 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
Average = [PROPRIETARY]
Std. Deviation cr = [PROPRIETARY]
6
NLR~N93179 4.3.2
- NON-PROPRIETARY Generic Initial USE for Linde 0091 Flux Type Charpy impact energy data was accessed from Chattanooga quality records (Ref. 4) containing applicable data for Linde 0091 welds. A total of 51 different weld wire heat/flux lot combinations fabricated with Linde 0091 flux were averaged to determine the initial upper shelf energy in accordance with ASTM El85-82 definitions (Ref. 5). All USE values represent the highest average of three Charpy impact specimens tested at a single temperature. All fracture specimens have a reported fracture appearance of no less than 95% shear.
The data ranged from a low of [
PROPRIETARY ]. The average value for the Linde 0091 flux welds is [
PROPRIETARY . ]*
.This represents an average of 51 different weld wire heat/Linde 0091 flux lot combinations presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Upper Shelf Enerqy Values for Linde 0091 Flux Type Welds count Wire Heat/Flux Lot Initial USE, ft-lbs 1 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
2 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
3 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
4 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
5 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
6 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
7 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
8 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
9 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
10 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
11 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
7
NLR-N93179 ~NON-PROPRIETARY Table 3: Upper Shelf Energy Values for Linde 0091 Flux Type Welds (Cont'd) count Wire Heat/Flux Lot Initial USE, ft-lbs 12 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
13 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
14 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
15 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
16 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
17 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
18 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
19 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARYl 20 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
21 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
22 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
23 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
24 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
25 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
26 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
27 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
28 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
29 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
30 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
31 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
.32 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
33 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
34 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
8
NLR-N93179
~*NON-PROPRIETARY Table 3: Upper Shelf Enerqy Values for Linde 0091 Flux Type Welds (Cont'd) count Wire Heat/Flux Lot Initial USE, ft-lbs 35 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
36 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
37 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
38 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
39 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
40 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
41 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
42 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
43 [PROPRIETARYr [PROPRIETARY]
44 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
45 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
46 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
47 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
48 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
49 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
50 [PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
51 (PROPRIETARY] [PROPRIETARY]
Average = [PROPRIETARY]
Std. Deviation cr = [PROPRIETARY]
9
NLR-N93179 ~~ON-PROPRIETARY
- 5. 'O CONCLUSION Initial upper shelf energy values for the beltine welds in the Salem Unit 1 and Unit 2 reactor pressure vessels were determined from a variety of sources. Fabrication records at the ABB/CE Chattanooga plant were searched for Certified Material Test Reports (CMTRs) containing the same weld wire heat and flux type as the Salem beltline welds. one CMTR was found with data available to compute the initial USE value of the material. Where no CMTRs were available on the Salem 1 and 2 beltline material, surveillance programs were queried regarding weld wire heat and flux type materials. Initial USE values were obtained from. surveillance programs having materials matching those of the Salem beltline materials.
When no known initial USE data matches were found for the Salem beltline material, a generic value was determined based upon known flux type data. The resulting initial upper shelf energy values for the Salem Unit 1 and Unit 2 reactor pressure vessel beltline welds are presented in Table 4. The generic initial USE values were determined by subtracting 2cr from the generic average values. The initial USE values in Table 4 range from 96.2 to 121 ft-lbs. The end of life USE values* for all the Salem 1 and Salem 2 welds ~eported in Table 4 are greater than 50 ft-lbs.
In addition, a review of the Westinghouse Owners Group report WCAP 13587, Rev. 1 (Reference 9) has led to the conclusion that the Salem 1 and Salem 2 reactor pressure vessels meet the ASME Section XI Appendix X criteria for safety margins equivalent to those in Appendix G, "Fracture Toughness Requirements" to 10 CFR Part 50.
10
NLR-N93179 * . NON-PROPRIETARY Table 4: Initial Upper Shelf Energy Values for the Salem Unit 1 and Unit 2 Beltline Welds Salem Weld Wire Heat No. Linde Initial Sources of USE Data Unit seam Flux USE, No. No. Type ft-lbs 1 2-042 34B009 1092 96.2 Generic Average A/C 39B196 minus 2cr for Linde Ni-200 N7753A 1092 Welds 1 9-042 13253 1092 112 PSE&G Letter to NRC Salem GL92-0l Response (Ref. 7) 1 3-042 34B009 1092 112 Millstone 1 GL92-0l A/C Ni-200 N9867A Response (Ref. 6) 2 2-442 13253 1092 96.2 Generic Average A/C 20291 minus 2cr for Linde 1092 Welds 2 9-442 90099 0091 97.6 Generic Average minus 2cr for Linde
6.0 REFERENCES
.1. Letter from J. c. Stone (NRC) to S. E. Miltenberger (PSE&G), dated June 7, 1993, Docket No. 50-272, 50-311.
Subject:
"Reactor Vessel Structural Integrity, Request for Additional Information, Generic Letter (GL) 92-01, Revision 1, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (TAC Nos. M83507 and M83508)".
- 2. PSE&G Letter from S. LaBruna to NRC Document Control Desk, dated Dec. 30, 1992, Docket No. 50-311,
Subject:
"Supplemental Response the Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1. 11
- 3. PSE&G Letter from S. E. Miltenberger (PSE&G) to NRC Document Control Deck, dated September 29, 1993, Docket No. 50-272.
Subject:
"Supplemental Response to Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1. 11
- 4. Weld Material Certification Reports, Metallurgical Research and Development, Combustion Engineering, Inc.
11
NLR-N93179 -NON-PROPRIETARY
- 5. ASTM Designation E 185-82, "Standard Practice for Conducting Surveillance Tests for Light-Water Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Vessels", Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 12.02, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
- 6. Letter from J. F. Opeka (NU) to Document Control Desk (NRC), dated July 6, 1992, Docket No. 50-213, 50-245, 50-336, 50-243, B14187.
Subject:
"Generic Letter 92-01 Revision 1 11 *
- 7. Letter from s. E. Miltenberger (PSE&G) to Document Control Desk (NRC), dated August 4, 1993, NRC Docket Nos" 50-272 and 50-311, DPR-70 and DPR-75, Page 9.
- 8. Letter from G. M. Rueger (PSE&G) to Document Control Desk (NRC), dated June 30, 1992, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323.
Subject:
"Response to Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1, Reactor Vessel Structural Integrity".
- 9. "Reactor Vessel Upper Shelf Energy Bounding Evaluation for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors," s.
Tandon, M. J. Malone and T. R. Mager, WCAP 13587, Rev. 1, September 1993. -
12