ML20056F106
| ML20056F106 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/16/1993 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1973, NUDOCS 9308260071 | |
| Download: ML20056F106 (159) | |
Text
. _
Q OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 4
Agency:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
Title:
subcommittee on materials and Metellurgy Docket No.
O LOCATION:
Bethesda, Maryland DATE:
Monday, August 16, 1993 PAGES:
1 - 102 e
0?y
.3027 v
fo-t'le ife of te Corrmitte O
r
(
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1612 K St.,N.W.. Suite 300
[]
," 5 0 0 0 c,,,
Washington, D.C. 20006 v
,1
- -~
y I
((g'
-2
,an h
p OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPZOF PRDCEEDINGSD g
-f?
, (.:
.w-.;
t/
r.id '
f.
,m> ;,. y
,.. s. -n u
o m
+
t 4
'.if 'C i
, _j
,_g,w T.
r-I
/',,.,ii.,.
g A.
K
~
.~
i-s.. j..
Nucle'ar Regulatory. Commission 4.
f.
M_
Agency:'^ L Advisory ' Committee T,on? Reactor l Safeguardsi --
p,,
+4 7'
p s
i
',t i3
=s v
'u.w -
w :
e iTitle:-.
subcommitteet ontnaterials tand tge talidrgy;,
W;
. c.;
y^
5 c
s 2 $1 5
j.
. ~
s
~
r
/'tk p -
- j'
!r.
s t
J, F " -
. Docket No.-
3
-~o 4
.iI
,s 1
c ;{..
y lf)!11
.l 1 i & \\, "
ll(
, $ lc i
- ~ -
w 4
4 c.f; s
g a,..
s h?
i
- w, Q.
l' c
8
~y
,y i.
f -
~
V 1
LOCATION:
Bethesda,LMaryland2.
s o
m 4
s u
S.
y'~
r.
< > :n
- -; g
.DATE:
- Monday,iAugust-16d1993i
- PAGES
- L31 N 1020
[.%.4BK
$$Y96000)y$oi!rnttenL
&tteife:6Se
,3
[2;;;.'.
g%AF y
@vf"[&
ANN:RILEY &' ASSOCIATES,iLTD4
.1612 K St.', N.W.', Suite 300 < '
t
'.2D
.,5000.na.
- w.ai=t.. o.c.2.oos
_ ~
~
.,'m 9308260071 930816 M:
'(202) 293-3950
/i '
i."
WW.
T-1973 PDR O
s 4:
o
$c;,
c r.
e-
..-.m m
Q-c. ;. x A
'W
<s
.s j 1.
4 ' '
A R ;, _
,e 4
-s 5
3
PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS August 16, 1993 O
The contents of this transcript of the proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, (date)
August 16, 1993
, as Reported herein, are a record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
O ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
)
I
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
5 SUBCOMMITTEE ON MATERIALS AND METALLURGY L
7 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8
~7920 Norfolk Avenue, Room P-110 9
Bethesda, Meryland 10 11 Monday, August 16 1993 12 13 The meeting of the above-entitled subcommittee l
14 convened, pursuant to notice, at 12:05 p.m.
15 16 BEFORE:
17 ROBERT SEAL, 18 Subcommittee Chairman 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
2 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
112:05 p.m.]
3 MR. SEALE:
The meeting will now come to order.
4 This is a meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on 5
Materials and Metallurgy.
I am Robert Seal, Chairman of the 6
Subcommittee.
7 The ACRS members in attendance are Tom Kress, 8
William Shack.
We have as a consultant, Dr. Paul Shewmon, 9
former Chairman of the ACRS.
10 The purpose of this meeting is to review proposed 11 rulemaking on fracture toughness requirements for reactor 12 pressure vessels, revisiono to 10 CFR 50.61, Fracture 13 Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized 14 Thermal Shock Events; Appen<3ix G, Fracture Toughness 15 Requirements; Appendix H, Reactor Vessel Material 16 Surveillance Program Requirements; and a new rule, and an 17 implementing draft reguiatory guide on reactor vessel 18 thermal annealing, 10 CFR 50.66.
19 Elipidio Igne is the cognizant ACRS staff member 20 at this meeting.
He is hiding over behind the cabinet right 21 now.
22 The rules for participation in today's meeting 23 have been announced as part of the notice of the meetings 24 previously published in the Federal Register of August 2, 25 1993.
A transcript of the meeting is being kept, and will O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
3 1
be available as stated in the Federa] Register notice.
2
- It is requested that each speaker first identify 3
himself or herself and speak with sufficient clarity and 4
volume so that he or she can be readily heard.
We received 5
no written comments or requests for time to make oral 6
statements from members of the public.
7 I might say that the somewhat unusual hour of this 8
meeting is a consequence of a desire to get the meeting in 4
9 while Dr. Shewmon was still available to be with us today, 10 and also an attempt to allow people to come in this morning 11 rather than having to come in last night.
It looks like we 12 will have time to do that.
I hope there has been no 13 inconvenience to anyone as a result of that.
We certainly 14 appreciate your being here with us.
O 15 We will proceed with the meeting.
I will call on 16 Mr. Larry Shao of Research to begin.
17 MR. SHAO:
Okay.
My name is Larry Shao, Office of 18 Research.
19 Today we are going to present to you-five 20 documents of proposed revisions on 10 CFR 50.61, pressurized 21 thermal events, 10 CFR, Appendix G, Fracture Toughness 22 Requirements, 10 CFR, Appendix H, Reactor Vessel 23 Surveillance Program.
Also, we will present to you proposed 24 rules and reg. guide on thermal annealing.
25 Mike Mayfield and Alan Hiser make the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,.LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
4 1
presentation.
The first presentation will lxa made by Mr.
O 2
Hiser.
3 MR. SEALE:
Excuse me for just a moment.
I 4
understand you are only going to be able to be with us for a 5
short time?
6 MR. SHAO:
I will try to be here for an hour or 7
two.
8 MR. SEALE:
Okay.
So, if anyone thinks of 9
anything that might be particularly addressed to Mr. Shao, 10 try to be sure to pick that up before he has to depart.
11 Thank you for letting us know.
12 MR. SHAO:
Thank you.
13 MR. HISER:
I am Alan Hiser with the NRC Office of j
I 14 Research.
As Larry mentioned, what I will talk about is I
15 proposed revisions to these three documents.
16 What I will do, first of all, is talk about some 17 of the motivating factors that have brought us here tc ty as 18 to why we are proposing these modifications.
Then I will 19 describe a little bit of the background of each of these 20 rules, and then describe the changes that we proposed.
21 Separate from the handout, there is a piece of 22 paper that lists two changes from the document that was 23 initially submitted for ACRS review.
24 In the PTS rule we have clarified the Commission 25 approval to clearly indicate that it is the Director of NRR O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
5 1
that would be responsible for that approval.
Then in 2
Appendix G we are proposing to delete the design to permit 3
annealing requirement.
The second change is reflected in 4
the presentation.
5 The reason that we are proposing these changes are 6
given here.
This is basically in order of impact on the 7
regulations.
The first item is the review of the integrity B
of the reactor pressure vessel at the Yankee Rowe reactor.
9 The official name for that unit is the Yankee Nuclear Power 10 Station.
I will go into quite a bit of detail as to how 11 that has prompted revisions to our regulations.
12 The second item is a backfit claim and appeal by 13 NUBARG on requirements for core criticality during pressure 14 in leak testing.
15 Stemming from these two we had Commission guidance 16 in 1991 in a Staff Requirements Memo that requested that we 17 go back and review the documents and consider changes that 18 would be needed to clarify and correct the documents.
19 Stemming from all three of these, staff have 20 researched, and NRR has done pretty much a top-to-bottom 21 review of the documents.
We have a number of 22 clarifications, corrections, and some changes for 23 consistency that we are proposing.
24 The review of the Yankee Nuclear Power Station 25 began in 1990, and principally focused on PTS and Appendix G ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
6 1
issues.
Now, the PTS issues stem basically from the method 2
of calculating embrittlement estimates in the PTS rule.
The 3
basic problem is that in the PTS rule that was in force at 4
the time, there was a single equation given to calculate 5
embrittlement.
6 Now, that method worked very well for every plant 7
out there except for Yankee Rowe.
In particular, two items 8
that were not accounted for in that method are the existence 9
of surveillance data and how they describe the embrittlement 10 for the vessel.
I-1so, there was no consideration of 11 temperature effects on the embrittlement of the RPV.
12 Arising from this review was a PTS analysis 13 according to Reg. Guide 1.154.
One of the findings was that 14 there was a lot of difficulty in using the Guide.
That 15 pretty much was in all aspects of the Guide.
The guidance 16 just was unclear and not specific enough in some cases.
17 Of the various documents that had been evaluated 18 in this review, the PTS Guide has revisions that are longer-19 term items.
20 MR. SEALE:
Just hold it there.
21 MR. SHEWMON:
On the surveillance data, tell me 22 again why you got that.
There was no surveillance data in 23 that plant, was there?
24 MR. HISER:
There was surveillance data dating 25 from the early '60s for Yankee Rowe.
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 F Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
7 1
MR. SHEWMON:
For the upper part of their vessel, 2
but not the lower part?
3 MR. HISER:
That's correct.
But even the data for 4
the upper plate showed elevated enbrittlement above that 5
that you would predict from the Reg. Guide.
6 The problem was there was no mechanism in the PTS 7
rule to account for that.
You had to use this equation.
8 You couldn't use any other information.
I will address that 9
a little bit because we fixed that in the 1991 amendment.
10 MR. SEALE:
Okay.
Let me just'make one comment, 11 and hopefully you will address it as you go along, but I 12 will throw it out for you to look at.
l 13 I have the impression that the reason they had I
14 problems with Yankee Rowe was they knew too much.
That is, O
I 15 there were data there which were in excess of what the 16 normal estimating rule requirements were.
The result was j
17 that you got things that were inconsistent, or you found 18 things inconsistent.
19 I have problems with that because that doesn't 20 really convince me necessarily that your method of 21 calculating embrittlement is on, so to speak.
- Now, 22 hopefully you can straighten me out on that as we go along.
23 MR. SHAO:
I thought the major problem with the 24 Yankee Rowe review was that the opening temperature was much 25 lower than the Reg. Guide temperature.
The opening was 525, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
8 1
and the Reg. Guide 1.99 was only applicable for temperature 2
higher than 525.
3 MR. SHEWMON:
Surveillance data is another point.
4 MR. SHAO:
Yes, and the surveillance data are the 5
main issues.
)
]
6 MR. HISER:
I think we had a substantial absence 7
of information on Yankee Rowe.
That was.the big problem.
8 But hopefully as I get into some discussion of the PTS rule, 9
maybe some of those questions will be answered.
4 10 Now, the technical issues related to Appendices G 1
11 and H of 10 CFR 50 are listed here.
For Appendix G the 12 process for demonstrating equivalent margins for cases in 13 which a Charpy upper shelf energy is less than 50 foot 14 pounds.
15 That process was very unclear.
As I will show 16 later, there are a couple of different interpretations that 17 one can come up with from the regulations as they exist.
18 In Appendix H, the applicable version of ASTME 185 19 was the principal issue, and basically whether the Yankee 20 Rowe surveillance program met the Appendix H requirements.
21 Now one thing I would like to point out is that i
j 22 the Yankee Rowe surveillance program went into place before 23 Appendix H was in place and also before there was an I
24 established ASTME standard 1985.
So, it is hard to backfit 25 a plant in that sense becaus'e of the lack of material and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 j
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 t
,,-_--,-.-_.,-_.__.,,_,._,.-.m
.__.,,._.,.,_.m.
r 9
4 1
other considerations.
i 2
With the high embrittlement that was projected the 3
Yankee Rowe vessel might have suffered, the licensee t
4 considered thermal annealing of the reactor pressure vessel.
5 What we found in looking at the regulations is that the t
6 requirements were not very clear.
7 First of all, the criteria were pretty much l
4 8
undefined on what the application for annealing should look 9
like, and what the Director of NRR would use to evaluate the l
10 application.
It was very unclear.
11 Secondly, there were some questions.
We had this
-1 12 listed as " Opportunity for Public Participation," but at 13 what point would hearings be required?
Would a licensing l
l 14 amendment be required?
There were other concerns like that.
O i
15 Stemming'from this was Commission guidance in a i
)
16 SRM, as I mentioned before, dated August 1, 1991, to revise 17 and clarify the regulations.
Staff responded to the l
18 Commission in three different SECY papers listed here.
This
[
3 19 last SECY paper provided a summary of the changes that were 20 contemplated at that time.
21 Now to get into some of the specifics of the 22 rules, the PTS rule was initially published in 1985.
23 In 1991 an amendment was published in final form.
This i
i 24 amendment basically resolving inconsistency and l
25 embrittlement estimates with Regulatory Guide 1.99, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters o
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
. _.. -. _, -. ~. _ _
.m._.,
J 4
i
)
i 10 i
1 Revision 2.
l 3
i 2
In addition, in this amendment we required i
i j
3 licensees to consider surveillance data and other plant
{
- l t
4 specific information such as operating temperature that t
t j
5-would give better estimates of embrittlement.
i j
6 So this is where the first impact of Yankee Rowe I
l l
7 hit our regulations when we required them to look at things l
l 8
like operating temperature.
Now, the rule, in its essence, 3
i 9
provides embrittlement screening criteria where this l
t i
j 10 parameter RTPTS is compared to a couple of index j
j 11 temperatures.
4 I
12 Now, RTPTS is an index on fracture toughness which j
13 basically accounts for embrittlement and gives an index of l
t 14 the fracture toughness at the vessel end of license fluence.
I 15 For axial wells and base metals, RTPTS has to be below 270 1
+
it has to be l
t 16 degrees Fahrenheit.
For circumferential wells, i
17 below 300 Fahrenheit.
j I
i 18 Now, as one of the requirements in the rule if 19 RTPTS is projected to exceed the screening criteria and 20 before the end of the operating license, flux reduction is 1'
21 required.
I 22 If flux reduction is inadequate to keep RTPTS
]
23 below these screening criteria, then a fracture mechanics 24 analysis is required.
The staff has published guidance in 25 Regulatory Guide 1.154 on how to do that type of a fracture I-l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 1
I
- -. _. _ _. ~. _ _. _. _ _. -. _, _. _ _., _ _,.,.,,, _,. _,
11 1
mechanics analysis.
That analysis is required three years
()
2 before the screening criteria are exceeded.
3 MR. KRESS:
What's the purpose of that three-year 4
time period?
5 MR. HISER:
Principally it's for staff review of 6
the submittal.
These are very complex calculations of 7
probablistic fracture mechanics type of analysis.
8 MR. KRESS:
Would you repeat those when you review 9
such an application, do you think?
You would repeat the PTS 10 calculations, or just review them?
11 MR. MAYFIELD:
This.is Mike Mayfield from 12 Research.
13 The intent would be that we would review them, not 14 that we would duplicate them.
We got caught up in the O
15 Yankee Rowe evaluation because from preliminary review there 16 were a number of questions raised actually, at the direction 17 of the chairman.
18 We started doing some scoping calculations.
That 19 lead us, then, to much more involved interaction with the 20 licensee.
Typically it would be a matter of reviewing the 21 calculations.
There might be some independent evaluation, 22 but the norm would be to simply review the licensee 23 submittal.
24 MR. KRESS:
Do you think three years was about 25 right for that?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
i l
12 4
}
1 MR. MAYFIELD:
I think that when they started out, 2
they looked at what would be involved, and if you had to.do i
4 j
3 something, at this stage you convince yourself flux i
i
'i
)
4 reduction isn't going to solve the problem.
You are going l
5 to have to do something else potentially.
6 You want to get that in early enough so that you 7
can work with the licensee, review the submittal, whatever f
i 4
8 iterations there are, and still get that done before you j
8 9
would exceed the screening criteria.
i 10 MR. KRESS:
Okay.
11 MR. MAYFIELD:
So the idea is time for review and I
12 iteration as necessary.
13 MR. SHEWMON:
If you could lower the pressure on a 14 plant as it cooled down, you would never have a PTS problem.
i
' O i
15 A lot of the things that come up have to do with what the 16 staff is willing to let them assume about what their 17 operators are going to do, what the plant will'do to reduce l
l 18 pressure, how reliable this is.
i 19 I think you get into more iterations and 20 discussions, and ground rules than you do on many of these 21 things.
22 MR. HISER:
Now some of the problems that were 23 encountered with the PTS rule -- we have termed these 24 oversights, but they are errors or maybe things that we 3
25 would have done a little bit differently if we had the 1991 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N W.,
Suite 300 1
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
13 1
amendment to do over again.
2 But the problem with the rule right now is that it 3
does not specify appropriate margin values if surveillance 4
data are used.
It does have values if you used the 5
calculational method that is in there.
But we are lacking 6
this margin value if you use surveillance data.
7 There is pretty much an inadequate definition 8
of the initial value of RTNDT.
The current rule does not 9
give us an acceptable reference that are in R.eg. Guide 1.99, 10 Rev.
2.
11 In addition, the rule is silent on the 12 acceptability of thermal annealing to reduce RTPTS.
As we l
13 know from a lot of research, annealing is a very good method 14 for reducing the value of RTPTS.
O 15 The proposed revisions to the PTS rule are listed 16 here.
The first revision would make the RTPTS analysis 3
j 17 method identical to Reg Guide 199 Rev.
2.
And in doing 18 that, all of the embrittlement estimates used by NRC would 19 be consistent.
To implement this we are modifying the 20 method for determining initial RTNDT to be consistent with j
21 the Reg Guide and also we're including the explicit equation 1
l 22 for evaluating the margin term.
And that's consistent with 23 the Reg Guide.
j 24 We are, in addition, incorporating thermal i
25 annealling as an acceptable option to reduce RTPTS and this O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
~, _ _ _ _. _. _ _. _... _ _ _. _ _
14 j
1 adds greater flexibility to licensees in meeting the 2
requirements of the rule.
So we're not changing the 3
requirements, we're just giving them another method for l
4 meeting the requirements that are currently in the rule.
l l
5 The last item is more administrative.
We've i
6 proposed the restructuring the PTS rule.
Currently the rule j
7 has two sections, definitions and requirements and this
{
8 section on calculation of RTPTS is wound into the 9
requirements section.
It's very difficult as you go through f
10 figuring out what are the requirements and what are the 11 calculation methods.
So in splitting it up this way, I l
12 think we will have a much cleaner flowing rule.
13 Now, to shift gears a little bit into Appendix G 14 of 10 CFR Part 50 --
O 15 MR. SHEWMON:
Al, maybe it will come up again, but 16 let me catch you now.
In the discussion here of the PTS j
17 rule there is a page I can't find, but had a minute ago, 18 that talks about you can use your surveillance data if the 19 scatter is low, but you can't if it's large.
How you define 20 the scatter of this is not defined.
Is this a sigma on an 21 average or a founding curve, or how do you --
22 MR. HISER:
Well, the rule, I think, is fairly 23 explicit in that you fit the surveillance -- well, let me 24 back up a little bit.
Basically what we've done is 25 incorporate the method in Reg Guide 199 Rev. 2 where you fit ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 i
i 15
]
u j
1 your data to the fluency function given in the Reg Guide and 2
then determine the standard deviation of your available data J
3 points about that line.
If the standard deviation is less-4 than the standard deviation used in determining the 3
5 equations in the Reg Guide, then the surveillance data are
)
6 termed " credible," and I believe there are three or'four 7
other requirements for quote / unquote credible data.
8 MR. SHEWMON:
Okav.
But there is, then -- in here 1
9 it's not spelled out that well, but there is a well-defined 10 way of defining scatter and what is an acceptable scatter.
11 MR. HISER:
Yes.
f 12 MR. SHEWMON:
Okay.
' Fine.
i 13 MR. HISER:
And one point I.would make is that if j
l 14 your surveillance data are not credible, but they show much i
15 elevated embrittlement, you do need to consider that.
.So
?
16 you can't just ignore your data.
17 MR. SHEWMON:
Does it specify how much data you 18 require?
How many data points?
19 MR. HISER:
I believe it's three data points.
)
i 20 MR. SHEWMON:
You might look on page 37 which 21 says, " Scatter in the plots of charpy energy versus j
22 temperature for the irradiate and unirradiated conditions 23 must be small enough to permit the determination of the 30-4 24 foot-pound temperature unambiguously."
Which doesn't say 25 what you've just said.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
16 1
MR. HISER:
Well, I think there are several other O
2 items on there.
I didn't bring a copy.
3 MR. SHEWMON:
The next one says, "Where there are 4
two or more sets of surveillance data from one reactor, the 5
scatter of RTNDT values must'be less than 28 degrees 6
fahrenheit for welds and 17 degrees for base metal.
Even if 7
the range in the capsule fluences is large (two or more 8
orders of magnitude), the scatter may not exceed twice those 9
values."
)
10 MR. HISER:
Yeah, that's the point that I was j
11 highlighting on that.
And, I guess, there are four other
{
l 12 requirements as well.
And it is two or more sets of i
i 13 surveillance data, so I misspoke previously.
j 14 MR. SHEWMON:
There's lots of ways to measure (2) 15 scatter.
Did you mean variance there?
16 MR. HISER:
Just the sum of the squares of the i
17 measure minus the predicted.
l 18 MR. SHEWMON:
Okay.
19 MR. HISER:- Now, Appendix G of 10 CFR Part 50 was i
i 20 initially published in 1973 and the last technical amendment 21 was about 10 years ago.
So we're pretty much on. target here 22 with making amendments every 10 years.
Appendix G contains 23 the fundamental fracture toughness requirements for faradic 24 materials composing the pressure boundary components.
As 25 one aspect of Appendix G of 10 CFR 50 it references Appendix f
I O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950-
. ~
i
)
l 17 l
1 G of Section 11 of the ASME code for a lot of the details on O
i 2
the calculations and things 3
Appendix G also contains requirements for the 4
evaluation of PT limits and minimum metal temperature.
i 5
These requirements are used for the basic operational limits l
6 and they preclude against brittle fracture of the vessel.
j 7
In analogoas manner we have requirements to preclude against 8
ductile fracture of the vessel and these requirements are on 9
Charpy upper shelf energy where there's a requirement of 75-l 10 foot pounds for the materials in the preservice condition 11 and 50-foot pounds throughout the vessel life.
i 12 So that's sort of an overview of Appendix G.
Some i
13 of the problems that have been encountered in implementing 14 Appendix G are listed here.
As we found with Yankee Rowe, 15 it really isn't clear what the proper steps are that one i
16 must follow to demonstrate equivalent margins if you project 17 that Charpy upper shelf energy is below 50-foot pounds.
And l
18 if you turn to the next page of the handout,- I've 19 illustrated what our interpretation of Appendix G is.
20 Basically, if you project that Charpy upper shelf energy is 21 less than 50-foot pounds, then in Section 4 there's Eul 22 analysis to demonstrate equivalent margins to those 1.
23 Appendix G.
If you pass that analysis, then you can go 24 ahead and continue to operate the vessel.
25 I should say pass this and have that submittal i
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
-Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
~-. --
l 18 i
1 approved by the director of NRR then you can continue to 2
operate.
If you should fail that analysis, then you have to r
3 do two steps.
One is essentially 100 percent voltmetric 4
inspection and also demonstrate additional evidence of the 5
fracture toughness of the vessel.
Now,.it's clear the 6
fracture toughness data would feed into an additional l
I 7
analysis, but we're not really certain as to what the 8
volumetric inspection results are going to lead into.
'(
9 But, anyway, within the Rule you would do another l
10 analysis, and, again, if you can demonstrate equivalent f
11 margins and receive the approval of the director of NRR, i
12 then you can operate.
If you should fail this analysis then
]
I 13 you have to take some sort of remedial action.
I i
14 Now, let me just make one more point.
I don't
)
O i
15 mean to cut you off, but this is the staff interpretation of i
16 Appendix G and its requirements for Charpy upper shelf
(
t 17 energy of less than 50-foot pounds.
Another interpretation 18 basically said that this leg -- this analysis and this leg -
j 19
- didn't exist.
So if you project Charpy upper shelf energy 20 of less than 50-foot pounds, you came directly to the 21 volumetric inspection and additional evidence and only had 22 this one analysis.
So this was -- whether this leg exists 23 or not was one of the concerns in Appendix G.
24 MR. SHEWMON:
I want to talk about something else 25 and that's the antisoprophy that's sort of to say, 50-foot.
O.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
-_..__...._._...-..,.-...,-..,......___.,..__,,,,-..-.,-.-,--,-..m.._..,.,-
1 19 i
t 1
pounds acts as if some of these guys might think it's a 2
homogeneous isotropic property and you and I know better to j
3 these older plates.
Is that discussed in the Rule 4
someplace, or is it always -- do we know that in all the 5
vessels that are out there, the higher Charpy energy is in 6
the direction of the highest stress and we can ignore the j
7 antisoprophy in the other direction?
8 MR. HISER:
Both' directions needs to be considered f
9 in these analyses.
50-foot pounds would be the lowest of 10 the two principle directions.
So both directions have to be t
11 above 50-foot pounds.
l 12 MR. SHEWMON:
Is that the way we measure it, 13 usually, in the vessels that were put into service 20 years
}
t 14 ago?
I had the impression we measured one and then sort of f'I 15 waved our hands and said the other is about two-thirds j
16 usually.
[
17 MR. HISER:
In many cases, we only have the f
18 longitudinal or high toughness orientation, Charpy data.
j i
19 And in that case we do have a method for estimating what the j
i 20 low toughness direction Charpy energy is.
And it is using a 1
21 factor of 0.65.
i 1
22 MR. SHEWMON:
Okay.
That's close enough to two-23 thirds for me.
24 Now, what does this apply to?
Does this apply to 25 the longitudinal, then, or to the one that's reduced by two-4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
L 20 i
i I
thirds?
{
t a
2 MR. HISER:
It would probably apply to the 4
i 3
transverse.
i I
4 MR. SHEWMON:
Not probably.
j 5
MR. MAYFIELD:
It does apply to the transverse l
i 5
6 orientation.
It's not probably, there's'no equivocation.
l 3
i 7
It does apply to the lower value.
8 MR. SHEWMON:
Some of the vessels started out, I
1 9
then, below this to begin with like Yankee Rowe, didn't i
i 10 they?
11 MR. MAYFIELD:
Well, I don't think it was below l
1 j
12 it, but it was uncomfortably close to it.
13 MR. SHEWMON:
In the transverse direction?
4 14 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes, sir.
And it did nothing but 15 go down at the time.
16 MR. SHEWMON:
Yeah.
I i
~
17 MR. HISER:
It does not get better for the over I
18 plan.
f 19 MR. SHEWMON:
Yes, but I've been here someplace l
l 20 that if it's an isotropic that, indeed, this applies to the l
l 21 lower direction?
t
]
22 MR. MAYFIELD:
We think that's a consequence --
just a natural consequence of the way the regulation is set l
23 I
24 up and the toughness property that is supposed to be j
25 measured coming out of ASME because some of the early t
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 I
h
,-ym, m
.---e.-,
.---ee,,w,ve-w
-ar - - --- m w
- w o-r-v w e v r w -- - r==
nwe**-*w-em
'e--w- * - - - = + - - +
a-**"-**'""""""+'*'r*'
" " * - * * ~ + * * - ' " - * ' ~ ' - "
a i
21 1
vessels, those code and rules --_they predate the code and 2
rules or there was some misunderstanding in some of the 3
earlier versions and that's where the two-thirds factor l
l 4
comes into it.
L 3
5 MR. SHEWMON:
And that's spelled out in the ASTM?
f n
6 MR. MAYFIELD:
ASME and then there is a newer l
7 ASTM.
3 8
MR. SHEWMON:
That's all I want to know.
And that i
9 specification talks about how you mix longitudinal and
)
10 transverse when you choose samples?
i 11 MR. MAYFIELD:
No, that's a staff position.
j 12 MR. SHEWMON:
Pardon?
1 i
i 13 MR. MAYFIELD:
14 specifications discuss the properties in the transverse or l
t i
15 the lead orientation.
And when you don't have those as some l
i 16 of the earlier vessels don't have it, there's a staff 17 position in one of the branch technical positions, and I've l
t i
]
18 forgotten which one, where they talk about this two-thirds l
l 19 or 0.65 factor and we have gone back through the i
i 20 embrittlement data base and looked at the materials where we i
4 1
j 21 have properties in both orientations to find that that's not 1
22 a bad fit.
So it's not -- I think you earlier characterized 23 it as we waved our hands and got a number and that may have 24 been the case earlier, but with time there is fairly good 25 evidence that that's not such a bad number.
It tends to be ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.'20006 1
(202) '293-3950
i i
22
]
1 a little conservative.
2 MR. SHEWMON:
It should be because what you've got 3
in here is sulfides and that's how much those are strung out-i i
4 that influence this and if they weren't cross-rolling, they i
5 won't be strung out so much.
If they had more sulphur and 4
6 didn't have the right trace it would be strung out more and l
7 so it's a long ways from a constant of nature.
8 Well, let me come back to the original question, 9
though, in a newer vessel then, the surveillance packages
'l 10 have transverse and longitudinal orientations in them?
l l
11 MR. HISER:
Generally, they're required to have t
12 transverse.
In some cases they also have longitudinal, but i
i I
13 they're not required to have longitudinal.
MR. SHEWMON:
But they're required, then, to have
, O 14 15 the weaker direction?
16 MR. HISER:
That's correct.
l 17 MR. SHEWMON:
And so that's what their 2'
18 surveillance data will be coming in on?
(
i 19 MR. HISER:
Yes, that's correct.
t 20 A second problem that was encountered was the l
21 issue of core criticality during ASME pressure and leak l
4 22 tests and I'll go into a little bit more detail on that in a l
23 few minutes.
One general observation that we made is that l
]
24 the paragraphs that describe the requirements for PT limits 1
25 and minimum temperature requirements are very convoluted and i
)
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
+
Washington, D.C.
'20006 (202) 293-3950 1
__,...,_..___...-__,_.-,__._....--,J,..
23 1
very difficult to understand.
And a little bit later I'll 2
show you how we've proposed addressing that problem.
3 Within Appendix G thermal annealing is addressed 4
as one method for addressing Charpy upper shelf energy below 5
50-foot pounds The approval process for thermal annealing 6
in Appendix G is very unclear.
And lastly, the design to t
7 permit annealing requirement -- the impact of how that I
8 addresses or is it pertinent really to operating plants is l
l 9
another problem that we've addressed.
l
?
10 I want to take these item by item.
In an overall f
f 11 sense, on Appendix G we've proposed a restructuring of i
12 Sections 4 and 5.
The PT limits and the minimum temperature l
13 requirements would be principally identified in a new table I
i 14 which is illustrated here.
And we've captured this based on 15 whether you're doing pressure and leak tests or a normal 16 operation as a function of the operating condition and 17 vessel pressure, and then we have the requirements for the f
18 PT limits and the requirements for the minimum temperature I
19 requirements.
i 20 I think we've addressed many of the issues --
l
?
21 MR. SHEWMON:
Is that what the pressure is then
[
22 for a hydro test with fuel in the vessel?
20 percent of j
I 23 what?
24 MR. HISER:
20 percent of the.preservice system 1
25 hydro test pressure.
f l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 i
i I
'm+
w
+
n c.,,,m v
v.-wn-g q.
~----e--7,--3 g
24 1
MR. SHEWMON:
And that will have been 10 or 15 2
percent over the operating temperature?
3 MR. HISER:
Yes, something on that order.
So, 4
basically, if your pressure is less than 20 percent of your l
5 preservice hydro, these are the requirements.
If the l
t 6
pressure is 20 percent or greater, then we have slightly i
7 different requirements.
j 8
MR. SHEWMON:
And the code requires -- these are 9
basically weak tests, not hydros, as I would have understood l
10 the word.
But that's -- so they go up to 500 pounds and 11 declare victory; is that it?
12 MR. HISER:
No, no, no.
Now, this is just -- this f
13 is to construct the curve that you have to meet as you were j
i l
14 l
15 MR. SHEWMON:
I'm looking for the definition of a 16 hydro test that comes in the code, not --
t 17 MR. MAYFIELD:
I understand.
There is a 18 requirement in Section 11 for leak tests and there are also I
19 requirements that seem to be dwindling at the time that i
l l
20 relate to hydrostatic tests.
There is also a preservice l
21 hydrostatic testing.
l l
22 MR. HISER:
I skipped that one.
i 23 MR. MAYFIELD:
The column called " vessel pressure" 3
24 simply indicates once you go above that pressure -- as you i
25 go towards the code-required pressure -- that's where we're i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
f i
i 25 1
headed, code-required pressure.
2 MR. SHEWMON:
What are the code required 3
pressures?
l r
4 MR. MAYFIELD:
They're what, 10 percent over l
i 5
operating to the leak tests and I think it's --
(
6 MR. SHEWMON:
They're always over operating?
7 MR. MAYFIELD:
They're always over operating.
So t
8 what this table is getting to in the right-hand column is 9
the vessel level temperature that you must have once you I
10 achieve this pressure level on your way to the code test 11 pressure.
That's what we're really trying to set with this 12 table are middle temperatures rather than the pressures.
13 MR. SHEWMON:
As a separate _ question, I was a 14 little -- I guess, I don't think'the ACRS ever heard about t
l l
15 the results of this study that said, you shall not use l
t l-16 nuclear heating or fission heat to get up to test 17 temperature wnich is sort of cast into a rule here for the f
18 first time apparently.
Is there any probability in having a 19 PRA done on that, or is that --
I i
20 MR. MAYFIELD:
This was something that was i
21 reviewed by the staff and by the committee that reviewed j
22 generic requirement in response to backing up any claim and 23 subsequent appeal of the decision.
l 24 The intention of the staff that it was never our 25 intention that licensees would use nuclear heat to get into l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
.---,-,-~.-,..-......-._-.---.-.,.~.......-...,-,....,_...-,,!
26 l
1 these metal detecterc That was never part of it.
We think
)
2 that's bad operating ground.
3 The purpose of these tests is to find leaks, to 4
find, in some cases, if there's been some inadvertent 5
maintent,ce error or some gross workmanship error.
Th ;'s 6
what you're looking for with these tests.
You're not really j
i 7
going to do much with the vessel, you're going to find l
8 something that hasn't been put back together quite right.
9 MR. SHEWMON:
You may spend a day doing that-on a I
10 BWR.
l 11 MR. MAYFIELD:
You may spend a day doing that on l
l 12 some of the older ones.
The other thing that when you're
('
13 operating, there's some question about whether you could use 14 nuclear heat to achieve the temperature, then go back to a l
O l
15 nonvertical state.
Now, you've already heated up, but the i
16 issue is as the temperature and pressure are coming up, you l
17 are to use nuclear heat and you found some problem like a j
l i
18 pipe that wasn't welded back together properly or a repair i
19 that was not done properly.
Now, you've got the operator in 20 a situation where he's critical and he has some failure that 21 he has to deal with, then, we don't think it challenged that 22 the system be fixed.
We think that this is a convenience 23 for plants, not something that's essential for them to do, 24 but we think there are adverse safety consequences to that 25 practice.
It's a very limited practice and we don't think I
i O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters
(
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C.
20006 j
(202) 293-3950 1
1 1
i 27 1
it should ever have been done.
It was permitted through an i
2 oversight.
Once it was flagged to the staff it was just
)
3 turned around and denied.
i
]
4 We don't think it repletes to good operation and j
5 if something had been reviewed in some depth by the staff I
i i
6 and through the systems operations people and it appears as 1
7 a consequence of Appendix G.
So it's not really a l
8 metallurgy or a materials problem, but it pops up in.
t 9
Appendix G and that's where it needs to be fixed.
We can
]
10 fix it there.
But just from a safety standpoint we think i
11 it's a particularly bad practice.
i t
i 12 MR. HISER:
Okay.
l 13 MR. SHEWMON:
The utilities who took the other l
l 14 side of that lost on appeal as well.
j l
15 MR. SHAO:
Yes, but NRC has eliminated two or l
16 three cases.
4 17 MR. HISER:
Okay.
l I
18 Again within Sections 4 and 5 of current Appendix 4
19 G,
we are clarifying the procedures for Charpy upper-shelf j
i i
20 energy.
Now, the contents of our proposed revision would 21 maintain the equivalent margins analysis, would still be I
22 required three yet befc Charpy upper-shelf energy is
{
23 projected to go belo. 80 foot pounds.
24 Additional fracture toughness data may be obtained I
l 25 for inclusion in the analysis, but the licensee could also
(
(,
7004 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
28 1
use generic data to demonstrate the equivalent margins.
2 The volumetric inspection requirements we think 3
have been superseded essentially by the augmented inspection 4
requirements for the ASME Code, in particular with the 5
incorporation of Appendices 7 and 8 of ASME Section 11, and 6
these are already required under 10 CFR 50.55-A.
So we j
7 don't see --
8 MR. SHEWMON:
That's the ten-year inspection?
I' 9
MR. HISER:
That's correct.
10 MR. SHEWMON:
Okay.
11 MR. HISER:
Yes.
We don't think there is a need 12 for an additional inspection; that's already required.
So 13 to show our schematic again, our proposed requirements would 14 essentially look like what we had previously, except we 15 would just delete the separate volumetric inspection i
16 requirement.
17 Now, to address the issue that Professor Shewmon l
18 raised on core criticality, we would specifically require 19 that pressure and leak test required by the ASME code be 20 completed prior to core criticality.
This would be an 21 implementation of a CRGR recommendation to the EDO about 22 three years ago, stemmed from a NUBARG backfitting claim and I
l 23 appeal that was denied by the CRGR, and the principal reason l
l 24 cited in the CRGR finding was safety concerns, and one of
)
l 25 those was the hindrance of finding leaks at the operating I
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite.300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
29 1
temperature since these are principally visual inspections.
2 The other proposed revisions to Appendix G are 3
listed here.
The design to permit annealing requirement 4
that's in Section 4 currently would be deleted.
The current i
5 reference to Appendix G of Section III of the ASME Code
)
I 6
would be changed to reference that -- to reference Appendix 7
G of Section 11 of the ASME Code.
I always stumble on this.
i 8
The Section III is the construction code, and j
9 Section XI is the ISI code, and it is becoming more of an l
10 operating plant criteria code.
So we think it is more 11 appropriate to reference Appendix G of Section XI.
These i
12 two appendices are identical.
I 13 Further, we would delete the existing language on f
i 14 annealing that is in Appendix G and instead we would i
O 15 reference the proposed thermal annealing rule that Mike i
16 Mayfield will discuss a little bit later.
l 17 MR. SHACK:
Excuse me just a second.
l 4
18 MR. SHEWMON:
Sure.
I 19 MR. SHACK:
That design to annealing -- so that e
20 the July 20th version of this is now out of date and that 21 whole paragraph is gone?
l i
22 MR. HISER:
That's correct, yes.
That's just been 23 deleted, and the next paragraph is just numerically moved I
i l
24 up.
l 25 Within Appendix H of 10.CFR Part 50, a material l
l 0
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
].
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 2
Washington, D.C 20006
)
(202) 293-3950 i
i
---,,v.,
v
.,,..wm..,-,..e-<w,,
,--c,-
c-,...
- +. -
.-----..---,_.-..J
30 1
surveillance program is required to monitor radiation 2
embrittlement of the reactor pressure vessel beltline 3
materials.
The appendix references ASTM Standard E 185 for 4
a lot of the details about surveillance programs in terms of 5
withdrawal schedules and materials required and numbers of 6
specimens and that sort of thing.
In addition, Appendix H 7
contains provisions for integrated surveillance programs.
8 MR. SHEWMON:
What does an integrated surveillance 9
program mean?
10 MR. HISER:
An integrated surveillance program is 11 one in which similar plants -- say you have two similar 12 plants.
One performs irradiations for the other plant.
13 MR. SHAO:
Mostly for B&W vessels.
i 14 MR. HISER:
And there are specific requirements O
i 15 that have to be addressed in a submittal for s.pproval for j
t 16 integrated surveillance programs.
So there are a number of 17 requirements related to it.
i i
18 In terms of implementing Appendix H, we have l
19 encountered several problems.
The first is that one of the 20 requirements discusses that part of the surveillance program 1
21 conducted prior to the first capsule withdrawal -- what 22 exactly does that mean?
23 Secondly, it is not clear what the earliest 24 edition of ASTM E 185 must be met to demonstrate compliance 25 with Appendix H, and lastly, in terms of the integrated O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
-. ~.
--.u d
e.
A
.a..
+a m
w,---.#
4 31 1
1 surveillance programs, there is a provision under which 2
licensees can discontinue testing if initial results agree 3
with predictions.
What are the criteria to make such an 4
assessment?
5 So those are the three principal problems that we 6
have identified.
7 In terms of proposed revisions, this first 8
paragraph is intended to clarify the version of E 185.
We 9
have clearly stated design of the program and withdrawal 10 schedule must meet the requirements of E 185 1973 or the l
11 edition of E 185 that is current on the issue date of the l
l 12 ASME Code to which the RPV was purchased.
i 13 Further, we would propose discontinuing the 14 provision for reducing the amount of testing in integrated l
15 surveillance programs since we are not sure what the j
i 16 criteria are.
l 17 Are there any questions?
l l
18 MR. SHEWMON:
With regard to eliminating the j
19 possibility of people using the PTS rule and now going all 20 to one procedure for calculating it, there is a comment back f
21 here that says NRC considers -- well, some plants will get 22 caught, but really not too many, and we think it's a neater 23 way to do it this way, or something to that effect.
24 How many plants are bothered by that, do you know?
25 MR. HISER:
Okay.
I think you --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 i
1
32-I i
1 MR. SHEWMON:
And will be considerate of problems 2
because of this.
3 MR. MAYFIELD:
This is on the plate margin issue?
4 Can you tell me the page?
5 MR. SHEWMON:
Yes.
I am on page 8.
6 MR. MAYFIELD:
Ed, do you remember the number of i
i 7
plants that -- it is two or three or four plants, and that 8
is being handled by NRR through licensee-specific actions.
t 9
We are going back and dealing with them directly.
f i
10 MR. HACKETT:
Ed Hackett, NRR.
That's correct, l
t 11 Mike.
You are talking approximately two or threeLplants-(
12 that are really critical there.
j r
13 MR. SHEWMON:
Two you are sure of, and the third 14 one you don't know?
Why do you say two or three?
You just f
([)
i 15 aren't quite sure of the number?
16 MR. HACKETT:
No.
There are a couple of things.
i i
17 I am not exactly sure of the number is one; plus, there are f
18 some complicating issues behind deciding exactly where they 19 stand.
I 20 MR. MAYFIELD:
If it was a larger scale change, we 21 would have felt obliged to change the rule at this point.
22 However, the concern is if you start changing the rule - -
23 let me back up a second.
24 I think you know we have an ongoing program l
25 looking at the program trend for Regulatory 1 Guide ~199 and i
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.. W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) ;293-3950 i
l
i 1
1 33 l
1 now are faced with the PTS rules.
O i
2 Because the problem with the margin term derived 3
from the existing trend curves, because that problem affects 4
a small number of plants, we felt it more appropriate to 5
deal with them and leave the rule alone until such time as l
6 we can look at the overall issue and fix that one time.
7 MR. SHEWMON:
Now, the PTS rule didn't say I
8 anything special about nickel, but Rev 2 of 199 did.
Is l
l 9
that one of the larger things that caught plants or changed l
I l
10 the number?
11 MR. MAYFIELD:
In going from the original PTS to i
12 the Rev.
2, yes, that changed.
The PTS equations in the 13 original version were an intermediate step between Revision 14 1 and Revision 2 in the Reg Guide, and when they put the O-
)
15 rule in place, they weren't quite ready to finish up the Reg i
16 Guide and all the work on the embrittlement trend curves was 17 not yet complete, but they knew they had to get the PTS rule 18 in place.
So there was an interim step.
j i
19 We knew at that point we would be introducing an 20 inconsistency between the Reg Guide and the rule, but that 21 was believed to be an acceptable situation because we wer 22 working on the Reg Guide at that point and we still had to 23 do something about the rule.
24 MR. SHEWMON:
Okay.
25 MR. SEALE:
Are the proposed revisions such that O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C.
20006 l
(202) 293-3950
)
i l
i
,,,.--.--+,~4
-r
,,-v
i i
i l
t I
34 l
1 you are not going to have any problems like this temperature 2
problem or whatever you had with Yankee?
Earlier, you 3
mentioned that the temperatures were too low in parts of it, 4
and so on.
i 5
MR. HISER:
Right. NRR. issued Generic Letter 9201, l
i 6
which sought information such as operating temperature and 7
information such as that.
I think between that information l
8 and the provisions we have in the proposed rule package, I 9
think we should pick up any unusual' plant in that area.
10 MR. SEALE:
I know there is a rumor that some l
11 people are-looking at backing off on power levels and l
l 12 backing off on temperature in order to take care of some l
13 other problems they have in the materials area.
But that is 14 not going to bring them in below the range of temperature 15 applicability of the revised rule; is that it?
l l
16 MR. MAYFIELD:
It would depend on the specific l
17 change they make for the system operation.
If their vessel l
l 18 temperature drops below the 525 limit specified in Reg Guide i
19 199 --
20 MR. SEALE:
So 525 is --
l 21 MR. MAYFIELD:
525 is the lower temperature cutoff l
22 in that Reg Guide.
l 23 MR. SEALE:
Okay.
24 MR. MAYFIELD:
If their operation starts to run 25 appreciably below that -- well, if it runs below it period, i
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
35 j
1 they are going to have to reevaluate their embrittlement i
2 trends, and that would have to be on a plant-specific basis.
3 MR. SEALE:
Okay.
4 MR. SHAO:
If you lower the temperature, you have j
i 5
steam generator problem, but you worsen the vessel problem.
l 1
6 MR. SEALE:
That's sort of coming home to roost, l
i 7
isn't it?
l 8
MR. MAYFIELD:
Can I go back to your question 9
about whether or not the rule now picks up these temperature 10 problems.
11 One of the things we have tried to do and tried to i
12 do in the 91 amendment, and this time we think we have the 13 language right, is to open it up so that, in fact,-it's not'
{
t 14 just a can use additional information that they may have
{
15 about plant operations; they are bound to use it.
(
16 So we have turned that around a little bit.
- Yes, f
i 17 if you have some special consideration, that you can take j
i 18 clear account of that, but at the same time if you have a l
l 19 special consideration, you must take account of that.
l 20 So, yes, it is more flexible, but at'the same time 21 you can't simply ignore something, conveniently overlook it.
j 22 MR. SEALE:
But the possibility of ignoring it 23 because you are no longer mute on temperature concerns.
l 1
24 MR. MAYFIELD:
That's correct.
25 MR. SEALE:
It's clear that there is a problem.
l t
l l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
l 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C.
20006 l
l (202) 293-3950 l
l f
---. t
r 1
36-1 MR. MAYFIELD:
It's clear that that's something 2
that has to be looked at.
Okay.
l 3
MR. Sr ' :
'4 MR. MAYFIELD:
At least we think it's clear.
e 5
MR. SEALE:
Okay.
l 6
Any other comments or questions?
l 7
[No response.]
8 MR. SEALE:
Since you said the magic words, Mr.
l t
t 9
Shao -- steam generator -- and since you are about to leave, 10 I guess, shortly, could I change the subject just a slight
{
11 bit for a moment?
12 MR. SHAO:
Okay.
)
13 MR. SEALE:
When would you folks be able to tell j
i 14 us a little bit about this latest rash of steam generator 15 problems and ease some of the concerns that some of us have?
16 MR. SHAO:
Okay..
The chairman of this group is 17 sitting right here.
Jack?
18 MR. STRUSNIDER:
My name is Jack Strusnider.
I am l
19 chief of the Materials and Chemical Engineering Branch, NRR.
l 20 MR. SEALE:
Okay.
21 MR. STRUSNIDER:
I guess what you would be 22 interested in is, first of all, some of the operating 23 experiences.
24 MR. SEALE:
Yes.
25 MR. STRUSNIDER:
And that, of course, we have a 1
0 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington,-D.C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950
4 i
i 37 1
good handle on and we could present.
j I
2 What I would suggest, however, is that probably in 3
the fall timeframe, we will have completed our plan for how 4
we want to address this issue overall and in a generic 5
fashion, and I think I can ta]k with Mr. Igne about setting l
6 something up this fall where we will be able to both brief.
i 7
you on the operating experience and the direction that.we 8
think we should be headed overall to try to get ahead of the i
i 9
issue in a regulatory sense.
So I will talk with Mr. Igne.
10 MR. SEALE:
Okay.
11 MR. SHEWMON:
Does that get into plugging criteria 1
12 too, or is that --
13 MR. STRUSNIDER:
Definitely, yes.
Plugging 14 criteria, defect-specific management and a number of things l
O-15 that the industry is interested in pursuing and that the NRC
{
16 sees some value in, and we are working out a plan to 17 facilitate that now.
t 18 MR. SEALE:
We think that we have been downright 19 tame, I guess is the way to say it, in not bugging you, I 20 guess is the way to say it.
But we are interested and we do
)
I 21 want to hear about it.
I just wanted to restate that.
{
22 MR. STRUSNIDER:
I can understand that.
I i
23 MR. SHEWMON:
He feels neglected.
j 24
[ Laughter. ]
25
.MR. SEALE:
All right.
Now what?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
(
Washington, D.C.
20006 I
(202) 293-3950 1
t 38 1
MR. MAYFIELD:
Well, do you want to take a break i
2 at this point or do you want to go ahead and plunge into the 3
annealing rule and guide?
j 4
MR. SEALE:
What do you think?
Shall we plunge?
5 Let's plunge.
6 MR. MAYFIELD:
I'm Mike Mayfield from the Office
^
7 of Research and I'm going'to describe for you the proposed 8
rule and the associated Reg. Guide we have on thermal 9
annealing.
f 10 We have ready to go out for comment in the Federal f
11 Regirter, pending ccncurrence from the committee, 10 CFR 12 50.66 which is the rule on thermal annealing requirements.
13 The associated draft regulatory guide that addresses the 14 format and content of the application that would be l
15 submitted for approval by the Director of NRR is identified 16 as Draft Guide 1-027.
r i
17 There have been some changes to the proposed rule j
18 and draft guides since the package was submitted to the i
19 ACRS.
20 First, we now intend to delete the recovery 21 equations from the section of the rule called Fracture 22 Toughness Recovery and Reembrittlement Rate Assurance 23 Frogram.
The intent here is to make the rule more 24 performance oriented, less prescriptive in the rule itself.
25 However, the equations will remain in'the draft guide.
So O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
39 1
the language in the rule will talk about ways to estimate 2
the recovery.
3 Focus will be on the surveillance specimens; if i
4 you have credible surveillance specimens,.you have to use l
l 5
them; you may take samples from the vessel beltline if you t
6 can satisfy certain requirements or you can use predictive 7
equations, then the draft guide would provide predictive j
8 equations that would be acceptable to the staff.
9 We are going to restructure the associated text.
10 That simply turns around that section so the focus starts on i
11 the surveillance specimens.
The draft guide will be 12 restructured to follow this same approach.
13 There will be some editorial changes regarding the 14 ALARA considerations.
Dr. Shewmon?
15 MR. SHEWMON:
Will you be using hardness at all?
j i
16 MR. MAYFIELD:
No, sir.
I 17 MR. SHEWMON:
That is one indicator:
A) How l
I 18 you've done on a new wing and B) how you've done on changing i
i 19 to an existing temperature, though I guess your database on i
20 that ic much lower than it is on Charpy tests.
l 21 MR. MAYFIELD:
That's correct, sir.
You're l
22 talking about in-vessel hardness test or just hardness as a i
23 material?
l l
24 MR. SHEWMON:
Or surveillance samples, but 25 hardness of whatever you think appropriately reflects what r
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
_ _ - =
I f
l I
40 1
1 the vessel has done.
O 2
MR. MAYFIELD:
No.
At this point we would intend 3
that you use Charpy specimens and determine a transition or 4
upper shelf energy.
Whatever happens to be the limiting j
5 consideration that brought you to anneal the vessel.
- But, f
1 6
the intent would be to either use or reconstitute and use l
t 7
Charpy specimens to determine recovery.
j 8
MR. SHEWMON:
Where do you get the Charpy l
l 9
specimens that have the same radiation exposure that the l
i 10 vessel has?
l 11 MR. MAYFIELD:
They would come out of-the l
12 surveillance program assuming that it satisfies these 13 credible criteria, j
14 MR. SHEWMON:
So these are only the Charpy --
l O
15 okay, they're whatever rand what you think is equivalent to i
L 16 the current status of~your vessel.
i l
i 17 MR. MAYFIELD:
That's correct.
We have discussed
{
18 among ourselves how you would go about satisfying equivalent i
19 fluence levels.
Could you take Charpy specimens that have-20 been the lower fluence levels, put them in a test reactor, 21 and take them to higher fluences.
The problem we-ran into, l
22 there are so many variations on those scenarios that we I
23 didn't. feel that we could practically deal with it in the 24 rule or the guide.
That's something that would have to be l
l 25 addressed on a case specific basis.
t ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 1
i
{
41 1
MR. SHEWMON:
On of the things that bothers me 2
about this whole thing is you talk a couple of different 3
times about how bad you're going to be, or how you're going 4
to penalize the applicant if they ever go over their 5
temperature, but to me, as a metallurgist, the main concern 6
is making sure they get up to the high enough temperature.
l 7
MR. MAYFIELD:
Let me come to it because that is a i
8 specific concern we do have.
And, I understand your point.
9 MR SEALE:
Are you convinced, though, that while 10 you have removed the proscriptive features of the earlier 11 version of the rule, that you still have left to the 12 applicant language that would encourage them to make the t
13 case on a case by case basis for remedial action on their l
14 part?
Do you see what I mean?
O 15 MR. MAYFIELD:
I think so.
Let me.come to it when 16 I get to that because I've got a bit more to say on this i
.I 17 specific subject.
18 MR. SEALE:
Okay.
Very good.
l 19 MR. MAYFIELD:
I mentioned I think that we have 20 some editorial changes that deal with the ALARA 21 considerations.
Some of the early language wasn't all that 22 clear.
We talked about worker protection versus 23 occupational exposure.
The focus is occupational exposure, 24 and we'll edit the text accordingly.
There is a phrase that 25 appears in the rule.
We thought it was quite clever when we L
l i
k ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters l
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 E
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 l
_.... - _...,,. _..... _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _... _._..- _ _ ~._.._.. _.. _.. _., -...
l l
42 1
wrote it.
It talks about " administrative boundary."
That's 2
now being replaced by " proposed annealing conditions."
3 Just so we all start from the same place, thermal 4
annealing is simply the process whereby you heat the 5
pressure vessel above its operating temperature and hold it 6
there for a period of time.
For commercial white water 7
reactors in this country, the heating -- you would take the 8
temperature to somewhere in the 650 to 850 degree fahrenheit l
9 range and hold for something on the order of a week, which 10 is 168 hours0.00194 days <br />0.0467 hours <br />2.777778e-4 weeks <br />6.3924e-5 months <br />.
The higher the annealing temperature, and j
11 specifically the higher -- the larger the difference between 12 the operating temperature and the annealing temperature, the 13 more complete the recovery.
14 So, there is a distinct incentive to go towards i
l 15 the higher temperature, and I think that's the basis for i
16 your question.
You'd like to see the higher temperature,
)
17 not something lower.
18 All we're saying in the rules I'll come back to is 19 once you decide what that annealing temperature is, and 20 you've done your analyses to convince yourself and the staff l
21 that you're not going to harm the rest of the system, then 22 don't go over that temperature.
Otherwise, you're going to 23 have to come back and do some additional analysis.
So, 24 we're not trying to limit what that upper temperature is.
25 It-is just once you pick it, don't go over it is the issue.
O i
IJRJ RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
I l
43 i
l
[
1 MR. SHEWMON:
And that's because that would open 2
questions of whether you've done harm to concrete?
3 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes, sir.
That limit is intended 4
to satisfy some of the engineering considerations in the j
5 annealing.
6 MR. SHEWMON:
From the heat transfer viewpoint, 7
would there be much of a grading through this vessel in 8
temperature?
9 MR. MAYFIELD:
Not at this stage, no.
You're i
10 going to be heating it -- you're going to have a top to f
11 bottom gradient, but the through-wall gradient will not be 1
12 13 MR. SHAO:
Axial grading.
No radial grading, 14 mostly axial grading.
[
15 MR. MAYFIELD:
It won't be any worse than during 16 operation, or not appreciably worse.
[
i 17 MR. SHEWMON:
The damage is more towards the 18 inside.
If you could get that hotter, why, you could I
t 19 protect your concrete, but that's not practical.
l 20 MR. MAYFIELD:
Okay.
The thermal annealing 21 recovers or reduces the embrittlement caused by neutron 22 irradiation.
Again, the higher the annealing temperature 23 means you're going to get greater recovery.
Annealing can 24 restore Charpy upper shelf energy.
.We were here a month or 25 so ago talking to you about a red guide on Charpy upper j
}
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters j
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006
)
(202) 293-3950 i
I -.
... ~...
l i
l l
l.
44 j
1 shelf energy, so annealing is a way to fix that.
It can l
i 2
reduce the RTNDT or RTPTS which are measures of I
3 embrittlement in the linear elastic regime, and it can widen i
1 4
the P-T curve of the operating pressure window during start.
i 5
up and shut down.
So, it can be a fix for a number of 6
operational problems, regulatory limits.
7 Why did we need the rule and guidance?
Well, the l
I l
8 existing Appendix G addresses thermal annealing, however, it 9
is focused on the 50 ft-lb criterion and it is really i
10 focused on the materials considerations.
Annealing, 11 however, is applicable to reduce the RTNDT and embrittlement 12 by that measure.
l 13 The requirements in Appendix G are inadequate.
As l
14 I mentioned, it focuses only on the materials test.
The l
O 15 method that's described in Appendix G really isn't practical 16 in all cases.
There are no other approaches suggested in
(
)
17 the rule, and there are no requirements or even discussion 18 on the engineering aspect.
19 That is all well and good, and the staff and 20 everybody else seemed to be content with things at that 21 stage until we looked at the Yankee Nuclear Power Station 22 submittal on thermal annealing.
That highlighted the fairly 23 critical need for a more complete regulatory framework for 24 annealing.
25 Looking at the annealing rule, the intent is that O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters 1
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
. -.-.....-..-.~.- -..-.-.
45
?
i 1
it is actually a fairly straightforward document.
It has O
2 basically two stages in it.
One is an application submitted l
i 3
by the licensee for approval by the Director of NRR.
It is 4
submitted three years prior to the annealing.
Once that 5
approval is granted, the annealing is conducted, you stay t
6 within the proposed annealing conditions.
And, once you're
}
7 done, you certify the effectiveness of the annealing and you t
i 8
return to power without subsequent approval by the Director
{
9 of NRR.
If you cannot certify the effectiveness of the 1
10 annealing, meaning you stayed within the proposed annealing-i 11 conditions, then you have to submit a justification for 12 continued operation.
.i 13 What constitutes the thermal annealing
~
14 application?
There are three parts.
The Thermal Annealing 15 Operating Plan addresses the engineering and the ALARA 16 considerations.
The Requalification Inspection and Test 17 Program, in this part of the application you would discuss 18 the monitoring, the inspection, the testing you would do to 19 demonstrate the proposed annealing conditions were nct 20 exceeded, and to define the actual annealing time and 21 temperature.
That's essential when you start to determine 22 the post-anneal upper shelf energy and RTNDT.
That has to 23 be based on the actual annealing time and temperature.
j 24 The Fracture Toughness Recovery and i
25 Reembrittlement Rate Assurance Program.
As mentioned, the O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
1 i
t i
i 46 l
l I
l 1
focus here has changed a' bit from the package that was j
r i
2 submitted to you.
It emphasizes now that you have to use 3
surveillance specifnens if they are credible and available.
4 That's always been in there but it was the second item that 5
was discussed.
That is now highlighted as the first source 6
of information we think you should use.
In fact, it is a l
l 7
requirement if the specimens are credible and if they are 8
available.
9 You can take beltline saraples, whether it be 10 requirements on having an adequately thick vessel.
Some e
i 11 requirements that you would have'to satisfy once you've done 12 this.
But that would probably be the most accurate way of l
13 assessing the recovery.
f 14 Dr. Shewmon?
O 15 MR. SHEWMON:
Would those be taken from the inside i
i 16 of the vessel?
f 17 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes, sir.
In most cases that is l
18 the only practical way to get at the vessel wall.
Most of 19 the plants in this country, the cavity is so narrow that l
20 going in from the outside is not all that feasible.
1 21 MR. SHAO:
There is some cladding there.
22 MR. MAYFIELD:
Right.
But, we feel the cladding l
23 off on the inside of the vessels for other applications.
We l
l 24 know that can be done, it can be done successfully and l'
l 25 doesn't damage the vessel for future operations, i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
l i
t 47 l
f 1
MR. SHEWMON:
But if you don't work with hardness 2
and you work with Charpy then you've got how many cubic 3
inches or cubic feet of r,aterial do you need?
i 4
MR. MAYFIELD:
The scorps that you could take out f
i 5
would give you either subsize specimens or a piece of l
t 6
material that you would have to reconstitute or weld tabs on 1
7 the end of to fabricate a full sized specimen.
We're not
[
t E
8 anticipating that-people are going to take out a big enough j
i 9
chuck that they could fabricate full size Charpy specimens i
10 and enough of them to develop a full charpy curve.
- Rather, l
l 11 this would be done, as I said, either.with subsize specimens l
t 12 or with reconstituted.
l l
13 MR. SHEWMON:
With the right welding procedure, l
14 even with a mini-specimen like that you can put on f
15 meaningful tabs without changing the annealed state?
16 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes, sir.
That can be done and has l
17 been demonstrated.
There is some case specific f
18 demonstration that it can be done successfully.
But, as a 19 general statement, the general technology, yes, that can-be 20 done and can be done successfully.
i I
21 MR. SHEWMON:
How do they weld?
22 MR. MAYFIELD:
E.B.
electron beam welding.
At 23 least that is one of the procedures.
Anything else?
)
24 Finally, the rule makes clear that you can use a 25 computational method to determine the recovery if it is i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
I v
I 1
48 i
a 1
justified.
2 MR. SHEWMON:
How much is the -- in the experience 3
your research program has_on recovery, how sensitive is this 4
to composition?
I don't see anything about composition in' l
5 your equation 6 here.
I 6
MR. MAYFIELD:
If I could come back to it, I do 7
have that equation in this presentation, and we can look t
8 specifically at that.
Thank you.
Sir?
[
l l
9 MR. SEALE:
Let me make sure I understand 10 something you alluded to earlier.
You said that the Yankee
{
11 Program and looking at the considerations there made these i
12 changes necessary in your mind.
l 1
13 MR. MAYFIELD:
Made the-fact that we don't have a f
I i
14 rule that addresses them, yes.
l l
15 MR. SEALE:
Do you think the Yankee people might 16 have had a different approach or_a different decision if the 17 revised rule had been available to them at the time they j
18 were faced with the decisions they had to make?
I realize 19 that's not a fair question.
20 MR. MAYFIELD:
That's hard for me to guess about.
21 They had some plant specific considerations that might have 22 driven their decision.
23 MR. SEALE:
I appreciate that.
24 MR. MAYFIELD:
Would it have made it' easier for 25 them because a process would have been laid out?
Almost ANN RILEY &. ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, :N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
i
)
l 49 1
certainly.
Even to adjust a specific annealing proposal for l O-2 plant specific considerations.
Once you know what the l
3 ground rules are, it is much easier to structure a program 4
that would satisfy the essence --
5 MR. SEALE:
They no longer have a moving target.
6 MR. MAYFIELD:
That's correct.
And, that's what I
7 we're trying to take out of the process is the moving target l
t 8
aspect.
9 MR. SEALE:
Very good.
t 10 MR. MAYFIELD:
The second part of the annealing 11 rule deals with the certification of the annealing i
12 effectiveness.
t 13 Once it is part of the annealing application and 14 the approval process, proposed annealing conditions are 15 accepted, the licensee would certify that the annealing was i
16 performed within the proposed annealing conditions, would l
l 17 provide the post-anneal RTNDT and Charpy upper. shelf energy, i
l l
18 would estimate reembrittlement trends for RTNDT and Charpy j
i l
19 upper shelf energy, would project RTNDT and upper shelf l
20 energy at the end of the proposed period of operation.
Go 21 that all of that would be wrapped.up in the submittal or the i
l 22 certification report that would come in after the annealing.
l i
i 23 If-you cannot certify that you stayed within the 24 proposed annealing conditions, then you have to submit a 25 justification for subsequent operation,-and that.has to be i
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 i
(202) 293-3950
_&-y 7r.
_.q,__..._.pg
.g.m y..-9_,~999
.q,.,
,w,,
9,,-,9-4
,,,p
.g-7,,,g9w,4--,.mry4y-n-1 y-9-9yWpc.-+-.--tverr w*wW97am+^-
-q-9--yw-v't w,,'w g
t I
50 l
1 approved by the Director of NRR before restart.
t 2
MR. SEALE:
Let me understand, though.
If you 3
have a plan and it has been submitted as you've suggested, j
i 4
it has been approved, and if you can certify according to j
e 5
these ground rules then there is no requirement for further 1
6 approval by Director of NRR or anyone else?
l 7
MR. MAYFIELD:
That is correct, sir.
l 8
MR. SEALE:
The approval here is only if you can't j
9 do the certification.
10 MR. MAYFIELD:
That is correct.
11 MR. SEALE:
Okay.
l i
l 12 MR. MAYFIELD:
That is the rule as it is proposed.
l t
13 The guide goes on and addresses then the format and content l
14 of the annealing applications.
It describes the criteria O
15 the staff would use in evaluating a submittal, and it j
1 16 elaborates the provisions of the annealing rule.
l I
17 Again, the Operating Plan, the Requalification 18 Inspection Test Program, the Fracture Toughness Recovery and 19 Reembrittlement Rate Assurance Program ['we struggled with 20 that title trying to come up with something.that was easier 21 and never did find one], and finally the certification.
22 MR. SEALE:
That is a jaw breaker, isn't it?
23 MR. MAYFIELD:
It's all Taboada's fault, and he 24 went to stuff my parking meter so I can't blame him too ~
25 much.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 I
(202) 293-3950 i
.,i
.-~
, - -~.
~
a 51 j
1 The Thermal Annealing Operating Plan -- what would 2
be in that?
A background section explaining why you want to 3
do the annealing; tell us about plant operating' history.
As 4
we get to the equation, I think it is 6, one of the things 5
you have to know is the radiation of' operating temperature 6
and operating time, so we need that information deduced from 7
plant operating history.
Tell us about surveillance program j
8 results.
Did you have a credible program, what were the 9
results, how much embrittlement were you estimating from i
l 10 those.
So, a description of what was in the surveillance j
i 11 program.
l l
12 One of the important points here is that you may.
I 13 reference earlier submittals.
You don't necessarily have to 14 rake all of this up in one place and submit something that l
t 15 you've already submitted.
So, it is perfectly acceptable to I
i 16 reference prior submittals in this background information.
17 The description of the reactor. pressure vessel:
18 dimensions, beltline materials, chemistries, that sort of 19 information, the identification of the regions to be 20 annealed.
Are you focused on a particular weld, are you 21 focused on plate, on both.
What regions are you really 22 going after.
23 MR. SHEWMON:
Mike?
24 MR. MAYFIELD:
Sir?
25 MR. SHEWMON:
One of the concerns that I guess ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters j
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
52 1
comes up on this is if you annealed a vessel, what is going 2
to happen to the pipes and how much strain can you put in j
3 them.
Where does that get covered?
4 MR. MAYFIELD:
I'll come to it.
(
5 MR. SHEWMON:
Okay.
l 6
MR. MAYFIELD:
The other things.
Another big part l
7 of the submittal would deal with the equipment's complements l
i 8
and structure that would be affected, biological shield 1
9 whether it is the concrete shield wall or shield tank.
If j
10 there is going to be any loss of strength, loss of neutron i
l 11 absorption in the concrete wall.
If you're talking about a l
l 12 concrete shield wall, what is the design temperature, the i
l 13 properties of the concrete, what do you know about l
14 irradiated concrete.
So, what can you tell us about the O
i 15 shield structure and specifically concrete to support the
[
v 16 annealing application.
On the attached piping, description l
17 of the piping, materials, dimensions, what the restraints i
18 and supports look like, what are the design requirements, 19 and tell us about any known indications of potential flaws.
1 20 If you have found something in your ISI, we need to hear 21 about it.
Sir?
22 MR. SHEWMON:
The design requirements of the l
l 23 section 3, the original designs --
24 MR. MAYFIELD:
Or B31.1 for.many of the piping 25 systems.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 l'
i i
53 1
MR. SHEWMON:
Okay, but if you now are going to 2
put 1 percent -- are you going to separate these pipes, are 3
you going to say how much strain can they put in them, is 4
the code going to comment on this?
5 MR. MAYFIELD:
At this stage, that issue is to be i
6 defined.
Different systems, of course, will have different l
7 flexibility.
l l
8 MR. SHEWMON:
How about the primary piping?
9 MR. MAYFIELD:
They may -- let me take one more I
l 10 step with this.
May be it is two slides and I'll deal with j
l 11 that specific issue.
12 MR. SHEWMON:
I just don't want you to get past it 13 while I'm sleeping or something.
l.
14 MR. MAYFIELD:
I'll wake you, t
l 15 MR. SHEWMON:
Okay.
16 MR. MAYFIELD:
We need to hear about in this 17 submittal any other equipment or instrumentation that could 1
18 be affected by the high temperature.
X-vessel 19 instrumentation:
is there something in any instrumentation 20 hanging on the shield wall or the shield tank, are there any 21 cable runs.that could be affected by the higher temperature.
22 Anything like that we want to hear about.
23 We want a description of how you're going to go 24 about storing the core internals.
What is the.overall 1
25 layout of. containment.
If you're going to use a coffer dam, i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N. W.., Suite-300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
i 1
1 54 l
I how are you going to go about doing that.
How are you going I
/~~T
(_)
2 to assure yourself and the staff that your coffer dam is not 3
going to leak right in the middle of the 168 hour0.00194 days <br />0.0467 hours <br />2.777778e-4 weeks <br />6.3924e-5 months <br /> annealing e
period.
That would get real exciting, only for a little 5
while, though.
So, we want to hear about that kind of 6
information.
7 A big part of what we're trying to do with this 8
submittal is not just have licensees provide us a lot of 9
information, but to provide a road map on the kinds of 10 things that we think are important in developing this plan, 11 and to suggest a list of things that hopefully the applicant 12 would also think through.
13 The operating plan should also describe the 14 proposed annealing parameters, the target temperature, the
, g.
EJ 15 time and temperature, what would be the heat up and cool 16 down rate, what are the limitations on those parameters.
17 And, all of that goes back to the analysis and strain limits 18 that Dr. Shewmon is getting to.
19 What would be the annealing method, the 20 instrumentation and procedures, operational sets.
How are 21 you going to make this thing hot.
The Russians have used 22 electric heaters that they put down inside the vessel.
23 There have been other proposals in this country for using 24 gas fired device that is inserted inside the vessel, and 25 you're circulating hot air inside this device which then
(-)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
55 1
becomes the radiant heater.
How are you going to do it.
2 How are you going to describe it.
What would be the 3
operational steps.
4 The temperature-control system, how well can you 5
control this.
Professor Shewmon raised the question about 6
thermal gradiance.
One of the concerns is gradiance top to I
t 7
bottom.
i l
8 So tell us about how you're going to control that f
i 9
on temperature measurement and control and tell us about l
10 what radioactive contamination controls you're going to l
11 have.
l 12 Dr. Shewmon, this is the slide.
l i
13 MR. SHEWMON:
Okay.
14 MR. MAYFIELD:
I told you I wouldn't forget about O
15 it.
I really didn't because it really is something we've i
16 thought about.
In fact, there was an earlier study done by l
17 AG&G, I've forgotten, in the early '80s, and one of the j
l 18 things they looked was the engineering considerations for 1
19 thermal annealing, and one of the discoveries that came out l
l 20 of the piping analysis that they did said that you yield 21 some of the large diameter pipe.
By how much?
How are you l
22 going to determine that?
That become very much a case-23 specific consideration.
We have not, in the Rule, or in the 24 Guide, imposed specific strain limitations.
That's 25 something that's been talked about.
We feel like it is an i
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 l
E
_ - ~ _.
i 56 l';
1 issue that should be handled on a case-specific basis.
j f
2 Because if we're going to impose strain limitations, then 3
I'm going to have to walk through the different material, i
4 how much strain, realistically, should be -- what should be 5
the realistic strain limit for those different materials.
l 6
Maybe it's a different strain limit depending on the 1
7 geometry.
So all of a sudden the rule or the guide could l
l 8
get to be quite large just dealing with this one aspect.
l 9
MR. SHEWMON:
Will this vessel meet code after --
i 10 i
11 MR. MAYFIELD:
We believe the vessel will meet l
12 code.
f i
13 MR. SHEWMON:
And the basis for that is what?'
f i
l 14 MR. MAYFIELD:
Well, we don't think.you've done j
l 15 anything to exceed the original code certification.
16 MR. SHAO:
Yes, but the code limit -- the only 17 limit for code is a fatigue limit, one cycle fatigue.
And j
t 18 also, they have another limit.for 3SM, you know, but I think 19 you can go beyond 3SM which is twice a year.
i 20 MR. SHEWMON:
I doubt if the code says anything
{
l 21 about one cycle with 1 percent strain in the memo.
22 MR. SHAO:
No, actually, one cycle, you can have 23 higher strain.
24 MR. SHEWMON:
It talks about high-strain, low-25 cycle fatigue.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 l
(202) 293-3950 l
l i
I l
57 i
j 1
MR. SHAO:
The low-cycle fatigue, if you have'one i
2 cycle you can even have three or four focus in strain, it's 3
okay.
4 MR SHACK:
I think it's the piping that's their 5
concern.
The vesse is just sitting on the thermostat..
6 MR, SHAO:
Yes, the piping, yes.
7 MR. SHACK:
He said the vessel would meet code.
8 MR. MAYFIELD:
No, I'm sorry, your question was 9
whether or not the vessel would meet code.
G 10 MR. SHEWMON:
No, the system.
t i
11 MR. MAYFIELD:
I'm sorry, will the system meet i
1 l
\\
i 12 code.
j 13 MR. SHEWMON:
The primary system.
I 14 MR. MAYFIELD:
One of the things you do with the f
O i
15 thermal and stress analysis is to identify, in fact, the 16 high-stress, high-strain locations and that issue is going j
i 17 to have to be addressed at that point.
What are the code l
18 limitations, will you exceed them, will the system no longer i
19 be acceptable, and, if so, what can you do in advance of the 20 annealing to resolve the problem.
Can you cut the big pipe f
21 free?
Is it really going to be the big pipe that's a f
22 problem or is it going to be some of the attachment piping?
P 23 Would it become the surge line that really is the limiting I
24 consideration?
If so, are you going to cut the surge line j
25 free?
Can you simply free up some of the heavy component I
.O..
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters j
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C.
20006 l
(202) 293-3950 l
i
.-...__.._..._-...-.,_._,...._.,___.._..._.-._,,_...__,_.._.-._......_.___,,m.
58 1
supports so that the system is a bit more flexible for this 2
process than you would find acceptable for normal operation 1
3 MR. SHAO:
Well, actually, the code really doesn't i
4 cover this particular case.
The code -- except the fatigue 5
limit -- doesn't really cover one-cycle loading.
6 MR. SHEWMON:
You figure this is nice, soft, 7
ductile stuff and so it's 3 or 4. percent as long as they can 8
run the equipment around it and get back into it we're okay, f
9 is that what you're saying?
10 MR. MAYFIELD:
I wouldn't go that far.
From a j
l 11 metallurgical standpoint, are you going to hurt the 12 material?
You're not going to do any good, but you're not 13 going to hurt it.
So why not?
l 14 Well, there may be some system alignment I
15 considerations.
You may rip some supports loose if you l
16 really do that.
You may overload -- the piping itself may i
17 not be the limiting consideration.
It may very well be some l
t f
18 of the component or piping supports.
So that's what we want l
19 them to get to through the thermal and stress analysis.
To l
20 take a look at, in a quantitative fashion, the system, what l
l l
21 components and structures would be affected, what are the l
l 22 temperatures, the stresses, the strains that would be 23 imposed, what measurements are they going to make to 24 validate that, how are they going to deal with it?
I 25 MR. SHAO:
The one thing, though, before they.
t i
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 l
.. _. _ _ _. ~.,,, -,.,
l 59 1
deliver the vessel to the site, that's before the operation, 2
especially really at a high temperature.
3 MR. SHEWMON:
Yeah.
And you could carry out the t
4 anneal anyplace up toward that temperature and not change 5
the original microstructure much and get rid of a lot more-l 6
of your recovery or your radiation damage is why I.was 7
talking about the things higher than this 650/850, you're 8
always making sure you're up at the high end of that instead 9
of the low end.
i 10 MR. MAYFIELD:
There is a practical consideration l
i 11 that argues strongly for higher temperatures that we do no 12 limit the upper temperature in the rule;or the guide.
There
{
5 13 are practical considerations on the rest of the system that 14 will effectively limit that upper temperature.
j O
i l
15 MR. SHEWMON:
The different question, yet, there
{
16 are different plates in this that have had their properties l
t 17 change different amounts by irradiation and it may, indeed, j
18 be 2 imiting weld that you've got, not a plate.
Juni if it i
i 19 was a weld, would you allow them a shaped anneal, as you're I
t i
20 aware, or a shaped arrangement where you try to get the l
l i
21 temperature highest around the welds.
Maybe the Russians 22 did.
I heard different stories on that.
That wasn't one of I
l 23 their --
24 MR. MAYFIELD:
They focus on a circumferential 25 weld and they only anneal, was it about a meter region.
A l
t I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
-. ~.
_. _. _._ _._,.- _ --...___, _ _ _.i
60 1
meter long region that's actually at the higher temperature.
2 MR. SHEWMON:
And that would also be allowed under
)
)
3 your rule?
j i
4 MR. MAYFIELD:
There is nothing in this rule that 5
would preclude it so long as you've gone through all the 6
steps and have satisfied yourself that you're not going to 7
harm the system.
Okay?
8 So the way we get to this does not get to exactly l
9 your concern about strain and deformations imposed in the
{
10 system.
It is not to impose' specific requirements in the l
l 11 rule or the guide, but rather to get to it through the l
12 stress and the thermal and stress analysis and look at this l
13 on a case-specific basis.
And it would have to then be 14 contrasted to design codes and what'would be' allowable under l
l 15 the code requirements.
I I
16 MR. SHEWMON:
Larry, that final annecl that the 17 vessel gets before it goes into service is something like
[
t 18 the 1100, 1050, what is?
j 19 MR. SHAO:
1150.
l 1
20 MR. SHEWMON:
1150?
l 21 MR. SHAO:
Yes.
l 22 MR. SHEWMON:
So that's a lot higher than anybody 23 is talking about for this anneal.
24 MR. SHAO:
Right.
When they stress anneal, they 25 don't have the piping attachment.
f ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1612 K' Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
)
Washington, D.C.
20006 L
(202) 293-3950 l
i
--..,_,_......,,,.._...,,,,.~._.__,_..__.-..__-_,-__..._-...,.,._,..m_
i i
I 4
61 j
1 MR. SHEWMON:
I'm just thinking of the I
2 temperatures you can take the vessel to, j
I 3
MR. SHAO:
Correct.
Much higher.
Much higher.
l 4
MR. SHEWMON:
Without the damage to the structure l
5 of it.
t i
6 MR. SEALE:
And it's not wrapped in concrete.
i 7
MR. SHAO:
Concrete, yeah.
l 8
MR. MAYFIELD:
The limitation on temperature 9
plainly is a system-related limitation.
They need to pull t
I 10 the vessel out and put it in a. free-standing furnace and it l
11 wouldn't be a problem.
That, however, we all know, is not a l
12 very practical matter.
1 13 MR. SHAO:
Also, the Russian -- their piping is l
14 more away from the annealing region.
Their piping is not j
15 really affected that much.
16 MR. SHEWMON:
They had longer vessels.
17 MR. SHAO:
Longer vessels and the piping is 18 higher.
{
19 MR. MAYFIELD:
Okay?
i i
20 Coming out of the thermal and stress analysis in l
21 the operating plan you would specify what are the limiting i
22 conditions.
This becomes the proposed annealing conditions.
l 23 The temperature strains -- what are the limiting f
24 considerations in the annealing?
And it could very well l
l 25 prove to be that it's the heat up cool down rates for i
i i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 t
(202) 293-3950 e
n-nn.,---,
e
,,n.--.--mn,,~-,-,,e-e,-
e-,,.
,,-,,,-,v-w
,_v-~,
--,w---
-w
---,e
..-,.,-.e,
,e,.-n,.
en,-.
,w.n.,,n---, -.
p.
-l I
i 62 l
1 concerns like strains imposed in the system.
2 And in the guide, we want them as part of the 3
proposal, the application, to define what the proposed i
4 annealing conditions are that would come out of '-he thermal i
5 and stress analysis and other system considerations.
We 6
want them to discuss the ALARA considerations.
This is i
7 specified to be in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1206.
The l
8 focus is on occupational exposure.
Other considerations i
9 should be addressed, for example, if you're going to l
10 contaminate the heating furnace and then have to decon that.
11 How are you going to deal with it?
What are you going to do l
12 with this stuff?
That information should be considered and 13 addressed in the submittal.
f I
(
14 Finally, the submittal should discuss the l
15 projected recovery and reembrittlement rate based on the l
16 proposed annealing conditions.
17 Now, the requalification inspection and test s
18 program addresses monitoring, inspection and tests.
The 19 monitoring program, what are you going to do to assure that 20 the annealing stayed within the proposed annealing 21 conditions?
What are you going to measure, temperatures, i
l 22 strains, deflections?
There are only so many things you can i
i 23 measure.
What are you going to measure?
Where are you 24 going to measure it?
What's the measurement frequency?
]
25 Will it be constant or will it vary during the heat up, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters L
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 j
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
i 63 i
l 1
steady state, and cool down operation?
And finally, what 2
records are you going to retain.
We do not have in the rule
~
3 or the guide specific retention requirements, however, 4
retention is addressed in 10 CFR 50.71, I believe it is.
5 And it's those generic retention requirements that would 6
govern it.
{
7 The inspection program, what are you going to look l
l 8
at' pre-and post-anneal?
Are there critical component j
9 supports that could be heavily loaded during the thermal 10 annealing?
Are you going to do pre-annealing visual I
11 inspections?
How are you going to assure yourself the 12 component support or the component itself hasn't been i
13 damaged as part of the annealing?
Is there going to be an j
14 NDE program for the vessel beltline?
We do not require and l
l
?
15 do not intend to require an in-service inspection of the 16 pressure vessel associated with this annealing.
- However, j
t 17 this could become a convenient time to do that vessel 18 inspection.
You've already pulled everything out and maybe f
19 there is an advantage to licensees to couple some of these l
l 20 things.
Those issues should be addressed as part of the j
i 21 requalification inspection and test program.
j l
22 Again, the focus in this guide is to lead people 23 through things to think about and things to discuss in the 24 submittal.
t 25 Finally, the test program, what are you going to l
l i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 l
I'
, _, _, _ _ _ - _. -. _, _,.. _, ~ -
i
+
l l
64 l
f 1
do to demonstrate the effectiveness.of the annealing?
Are l
l 2
you going to use surveillance specimens or are you going to 3
have specimens pulled out of the vessel beltline or are you 4
going to try to do something with on-vessel hardness 5
measurements?
How are you going to do this?
And how are i
6 you going to assure that there hasn't been any new 7
degradation of the pressure vessel or other affected j
'l 8
structures?
9 There has been some concern expressed in the past l
10 that, well, you may warp the vessel flange.
Are you going l
11 to make any measurements or testing on the vessel flange to j
i i
12 make sure this will mate back up.
This information should l
l t
l 13 be described as part of the submittal.
l Fracture toughness recovery.
The vessel O
14 j
15 surveillance program methods, irradiate vessel material 16 method, computational method.
17 Now, we're back to the equations.
For the l
18 surveillance program method you can use broken or untested l
19 Charpy specimens.
If they're broken, obviously you have to 20 reconstitute them.
There are methods for dealing with that.
21 Those methods have been proven through a series'of research 22 programs.
The irradiated vessel material method here, 23 you're going to be taking samples out of the vessel beltline 24 and subjecting them to the annealing process.
Sir?
25 MR. SHEWMON:
The Russians used hardness.
Do you O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters-1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
_._._..._,,_.....,..,.._.____....__.___m._.._.2
~....
l i
65 1
know how they used it, or whether they used it to tne 2
exclusion of Charpy?
You guys are focused entirely on f
3 Charpy which is something you can't measure too accurately 4
and you measure it awkwardly for a transition temperature 5
always, and most other --
f 6
MR..MAYFIELD:
I'm sorry.
The Russian vessels are t
7 not clad, for starters, so they do an in-vessel hardness l
j 8
measurement, 9
-MR. SHEWMON:
Well, how about hardness I
10 measurements on a surveillance piece that went through the j
I l
11 same annealing cycle?
l 12 MR. MAYFIELD:
Our correlations continue to I
-i 13 indicate that the Charpy with all of its drawbacks is a j
l t
14 better measurement.
At hardness there's a second l
l 15 correlation that you have to go through and it necessarily 16 introduces more scatter.
I 17 MR. SHEWMON:
Well, you know what the hardness of i
j 18 the anneal vessel was possibly -- probably, and you 19 certainly know what the hardness of the material is before 20 you've annealed it.
And --
l 21 MR. MAYFIELD:
Well, we may or may not know that.
22 MR. SHEWMON:
Well, if you've taken your I
23 surveillance piece out and you're going to measure Charpy on 24 it, whatever you annealing for your Charpy test, you can 25 measure hardness on a lot easier.
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 1
i
i 66 l
1 MR. MAYFIELD:
Well, you can measure hardness on i
O I
2 it -- absolutely.
'You can measure easier, absolutely.
l 1
l 3
MR. SHEWMON:
So you would like to know how far j
4 back towards the original state you've gone.
5 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes.
And we can determine that --
f l
6 that could be determined from a hardness measurement.
7 Absolutely.
The question then becomes correlation between i
8 just the hardness measurement and the property you're trying
-t 9
to get to which is not Charpy energy, but fracture l
l 10 toughne ss..
That's what you're trying to get back to is' a 11 parameter that's used in establishing all of the system l
12 operational characteristics, the RTNDT specifically.
1 13 So now you've got another. correlation you have to f
14 step through.
You're quite right.
Our focus is on the l
1 15 Charpy energy and measurements of Charpy energy and i
16 transition temperature.
j 17 MR. SHEWMON:
I guess my whole background is that i
18 if somebody anneals something, I said, and you change the i
19 hardness.
If you didn't change the hardness, you didn't 20 anneal it no matter what else you did to it.
21 Go ahead, j
22 MR. MAYFIELD:
All right, sir..
23 Again, I'll step through each of these in a bit 24 more detail.
25 Guidance provided on the vessel surveillance ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 l
(202) 293-3950 l'
_,. _ _ _. _.,.._...,... ~.. _....... _.,._. -_. _.-.. _ _._ _ _ _ _ _
67 1
program method, as I mentioned, you can use broken or 2
untested Charpy or Charpy specimens from the surveillance 3
program.
The staff has out an information notice, 9052, 4
suggesting to licensees they should retain broken specimens 5
from their surveillance program.
These broken specimens can 6
be reconstituted and used in the assessment of recovery.
7 The test plan should be specified in the program 8
plan, what are the specimen dimensions?
Are you going to-9 use sub-size specimens, full-size Charpies?
What will be 10 the test temperatures?
Are you trying to cover.the. full Il Charpy transition region?
Are you focused on upper shelf?
l 12 What are you trying to do with this test program?
i 13 The specimen annealing should be the same as the 14 vessel annealing and it's that requirement that makes us 15 think people will not chose to put specimens in the vessel 16 during the annealing.
Rather, the test program will be done l
17 once the vessel annealing is complete, then you will have an 18 actual time temperature history from the vessel annealing 19 and in the laboratory you can put the Charpy specimens l
20 through that history in a much more controlled fashion than 21 you could have these specimens inserted in a vessel.
r 22 But whatever the annealing is, it has to be the 23 same one.
24 MR. SHEWMON:
The Canadians that we're doing this 25 i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
m m
s
. ~,
.,.-o 68 1
MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes, sir.
Had power failures and 2
fried the specimens, yes, sir.
3 MR. SHEWMON:
They may want to know about the QA l
4 program on their annealing furnace or something.
5 MR. MAYFIELD:
There can be interesting prcblems 6
in all aspects of these things.
i 7
MR. SEALE:
Like the copper.
8 MR. MAYFIELD:
Finally, the program plan would-9 describe the surveillance specimens capsules, what the test f
10 plan is, and the method for evaluating vessel recovery.
How 11 are you going to do this?
How are you going to make use of j
i 12 these materials?
13 I mentioned earlier that there is a potential 14 situation where you have credible. surveillance specimens l
O 15 available, but they're not at the-limiting fluence.
Could i
l 16 you or would you use a test reactor to bring the fluence up 17 to the level that you're looking for.
Would that be j
s 18 acceptable?
What would be the conditions on that?
19 Those are things that would have to be dealt with 20 on a case specific basis.
21 MR. SHACK:
Mike, just to come back to this harden 22 thing, you mentioned giving some credence to hardness as a 23 measurement here, but the guide certainly says if you don't l
24 have Charpy specs that you go back and you do an evaluation.
25 MR. MAYFIELD:
That's correct.
Our focus is on l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
69 l
1 Charpy, absolutely.
Could you --
2 MR. SHACK:
So, if you had hardness measurements l
3 that would be for your own satisfaction.
4 MR. MAYFIELD:
It could be supplemental l
i 5
information used to strengthen an argument.
It could be, 6
perhaps, used to limit the number of Charpy specimens you
=
l t
r l
7 actually have to have.
Those things we didn't think it was i
i l
8 appropriate to get into that level of detail and to try and-r 9
cover all possible scenarios in the guide.
There's just too i
10 much potential variation in that.
11 MR. SHACK:
But I mean his minimum criteria when i
12 he's going to be done is.that calculated Charpy shift?
13 MR. MAYFIELD:
That's correct.
That remains the 14 focus.
O
)
15 MR. SHEWMON:
And this is an upper shell only; is
{
16 that right?
17 MR. MAYFIELD:
No, sir.
l 18 MR. SHEWMON:
You're not talking about a l
19 transition?
20 MR. MAYFIELD:
No, sir, we're talking about l
21 transition.
Transition and upper shelf.
22 MR. SHEWMON:
That's a lot harder to measure as 23 you know.
24 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes.
25 MR. SHEWMON:
Let me interrupt you.
The t
O.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C.
20006
{
(202) 293-3950
.....,.. _. _ ~.. _.. _ _ _.. _...
70 1
Westinghouse study that was made 10 years ago on annealing 0
2 measured hardness to a fair amount, as I recall.
. hat sort W
3 of a correlation is there between hardness, shift and 4
Charpy?
l 5
MR. MAYFIELD:
The answer is I don't know.
6 Bill, do you have any insight on it?
7 MR. CORWIN:
Bill Corwin,. Oak Ridge National Lab.
8 There is certainly a fair degree of correspondence 9
in general between shifts in hardness and shifts in Charpy, f
10 The problem is to quantify it with the relatively small 11 number of data sets that we have on annealed material.
j 12 There is correspondence to the degree of 13 confidence and the limits that you would put on that, I 14 think are what in question.
Certainly you do recover l
O i
l 15 hardness, you do recover CharpyLtransition temperature.
But r
16 I don't know how well that has been quantified.
[
l 17 MR. SHEWMON:
How well is your correspondence i
18 between your micro-Charpys and your real'Charpys and then
.l l
l 19 your K-1s that you are concerned about?
i 20 MR. CORWIN:
That's another totally separate I
21 question.
22 MR. SHEWMON:
Well, but it's the same ball of wax.
23 MR. CORWIN:
You are absolutely right.
j i
24 MR. SHEWMON:
So which is the best way to skin a I
25 cat, to mix metaphors?
)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters q
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 4
Washington, D.C.
20006 J
(202) 293-3950
.f 71 1
MR. CORWIN:
One of the other-problems-that we 1
2 have with the sub-size Charpys, at least within the U.S.,
is 3
there is no standard sub-size Charpy which exists that could 4
be meaningfully used for this.
There are a few slightly 5
smaller size 1s-that are in E-23'in the ASTM standard.
]
6 One of the efforts that we are pursuing in some of l
1 7
the research work that we are doing for the NRC is to see if i
8 we can't get an ASTM sanctioned sub-size Charpy specimen 9
testing method, but that will probably be years in the
{
10 offing, as you well know how standards are developed.
{
11 MR. MAYFIELD:
I understand your interest in 12 Charpy versus hardened.
The way I see this thing is we are j
13 stuck today, rightly or wrongly, with a series of 14 regulations and' standardized codified ways of doing 15 business.
Those ways of doing business are focused on 16 measures of things like RTNDT that stem from the Charpy i
i 17 specimen.
18 Rather than reinvent all of those correlations and 19 try and reinvent all of that history and change now to l
20 estimating a change in the RTNDT based on some change in 21 hardness, we felt -- and I still feel -- it is better to go 22 back and make your measurements, using the-Charpy specimen d
23 with all of its uncertainties.
i I
24 We have a lot of' experience with it.. We 25 understand where the uncertainties creep into the analyses.
l ANN RILEY'& ASSOCIATES,.LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950' j
l t
I 72
]
I 1
It is better to deal with that specimen and its j
2 uncertainties and all of its problems than to introduce a 3
new measure of these things.
I 4
MR. SHEWMON:
If you can't, or if they can't use 5
that, you are going to rather use this calculation equation, 6
though?
i 7
MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes, sir.
8 MR. SHEWMON:
Is the calculation equation also l
9 better than a hardness on a piece of material that came out, 10 of the vessel that went through your annealing cycle to tell j
11 whether or not you have changed properties?
f 12 MR. MAYFIELD:
Well, what is the correlation I
l 13 between recovery?
We don't have the technical basisLfor.
I 1
making the correlation between hardness'and the specific l
0 14 t
i 15 material you are dealing with.
l j
16 MR. SHEWMON:
You know what it was when it went I
17 into service.
You know how much it was raised.
All you
)
l 18 have done is to beat heck out of the atoms individually and i
19 on very small clusters and then anneal those defects'out.
20 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes.
21 MR. SHEWMON:
It is not as if you are rerolling it 22 or changing your composition.
23 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes, and does a 95 percent recovery 24 in hardness equate to a 95 percent recovery in transition 25 temperature?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street,EN.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20006.
l (202) 293-3950 i
1 73 1
MR. SHEWMON:
I guess I would go look at the 2
Westinghouse study and the same thing that you got that data 3
out of that is in this Equation 6.
j i
4 MR. MAYFIELD:
This information comes actually l
5 from several sources.
It goes beyond just the Westinghouse l
6 data.
l i
7 I am not arguing the hardness as a measure of i
'i 8
recovery.
Absolutely it is.
Do we have the correlations 1
9 that address the range of materials and the range of l
l 10 conditions that we need to address in this?
Is that a 11 better way to go than basing it on this equation where we i
12 know where that information comes from.
We know the 13 limitations of the information.
{
i 14 We have, through this margin term that we have O
15 imposed which is twice the margin term you would get from 16 the vessel specific measures, at least on surveillance.
17 Okay When we are taking samples out of: the l.
18 vessel, the program plan should address how you are going to l
19 get the samples out, the analyses to demonstrate that that 20 is an acceptable method, and method for using the test 1
21 results to determine the recovery.
22 The plant specific considerations include the 23 number of samples, the size of the samples, where you are 24 going to take them from, are you going to take them from the 25 peak flux location, are you going to take them from a low O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
74 1
flux location, where you are going to take them, where you 2
are going to take them.
If the limiting material is a weld, 3
are you going to come at the top _of the weld,.right down in i
i 4
the middle of the beltline, those kinds of information.
l 5
Then the testing plans, how many-tests are you l
l 6
going to run, what will be the test conditions.
The plan j
7 should describe the samples to be fabricated, whether these 8
would be full or sub-size Char.py specimens, whether you are i
{
9 going to use inserts to reconstitute the full specimens, are l
10 you going to have to use inserts to reconstitute.the sub-l l
11 size specimens.
12 There are some local and global considerations.
13 that have to be addressed.
The local considerations deal u
14 with the thermal and mechanical effects of taking these j
o l
4 I
15 samples out of the vessel, surface quality effects -- are i
i i
16 you going to be left with a very course or a very smooth 17 surface -- and the method for characterizing the depression 18 after you have removed the sample.
19 Are you going to use some optical technique or are l-l 20 you going to try to make some measurement, some replication I
l 21 technique?
How are you going to assure yourself and the l
22 staff that you haven't damaged the vessel, haven't created a 23 situation that goes outside of the range of conditions that i
24 you-have analyzed.
25 The global considerations, what would be the I
O-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
n.-
75 1
impact of the remaining hole on the vessel integrity once.
2 you can demonstrate that you can satisfy ASME Code Section 3
III limits.
The issue here is that Section III has higher
{
4 stress allowable limits and the vessels designed to Section l
5 III go through a more rigorous design analysis.
- However, i
6 the vessels tend to be thinner, l
7 So, a vessel that was designed to Section III may l
8 not be able to take advantage of this option to remove j
i 9
material from the vessel beltline because they won't be able i
l 10 to satisfy the Section III limits.
11 However, the vessels that are more likely to need i
12 to take advantage of thermal annealing tend to be the older l
13 vessels, tend to be designed according to Section VIII of 14 the Code, and tend to be thicker.
15 Dr. Shewmon?
l l
16 MR. SHEWMON:
You don't expect them to reclad 17 this?
18 MR. MAYFIELD:
No, sir.
19 MR. SHEWMON:
That's interesting.
That hadn't 20 become clear to me before.
21 MR. MAYFIELD:
I'm sorry.
No, it is not our 22 intent that they are going to do anything other than take 23 these samples out and leave a nice smooth tapered. depression 24 after they are done.
25 So, if they've got a thicker vessel, then they are
. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 l
L
76 1
fairly easily be able to satisfy the Section III stress 2
limits.
But they also have to consider the effects of 3
fatigue and corrosion on the remaining exposed base metal.
4 They also have to look at thermal and mechanical effects on 5
the remaining material.
6 Guidance on the computational method is based on 7
all available date that we can get our hands on.
- However, 8
it is generally test reactor irradiation so there is very 9
little, if any, long-term irradiation data in this data 10 base.
So, we don't have annealing data based on 11 surveillance specimens.
12 It is a statistical evaluation of the data using 13 pattern recognition techniques.
These are the same 14 techniques we used to come up_with the correlations between 15 Charpy, energy, and the JR curve that we discussed when we 16 were down here on the upper shelf energy guide.
17 Out of that, we have identified what are believed 18 to be the important parameters-.
We have calibrated the 19 coefficients that go into the equation.
20 For the recovery of upper shelf energy, we have 1
21 set the recovery of upper shelf energy equal to RTNDT.
I've 22 got a figure to show you why that is the case.
We have also 23 limited it to 100 percent.
Some of the test data show that 24 you could get, in fact, greater than 100 recovery.
25 However, the re-embrittlement rate tends to be O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 i
(202) 293-3950 l
I
i I
77 1
1 quite rapid.
So, by limiting the upper shelf energy
,_T
(
t
(_/
2 recovery to 100 percent, the overall analysis method remains 3
conservative..
4 Equation 6.
What is really important out of this 5
equation?
Percent recovery, obviously.
You see that it is 6
a function of the annealing temperature and the annealing 7
time.
It seems fairly obvious.
8 It is also a function of the irradiation 9
temperature and the irradiation time.
That is why we need 10 the plant operational history information.
It is a function 11 of the transition temperature shift due to irradiation.
12 Copper content also factors into this equation.
13 This shift, due to irradiation, picks up effects 14 of initial RTNDT, cooper, and nickel.
So, it is through g
15 this term that material composition comes into the equation.
16 Dr. Shewmon, one of your questione earlier had been:
What 17 happened to composition?
It figures into this term.
18 MR. SHEWMON:
Yes, but annealing characteristics 19 of metals depend on other kind of trace elements, at least 20 when you deform them.
21 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes.
22 MR. SHEWMON:
They are very sensitive to that, or 23 can be.
Thus, I am wondering what your study showed or what l
l 24 you know about that.
The Russians apparently got 1
l l
25 differences between different batches or different steels.
1 i
T~T 5
s
's/
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 l
l 78 1
\\
1 In their case it may have been a phosphorous variation.
2 MR. MAYFIELD:
From the different heats we have in
.i 3
this database, the fraction recovered as measured in the 4
annealing, and the calculated fraction recovered based on 5
the equation.
These are the plus and minus two sigma bands.
i l
l 6
This is on a transition temperature shift.
l l
7 MR SHEWMON:
What are the units?
l 8
MR. MAYFIELD:
This is percent recovery -- 40 9
percent, 80 percent.
l l
l 10 MR. SHEWMON:
120 percent?
l 11 MR. MAYFIELD:
120 percent.
j 12 MR, SHEWMON:
That quits at 100?
13 MR. MAYFIELD:
It quits at 100.
It cuts off at i
14 100.
It is the quirk of the plotting routine.
i 15 We think, based on the several heats that are l
16 involved here, and the different irradiation and annealing l
17 conditions -- limited as they may be -- we think this is a f
i l
18 reasonably good correlation.
We think that by including a j
i 19 two sigma standard deviation when we assessed the margin l
20 term, that we adequately captured the scatter.
l 21 MR. SHEWMON:
What is the upper limit on the 22 annealing temperature for that set of data?
23 MR. MAYFIELD:
850.
Most of the data come in the 24 750 to 850 range, most of it being at 850.
There are some 25 few points, I think, down at the lower annealing O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006
[
(202) 293-3950 i
(.
1 l
i j
79 i
1 temperatures.
It is that that makes us think that this l
i
{
2 equation works reasonably well.
f 3
MR. SHEWMON:
You've got plus or minus 25 percent I
4 of 100 percent fraction?
j r
5 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes, sir; a number like it, j
6 MR. SEALE:
Yes, but you were talking about an l
7 allowable annealing range that went up to something like f
6 8
680, was it?
l l
9 MR. MAYFIELD:
No, the temperature ranges that 10 could be of interest for plants in this country run from 11 about 650 on the low end -- that had been the Yankee i
12 proposed annealing temperature because.they ran pretty low, j
l I
l 13 up to about 850.
14 MR. SEALE:
850, okay.
I assume you have. looked I
15 at this to see whether or not the spread is l
16 characteristically due to lower temperature irradiation?
17 MR. MAYFIELD:
It is intermixed.
There is not a 18 bias based on annealing temperature.
19 MR. SEALE:
Okay.
20 MR. SHACK:
How many heats are in there, actually?
21 MR. HISER:
This is pretty much all the data that 22 is available on the temperature.
I don't have an exact i
l 23 number of heats.
]
24 MR. SHEWMON:
.There seem to be a few squares, or
)
25 am I just misreading?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
80 i
1 MR. MAYFIELD:
You are just misreading.
They are i
gs 2
all pluses.
3 I'm sorry, Dr. Shack, I can't answer your l
I 4
question.
It is more than one or two, but I don't know the j
5 exact number.
f i
6 MR. HISER:
We can get you an answer to that.
7 MR. MAYFIELD:
Why don't we take that as an action i
8 to follow up back through Mr. Igne to provide the Committee 9
a characterization of what is in the database?
I 10 MR. SHACK:
Did Eason look at hardness as a l
11 correlating primer?
Except for the major study, nobody else l
l 12 matters.
}
l 13 MR. MAYFIELD:
Except for the major study.
It is
]
[
l 14 not something that you typically find..
Bob O'Dette has been
{
15 working on hardness related things for a long time..
16 Relatively few other people have that same approach to it.
17 It is not that it is a bad approach, but it is not something 18 you traditionally deal with.
19 MR. SHEWMON:
In some circles you very l
20 traditionally deal with hardness when you talk about i
I 21 recovery.
1 22 MR. HISER:
Yes.
23 MR. MAYFIELD:
In this limited group of folks 24 which have been playing this game for some time now.
25 MR. SHEWMON:
In a sense that O'Dette thinks ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washingtor D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
t 81 l'!
1 that's a very useful parameter.
It says something of his 2
background maybe, but'maybe also of his judgement.
3 MR. MAYFIELD:
Okay.
4 MR. HISER:
I think what we are really dealing 5
with, with hardness is just the limited database.
It looked l
6 like a lot of data points up there.
I think there may have
~
7 been 70 or 80 But in reality that doesn't give you a whole B
lot of conditions that you are dealing with.
In terms of i
9 hardness, we have very limited data on recovery.
l 10 MR. SHEWMON:
This sure as heck isn't a tight I
11 correlation, either this one or the one before.
12 MR. MAYFIELD:
No, that's correct.
This is not a-i l
t 13 tight correlation on either of these.
14 MR. HISER:
But this isn't a correlation.
i 1
15 MR. MAYFIELD:
This is the upper shelf energy.
j l
16 What we were trying to do here is-to show'you that, in fact, i
17 you can get some numbers that go above 100 percent, and that i
18 by limiting this to 100 percent -- we are at least 19 conservative in that area.
This is recovery of shift versus 20 shelf.
i 21 So, by tying the shelf recovery to the shift 22 recovery, again, we are conservative.
That was really the 23 only point of this slide.
To say it is not tight I think is 24 being charitable.
25 MR. SHEWMON:
Nobody ever accused me of being ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C 20006 l
(202)'293-3950 I
1
.)
82 i
1 sarcastic.
l O
2 MR. MAYFIELD:
No, sir.
l 3
The guidance that we provide on the l
4 reimbrittlement rate assurance part of the programs to use j
5 the lateral shift method use the same. embrittlement trend as 6
the pre-anneal operating period and I've got a slide to show 7
you what this all means.
8 Limited U.S. data indicate that the j
9 rei.nbrittlement is bounded by the initial embrittlement j
10 trend so this thing is conservative.
By how much is case 11 specific, but it is conservative.
The analysis up.to this I
12 point is a mean curve analysis.
We only add margin in this i
13 analysis one time rather than keep adding it at each j
i 14 progressive stage and the explicitly equations are provided.
l O.
l 15 For the surveillance method the results must meet i
16 the credible data requirements in the PTS rule and the use j
l 17 of materials test reactor or radiations for specimen 18 preconditioning has to be addressed.
19 Now, the lateral shift scheme is actually pretty 1
20 straight forward.
This is the pre-anneal embrittlement
)
i 21 trend, Regulatory Guide 1.99 Revision 2, if you will.
22 You're out to this point and you anneal.
You get some 23 recovery in shift and then you translate this curve to this 4~
24 point and then you would follow this pre-annerl 25 embrittlement trend to assess the reembrittlement rate.
1 ANN RILEY L ASSOCIATES, LTD.
4 Cc._1t Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 i
..m
,=<i,,.,....-w.,,,,,.%,...w-,,,-...,.cm.,..e,,e.
r..,..w.,m.,-,-.pmey,,..,,,g.p.-.m.,,m,w,,,
83 1
Sir?
2 MR. SHEWMON:
Let's go back two graphs to cracked 3
and recovered versus calculated.
Are those that didn't 4
recover very much shorter times, or is there just that much 5
scatter sometimes?
Some days you get --
6 MR. MAYFIELD:
There's that much scatter.
7 MR. SHEWMON:
So some days you get 100 percent and 8
other heats'you get a lot less?
9 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes.
There's just that much 10 scatter in the data set.
11 MR. SHACK:
But there's no correlation between the 12 degree of embrittlement an the degree of recovery.
I mean, 13 you would like to believe that your severely embrittled 14 materials do recover dramatically.
You don't really give a O
15 damn.
16 MR. MAYFIELD:
That's right.
That's right.
17 Why not anneal two weeks after you started 18 operating on them..
It doesn't do you a lot of good.
19 MR. SHEWMON:
Okay.
But on this one, then these 20 could -- sorry, go ahead.
21 MR. CORWIN:
There is, indeed, certainly a 22 correspondence between the amount of embrittlement that you 23 get and the amount of recovery that you get and that's 24 included in that model.
That was a model that was 25 originally developed by Bruce Mcdonald.
And the reason that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
i i
84 i
1 it includes the initial amount of embrittlement in there is
'j l
2 simply because that turned out to be a good correlating l
3 parameter.
He makes no claims as to that being a f
4 fundamental principle, but it works well.
That stuff that I
5 embrittles more heavily tends to recover more.
Now, since l
l 6
that model was really developed, of course, Ernie Easton has 7
taken and tweaked it and upgraded the accuracy and the l
6 8
constants that are in there, but there certainly is a 9
relationship between the amount of embrittlement and the l
s 10 amount of recovery that you get.
i l
11 MR. SHACK:
And when you look at these 12 reembrittled materials, do you just see a basic coarsening l
13 as the copper precipitates?
Is that what you're really l
14 doing is ripening these suckers?
l 15 MR. CORWIN:
What you tend to do in terms of the s
16 copper precipitents, it appears that the temperatures at 17 which you anneal are such that some of the copper will go
{
18 back in the solution, and some of it will coarsen if you l
19 look at the stability diagrams for copper solubility in 20 these materials.
l L
21 So, indeed, you over-ripen some and you redesovle l
22 some and this will, indeed, change the embrittlement 23 kinetics because you have a different matrix copper level 24 when you start again, and it's dependent upon the amount of 25
-- the temperature at which you anneal plus, in large ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 l
(202) 293-3950 l
j d
l l
85 1
degree, some of the other alloying elements that are present f
O I
2 which change the solubility of copper in the makers.
So if 3
you are looking purely at the copper precipitives, that's l
4 what happens.
l 5
There are certainly other types of embrittlement l
6 mechanisms which occur which are not related to the copper l
7 precipitation, the vacancy clustering, and other things l
8 which really are not affected by the copper and they don't j
9 seem to be as severely alleviated or well alleviated by'the 10 annealing.
11 MR. SHEWMON:
How about dislocation tangles, do i
12 you have a well-defined subgrain size in this stuff after an l
13 anneal or not?
14 MR..
CORWIN:
I don't know the answer to that, f
i l
15 MR. SHEWMON:
I would think that the vacancy l
i 16 question is pretty well gone at the temperatures you
{
i 17 irradiate the anneal at.
18 I would also think the copper solubility, even at 19 your annealing temperatures is so far below what it was even 20 after you post-welding anneal, or certainly during your 21 austenitizing.
Do you know --
22 MR. CORWIN:
That's true.
It's much lower than at 23 your post-weld heat treatment.
But I don't have the diagram 24 with me to show, but, in fact, you can make some reasonably.
25 quantitative-measurements of the copper concentration before v
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
(
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C.
20006 i
(202) 293-3950 i
i L
-.. -., - ~.. ~. ~..... - - -
86 1
and after annealing and coupled with some more fundamental 2
principles you can predict that, indeed, you will see some 3
coarsening and some redissolution into the makers.
would think you would only 4
MR. SHEWMON:
2 5
resolutionize stuff that was extremely small and had --
6 MR. CORWIN:
That's a relatively small fraction of 7
what you have come up with.
8 MR. MAYFIELD:
Okay?
There is a similar scheme 9
for the lateral shift on upper shelf energy where the 10 initial upper shelf energy falls to some level on annealing.
i i
11 You recover that, you shift the initial embrittlement trend l
i 12 to this point and then the reembrittlement rate is estimated j
13 in that fashion.
14 The post-annealing certification --
l O
I 15 MR. SHACK:
Mike, just a comment on those graphs.
l 16 Why don't you show FS and FT on there so the reader has an l
17 easier time of it.
f 18 MR. MAYFIELD:
I'm sorry, I didn't follow your 19 path.
20 MR. SHACK:
Alan knows.
l 21 MR. MAYFIELD:
Okay.
Description of the overall 22 annealing process should be part of the post-anneal 23 certification.
The submittal that comes in should provide j
i 24 detail sufficient to evaluate the annealing although an f
25 evaluation will not be performed prior to restart.
So, it's i
O i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
I i
87 r
1 the document, what was done, what measurements you made, f
2 what the results are.
I i
3 So provide the results and evaluation of the l
4 inspections and tests and it is the document, the annealing l
5 effectiveness in terms of what was the percent recovery, i
6 what is the anticipated reembrittlement rate and what will i
i i
7 be the allowable operating period.
j l
8 That summarizes what we have in the rule and the 9
guide.
Are there any other questions?
[
10 MR. SHACK:
One other question is, how much of 11 this relationship between the surface properties and the j
12 quarter-T measurements is sort of plausibility arguments and i
13 how much is actually based on the data?
j 14 MR. MAYFIELD:
Well, we went through this with the O
1 15 Yankee Rowe evaluation in some detail.
Unfortunately, 1
16 there's not a lot of evidence to support this on a generic l
17 basis.
Certainly in some vessels there is going to be a big 18 difference between surface properties and quarter-T i
19 properties.
Certainly you're going to see an attenuation of 20 the irradiation damage going through thickness.
21 The problem we had in trying to do something in a 22 quantitative sense --
23 MR. SHACK:
That's a slightly nonconservative 24 that could be --
25 MR. MAYFIELD:
That could be a nonconservative --
l l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 j
(202) 293-3950 l
I
i l
88 l
I 1
yes, for situations where you're taking vessel -- taking l
2 material out of the-vessel beltline, how you're going to j
i 3
handle that bit of information is to be determined.
We 4
don't provide --
l t
5 MR. SHACK:
You gave them formulas for it, right?
6 MR. MAYFIELD:
No.
i 7
MR. SHACK:
Relating the surface to the quarter-l t
8 T.
9 MR. MAYFIELD:
All right.
So that -- yes, that's 10 a potential nonconservatism in the thing.
-Is it offset by I
11 the other margin terms?
We think so.
The other margin
)
12 term.
13 MR. SEALE:
You made some comments when you were 14 here last time, I believe, when we discussed Yankee Rowe O
l 15 that made the case that that's a rather A-typical situation I
16 in some respects.
We've also talked about some today.
But 17 it seems to me that there are several questions that have i
18 come up and both with regard to technique and also with 19 regard to the quality of the interpretation or the various 20 measurement techniques that might use that vessel to 21 advantage.
Is there any intent to, for example, take Yankee i
l 22 Rowe material and anneal it and measure Charpy energy and j
23 measure hardness at all and see whether or not they do fall 24 in the same ball park.
25 MR. MAYFIELD:
We have approached the Yankee ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 l.
i i
i 89 1
Company and proposed that that vessel or the plant, 2
actually, could be used to good advantage in research t
3 programs.
The official -- as I understand it, the official i
4 response at this stage is that specific proposals are still i
5 being considered, however, it is my understanding none of 6
the proposals addressing the vesse] are still being l
7 considered.
At this stage there is no intent to use that i
8 vessel for any application.
I 9
MR. SEALE:
That's amazing.
i 10 MR. MAYFIELD:
It's not our vessel, so we're --
11 HMR. SEALE:
I understand.
I understand.
[
i 12 MR. SHEWMON:
That vessel was made out of an older 13 steel 301 or some --
l i
14 MR. MAYFIELD:
No, it's 8302.
It was 8302.
l O
15 MR. SHEWMON:
Are there any other 8302D vessels in f
l 36 service yet?
{
i f
17 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes.
l i
18 MR..
SHEWMON:
Can you name two?
j 19 MR. MAYFIELD:
Can you name two?
You guys have 20 been going through this.
Come to the microphone.
l 21 MR. RACKETT:
Ed Hackett, Materials and 22 Engineering Branch, NRR.
San Onofre I, I believe which is 23 now out of service.
Beyond that, I can't name.
24 MR. SHACK:
There's one down south somewhere.
25 MR. HACKETT:
I'm trying to think.
Oyster Creek, O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
I 90 r
1 I believe.
O 2
MR. SHEWMON:
There's a boiler vest.
f i
3 MR. HACKETT:
We're talking boilers.
I 4
MR. SHACK:
There is a.PWR somewhere in the south 5
that's 302.
l 6
MR. HACKETT:
Unfortunately, I can't recall.
l 7
MR. SHEWMON:
The one in the south.is likely to be l
l 8
TBA, isn't it?
Arkansas 1, maybe.
[
9 MR. SHACK:
Maybe it's Robinson.
[
10 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes, it may very well be Robinson.
11 MR. SHEWMON:
They don't know how composition or j
i l
12 steel making practice influences these things, but there was l
l 13 some change.
j l
l 14 MR. SEALE:
And even the technique for removing l
l 15 these samples from the inside might be worth being played l
l 16 with.
i 17 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yankee had done quite a nice job, I l
l 18 thought, of developing a method for removing the samples.
19 It was a sample that was going to be, what, almost two i
20 inches in diameter at the surface and an inch or a bit more i
21 than that deep.
i l
22 Depending on the cladding thickness from that, you 23 could get a sub-size, although it wasn't a lot sub-size.
It 24 wasn't a real miniature Charpy specimen.
I thought they had' 25 done a-nice bit of development.
They certainly left that O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 I
(202) 293-3950 l
~_
91 i
i cutting technique, which left a very smooth surface that you l
2 weren't going to do any more with.
It would be acceptable j
3 for continued operation.
l l
4 There have been programs -- specifically the i
5 Yankee program -- that looked at those methods.
They had a
[
l l
6 tougher problem than most people had because they had to 7
come down behind the thermal shield which won't be the issue 8
for other plants.
9 MR. SEALE:
What's the thermal shield made out of?
t 10 MR. MAYFIELD:
Stainless steel.
They would be l
11 removed for the other plants.
You are going to have to get i
12 down to the vessel wall.
Yankee had a particular problem in t
l 13 that they couldn't remove the thermal shield without 14 destroying it.
(2) 15 MR. SEALE:
Have you talked to EPRI at all about f
16 this situation?
i 17 MR. MAYFIELD:
Which part of it?
l l'
18 MR. SEALE:
Well, as you pointed out, the vessel i
19 belongs to Yankee.
It seems to me that EPRI might have a l
l t
20 little bit more leverage than you do.
21 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes, sir.
We have worked with the 22 licensee and with the industry, through EPRI principally, 23 and with DOE.
I have not spoken personally with the 24 President of Yankee Atomic.
But it is my understanding that 25 is the company position.
i l'
\\
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters l
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 t
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 l
l l.
I i
b 92 l
'l 1
MR. SEALE:
I see.
2 MR. SHACK:
You make the comment in here that j
3 there the surveillance data are more embrittled than you j
t 4
would expect than Reg. Guide 1.99, Rev.
2.
Is that true j
5 even after you add a temperature correction?
l 6
MR. MAYFIELD:
Which surveillance date?
l 7
MR. SHACK:
The Yankee Rowe.
(
8 MR. MAYFIELD:
Some of it, yes.
It seemed to go 9
beyond simply a temperature correction.
I I
10 MR. KRESS:
It is outside your scatter of two i
i 11 sigma?
12 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes, some of the points were well i
13 outside it.
I think if you made a temperature correction 14 they came back, but we are still crowding the bounds.
Am I l
O z
15 remembering that correctly?
l 16 MR. HISER:
Yes, actually some of the data points 17 showed 8 percent more than the Reg. Guide.
So, it is 160 18 degrees above the Reg. Guide.
l l
19 MR. KRESS:
In your margins equation, when you 1
20 combine variances, you did it to the square root of the sums i
21 of the squares.
Is that a standard technique for combining 22 variances?
j l
23 MR. MAYFIELD:
We just used the applications.
24 MR. HISER:
Yes, I think that is pretty much a 25 classic statistical approach.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 l
(202) 293-3950 I
.... --...- ~. -
-.. _,_,.- _ -.-~.-_..,.._. _ __,.._-- -
i 1
93 l
1 MR. KRESS:
It assumes normal distribution?
2 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes, that is a built-in assumption.
i 3
MR. SEALE:
Any other questions?
l l
4 Well, I have one other general question.
Do we 5
know what the industrial attitude is about annealing?
6 MR. MAYFIELD:
We think that there is more i
7 interest in it.
We are hearing that there is -- in fact,
{
8 some of us attended a meeting at Westinghouse where they l
t 9
were discussing a demonstration anneal, f
10 So, we are seeing more industry interest in it.
i 11 We have heard recently that the ASME has been approached as i
12 potentially a vehicle for funding a demonstration anneal.
I 13 don't think there are any specific plans on the table today, 14 but we are seeing more interest and more discussion than we j
5 15 have seen in recent history.
l 16 MR. SEALE:
So they are thinking sort in terms of l
17 the lead plant idea, or some demo of that sort?
18 MR. MAYFIELD:
That is not something that has been f
19 brought to the staff as a formal matter.
But just looking i
20 at the interest and looking at the informal-feedback we are i
21 getting, the industry does believe that it is time to look l
22 at this in a more rigorous fashion.
'I i
23 MR. SHACK:
When you were in here on the draft l
i 24 upper shelf, you had a list of plans that were going to have 25 upper shelf problems.
I i
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters j
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 q
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 t
. _ _ - _.. _. _. _ _.... _. _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - -.,,. _. _. ~
l i
94 1
MR.. MAYFIELD:
Yes.
2 MR. SHACK:
How many plants are going to have 3
RTNDT problems?
4 MR. MAYFIELD:
Well, RTNDT simply manifests itself 5
as a limit on operation, this pressure window for the PT l
6 curves that they have a pressure temperature window that i
7 they have to navigate through.
l l
8 So, in and of itself it becomes an operational 9
irritant and something that limits heat-up rates so you 10 don't challenge the LTOP system.
11 MR. SHACK:
But it triggers you into the FTS?
12 MR. MAYFIELD:
It triggers you into the PTS 13 problem.
NRR is probably in a better position to respond.
14 MR. STRUSNIDER:
Jack Strusnider, NRR.
15 There are three or four plants.
I can't give you 16 the specific names now.
We can send a list down to you if 17 you are interested that will reach the screening limit based 18 on current evaluations before their end of life.
19 MR. SHACK:
So it is on that order of three 20 points?
21 MR. STRUSNIDER.:
Right.
The exact number on this 22
-- we are going through the response to Generic Letter 9201.
23 In going through that effort, in reviewing chemistries and 24 getting some finalized values in that regard, we will be 25 able to pin down the number.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
95 i
l 1
But is a little fuzzy because it depends on what 2
people do with regard to flux reduction and additional-work i
3 that they might do to better define their chemistries.
4 So, I want to make it clear that we put out a 5
list.
Sometime it changes.
People say, "What's going on?"
l l
6 Well, it's because of new flux reduction, new data becomes t
7 available.
8 It is on the order of three or four plants toward 1
i 9
their end of life.
We can provide additional information.
10 MR. SEALE:
Any other questions?
{
11 Do you want to sit down, Mike?
You don't have to j
~!
l 12 stand up there.
You don't have to hold that thing in place l
13 all the time.
14 MR. MAYFIELD:
You talked me into it.
i 15 MR. SEALE:
Gentlemen, should we try to discuss l
t l
16 what is coming up?
l l'
17 We have you scheduled now to talk to the full 18 Committee on Friday, the 10th of September, tentatively from l
l 19 10:45 to 12:15.
I am sure we can count on the rest of the i
I 20 Committee to take up any time you might not have found it j
21 necessary to use.
i 22 Ar I understand this, this rule and this Reg.
23 Guide are going out for approval or comment, rather?
24 MR. MAYFIELD:
The whole package is going out for 25 public comment.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 i
j
~-
)
i 96
)
1 MR. SEALE:
They are going out for public comment?
i 2
MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes, sir.
t 3
MR. SEALE:
You will be getting comment back on 4
those as well as the ones.you talked to us about, about a 1
5 month and a half ago?
l i
6 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes, sir.
7 MR. SEALE:
In the middle to late fall time frame?
t 8
MR. MAYFIELD:
Approximately.
9 MR. SEALE:
Okay.
(
r 10 MR. MAYFIELD:
There is some discussion about
[
11 exactly what review period would be appropriate.
We are 12 giving people quite a large package of information in this
]
13 rulemaking, plus the other two guides.
It falls to 14 basically the same set of people to review all that 15 information.
16 MR. SEALE:
Okay.
f i
17 MR. MAYFIELD:
So it is getting to be a bit of a 18 burden on the public to review all of this and provide 19 comments.
So we are looking at the potential for extending 20 comment periods.
There has been some suggestion that it 21 might be useful to provide some public meetings to present 22 this information, to try to answer questions so that people 23 can provide more complete comments.
24 All of that has yet to be determined, but it will 25 influence how soon we come back with the Guides and Regs.
4 J
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
. -.. ~
97 1
MR. SHEWMON:
When is it going to go out?
You 2
talked about changes from what we had.
3 MR. MAYFIELD:
The next step, assuming we get ACRS 4
endorsement to go for public comment, is the package goes j
5 back through the office for final concurrence.
6 MR. SHEWMON:
Can the Committee get a copy of what 7
is your current best estimate?
l 8
MR. MAYFIELD:
Oh, yes, sir; absolutely.
j l
[
l 9
MR. SHEWMON:
It apparently has changed since this j
i 10 came out.
i 11 MR. MAYFIELD:
We will provide you those.
12 MR. SEALE:
That's'before we talk to the j
13 Committee?
14 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes, sir.
i l
t 15 MR. SEALE:
Okay.
6 l
16 MR. MAYFIELD:
We ought to be able to provide I
17 those to Mr. Igne by the end of this week, or very early l
18 next week.
19 MR. SEALE:
That's fine.
Would you anticipate, 20' then, that you would probably have the whole package to 21 bring back to us at one time rather than trying to scatter 22 it?
1 23 MR. MAYFIELD:
At this stage, unless the Committee 24 would prefer to see all of these things at one time, it i
25 would still be our intent to go ahead with the Guides -- the i
r ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
'I 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
-l 4
t 98 1
upper shelf energy guide and the dosimetry guide separately.
O 2
MR. SEALE:
I see.
3 MR. MAYFIELD:
They are on a little bit faster 4
track.
We think we can get them out, get public comment 5
back and revise the Guides, bring them back to the Committee t
6 months before we can bring this back.
j i
7 MR. SEALE:
I see.
So know what you would like to.
l l
8 hear from us is a comment or a letter to the --
t l
9 MR. MAYFIELD:
I guess the last one went to Mr.
[
10 Taylor?
11 MR. SEALE:
I guess so, yes, to Mr. Taylor's f
i 12 office, indicating endorsement,.if we so decide, following-l l
13 the presentation to the full Committee in September.
14 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes, sir.
i l
15 MR. SEALE:
Okay.
l i
16 MR. MAYFIELD:
Then based on that letter, we will 17 start the package back through concurrence.
Once we-finish 18 the public comment period, all of these things, as part of 19 the process, they all come back to the ACRS for review i
j 20 before they are sent out in final form.
I 21 MR. SEALE:
Now, I understand that this material j
22 did get one more step of review before it came here as 23 compared to the last one.
24 MR. MAYFIELD:
Yes, one of the things that happens 25 in this -- the process is normally a serial process.
The O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
~ Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
l 99 i
1 packages go to the Committee to review generic requirements.
2 Then changes that are recommended from that Committee are 3
incorporated before they would come to the ACRS.
However, in this case we asked the Committee's j
4 l
2 1
5 indulgence, and we put the package to the ACRS at the same 6
time it went to the CRGR.
I i
7 MR. SEALE:
That was the previous package?
l l
i 8
MR. MAYFIELD:
We did the same thing this time'.
9 The two meetings got turned around on the two Reg. Guides.
10 In fact, the ACRS reviewed them before the CRGR did.
i i
l 11 However, there were no substantive changes that came out of i
12 either meeting.
There was some minor oodles around it.
13 MR. SEALE:
Okay.
f I
14 MR. MAYFIELD:
This time we had a little bit i
i 15 different situation.
The documents actually went to the 16 CRGR before they came to the ACRS, which is as it is
[
l 17 supposed to be.
The gamble that we had was that they l
l 18 wouldn't recommend any changes that would make the package l
19 unacceptable to the Committee for review.
20 We felt like the change that they recommended to i
l L
21 pull out the equations from the rule was not so substantive I
i l
22 that it made sense to ask the Committee to look at that.
I i
23 MR. SEALE:
Okay.
24 MR. MAYFIELD:
We tried to lay that out up front.
25 There was a bit of a procedural problem, but because the l
- O 4
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950.
l-
100 1
packages are high priority actions from the Commission, we 2
can't quite meet all the schedules, so we do these things l
3 serially.
[
i 4
MR. SEALE:
There were a couple of typographical 5
things that some of you mentioned.
6 MR. SRACK:
On page 34, line 1.
There is a lot of 7
"subsequents."
(
8 MR. SEALE:
Whatever that is.
i I
9 MR. SHACK:
There's one too many "subsequents."
10 MR. SEALE:
I assume that that editorial kind of i
11 cleansing and so forth will take place.
12 MR. MAYFIELD:
These do get another round through
[
13 the technical editors before they are issues.
14 MR. SHACK:
Just a more substantive question.
Why O.
i 15 did the design permit annealing get kicked out?
16 MR. MAYFIELD:
That was a requirement that the t
17 Commission back as early as '85 had instructed the staff to 18 remove.
We finally got around to amending Appendix G.
It i
19 wasn't a high priority action.
It was just something they
)
20 wanted taken care of.
21 The concern was that you really didn't have 22 criteria to judge it.
Secondly, plants are already built 23 and operating.
You can't very well go back and change.the 24 design.
25 MR. SHACK:
But you changed it to a prospective O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 i
Washington, D. C.. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
I l
101 i
1 requirement.
i O
l 2
MR. MAYFIELD:
We changed it to a prospective i
3 requirement in this package.
The concern with it was still 4
that you really didn't lay out criteria for evaluation.
[
t 5
What does it mean, even in a prospective manner?
6 So, the Committee, the CRGR said, "Look, 5 is a 7
good idea, but go back to the original Commission direction j
l 8
and take it out."
That is the direction I went.
j 9
The other concern had been:
What signal are we 10 sending to people that may consider new plant designs?
The 11 point there argues why we really don't need this because
[
12 people know a lot more about embrittlement today than they i
13 knew then.
They know how to design the vessel and choose 14 the materials to avoid this problem, and not to taar and fix 15 it, mitigate it, once you already have it.
)
16 So, we anticipate the new vessel designs, choices 17 of materials, why have low copper --
18 MR. SEALE:
You'll finesse it rather than force 19 it?
20 MR. MAYFIELD:
Finesse it up front rather than.try 21 to force it the issue.
22 So, we don't feel like it hurts anyone in the i
23 future.
It was something that wasn't a practical matter for l
24 currently operating plants.
25 MR. SEALE:
It fuzzes the issues as far as advance ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
i 102 1
a 1
plants?
O 2
MR. MAYFIELD:
That's correct.
3 MR. SEALE:
Any other questions or comments?
j 4
MR. SHEWMON:
I was just going to say on the t
5 advanced plants they didn't choose their steel and design 6
conditions well enough that they will never get to that.
7 MR. SEALE:
Yes, that's right.
8 Anything else?
9
[No response.]
l t
10 MR. SEALE:
Gentlemen, I want to thank you again.
I 11 You came in with a very complete package.
We appreciate it.
1 12 MR. MAYFIELD:
Thank you.
i 13 MR. SEALE:
Thank you.
i 14
[Whereupon, at 2:29 p.m.,
the meeting was f
O i
15 concluded.]
f i
16 i
l 17 l
I 18 19 i
t 20 1
l 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 l
(202) 293-3950 l
.2,,
i I
LO REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE i
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory
[
Commission l
in the matter of:
f NAME OF PROCEEDING:
ACRS Materials & Metallurgy l
\\
l DOCKET NUMBER:
l
\\
PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Bethesda, MD l
)
were held as herein_ appears, and that this is the j
original transcript thereof for the file of the j
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me l
or under the direction of tha court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and
~
,O accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
Y f0tl& W rde w es Official Reporter ~
/'
l Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
l l
1 l
I i
l l
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE l
MATERIALS AND METALLURGY SUBCOMMITTEE l
7920 NORFOLK AVENUE, ROOM P-110 BETHESDA, MARYLAND i
AUGUST 16, 1993 l
l l
The meeting will now come to order.
This is a meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Materials and Metallurgy.
l i
I am Robert Seale, Chairman of the Subcommittee.
j The ACRS Members in attendance are:
i l
Thomas Kress and William Shack. ACRS Consultant in attendance Paul Shewmon.
i l
The purpose of this meeting is to review proposed rulemaking on j
l fracture toughness requirements for reactor pressure vessels--
l l
revisions to 10 CFR 50.61, Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events, Appendix G, Fracture Toughness Requirements, Appendix H,
Reactor Vessel i
Material Surveillance Program Requirements, and a new rule and an implementing draft regulatory guide on Reactor Vessel Thermal l
~
l Annealing, 10 CFR 50.66.
Elpidio Igne is the Cognizant ACRS Staff Member for this meeting.
1 The rules for participation in today's meeting have been announced as part of the notice of this meeting previously published in the i
Federal Register on August 2, 1993.
{
A transcript of the meeting is being kept and will be made available as stated in the Federal Register Notice.
It is requested that each speaker first identify himself or herself and speak with sufficient clarity and volume so that he or she can be l
readily heard.
l We have received no written comments or requests for time to make l
oral statements from members of the public.
1 (Chairman's Comments-if any)
We will proceed with the meeting and I call upon Mr. Mike Mayfield of RES to begin.
O
9 9
9 CHANGES IN PROPOSED RULE PACKAGE SINCE SUBMITTED TO ACRS
- In PTS rule, clarify " Commission approval" to
" Director of NRR approval" Deletion of " design to permit annealing" requirement e
l (Appendix G,Section IV.8)
\\
i
(
, _ _ ~.
O O
O CHANGES IN PROPOSED RULE PACKAGE SINCE SUBMITTED TO ACRS
- In PTS rule, clarify " Commission approval" to
" Director of NRR approval"
- Deletion of " design to permit annealing" requirement (Appendix G,Section IV.8) 1 e
n,,,, -,,-, - --,... - -
. - -,, - ~, - - -
l O
O O
l RES Staff Presentation to Metallurgy and Materials Subcommittee of ACRS t
PROPOSED RULE AND REGULATORY GUIDE ON THERMAL ANNEALING Michael E. Mayfield Fracture and irradiation Section Materials Engineering Branch Division of Engineering August 16,1993 4
_____:._..___.--,--._-,...*m
l i
O O
O i
PROPOSED RULE 10 CFR 50.66 - Thermal Annealing Requirements e
DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE Reg.
Guide on " Format and Content of Application for e
Approval for Thermal Annealing of RPV" (Draft Guide 1-027) 1
O O
O CHANGES IN PROPOSED RULE AND DRAFT GUIDE SINCE SUBMITTED TO ACRS Delete recovery equations from Fracture Toughness Recovery e
and Reembrittlement Rate Assurance Program Makes rule more performance oriented -- less prescriptive Equations provided in Draft Guide 1-027 e
Restructure associated text e
Draft Guide text will be restructured to follow rule structure e
Editorial changes regarding ALARA considerations 3
" Administrative Boundary" replaced by " Proposed Annealing e
Conditions" f
O O
O DESCRIPTION OF THERMAL ANNEALING Thermal annealing achieved by heating RPV to temperature higher e
than operating temperature For commercial LWR:
650-850 F,168 h Thermal annealing " recovers" embrittlement caused by neutron e
irradiation Higher annealing temperature means greater recovery Annealing can Restore upper shelf energy Reduce RTNDT and RTPTS Widen P-T curve " operating window" 3
- - -l
O O
O t-NEED FOR THERMAL ANNEALING REGULATION AND REGULATORY GUIDE Existing Appendix G addresses annealing only in context of 50 ft-Ib criterion annealing also appropriate to reduce RTNDT Appendix G requirements on annealing inadequate evaluation of recovery from materials tests only method not practical in all cases no requirements on engineering aspects Proposed annealing of Yankee Nuclear Power Station highlighted need for more complete regulatory framework 4
m
-m-M e-e
%-eM*=taa-eg=+-
e I --+
-w s-
'---tee
^ ^ - - -
+e--ee--
w me-awa--
4.-
-^e--e-g
_a
.~.2 s
u-
. n e <.5,___m=
m_-
..__.__am._,.
wm w.r _., -.. -.
a.a m..
-_:.4_
e a.s _ m
.a+---=
= _ _ _,
m.
.mw-w.
u,64 m u awm
-mw_mmnr.m._
u umi s ue. _&
_.ma a. % =.a_%.a u a s 4.s 4. a.x %
a a m m a m,
u=.-
I O
O O
l I
4 l
PROPOSED RULE ON THERMAL ANNEALING 10 CFR 50.66 f
?
1
O O
O i
l OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ANNEALING RULE Application for Thermal Annealing Subject to approval by the Director, NRR Submitted three years prior to anneal Certification of Annealing Effectiveness 6
7 O
de d
N ee O
c x
IT e
A "e
t l
o t
b C
n e n
i I
r e
d L
s u m
e P
nt r
oa e
c P
l i r t
d t
A s
m e
t i
f e
i dp r
i i
n a
f nm b
o r
s i
G g
o t
t e
m n
s i
o ct N
a e
e u
rP gd e
m r
j I
L e
nn R
f i
d t
c i
A n
s a
d e
i a
s i
l l
e s
e E
a n
ee n
p T
t d
l N
P o
snm a
s o
c d
eni y
esm N
g n
t t a r
ce n
A g
e A
l a
npa l
t R
nd n v
a i
O mn a
A n
o ei o
l L
r o
isl cm a o l
a i
e L
t o
e A
i i
t c
e e a v
st p
A c
e pn Rr a
M O
e pr n g
u r
o et d
p spa so nu sr sip R
g n
s n
l E
n a
eP el m t
l n
iea n
e i
l g
,t i
H a
gat h e b
u l
b o n
n c
a c
T e
r n
r o
nt c g
i n
ie l
isa u
F n
e t
a ak e i
r e
a on or va s e
O A
n c
t o Tu at u n
i s
nmi es enn i
i la g
f f
o ee r
i S
m E
a MDD uA saa n
l UCC T
t r
u ce N
e q
t a
h e
a r
E T
R FR TN OC O
O O
O CERTIFICATION OF ANNEALING EFFECTIVENESS Certify that annealing was performed within the proposed annealing conditions Provide post-anneal RTNDT and Charpy upper shelf energy values Estimate reembrittlement trends for RTNDT and Charpy upper shelf energy Project RTNDT and Charpy upper shelf energy for end of proposed period of operation If cannot certify, submit justification for subsequent operation Approval by Director, NRR, required before restart 8
O O
O DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE 1-027:
" FORMAT AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL FOR THERMAL ANNEALING OF REACTOR PRESSURE VESSELS" i
9 1
i e--
v.
--r- -,, -,
e.-,
,w-.-.
+. - -...i.~,,ww-.--,.
O O
O DESCRIPTION OF DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE 1-027 Provides guidance on format and content of applications for thermal annealing 4
1 Describes the criteria that the NRC staff will use in evaluating annealing applications Elaborates the provisions of the thermal annealing rule Thermal Annealing Operating Plan Requalification inspection and Test Program Fracture Toughness Recovery and Reembrittlement Rate Assurance Program
- i Certification l
10 i
1 1
O N
d s
e A
l la a
L t
e t
P n
i m
n a
G b
u e
N ss b
I t
T o
r luo t
A si r ep s
R yr n
E r
o o
gomt i
P nt g
a is e
e O
r l
i ah gc s
r e
o n f
l G
ngr e a o nnpr V
i r O
N ai e
P en t ef Rs t o IL r a c e ai or r
n A
en oomt f
f a
pae N
no oiu n sei c
i E
d n s
l l
f nni e
o ust ieit N
oa n vy l
t t n pml r
a a
e e r el u A
gRPSM rDBI i
i d
k c
L c
s a
e A
B D
M R
e e
E HT O
- 1 l
2 1
O
)s t
)
n i
t a
n r
d t
o s
e e
c t
e
(
c n
r s
e w
e o
N f
i s
~
f t
a A
a p
n
=
l f
r o
n L
s o
i l
s a
o P
e s
t n
i i
r b
t t
n e
n a
e u
a G
m e
t t
i t
n m
c n
N u
o d
o e
n r
i I
r p
m a) t T
s t
f u
td u
s A
d e
a so r
s ne l
e t
t od l
R n
n i
r e
r ns s
a ce a
u t
e en n
n e
E h
t e
t i
rf amio eon P
s a
r t
r t
r c
O n
g met o
t f
e n
r a nt O
e n
i p
o ic t
iu(
(
n d e ui n
e ym m
c n
o G
r qd e
r l
o et s
o s
e ed ien N
p m
oaa i
h t
ie t ri cl d m
s t t p
f I
L o
nr inn p
l i
f r
l a
o gei ciw u
o g
a e r
A c
as e i pd l
r f
E cs t s sso q
ef t
o ee oa r r een e
e vo ig r
g N
n L
cDPI gDDK aOC r
r o
n e
N e
n r
l h
o i
m o
o p
t t
A i
i p
B*
C*
P*
O S*
i L
uq A
E M
R E
HT O
l 3
4 i
4
o O
O O
l THERMAL ANNEALING OPERATING PLAN (cont.)
Proposed parameters of annealing Target temperature, time-at-temperature Heatup and cooldown rates Limitations on those parameters Annealing method, instrumentation and procedures Operational steps Temperature control system Measurement accuracy and reliability Radioactive contamination controls 13 l
4
O O
O THERMAL ANNEALING OPERATING PLAN (cont.)
Thermal and stress analysis Establish time and temperature profiles Maximum concrete temperature Should evaluate Residual deformations Residual stresses Elastic-plastic creep effects Distortions and bending Piping displacements Effects of thermal gradients Effects of restraints (nozzles, piping)
Specify limiting conditions Highest temperature Highest stress and strain Limiting heatup and cooldown rates 14 v
O O
O.
THERMAL ANNEALING OPERATING PLAN (cont.)
Define the proposed annealing conditions Time and temperature boundary ALARA considerations In accordance with 10 CFR 20.1206 Focus on occupational exposure Other considerations should be addressed Projected recovery and reembrittlernent 15 i
{
O O
O REQUALIFICATION INSPECTION AND TEST PROGRAM Monitoring program Assure annealing within proposed annealing conditions What to measure (temperatures, strains, deflections, etc.)
Measurement frequency during heatup, steady-state and cooldown Record retention e
inspection program Pre-and post-anneal visual examination 3
NDE program for the RPV beltline e
Test program i
Demonstrate effectiveness of annealing Assure no degradation of RPV and other affected structures, components or equipment 4
16
l
\\
7 1
O YR EV O
en C
i l
E t
l R
e b
S le S
d ss E
o s
e h
n d
v N
t e
o e
H m
m h
e i
t h
G c
e t
U m
e m
m a
p O
r s
o l
T g
a r
o d
f ir d
O E
p t
t r
e e
d o
n s
a e
h o
R v
t e
e m
o e
t i
U c
t a
n m
m n
T u
e u
l a
q s
e C
l l
r r
a e
l A
e o
s i
n e
la o
c v
n v
R i
i r
i r
r u
e t
F k
d e
a e
s e
t t
n o
a u
e t
G e
B l
r a
M p
G i
s N
d m
s a
I e
o T
V r
C r
A I
U L
e e
e AV E
O J
i i
O O
O GUIDANCE ON VESSEL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM METHOD Use broken or untested Charpy specimens from the surveillance program IN-90-52 on retention of broken specimens Broken specimens can be reconstituted Test plan specified in the program plan specimen dimensions test temperatures 4
Specimen annealing same as actual vessel annealing Program plan would describe Surveillance capsules / specimens Test plan Method for evaluating vessel recovery 18 i
9 1
O y
y r
p e
r v
a o
h c
C e
L r
E e
ez S
n i
s i
S m
yr b
E t
e u
i V
t s
l ib e s
D ad nr D
t eo O
po ETH et m
i -
cs cl AT l
ct s
eu l
E e a u pf I
DM spe s
s l
e s
e A
smta n
yt r
e O
R L r atrt o
pu s
r RA d ss t
s t
i d ai e
t d
nt as e
eh I
g r e t
s I
R a
o n
el p
aCn l
NE dv mg d p c
o i
OT uo ei smesm e
n l
i i
c r
z s
a bi e A
omd nal s
u sps n
a sr E
h e o o
cf mf a b
f CM r
sr t o
ol eu os oa p
t n nr sf c
s n b s N
a oed i r e
f ef og or f s A
p sy ho cb oin t otsm l
i t
i i
D e
at r
mnat pme l
c cs sl e e
an e suzioe u np I
el s U
alrPAM NSLT pFI s l
t G
g n
m o
a r
a l
P P
S e
O i!
4
O O
O ACCEPTABILITY OF REMOVING MATERIAL FROM THE VESSEL BELTLINE "l.ocal" considerations Thermal and mechanical effects Surface quality effects Method for characterizing the depression after sample removal e
" Global" considerations Impact of remaining depression, hole or discontinuity on vessel integrity Demonstrate that ASME Code Section ill stress limits are satisfied Effects of fatigue and corrosion on exposed base metal Thermal and mechanical effects on. remaining material 20
O O
O GUIDANCE ON COMPUTATIONAL METHOD Based on all available data Generally test reactor irradiations no long term irradiations (surveillance specimens)
Statistical evaluation using pattern recognition methods Determine important parameters Calibrate coefficients Recovery of USE Set equal to recovery of RTNDT Limited to 100%
i 21 I
l
O O
O COMPUTATIONAL METHOD Rt = 2.87x10-1 Ta + 4.06x10-3(T + 460)ln(t ) -
a a
xCu.844(T +460) - 7.06x10-3(Tl+ 460)ln(t ) -
9.0x10-2 0
a i
1.82x10-2T + 9.81x10-1 ARTNDT.617 _ go O
i R t percent recovery of ARTNDT
=
T annealing temperature
=
a annealing time ta
=
Ti irradiation temperature
=
irradiation time tl
=
ARTNDT =
transition temperature shift due to irradiation Cu copper content
=
22
4 I
m O
)
na w
s w
ssssss
+ + + ++
4++
s s
+
++ \\
\\
+
\\
+++
\\
l
\\
+\\
N
+
m k
g]
N
+++
+
c N
e sN+p g+7#'x+
8
'N++
- t+%++\\
j j
- s s
+* 4 ++ p
'\\
j O
N N + +v*
++
\\
a s
s e c
+\\ + %
\\
d' l
+ +* + + + \\\\
s
+
i
\\+
\\
++
N *W+
)
s
\\
l
\\+
l s
N
+
l G
a s
t N
m m
e v
N m
w w
a m
m a
pasanocag uottowaj pagetnotep O:
S
~ew-
,o"-.
<owg ww
-wn
.-----g-n-r-w yy n - w w
---~vmney--
gw,+,m
~ww,g-m-
O O
O i
150 125
[
Irrad. Temp. = 550 F
" 100 Anneal time = 168 h e
e
.G e
.c so 4O O
75 g, ee,e e
w e
o e
t g *.
8 50 e
x g
U 25 eg eee ee e
I I
I I
I 0
O 25 50 75 100 125 150 Recovery of CvUSE (%)
24
O O
O GUIDANCE FOR REEMBRITTLEMENT RATE ASSURANCE PROGRAM e
" Lateral shift" Same embrittlement trend as pre-anneal operating period Limited US data indicate reembrittlement bounded by initial embrittlement trend Analysis is "mean curve" analysis plus margin term Explicit equations provided Surveillance method Results must meet credible data requirements in PTS rule Use of MTR irradiations for specimen preconditioning 25
i O
O O
i LATERAL SHIFT METHOD LATERAL SHIFT METHOD Annoaling initial Embrittlement Rato Recovery r initial USE Post-Annoal Condition
/
th g
(
Lateral Shift
/
g Roombrittlement Rato
'Roombritiiomont Rato
{
I
)
Lateral Shift D
~%
5 L-Initial Embrittlernent Rate Annealing k
Recovery
/
.c Post-Anneal Condition O
2 2
Fluence (n/cm, E > 1 MeV)
Fluence (n/cm, E > 1 MeV) 26
O O
O i
POST-ANNEAL CERTIFICATION Description of the overall annealing process Details sufficient to evaluate the annealing Results and evaluation of inspections and tests e
e Annealing effectiveness:
Percent recovery Reembrittlement rate Allowable operating period 27
O O
O RES Staff Presentation to Metallurgy and Materials Subcommittee of ACRS i
PROPOSED RULE PACKAGE ON FRACTURE TOUGHNESS REO.UIREMENTS FOR LIGHT WATER REACTOR VESSELS Allen Hiser, Jr.
Fracture and irradiation Section Materials Engineering Branch Division of Engineering August 16,1993 I
. ~.
O O
O PROPOSED REVISIONS e
10 CFR 50.61 - Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule 10 CFR 50 Appendix G - Fracture Toughness Requirements e
e 10 CFR 50 Appendix H - Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program Requirements
-2 O
ro e
f ro d
c ee ro n
f d
s e
t i
f n
it e
n V
m e
S P
e d
r i
E R
iu g
w G
n qn e
o ei N
i i
r t v
t s
A a
ne e
t r
ot H
S f
k f
C l
r a a a
e e e t
E w
pl s
H o
pd S
P a n E
T r
d a R
y O
a n e c
R e
ar d
n O
c u
n l
e ms e
a t
F u
s c
R s
i N
ae i
n R
s S
l r
e cp a
n N
e t
d N
o k
g c
i i
O f
u e
n k n s
g v
r S
a cr in so i
A Y
au n
so nf bd o
ni o s t
f e ai E
i o
t e R
Gy s
h c w
Ri ei cg t
s i
f e n r
l e
Aa m
pr r a ir c
a Bi m
ml oh iv t
ccc e
Ui o
o r
R Nc C
C O
O O
O l
REVIEW OF YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION Review began in 1990
- focus became PTS and Appendix G issues YNPS PTS issues stemmed from method of calculating embrittlement estimates in the PTS rule surveillance data temperature effects Significant difficulty in using and interpreting the PTS regulatory guide (RG 1.154)
- revisions are longer-term items e
i.
.m
~
-4 O
w w
N ra O
e l
I c
T t
y A
o f
3 T
n i ra 8
S V
lc
,2 e
P R
R d
32 L_
E n
39 e
a 3 -
W h
Y H
t e
1 C
O f
s 9E db i
5 o
n v
P n -
o e
YS l
t8 g
af i
Cn t
r R
1 n
a A
G0 o
Ei i
E p
l t
Sd
.5 a
i E) e c
e M
nz p
M n
i L t p<T t
ii n
r R
r Cn A ES a
a d a p
S.
O Uo 0SA
~
em la c
n n
N (c 5Uf im i
m l
i t
l y
r b
e u u o
t E
apn e
u c
s r
o h d p n
E Pr o d
K ai t e a
s n nr d
e Rh s r
a o
N FCe of f u
r i
i s
g f e n
n A
Cr v g
sdy o
a3 o
t i
Y 0f e s ni nt h7 eun oa c1 l
sb 1
c u
l i
F s a at su d2
- e c oir sg e9 O
r r o
e s
i i
s cl pe t p mr oY m
eop W
pa gco mV pC r p r p
.i u
o u
E s
e oP rE s
R CR PS m
I i
V E
R e
O
,i
k
-5 O
E L
UR K
C O
H S
1 L
6 A
0 M
5 R
R O
E F
H C
T 0
D 1
E Z
IR U
S S
E RP O
l; i.
R t
4 1
I!<
-6 O
h x
t u
a i
l w
f i r F
e y
n st c
0 o
cr i
i T
n a7 r
c in e
r2 e
i
- N t
ag t
e F
h n i
s 1E r
t <
i c
ci i
- 6. T s
r n
c 0
ed g
e S0 me 0N o
n c
gT3 c
5O n
nP n
e x i
i r
R C nT<
e i
u e e2 eR e
t r
e F D v
e S
c c
n r
r a o l
C oo cst s
N si sl P fr f
0A ei aT d
e s
t t e
,b r v neR e
e O
1 e
t s D
R em:
c ar m
x ua N
5 1
s E
8 9
e e e
qe d
U 9
9 9 sl ey l
ae o
L t
9 t
d t
UO ib w a
1 1
3 r
,1 d
n-RR 3
5 b d ed l
i e
mna t e d
G 2
1 d
r n
e ai ci S K y
yu n
eu ore t
i T
s s ii j
C u
aG ed r r e cq e
oq l
t u P
J M
l A
y de e pr u e vwf Sn i
d r r
B d
d m
e e
e o o
o s
rl u Ti t
r h
d a i
a t
s s
nl pi c P
x c
y r
e u xi Tu ul i
e l
g AC R d f
b a
l me o
l u
n P
AR R
f e f
r a
I I
O l-ll l
O O
O PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED WITH PTS RULE
- Oversights from 1991 amendment -- Rule does not
- Specify appropriate margin value if surveillance data are used
- Define initial value of RTNDT
- Provide acceptable reference to requirements in Reg. Guide 1.99, Rev. 2
- Rule is silent on acceptability of thermal annealing as an option for reducing RTPTS
. --------a aw--.
-,----,----ev--
O O
O PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 10 CFR 50.61 e
Make RTPTS analysis identical to Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2 -- embrittlement estimates are consistent
- Method for determining initial RTNDT
- Equation for margin term e
incorporate thermal annealing as acceptable option -- greater flexibility to the rule e
Restructure PTS Rule -- clarity (a)
Definitions (b)
Requirements
- (c) Calculation of RTPTS O
O O
10 CFR 50 APPENDIX G FRACTURE TOUGHNESS REQUIREMENTS
\\
. l
....-..-.-.-..-.-- - -a
--.~-.-------------nc
O O
O 10 CFR PART 50 APPENDIX G:
BACK. GROUND AND CONTENT Published 1973, last technical amendment 1983 e
Fracture toughness requirements for ferritic materials of pressure boundary components References Appendix G Section til of ASME Code Requires evaluation of pressure-temperature limits and minimum metal temperature Requirements for Charpy upper shelf energy e
I 75 ft-Ib pre-service 50 ft-Ib throughout the vessel life i
?
- 1 0-
. m
O O
O PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED WITH 10 CFR PART 50 APPENDIX G Proper steps not clear if Charpy USE projected below 50 ft-lb Core criticality during pressure and leak tests Difficulty in interpreting requirements for P-T limits and minimum temperature requirements Approval process for thermal annealing e
impact of " design to permit annealing" requirement on operating plants
I I
CURRENT REQUIREMENTS IF
.m i O CHARPY USE < 50 FT-LB a
i i
CvUSE < 50 ft-lb i
t Analysis to demonstrate PASS equivalent margins FAIL I
n Volumetric Additional evidence of U
inspections fracture toughness Analysis to demonstrate equivalent margins FAIL
\\
Remedial OPERATE Actions O
1 4
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 10 CFR PART 50 APPENDIX G e Restructure Sections IV and V of current Appendix G P-T limits and minimum temperature requirements identified in a new table e
e
TABLE 1 PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE REQUIREMENTS VESSEL REQUIREMENTS FOR MINIMUM TEMPERATURE OPERATING CONDITION PRESSURE (1)
PRESSURE-TEMPERATURE LIMITS REQUIREMENTS 1.
Hydrostatic pressure and leak tests (core is not critical):
1.a Fuel in the vessel s 20%
ASME Appendix G Limits (2) + 60 F 1.b Fuel in the vessel
> 20%
ASME Appendix G Limits (2) + 90 F (6) c re erv e dro t Only)
(Not Applicable)
(3) + 60 F ALL 2.
Normal operation (incl. heat-up and cool-down), including anticipated operational occurrences:
2.a Core not critical s 20%
ASME Appendix G Limits (2) 2.b Core not critical
> 20%
ASME Appendix G Limits (2) + 120 F (6) la o
or 2.c Core critical s 20%
ASME Appendix G Limits + 40 F
)
large" (4}
2.d Core critical
> 20%
ASME Appendix G Limits + 40 F
({2) + 160 F]
2.e Core critical for BWR (5) s 20%
ASME Appendix G Limits + 40 F (2) + 60 F (1) Percent of the preservice system hydrostatic test pressure.
(2) The highest reference temperature of the material in the closure flange region that is highly stressed by the bolt preload.
(3) The highest reference temperature of the vessel.
(4) The minimum permissible temperature for the inservice system hydrostatic pressure test.
(5) For boiling water reactors (BWR) with water level within the normal range for power operation.
(6) Lower temperatures are permissible if they can be justified by showing that the margins of safety of the controlling region are equivalent to those required for the beltline when it is controlling.
e O
_R_
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 10 CFR PART 50 APPENDIX G (cont.)
- Restructure Sections IV and V of current Appendix G (cont.)
- Procedures for Charpy USE below 50 ft-lb
" Equivalent margins" analysis, a
3 years before < 50 ft-lb Additional fracture toughness data "may be obtained" for inclusion in analysis Delete requirement for volumetric inspection -
augmented inspection requirements (ASME Code Appendices Vil & Vill) already required'under 10 CFR 50.55a e
e
PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS IF CHARPY USE < 50 FT-LB
$,0 l
l l
CvUSE < 50 ft-lb Analysis to demonstrate PASS equivalent margins l
FAIL l
l I
L Additional evidence of l
fracture toughness i
Analysis to demonstrate equivalent margins l
FAIL Remedial OPERATE Actions l
t i
O l
l l
O O
O PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 10 CFR PART 50 APPENDIX G (cont.)
- Specifically require that pressure and leak tests required by ASME Code be completed prior to core criticality
- Implements CRGR recommendation to the EDO June 7,1990
- NUBARG backfitting claim and appeal
- Safety concerns:
- hindrance of finding leaks at high temperature 5
i - -
5_
O O
O i
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 10 CFR PART 50 APPENDIX G (cont.)
- Delete the " design to permit annealing" requirement
- Change reference from Appendix G of Section til to Appendix G of Section XI of the ASME Code Delete existing annealing language and reference the proposed thermal annealing rule O
O O
i 10 CFR 50 APPENDIX H REACTOR VESSEL MATERIAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
- 1 9-
1 O
O O
4 l
l l
BACKGROUND ON 10 CFR PART 50 APPENDIX H e Material surveillance program required to monitor irradiation embrittlement of the RPV beltline materials
- References ASTM Standard E 185
- Integrated surveillance programs s..
O O
O PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED WITH 10 CFR PART 50 APPENDIX H
- Interpretation unclear of "That part of the surveillance program conducted prior to the first capsule withdrawal"
- Not clear what is earliest edition of ASTM E 185 for compliance with Appendix H
- Criteria not clear for " initial results agree with predictions" to permit discontinuation of a
testing 9
D O
O 4
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 10 CFR PART 50 APPENDIX H
- Clarify versions of ASTM E 185 for various portions of surveillance program "The design of the program and the withdrawal schedule must meet the requirements of ASTM E 185-73 or the edition of E 185 that is current on the issue date of the ASME Code to which the RPV was purchased" e Discontinue provision for reducing amount of testing in integrated surveillance programs when " initial results agree with predictions" t
-2 2-
-