ML20057F121
| ML20057F121 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1993 |
| From: | Tim Reed Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Dennis Morey SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. |
| References | |
| GL-92-01, GL-92-1, NUDOCS 9310140151 | |
| Download: ML20057F121 (4) | |
Text
1 October 7, 1993 Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Mr. D. N. Morey, Vice President Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc.
Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201-1295
Dear Mr. Morey:
SUBJECT:
JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING GENERIC LETTER 92-01 REVISION 1 The NRC staff has completed its preliminary review of the Farley response dated July 1,1992, to Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1, " Reactor Vessel Structural Integrity."
In order to complete our review of the Farley response to GL 92-01, Revision 1, we need additional information. Accordingly, please respond to the enclosed questions. We request your response within 45 days of receipt of this letter.
If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at (301) 504-1463.
This requirement affects fewer than ten respondents, and therefore, it is not subject to Office of Management & Budget review under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, Original signed by Timothy A. Reed, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 11-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Ragulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:
j See next page DISTRIBUTION:
S. Varga T. Reed nDocket File" G. Lainas OGC NRC & Local PDRs S. Bajwa ACRS (10)
PDII-1 R/F P. Anderson E. Herschoff, RII i
0FC L43ET-1 P# PIhll-1 D:PDII-l NAME PANNIoY kR h st SBajwaNh DATE
/0/V/93
/Ch/93
/0 / 7 /93
/ /93
/ /93 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\FARLEY\\9201.RAI 120053 liBC 62 E' 9310140151 931007 g
DR ADDCK 0500 8
,) l p
v
ag Mr. D. N. Morey Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Southern Nuclear Operating Company, l.ic.
cc:
Mr. R. D. Hill, Jr.
State Health Officer General Manager - Farley Nuclear Plant Alabama Department of Public Health Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc.
434 Monroe Street Post Office Box 470 Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1701 Ashford, Alabama 36312 Chairman Mr. B. L. Moore, Licensing Manager Houston County Commission Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc.
Post Office Box 6406 Post Office Box 1295 Dothan, Alabama 36302 Birmingham, Alabama 35201-1295 Regional Administrator, Region II James H. Miller, III, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Balch and Bingham Law Firm 101 Marietta St., N.W., Ste. 2900 Post Office Box 306 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 1710 Sixth Avenue North i
Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 24 - Route 2 Columbia, Alabama 36319 1
9
9 I
Enclosure I
RE0 VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GENERIC LETTER 92-01 REVISION 1 JOSFPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS ? AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-348 AND 50-364 FARLEY UNIT 1:
Question 2a in GL 92-01 The response to GL 92-01 does not specify the unirradiated Charpy upper-shelf energy (USE) values for the beltline welds.
Either provide the unirradiated Charpy USE for each beltline weld or provide the unirradiated Charpy USE and analysis from welds that were fabricated using the same vendor, fabrication time frame, fabrication process, and material specification as the Joseph H. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 1.
(Farley-1) beltline welds to demonstrate that the Farley-1 beltline welds will meet the requirements of Appendix G,10 CFR Part 50.
If this cannot be provided, then submit an analysis which demonstrates that lower values of USE will provide margins of safety against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of the ASME Code.
Question 2b in GL 92-01 Table 12 of the response to GL 92-01 indicates that the IRT"EO,1986 for lower shell plate B6919-2 is 20 F.
Table 111.3-1 in your January response to the PTS rule indicates that the IRT, for this plate is 5"F.
g Resolve this discrepancy and provide the data used to determine the IRTgt.
Page 16 of the response to GL 92-01 indicates the nickel content of the beltline welds were not available from the material certifications.
However, the nickel content for these welds is reported in the FSAR as 0.20% and 0.21%. How were these values determined?
According to the weld identification (weld wire type and heat number and flux type and lot number) in Table 4-1 of WCAP-11563, the lot number of flux used to fabricate the surveillance weld was not used to fabricate any beltline weld. Which beltline welds are represented by the surveillance weld.
Explain the discrepancy between the chemical t
composition of the surveillance weld and the beltline welds that it represents.
Table 13 of the response to GL 92-01 reports the RT,7, value for each beltline material at 32 EFPY.
Based on information provided we can not confirm the accuracy of these values.
For each beltline material
~4gg provide the projected neutron fluence at 32 EFPY, the amounts of copper and nickel, the chemistry factor and margin according to Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, and the IRT,3 FARLEY UNIT 2:
Question 2a in GL 92-01 The response to GL 92-01 does not specify the unirradiated Charpy upper-shelf energy (USE) values for the beltline welds.
Either provide the unirradiated Charpy USE for each beltline weld or provide the unirradiated Charpy USE and analysis from welds that were fabricated using the same vendor, fabrication time frame, fabrication process, and material specification as the Farley, Unit 2 (Farley-2) beltline welds to demonstrate that the Farley-2 beltline welds will meet the requirements of Appendix G, 10 CFR 50.
If this cannot be provided, then submit an analysis which demonstrates that lower values of USE will provide margins of safety against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of the ASME Code.
~
Question 2b in GL 92-01 Page 16 of the response to GL 92-01 indicates the nickel content of the beltline welds were not available from the material certifications.
However, the nickel content-for these welds is reported in the FSAR as 0.20% and 0.21%. How were these values determined?
Table 11 of the response.to GL 92-01 indicates that the weld wire used to fabricate the surveillance weld is representative of the wire used in the original fabrication. What weld process and heat number of weld wire was used to fabricate the surveillance weld.
Explain any discrepancy in chemical composition between.the surveillance weld and the beltline weld that it represents.
Table 14 of the response to GL 92-01 reports the RT, value for each i
n beltline material at 32 EFPY.
Based on information~provided we can not confirm the accuracy of these values.
For each beltline material provide the projected neutron fluence at 32 EFPY, the amounts of copper i
and nickel, the chemistry factor and margin according to Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, and the IRT,3 i
.i
.