ML20035H153
| ML20035H153 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1993 |
| From: | Rood H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Horn G NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| References | |
| GL-88-11, GL-92-01, GL-92-1, TAC-M83455, NUDOCS 9305030211 | |
| Download: ML20035H153 (5) | |
Text
-[
/
'o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
~
x.
n
.g
{
>i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i
k....+ #
April 27, 1993 e
Docket No. 50-298
[
Mr. Guy R. Horn Nuclear Power Group Manager Nebraska Public Power District Post Office Box 499 k
Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0499
[
f
Dear Mr. Horn:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONSE TO GENERIC i
LETTER 92-01, REVISION 1, " REACTOR VESSEL STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, 10 CFR 50.54(f)," COOPER NUCLEAR STATION (TAC NO. M83455) l Generic Letter (GL) 92-01 was issued on March 6, 1992, to compile information necessary to confirm that licensees satisfy the requirements for ensuring reactor vessel integrity.
In the GL, the NRC staff requested responses to three questions. These three questions related to: (1) Appendix H to 10 CFR Part 50, (2) Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50, and (3) commitments made by licensees in response to GL 88-11.
-l By letter dated July 1,1992, the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)-
responded to GL 92-01, Revision 1, by providing the information requested in the " Requested Information" portion of the GL. The NRC staff has completed l
its initial review of your response and has determined that additional information is needed. The additional information requested-is given below and is. identified by the number of the corresponding question ~1n GL 92-01. We i
request that you provide a response to the following questions within 60 days of the date you receive this letter.
Ouestion 2a in GL 92-01 l
I Your response to GL 92-01 indicates that the initial upper-shelf energy (USE)
.i for all beltline welds, except for the surveillance weld, is not.known.
t Either provioe the Charpy USE for each beltline weld or provide the Charpy USE and analysis from welds that were fabricated by the same vendor, in the same i
time frame, using the same fabrication process and material specification to demonstrate that the surveillance weld is representative of beltline welds and that all beltline welds will meet the USE requirements'of App'endix G to 10 CFR-l Part 50. The analysis should _take into account that the measured percent drop l
in USE exceeded the predicted percent drop obtained by using Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2.
I Question 2b in GL 92-01 1
Your response indicates that data from the drop-weight test and Charpy test j
for beltline materials is either absent or incomplete for initial RT g
q determination. An alternative method developed b, 'he General Electric
,1 1 9305030211 930427 k
- W ; (ry, ; gg k 12.
dij
{
[
DR ADDCK 0500 8.
1 L
hbIb fE-.
'~
Mr. Guy R. Horn Company (GE) was used in deriving the initial RT 7 for these materials.
In the GE method, the establishment of the slope for the transition zone of the Charpy curve is crucial in deriving the initial RT., from incomplete test data.
Provide all plate and weld Charpy test curves compiled by GE for establishing the 2*F per ft-lb slope for the transition zone of the Charpy curve. All test data must be from materials equivalent to (i.e., having the same vendor, fabrication time frame, fabrication process, material specification, etc., as) the beltline materials of this reactor vessel.
The response also indicates that the chemistry data for axial welds 2-233A, B, and C are not available. What values of copper, nickel, and neutron fluence were used to determine the increase in transition temperature and the drop in USE for these welds? What are the justifications for using these values?
What methods were used to determine the copper and nickel values?
The information requested by this letter is within the scope of the overall i
burden estimated in GL 92-01, Revision 1.
The estimated average number of burden hours is 200 person-hours for each addressee's response.
This estimate pertains only to the identified response-related matters and does not include the time required to implement actions required by the regulations.
This action is covered by the Office of Management and Budget Clearance No. 3150-0011, which expires June 30, 1994.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me.
Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Harry Rood, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:
See next page OlSIRIBUU
['H.Ruud ocket File NRC & Local PDRs PD4-1 Reading P. Noonan J. Pellet M. Virgilio J. Roe ACRS (10)(P315)
OGC (15818)
R. Kopriva, RIV D. Mcdonald S. Sheng A. B. Beach, RIV J. Gagliardo, RIV E. Collins, RIV C. Fairbanks OTC LA:PD4 T w PM:PD4-1 n D(A):PD4-1, NAME PNoonafi HRood:pk JPelleth DATE I f) ~f 93 Y/d/93
/?f7/93 COPY YES h YES/NO YES/M OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: C0083455.RAI j
290027
F Mr. Guy R. Horn Company (GE) was used in deriving the initial RT for these materials.
In uor the GE method, the establishment of the slope for the transition zone of the Charpy curve is crucial in deriving the initial RT,37 from incomplete test data.
Provide all plate and weld Charpy test curves compiled by GE for establishing the 2*F per ft-lb slope for the transition zone of the Charpy curve. All test data must be from materials equivalent to (i.e., having the same vendor, fabrication time frame, fabrication process, material specification, etc., as) the beltline materials of this reactor vessel.
The response also indicates that the chemistry data for axial welds 2-233A, B, and C are not available. What values of copper, nickel, and neutron fluence were used to determine the increase in transition temperature and the drop in USE for these welds? What are the justifications for using these values?
What methods were used to determine the copper and nickel values?
The information requested by this letter is within the scope of the overall burden estimated in GL 92-01, Revision 1.
The estimated average number of burden hours is 200 person-hours for each addressee's response. This estimate pertains only to the identified response-related matters and does not include the time required to implement actions required by the regulations. This action is covered by the Office of Management and Budget Clearance No. 3150-0011, which expires June 30, 1994.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me.
Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Harry Rood, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File NRC & Local PDRs PD4-1 Reading P. Noonan H. Rood J. Pellet M. Virgilio J. Roe ACRS (10)(P315)
OGC (15B18)
R. Kopriva, RIV D. Mcdonald S. Sheng A. B. Beach, RIV J. Gagliardo, RIV E. Collins, RIV C. Fairbanks OFC LA:PD4-T W PM:PD4-1 n D(A):PD4-k NAME PNoonab HRood:pkk JPelleth DATE J/N/93
@/d/93
- '7l7/93 COPY YES M YES/NO YESM FflCIAL RECORD COPY Document Name
- C6063455.RAI
I I
Mr. Guy R. Horn Company (GE) was used in deriving the initial RT,31 for these materials.
In the GE method, the establishment of the slope for the transition zone of the Charpy curve is crucial in deriving the initial RT from incomplete test u37 data.
Provide all plate and weld Charpy test curves compiled by GE for establishing the 2*F per ft-lb slope for the transition zone of the Charpy curve. All test data must be from materials equivalent to (i.e., having the same vendor, fabrication time frame, fabrication process, material specification, etc., as) the beltline materials of this reactor vessel.
The response also indicates that the chemistry data for axial welds 2-233A, B, and C are not available. What values of copper, nickel, and neutron fluence were used to determine the increase in transition temperature and the drop in USE for these welds? What are the justifications for using these values?
What methods were used to determine the copper and nickel values?
The information requested by this letter is within the scope of the overall burden estimated in GL 92-01, Revision 1.
The estimated average number of burden hours is 200 person-hours for each addressee's response. This estimate pertains only to the identified response-related matters and does not include the time required to implement actions required by the regulations. This action is covered by the Office of Management and Budget Clearance No. 3150-0011, which expires June 30, 1994.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me.
Sincerely, Harry Rood, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: See next page
1 i
a Mr. Guy R. Horn I
Nuclear Power Group Manager Cooper Nuclear Station j
CC.
Mr. G. D. Watson, General Counsel Nebraska Public Power District P. O. Box 499 Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0499 Cooper Nuclear Station ATTN: Mr. John M. Meacham Site Manager P. O. Box 98 Brownville, Nebraska 68321 Randolph Wood, Director Nebraska Department of Environmental Control P. O. Box 98922 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922 Mr. Richard Moody, Chairman Nemaha County Board of Commissioners Nemaha County Courthouse 1824 N Street Auburn, Nebraska 68305 Senior Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 218 Brownville, Nebraska 68321 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Mr. Harold Borchert, Director Division of Radiological Health Nebraska Department of Health 301 Centennial Mall, South P. O. Box 95007 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-5007 O