ML20040A461
| ML20040A461 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1981 |
| From: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lundvall A BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201210133 | |
| Download: ML20040A461 (6) | |
Text
F n
DEC 161981
)3h Ob DISTRIBUIT 1:
DJaffe
/Dodet Fil PKreutzer-3 NRC 7 RClark oncket 'los. 50-317 f. 313 L PDR GVissing TEPA Gray File-2 m
~
NSIC SHanauer 9
"r.
A. E. Lundvall, J r.
ORB #3 Rdg Vice President - Sunnly DEisenhut RECElyED C
Ral ti-ore Gas ', Electric Co pany 0 ELD g7 DEC2 8198t > 3 P. O. Rex 14750 AE03 n il timore, Mar:, land
?"e a IE-3 s eue m%
ACRS-10 V
80*M ema:n a n ar 'tr. Lundvall:
e Qu Un have reviewed your "fM day" response dated October 20, 1981, to our N
letter dated August 71,1GR1, concerning Pressurized Thernal Shock (PTS).
Enclosurn I to this letter identifies additional inforNtion needed as a result of our review of your rosponse.
We request that the additional infor ation identified in Enclosure 1 he provided with your "lS0-day" rnsconse to our Aucust P1 letter.
In addition, we have been assessiro what infornation vill be provided in t5e "1sn-<'ay" resnonsos due in January lop? and the infornation expected to hn supplied from the PW Owners' Group. Since the staff is co,mitted to provido its reco vendations for further actions regardino PTS to the rovission in the Sprino of 1942, it is important that your: "150-day" rosnonce to our Aucust 21 letter provide tue significant pieces of informa-tion. First, you ust provide your basis for continued operation, pending comletion of any lancor ter-studies.
We crphasize that continued opera-tion of your facility, without any imediate nodifications to your facility or its orcration, vill he deperdent upon our evaluation of your response.
Secondly, your response sFould fully address the infornation addressed in 1:nclosure 2.
"e have prepared Enclosure 2 to provide amplification to the "1co-day" infor~ation request of the Auoust 21,1%1 letter.
The a iditional infornation requested by the letter should bo provided in accor^nce with 10 CFE 50.54(f) of the Co" mission's regulations.
Tha reporting and/or racordkeeping re'1uirenents of this letter affect feuer than ten respondents; therefore, Ott3 clearance is not required on ter P.L. %-511.
Sincerely,
'Orideal staed by:
8201210133 811218 lho,as n. Novak, Assistant Director DR ADOCK 05000' for Operatinq Reactors Division of Licensing m
-j s
Enclosures:
ORB #3:DL g
1.
Oral ua tion of the "(.0-dw"
- see previous 318 DJaffe*
Ha'na ef A
- " ' "'""en e
afn/81 12/g;/ei
'"'"?S"!??/2'!$tr1, r.as.maa.u.ui..dr.'
ORB #3:g,L
,gRB #3,,DL,( C,),,0RB#,4 :DL
,g,,, R:DL e
oma>
PKreutzer*
RClark*
iy,i,s,s,1,ng*
'D7D)Ef""". "W...).TYJE1"....'.'
".(12/n/.01"'"
i3) sun ~ = >
8)
"ec' W un. mn<wc" - -~~-
2
...1 om>.. n a..w.v.. n.m..
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam mwas-m snc ronu ais o0M NHCM Oao
i i
e a
JL l
_2 l
l (3) Your assasscent of the sensitivity of your analyses to uncertainties i
in ineut values, such as initial crack size. copper content, fluence, and inital reference tenperature at welds.
(4) A list of assunptions relied upon in ranchina your conclusions.
a.
If this list includes " credit" for operator actions, describe the basic instructions qiven the operators (for examnie, if a "sub-cooling" band is used, describe it). Subnit the procedures the I
onerator will follow, and describe the training beinq given to l
establish onerator readir ass to cope with PTS events.
1 b.
If the list includes credit for tre effects of warn prestressino l
for sore event saquences, include ycur justification and analyses l
showing that such events will follois a pressure-tercerature path-l way for which warn pre-stress is ef fective.
The renorting and/or recordkeeping requirerents of this letter affect i
fewer than ten respondents; therefore. 09F. clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Si ncerely, i
Thonas M. ?!nvak, Assistant Director fnr Operatinq Deactors l
Division of Licensinq
Enclosure:
Ev31uation of 60 Day response to 8/21/31 MP.C ltr. on PTS f.
l Pequest for Additional I nfo n,a tio n cc w/ enclosure:
See next paga
)
5
\\
N u
ORB #3:DL OR DL C-ORB #3:D DST AD:0R:DL ORB #3 ornce>
" ' ' " ~
"#PJ6ujibEiE( "#
TWg"
" E T ""'"
$1fsHsUsF" "TNiW7sk" "NsfF son-t )
.... n. c...<...
12//.7./81 12/f[./81 12//}/81 12/..../81 12.../....../. 8.1...1. 2./..l.'f. 8.1....
/
omy he ronxois oa w nacu oaa OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam mi-mvo
/
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company cc:
James A. Biddison, Jr.
Ms. Mary Harrison", President General Counsel Calvert County Board of County Commissioners Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Prince Frederick, MD 20768 P. O. Box 1475 Baltimore, MD 21203 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III Office George F. Trowbridge, Esquire Attn:
Regional Radiation Representative Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Curtis Building (Sixth Floor) 1800 M Street, N. W.
Sixth and Walnut Streets Washington, D. C.
20036 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Mr. R. C. L. Olson, Principal Engineer Mr. Ralph E. Architzel Nuclear Licensing Analysis Unit Resident Reactor Inspector Baltimore Gas and Electric Company NRC Inspection and Enforcement Room 922 - G&E Building P. O. Bos 437 P. O. Box 1475 Lusby, MD 20657 Baltimore, MD 21203 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman Mr. Leon B. Russell Manager - Washington Nuclear Operations Plant Superintendent
_ Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 4853 Cordell Avenue, Suite A-1 Maryland Routes 2 & 4 Bethesda,-MD 20014 Lusby, MD 20657 Mr. J. A. Tiennan, Manager Bechtel Power Corporation Nuclear Foser Department Attn:
Mr. J. C. Judd Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Chief Nuclear Engineer Maryland Routes 2 & 4 15740 Shady Grove Road Lusby, MD 20657 Gaithersburg, MD 20760 Mr. W. J. Lippold, Supervisor Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Nuclear Fuel Management Attn:
Mr. P. W. Kruse, Manager Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Engineering Services Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant P. O. Box 500 P. O. Box 1475 Windsor, CT 06095 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Public Docunent Room Mr. R. E. Denton, General Supervisor Calvert County Library Training & Technical Services Prince Frederick, MD 20678 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Maryland Routes 2 & 4 Director, Department of State Plannin9 Lusby, MD 20657 301 West Preston Street Baltimore, MD 21201 Mr. R. M. Douglass, Manager Quality Assurance Department Administrator, Power Plant Siting Program Fort Smallwood Road Complex Energy and Coastal Zone Administration P. O. Box 1475 Department of Natural Resources i
l Bal timore, MD 21203 Tawes State Office Building Annapolis, MD 21204 l
Mr. T. L. Syndor, General Supervisor Operations Quality Assurance
ENCLOSURE (1)
EVALUATION OF THE BALTIM0RE GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 60 DAY RESPONSE TO THE NRC LETTER DATED AUGUST 21, 1981 CONCERNING PRESSURIZED THERMAL SH0CK (PTS)
AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT NO.1 DOCKET NO. 50-317 1.
RTNDT values 0
Your letter of October 20, 1981 provided an initial RTNDT value of -20 F (2qTJpper bound for submerged welds). However, it did not provide a basis for this value. Your letter dated December 29, 1977, provided an initial RTNDT value of +100F (per branch technical position MTEB 5-2) for longitudinal l
beltline welds. This is the value we intend to use in our independent assessment unless you can support a lower value based on test of archival material, previously unreported data from vessel vendor's records, or a l
sound generic study of representative welds.
l Your letter of October 20, 1981, provided a "best estimate" coppet content of longitudinal welds of 0.25%. The surveillance welds measured 0.24% copper 4
but were made from the same weld wire heat number as the beltline which measured l
0.30% copper content. We intend to use the value 0.30% copper content unless i
you can support a lower value.
I Your letter of October 20, 1981, did not provide a value for the nickel content of longitudinal welds.
Your letter dated December 29, 1977, however, indicated the nickel content of the longitudinal welds was "high" but the surveillance weld had a " low" nickel content. Please recheck the nickel content for longitudinal welds.
If the reported vessel ID fluence of 7.05 x 1018n/cm2 as of December 31, 1981, is not the fluence for the critical longitudinal welds, provide the peak fluence at the critical longitudinal welds.
When the above information is provided, we will then be able to verify your current RTNDT value or determine another value which we will use in our in-dependent assessment.
2.
Rate of Increase of RTNDT We accept your value for the increase in RTNDT from 4,77 EFPY (December 31, 1981) to 7.97 EFPY (December 3, 1985) if these are the valacs of critical longitudinal welds. From these can be obtained a rate of increasing RTNDT over the next four years.
In addition, as a check on our calculations, please provide expected rate of fluence increase per EFPY taking into consideration any contemplated changes in core configuration.
, 3 and 4.
RTUOT Limit and Basis for the Limit Since the "60 day" response stated that you do not consider a limit on RTNDT to be an appropriate basis for continued operation, the staff needs to develop a quantitative criterion for continued operation that, if implemented, would assure maintenance of an acceptably low risk of vessel failure from PTS event for the near-term, pending longer term results of more detai. led analysis or research. We will be developing this criterion considering j
recommendations that you may provide in your "150 day" response.
5.
Operator Actions 4
The extent to which the overall concern of thermal shock is being emphasized at Calvert Cliffs Unit No. I has been the subject of discussion between staff personnel (Project Manager and Resident Inspector). From these discussions we recognize that the operators are generally knowledgeable concerning PTS.
However, the staff is not aware of any specific training or instructions that have recently been added to address the PTS issue. Also, we cannot determine from your "60 dr.y" response to our letter of August 21, 1981, the degree of emphasis which is currently placed on the need for changes in procedures, training and management involvement.
i We request that you expand your response to provide us with a more detailed discussion of what steps have been taken to ensure that your operators have a firm grasp of the PTS issue and can be expected to cope with the events I
which may initiate PTS.
I i
l
EHCLOSURE (2)
AMPLIFICATION OF THE "150-DAY" REQUEST TO THE AUGUST 21, 1981 LETTER (1)
Identification of the PTS events that were considered in reaching your conclusions, and a justification for PTS events that you did not consider. You should include a quantitative assessment of the probability of occurrence of the various PTS events considered and not considered and an accompanying assessment of the likelihood of vessel failure vs. EFPY for the events. The manner in which you considered multiple failures of systems, components, and those resulting from operator actions should be described in detail.
(2)
A description of the steps, if any, you are taking now or plan to take in the near future to delay the rate of further embrittlement of your vessel, and your assessment of the effectiveness of those s te ps'.
(3)
Your assessment of the sensitivity of your analyses to uncertainties in input values, such as initial crack size, copper content, fluence, and initial reference temperature at welds.
(4)
A list of assumptions relied upon in reaching your conclusions, a.
If this list includes " credit" for operator actions, describe the basic instructions given the operators (for example, if a "sub-cooling" band is used, describe it). Submit the procedures the operator will follow, and describe the training being given to establish operator readiness to cope with PTS events, b.
If the list includes credit for the effects of warm prestressing for some event sequences, include your justification and analyses showing that such events will follow a pressure-temperature pathway for which warm pre-stress is effective.
l