ML19221A017
| ML19221A017 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1975 |
| From: | Pawlicki S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Washburn B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905160494 | |
| Download: ML19221A017 (3) | |
Text
,= e B. Washburn L'.ght Water Reactors Branch 1-3 Division of Reactor Licensing IET't0POLITAN EDISON COMPATf, THREE ETI ISLuiD, UNIT 2 (0L), DCC'T" NUM3ER 50-320
?lant Nare: Three Mile Island, Unit 2 Suppliers: Babcock & Wilcox; Burns 5 2ce Docket Nu=ber: 50-320 Responsibic Eranch and Project Manager: UlR 2-2; 3. "ashburn acquested Co:rplation aate: May 16, 1975 Description of Task: Meeting Agenda Itena (Draft 0-2)
Review Status: Infornation Requested Infor=ation submitted by the applicant in the PSAR through Anendment No. 26 has been reviewed by the Perfor..ance Section of the Materials Engineering Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Adequate responses to the enclosed request for additional infor=ation are required before we can complete our evaluation.
S. S. Pavlicki, Chief Matarials Engineering 3 ranch Division of Technical Reviev Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
S. S. Pavlick1 W. S. Eazelton R. M. Gustafson V. S. Goel H. F. Conrad DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File (50-320)
NRR Reading File }h) MTE3 Files NRR:MTE3 Jf. 'JRR:MIEg NRR:MTEB VSGcel:e azelhon S SP[ ~'- 5/5/75 5/f)/73 _ 5g 75 m form AIC4; $ i Re. 9-3)) AICM C240 7 u. s. acv e mm as sm? passevens oe *>c as t s74.eae.s ee 7905160494 q
121-1 121.0 MATERIALS ENGINEERING ERANCH. MATERIALS PERF00!ANCE SECTION 121.1 Response to our Question 12.3 is not satisfactory. If RT"D~ (5.2.4.3) values for reactor vessel caterials are not available, thdse thould be esti=ated on a conservative basis. It is our position that the pressure-te=perature limits for heat up, cool down, and critical core operation be developed in accordance with Appendix G of 10 CFR 50, 121.2 Response to our Question 12.4 is unsatisfactory. The copper (5.2.4.4) content of several =aterials in the critical reactor vessel beltline region are rtssing frc= Table 12.4-1 in A=end ent 26. These shculd be obtained in order to esti= ate the shift in RT an esta ish the pressure-te=perature limits for NDT operation. Since =aterial SA-1788,_used for niddle circumferential weld with an esti=ated fluence level of 1.68 x.1013 at the end of-service, is not available for inclusion in the surveillance progra=, the applicant should show how the shift in RT'iDT " be determined for this =aterial. Also provide RT, a's per AppendixG10CFR50for=aterialsinTable12.4-1[=end=ent 26, The material propert-for which RT ies should bN. has not been determined. cetermined or estimated for the weak (transverse) direction of all =aterials listed in Table 12.4-1 of A=end=ent 26. The applicant has not shewn to what extent he can =eet the require =ents of Appendix H, 10 CFR 50 in the =aterial surveil-lance progra=. Technical justifications for any deviations fro: these require- =ents should be provided. Details of =aterial surveillanca progra= should also be included in the Technical Specifications. 121.3 The response to our Question 12.5 is unsatisfactory because the (5.2.6) d=u: fracture tc2ghness of the flywheel caterial has not been en to be >100 Asi vin. in 3rJ-10040. It is our position that pu=p flywheels receive a co=plete volumetric UT examination tiery 10 years. And this progra: should also be included in the Technical Specifications. Provisions to limit pu=p speed during LOCA through electrical braking should be considered. 121.4 (1) Response to Question 12.8/5.2.3 in A=end=ent 25 is (3.2.3) unsatisfactory. Specifically: Syste= pressure tests should be perfor=ed for Class 3 closed syste=s at 110% of design pressure as per Regulatory Guide 1.51, instead of at 100* of operating pressure. Also ite: 4.2.2 of the Tech Specs does not discuss the inservice inspection for \\20 \\n9 o-
121-2 Class 3 co=ponents. We require that the recoc=endations of Regulatory Cuide 1.51 be followed for Class 3 co=pon-ents inservice inspections. Provide the technical basis for any deviations frc= above. (2) Tables 4.2-1 and 4.2-2 in Chapter 16 of the Tech Specs have the following descrepancies as co= pared with the 1971 Edition of the ASME Code, Section XI, plus addenda up to Winter 1972. Table 4.2-1 Ite: 1.2 - Longitudinal and circu=ferential welds in the shell and heads. Inspections can not be o=itted in these welds, because the stresses are lower, the welds should be exa=ined as per Code require =ents. Ites 1.4 - Pri=ary no::le to vessel welds. All the nos:le to vessel welds should be exa=ined, choosing one no::le out of the whole group is not acceptable. Table 4.2-2 (Class 2 co=ponents) Ite=s C2.1, C2.2, C2.3, Category C-F - Pressure Retaining welds in piping. Exa=ination should be as per Winter 1972 addenda of the ASME Code. All welds shall be given 100" volumetric exa=ination, choosing one weld out of =any similar welds, or only welds with higher stresses in the sa=e category is not acceptable. Ite: C2.5, Category C-D - Pressure-retaining bolting. Sa=pling is not pe rmi t ted. Exa=inatiens should be according to ASME Code Section XI 1972 Winter addenda. 121.5 Applicant respcase to our Question 12.9 is not satisfactory. (5.5.2.5) It is our position that the stea= generator tubes shall be inspected in accordance with Regulatory Cuide 1.83. 120 133}}