ML19350A437

Forwards Geosciences Branch Round 2 Request for Addl Geologic Info to Complete Review of OL Application

ML19350A437
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	03/05/1981
From:	Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Aswell D LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
NUDOCS 8103160176
Download: ML19350A437 (9)

Text

Eik k a

-[p2neuqh UNITED s1 ATEs

!]'

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g,*g

C WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555

%+..../

Docket No. 50-382 MAR 0 51981 ois S

y $

r--

s Mr. D. L. Aswell 8'

gElM cm C9 Vice President, Power Production F D

. Louisiana Power & Light Company 2

/

142 Delaronde Street "ij 3 -<C b !

h:~.

IC 8 F1 8 New Orleans, Louisiana 70174

%} g - C7,@ <s~

Dear Mr. Aswell:

W

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION We have determined that certain additional information is required in order to pennit us to complete our review of your application for an operating license for Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3.

The enclosed round two requests for additional information were prepared by the Geosciences Branch (numbered 361.5 thru 361.7 and 362.1 and 362.2) and Materials Engineering Branch in the form of a draft SEP. with a listing of information requirements.

3 Please advise us of the date you expect to provide responses to the enclosed request.

If you require any clarification, please contact the staff's assigned project manager.

Sincerely, Robert L. Tedesco Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

Request for additional Information cc w/ enclosure:

See next page e

Mr. D. L. Aswell Vice President, Power Production Louisiana Power & Light Company MAR 0 5 Logg 142 Delaronde Street

,New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 W. Malcolm Stevenson, Esq.

cc:

Montoe & Lemann 1424 Whitney Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 J'

Mr. E. Blake Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N. W.

y' Washington, D. C.

20036 Mr. D. B. Lester Production Engineer Louisiana Power & Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Lyman L. Jones, Jr., Esq.

J Gillespie & Jones P. O. Box 9216 4

Metairie, Louisiana 70005 s

Luke Fontana, Esq.

Gillespie & Jones 824 Esplanade Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70116

'd Stephen M. Irving, Esq.

'.:. One American Place, Suite 1601

,,7l.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825

%.* F

'<A Louisiana Office of Conservation f ' ATTN: Administrator W

Nuclear Energy Division l

,j-P. O. Box 14690

,., 9 Batra Rouge, Louisiana 70808

,',- President, Police Jury St. Charles Parrish

., Hahnville, Louisiana 70057

.sf f.g % U. S. Environmental Protection Agency l

! gyp, ATTN: EIS Coordinator

_0c Region VI Offics i

s :/ 1201 Elm Street First International Building l

p.;-

Dallas, Texas 75270 j

' j.

a:

u),'.

k,U. j b N'/

.,'. ' #h 42

REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL GEOLOGIC INFORMATION WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT NO. 3 LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-382 361.5 A review of the listed FSAR references-for Section 2.5 indicates no post-1974 citations.

It would seem that at least a few geologic-seismologic reports / investigations (including hydrocarbon exploration)

I relative to the near-site area (within five miles of the plant) would u~

have been published or made available sometime during the past seve,n years. Present a sumary, with conclusions, of your post-CP geological and seismological efforts relative to updating the Waterford FSAR. This summary is to include information derived / produced by both the applicant as well as others. For instance, have you conducted post-CP remote sensing studies such as Skylab?

i 361.6 Provide your bases (including discussion, geologic mapping, coincidence of discontinuity trend with remote-sensing linears, plot plan, boring logs, and cross sections as necessary) demonstrating that the strati-graphic discontinuity described in your February, 1977 Geologic Mapping 0

Report does not represent the surface trace of the hypothetical 50 fault shown on Figure 4 of'the Eustis Engineering Company's Feb. 19, 1969 report entitled, " Geological and Geophysical Study, Waterford Plant Site, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana."

361.7 Recent (January,1981) information made available to the staff indicates faulting within five miles of the site in addition to that identified in the FSAR (Figure 2.5-19). This information was obtained by the Staff from the Geomap Company of Houston, Texas and consists of structure contour mapsofHorizonsAandBatdepthsof9/00ft.and7,300ft.respectively.

,-,..w._

beneath the plant. In order to comply with Section 2.5.3 of the Standard Review Plan, please revise the FSAR (figures and text) to accurately depict and describe completely the geologic structure within five miles of the Waterford, Unit 3 site. Determine the I

nature and origin of any newly-identified faults and assess the

=~

significance of these faults with respect to site safety.

~

362.1 Update. information (Tables 2.5-6,2.5-7,2.5-8) on earthquake locations within 200 miles of the site. This listing should include all earth-quakes MM intensity greater than or equal to IV or inagnitude greater than mb=3.0whichhavebeenreportedinalltectonicprohincesany 2

parts of which are within 200 miles of the site.

362.2 As noted in section 2.5.2.3 of the Waterford-3 FSAR an earthquake with a recorded magnitude of m = 4.8 ccurred on 5 November 1963 b

l in the Gulf Coastal Plain province and within 200 miles of the site.

This event has the largest listed magnitude (m ) for earthquakes b

within 200 miles of th,e site. Using site specific methods estimate the ground motion frian an assumed similar earthquake (mb = 4.8) reoccurring in the immediate ticinity of the site.

1 9

I f

., ~

FRACTURE PREVENTION OF CONTAINMENT PRESSURE BOUNDARY Our safety evaluation review assesses the ferritic materials that constitute the containment pressure boundary in the nuclear plant containment system to determine if the material fracture toughness is in compliance with the l

. requirements of General Design Criterion 51, " Fracture Prevention of Containment Pressure Boundary."

n~

GDC 51 requires that under oper iting, maintenance, testing and postulated accident conditions, (1) the ferritic materials of the containment pressure boundary behave, in a nonbrittle manner and (2) the probability of raoidly propagating fracture is minimized.

LThe Waterford SES Unit 3 containment system includes a freestanding ferritic steel containment vessel enclosed witNn a reinforced concrete structure. The ferritic materials of the containment pressure boundary, which are considered in our assessment, are those which have been applied in the fabrication of the containment vessel, equipment hatch, personnel lock, penetrations and piping system components. including the valves required to isolate the system. These components are the parts of the containment system which are not backed by concrete and must sustain loads.

The Waterford 3 containment pressure boundary is comprised of ASME Code Class 1, 2, and MC components.

In late 1979, we reviewed the fracture toughness requirements

' of the ferritic materials of Class MC, Class 2 and Class 1 components which tvoically constitute the containment pressure boundary. Based on this review we determined that the fracture toughness requirements contained in ASME Code Editions and Addenda typical of those used in the design of the Waterford 3 containment may not a,-,

, ensure compliance with GDC 51 for all areas of the containment pressure boundary.

We initiated a program to review fracture toughness requirements for containment pressure boundary materials for the purpose of defining those fracture toughness criteria that most appropriately address the requirements of GDC 51.

I

. Prior to completion of this study, we have elected to apply in our licensing reviews, as an interim requirement, the criteria identified in the Sumer 1977 Addenda of Section. III of the ASME Code for Class 2 components. Because the criteria which have been applied in construction differ in Code classification and Code editions and addenda, we have chosen the criteria in the Summer 1977 Addenda of Section III of theCode to provide a uniform review, consistent with the. safety ' function of the containment pressure boundary materials.

s The FSAR for Waterford 3, however, does not provide the 'information necessary to characterize the fracture toughness of the materials of the reactor containment pressure boundary within the context of GDC 51. We request, therefore, the following information be provided the Materials Engineering Branch for review:

1.

Penetrations a.

Listing of all containment hot and cold pipe penetrations and related supplemental information which identifies penetration assembly sleeve, process pipe and end closure materials by specification, final heat 1

treat condition, nominal OD, and schedule, wall or section thickness, b.

Full size assembly detail drawings showing as built configurations and dimensioning of hot and cold pipe penetrations.

i 2.

Equipment Hatch a.

Full size assembly drawing and detail drawing of the hatch head assembly (barrel-bulkhead-door-interior).

l 4

3-b.

Supplemental information identifying the materials of construction of the hatch head assembly by specification, final heat treat condition and section thickness.

3.

Personnel Access Lock a.

Full size assembly drawing and detail drawing of the door bulkhead

}

assembly (barrel-bulkhead-door-interior) as~

b.

Supplemental information identifying the materials of construction of the door bulkhead assembly by specification, final heat treat condition and section thickness.

4.

Main Steam, Main Feedwater, Auxiliary Feedwater System Full size piping diagrams and related supplemental pipe line lists a.

and pipe line design / class specifications which identify the systems of interest by line designators, pipe size and schedule, and pressure boundary materials specification in addition to valve type, number and pressure boundary materials specifications.

b.

Piping diagram legend information.

5.

Containment '.'essel a.

A full size assembly drawing of the freestanding ferritic steel containment b.

Supplemental information identifying the materials of construction of the containment vessel by specification, final heat treat condition and section thickress.

We request that fracture toughness data be provided for the ferritic materials of those parts of the above components which, in the performance of the containment function under the conditions cited'by GDC 51, provide a pressure boundary.

~e y

+?

9

'AM N<>k+t>,

gh*'+#

me... <e 1.

TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1 e

1.0

's En Bla y ll LE i.i i = HM l.8

{

1.25 i.4 i.6 l

4 6"

I 5%

+b//p

'4 Y

4fA)/

y,,

43,Qg$

///

I

• o++ +

////g, O.r

&/// ~'$gp Y

W

/ l Y'*,' ?

+@+y,,,

's'4's im e ev m o 1i.

TEST TARGET (MT-3) i

\\

1.0 d' en E4 l

y l} DE 1

ii

[m E q

A 11.25 D 1.4 1.6 i

l 11

)

1 l

4 6"

l o%/+7s

+hsp r

1. 'k'N,<

k)h<p}%

5 4,,///

7 I

I l

~.

For those ferritic materials for which fracture toughness data are unavailable the following information is requested:

Seamless Pipe:

1.

Billet heating temperature prior to heating 2.

Intermediate reheat temperatures

' 3.

Stock wall thickness prior to final sizing

, a~

4.

Reheating temperature prior to final sizing 5.

Pipe final heat treatments or pipe assembly heat treatments Seamless Ells:

1..

Stock heating temperature to hot forming 2.

In process reheat temperatures 3.

Ell final heat treatment or pipe assembly heat treatments.

Welded Pipe:

1.

Metallurgical heat treat condition of plate stock as entered into fabrication 2.

Plate stock heating temperatures prior to hot forming 3.

In process reheat temperatures 4.

Pipe final heat treatments or pipe assembly heat treatments.

i Welded Ells:

1.

Metallurgical heat treat condition of stock as entered into fabrication 2.

Stock heating temperatures prior to hot forming 3.

In process reheat temperatures 4.

In process heat temperatures 5.

Ell final heat treatment or pipe assembly heat treatments I

I

,~ \\6

• 5 Valves:

4 1.

Final metallurgical heat treat condition of the materials of those valve parts which constitute parts of the pressure boundary 2.

In-process post-weld repair and intennediate heat treatments of the materials of those valve parts which constitute parts of the pressure boundary.

.i 1

l l

'W-O

~,

4 s

D g e

• .gp.

S s-n

~

e---e g

g e-4 y

.<,y

- - ~

em--

-.~,-r+,

---

n-

.--w,+

4 -

y-,

,-, - ~ - -

--rs~- - - -

r-

~~v--