ML20094M434
| ML20094M434 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1995 |
| From: | Dennis Morey SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| GL-92-01, GL-92-1, TAC-M83461, TAC-M83462, NUDOCS 9511270059 | |
| Download: ML20094M434 (29) | |
Text
._ m.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4 Southern Nucbcr Operating Company Pcst Office Box 1293
.' Birminghtm. Akbama 35201
- . Tetphone (205) 868-5131
+ o... ue,.y Southern Nudear Operating Company Vice President Farley Project the southem electnc system November 16, 1995 Docket Nos. 50-348 10 CFR 50.54 50-364 TAC Nos. 83461 83462-U' . S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Response to Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1, Supplement 1 Reactor Vessel Structural Integrity Ladies and Gentlemen:
The NRC issued Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1, Supplement 1 (GL92-01, R1, SI),
Reactor Vessel Structural Integrity, on May 19,1995. In the generic letter supplement, the NRC identified a concern that licensees may not have all of the relevant data pertinent -
to the evaluation of the structural integrity of their reactor pressure vessels. The generic letter supplement requested licensees to respond within 90 days describing those actions taken or planned to locate all data relevant to the determination of reactor vessel integrity, )
or an explanation of why the existing data is considered complete as previously l submitted.
Additionally, GL92-01, R1, S1 requested licensees to provide the following information within 6 months of the date of the generic letter supplement:
- an assessment of any change in best-estimate chemistry based on consideration of all relevant data;
- a determination regarding the need to use the ratio procedure described in Position 2.1 of Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2; and a written report providing any newly acquired data and; (a) the results of any necessary revisions to the evaluation of RPV integrity in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.60,10 CFR 50.61, Appendices G and H to 10 CFR 50, and any potential impact on the LTOP or P-T limits or (b) a certification that all information previously submitted remains valid.
o,,,,.
c.ai2 EBA22I888%Ziasak g i P PDR ;
'y
- U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) letter to the NRC, dated August 9,1995, provided the 90 day response to GL92-01, R1, S1, for Farley 1 and 2. Attachments I and 2 to this letter provide the 6 month response to GL92-01, R1, S1 for Farley 1 and 2.
Based on the specific NRC inquiries contained in GL92-01, R1, Si, SNC has focused the activities associated with this response to those necessary to address weld chemistry variability.
In summary, the Farley 1 and 2 reactor vessel beltline welds were fabricated using both copper and non-copper weld wire. Additional information obtained through participation in the Combustion Engineering Reactor Vessel Group (CE-RVG) and discussions with plants containing the same weld filler material heat numbers resulted in slight changes to the best-estimate copper and nickel values for the Farley 1 and 2 beltline welds.
However, the changes to the best estimate copper and nickel values, and the corresponding changes to the chemistry factors determined in accordance with 10 CFR 50.61, do not result in the Farley 1 and 2 beltline welds becoming the limiting beltline material. Additionally, the changes to the best-estimate copper and nickel do not result in a projected end-of-life upper shelf energy less than 50 ft-lbs for any beltline material. Therefore, the current Farley 1 and 2 reactor vessel integrity analyses remain -
valid.
As part of a long-term resolution of this issue, SNC is currently participating in the Combustion Engineering Owners Group - Reactor Vessel Working Group (CEOG-RVWG) weld chemistry variability task. The objective of this task is to determine best-estimate copper and nickel values for each weld material heat used in the beltline region of CE-fabricated reactor vessels. Completion of this task is currently projected to require a minimum of 18 months. Upon completion, the results of this task will be evaluated to determine the affect of any new information on the reactor vessel integrity analyses for Farley 1 and 2.
Should you have any questions, please advise.
Respectfully Submitted, SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY Dave Morey DNMfrWS SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME Attachments THIS M DAY OF 9//7Nmt/R ,1995
-AHb JJ Notary Public ~ f~
W My Commission Expires: b d l/, / f f 7 y_ .
s U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 6
cc: Southern Nuclear Operating Company R. D. Hill, Plant Manager ;
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. DC B. L. Siegel, Licensing Project Manager, NRR U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Region II S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator T. M. Ross, Senior Resident Inspector
ATTACHMENT 1 l
Response to Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1, Supplement 1 !
Requested information l
l Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2
. ,-(
, ATTACHMENT I Requested Information (1) Describe those actions taken or planned to locate all data relevant to the determination of reactor vessel integrity, or, an explanation of why the existing data is considered complete as previously submitted.
The response to this item was provided in SNC letter to the NRC dated August 9,1995.
(2) an assessment of any change in best-estimate chemistry based on consideration of all relevant data; Tables 1 and 2 below provide the best-estimate chemistry values for the Farley 1 and 2 reactor vessel beltline welds based on the information contained in Attachment 2. It should be noted that some of the values contained in th NRC-RVID do not match the values provided by SNC in response to GL92-01, RI.
Additionally, SNC submitted WCAP-14197, Evaluation of Pressunzed Thermal Shock for Farley Units 1 & 2, to the NRC on March 7,1995. This submittal included revised PTS values for Farley I and 2, including changes to the calculated chemistry factors, subsequent to the GL92-01, R1, response. The chemistry factors (CF) provided in Table 1 and 2 below, based on the SNC response to GL92-01, R1, or WCAP-14197, as appropriate, demonstrate the impact of the revised best-estimate copper and nickel values determined in response to GL92-01, R1, Sl.
As shown in Table 1, the revised best-estimate copper and nickel values for Farley I resulted in an increased CF, determined in accordance with 10 CFR )
50.61, for lower shell axial seams20-894 A and 20-894B. The CF increase from 92*F to 104 F for seams 20-894A and 20-894B does not result in either of these ;
seams becoming the limiting beltline material for Farley 1. l l
Table 2 provides changes to the best-estimate copper and nickel values for the Farley 2 beltline weld seams. As shown in Table 2, the changes to the best-estimate copper and nickel values do not result in an increased CF for any of the beltline weld seams.
i l
1 1
)
, .9
. ATTACHMENT l l
I i
I G L 92-01. Rn1stoN 1.
SEAM llEAY l GL 92-01 RtusioN 1 '8 Strrtutt.NT I LOCATION NLMata No. Cu Ni CF Cu Ni CF i1-894 Middle to Lower Shell Cire. Weld 632 % 37 0225 0.20 114.5t21 0.21 0.11 100.8 19-894A Middle Shell Axial Seam A 33A277 0.25 0.21 74.9 I'3 0.24 0.17 74.9ts!
I 19-894B Middle Shell Axial Seam B 33A277 025 0.21 74.9I 'l 0.24 0.17 74.9E'I 20-894A Lower Shell Axial Seam A 90099 0.17 0.20 92.0 0.20 0.20 104 20-894B Lower Shell Axial Seam B 90099 0.17 0.20 92.0 0.20 0.20 104 Sury. Surveillance Test Plate / Weld 33A277 14) [4] 74.9'I E
0.24 0.17 74.9'l Weld i
Table 1 - Best-Estimate Chemistry Changes for Farley 1 Notes: l'I Unless otherwise noted (2) SNC reported CF=114.5'F in response to GL92-01. RI. RVID indicates CF=117.0'F l'3 SNC reported CF=78.689'F in response to GL92-01. RI. RVID indicates CF=78.60*F. These values have been superseded by Westinghouse report WCAP 14197 transmitted to NRC by SNC letter dated March 7,1995. Based on credible surveillance data, CF=74.9'F.
l'3 Best-estimate copper and nickel values not provided for surveillance weld in GL92-01, R1 response.
2
4
. ATTACHMENT l GL 92-01, Rt vis10N 1 SEAw LOCATION litAT GL 92-01 RtusioN I"' Serrt.EMt.vr i NOMeta No. Cu Ni CF Cu Ni CF l1923 Middle to Lower Shell Circ. Weld 5P5622 0.13 0.20 76.0 0.14 0.07 67.3 19-923A Middle Shell Axial Seam A BOLA [2] [2] [2] 0.03 0.91 8.903 Middle Shell Axial Scam A HODA 0.02 0.96 27H3 0.02 0.96 27H1 19-923B Middle Shell Axial Seam B BOLA 0.02 0.93 8.9DI 0.03 0.91 8.9D3 20-923A Lower Shell Axial Scam A 83640 0.05 0.20 49.0 0.05 0.07 34.05 20-923B Lower Shell Axial Scam B 83640 0.05 0.20 49.0 0.05 0.07 34.05 Surv. Surveillance Test Plate / Weld BOLA [5] [5] [5] 0.03 0.91 8.903 Weld Table 2 - Best-Estimate Chemistry Changes for Farley 2 Notes:
D1 Unless otherwise noted.
P3 Heat BOLA was not identified by SNC GL92-01, RI response as part of weld seam 19-923 A.
91 SNC reported CF=10.0l*F for weld heat BOLA in response to GL92-01, Rt. RVID indicates CF=8.94*F. These values have been superseded by Westinghouse report WCAP-14197 transmitted to NRC by SNC letter dated March 7,1995. Ba:.ed on credible surveillance data, the calculated CF is 8.9'F.
"I SNC response to GL92-01, RI indicated a calculated CF of 10.0l*F for seam 19-923 A.
However, the surveillance material for Unit 2 is heat BOLA an.i the CF calculated for heat BOLA is not directly applicable to welds containing heat HODA. Due to the availability of credible surveillance data for heat BOLA and a corresponding calculated chemistry factor of 8.9'F, the CF for seam 19-923 A is conservatively taken as 27'F based on the copper and nickel content of heat HODA. Therefore, the correct CF for seam 19-923A is 27.0*F as reported in WCAP 14197, transmitted to the NRC by SNC letter dated March 7,1995.
91 Best-estimate copper and nickel values not provided for surveillance weld in GL92-01, RI response.
3
1 ATTACHMENT l l l
l l
I (3) a determination regarding the need to use the ratio procedure described in Position 2.1 of Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2; and The surveillance program weld for Farley I was fabricated using the same heat of l weld wire used to fabricate middle shell axial seams 19-894A and 19-894B (heat I
33A277). Although these welds were fabricated using copper coated weld wire,it is expected that chemical analyses performed through the complete thickness of the surveillance weld would exhibit a copper variability similar to that expected in the reactor vessel weld seams. Therefore, the results of mechanical property tests perfonned on the surveillance weld are considered to be representative of the i property changes expected in the reactor vessel beltline seams.
For Farley 2, the surveillance program weld was fabricated using the shielded metal arc welding process and E8018 stick electrodes, in a manner similar to that )
used to fabricate middle shell axial seams 19-923A and 19-923B (heat BOLA). l' These electrodes were not copper coated and do not exhibit the chemical variability found in copper coated submerged arc weld wire. Therefore, results of mechanical property tests performed on the surveillance weld are considered to be representative of changes expected in the reactor vessel beltline seams.
As stated above, the best-estimate copper and nickel content for the Farley I and 2 surveillance program welds are considered to be representative of their respective beltline welds. Therefore, it is not necessary to adjust the surveillance weld results using the ratio procedure described in Position 2.1 of Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2. 1 l
(4) a written report providing any newly acquired data and; (a) the results of any necessary revisions to the evaluation of RPV integrity in accordance with .
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.60,10 CFR 50.61, Appendices G and II l to 10 CFR 50, and any potential impact on the LTOP or P-T limits or (b) a certification that allinformation previously submitted remains valid.
Attachment 2 provides the newly acquired data requested by GL92-01, R1, St.
The increased chemistry factors stated in response to NRC requested information item 2, do not result in any of the Farley 1 and 2 beltline welds becoming the limiting material with regard to reactor vessel integrity. Therefore, the current reactor vessel integrity analyses for Farley 1 and 2 continues to remain valid.
4
ATTACHMENT 2 4
d Best-Estimate Copper and Nickel Values for Reactor Vessel Beltline Welds '
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 l
l
r ArrACHMENT 2 Table of Contents Purpose 1 Scope 1 Summary 1 Background 1 Methodology 3 Tables j Table 1 - Best Estimate Values for Weld Filler Material Heats Contained 1 in Farley 1 and 2 Reactor Vessel Beltlines 1 Table 2 -Types of Chemical Analyses Performed 3 Table 3 - Farley Unit 1 Beltline Weld Consumables 4 Table 4 - Farley Unit 2 Beltline Weld Consumables 5 Table 5 - Farley Unit 1 Primary Beltline Weld Consumables 6 Table 6 - Farley Unit 2 Primary Beltline Weld Consumables 7 Table 7 - Weighting Factors Used to Determine Best Estimate 9 Copper and Nickel i
- , s '
, ArrACHMENT 2 i
l Appendices l
Appendix A - Determination of Best-Estimate Copper and Nickel I Table A Calculation of Best-Estimate Copper and Nickel A-1 !
Values for Weld Wire Heat 33A277 Table A-1a -Calculation of Best-Estimate Copper and Nickel A-2 l Values for Plant C Surveillance Weld (Ht 33A277) l Table A-1b -Calculation of Best-Estimate Copper and Nickel A-3 '
Values for Plant A Surveillance Weld (Ht 33A277)
Table A-1c -Calculation of Best-Estimate Copper and Nickel A-4 !
Values for Plant B Surveillance Weld (Ht 33A277) )
Table A Calculation of Best-Estimate Copper and Nickel A-5 Values for Weld Wire Heat SP5622 Table A Calculation of Best-Estimate Copper and Nickel A-5 Values for Weld Wire Heat 6329637 Table A Calculation of Best-Estimate Copper and Nickel A-6 l Values for Weld Wire Heat 83640 Table A Calculation of Best-Estimate Copper and Nickel A-6 Values for Weld Wire Heat 90099 Table A Calculation of Best-Estimate Copper and Nickel A-7 Values for Weld Wire Heat BOLA Table A Calculation of Best-Estimate Copper and Nickel A-7 Values for Weld Wire Heat HODA ii
eP
, . o ATTACHMENT 2 l l
Purpose This report provides the best-estimate copper and nickel values for the beltline materials contained in the Farley 1 and 2 reactor vessels to support the Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) response to Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1, Supplement 1.
Scope
- 1. Collection ofinformation impacting the best-estimate copper and nickel values for Farley I and 2 reactor vessel beltline welds; and
Summary Table 1 provides the best-estimate copper and nickel content for the primary weld filler material heat numbers contained in the beltline region of the Farley 1 and 2 reactor vessels.
Plant Heat Number Wt % Copper Wt % Nickel Reference 33A277 0.24 0.17 Table A 1 Farley 1 6329637 0.21 0.11 Table A-3 90099 0.20 0.20 Table A 5 SP5622 0.14 0.07 Table A-2 Farley 2 83640 0.05 0.07 Table A-4 BOLA 0.03 0.91 Table A 6 HODA 0.02 0.96 Table A 7 l Table 1 Best-Estimate Values for Weld Filler Material Heats Contained in Farley I and 2 Reactor Vessel Beltlines
Background
The Farley 1 and 2 reactor vessels were fabricated by Combustion Engineering's Nuclear Division in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Although the plates for the Farley Unit I vessel were originally purchased by Babcock and Wilcox, they were eventually transferred to the Combustion Engineering facility for welding and completion of the fabrication process.
1
_7 4 ATTACHMENT 2 SNC participated in the Combustion Engineering - Reactor Vessel Group (CE-RVG)
Phase 11 activity, which included a review of the original fabrication records for the Farley I and 2 reactor vessels. As a result, pertinent information abstracted from the original fabrication records, along with copies of the original fabrication records, were provided to SNC. These records are the primary source ofinformation incorporated into this report.
As part of the fabrication process, Combustion Engineering (C-E) completed a Weld Inspection Form (WIF) for each weld seam contained in a specific reactor vessel. The l WIF identified the seam identification number, the consumables used to fabricate the weld (i.e., weld wire heat number, flux type, and flux lot), weld procedure, and heat treatment procedures. It should be noted that seam numbers were often assigned to, and 1 WIFs completed for, welds in surveillance test plates that were later provided for use in the reactor vessel surveillance program.
Combustion Engineering used two primary weld processes to fabricate welds for the Farley I and 2 reactor vessel beltline seams. These are shielded metal are welds (SMAW) and submerged are welds (SAW). Shielded metal are welds were made using E8018 stick electrodes and were used primarily for (1) fit-up of the plates in preparation for submerged are welding; (2) to fill in backgrooves following removal of backing rings; and (3) miscellaneous weld repairs. When used for fit-up purposes, the shielded metal arc weld material was typically removed and replaced by a submerged arc weld.
However, the full thickness of the middle shell axial welds for Farley 2 was fabricated 1
- using the shielded metal arc welding process. l Submerged arc welds were fabricated using a machine process that involved a continuous feed of weld wire from large spools into the weld puddle, which was shielded by a -
blanket ofpowdered material called flux. Submerged are welds were fabricated using either one or two continuous weld wires fed from spools containing approximately 120 pounds of wr!d wire each. Submerged are welds fabricated using only one weld wire are l called single are welds and those fabricated by feeding two weld wires into the weld l puddle are called tandem arc welds.
The weld wires that were used to fabricate submerged arc welds typically fall into two categories for the purpose of determining the best-estimate copper and nickel content. I These are copper coated and non-copper coated wires. The copper coating was applied to the weld wire after the weld wire manufacturer performed the necessary chemical analyses to verify compliance with the applicable material specification. The purpose of the copper coating was to prevent corrosion of the wire prior to use. After copper was identified as the greatest contributor to radiation embrittlement damage, the practice of coating the weld wire with copper was discontinued. The Farley 1 and 2 reactor vessel beltline welds were fabricated using both copper coated and non-copper coated weld wires.
2
- - , - + -
, ATTACHMENT 2 There are typically five types of chemical analyses that were perfonned on weld filler material contained in reactor pressure vessels. These are described in Table 2.
ANALYSIS TYPE DESCRIPTION Chemical analysis performed either prior to application of the copper-coating to the Bare Wire weld wire or following removal of the copper coating for the test specimen. This Chemical Analysis analysis does not account for the number of electrodes used in the weld process (BWCA) (i.e., single or tandem arc), the copper coating applied to the weld wire, or the flux type / lot used to fabricate a specific weld. ;
Coated Electrode Chemical anal) sis of w elds fabricated using stick electrodes in the Deposit Chemistry as-deposited condition (i.e., SMAW).
(CEDC) in-Process Weld Chemical analysis of chip samples taken directly from the vessel weld. IPWDA Deposit Analysis generally represents a weld / flux deposit chemistry or a coated electrode deposit (IPWDA) chemistry for the specific weld seam.
Chemical analysis of surveillance capsule weld specimen. Chemical analyses of ;
Surveillance surveillance w elds are typically performed on irradiated specimens and are similar 1 Welds to other as-deposited chemical analyses in that they account for the consumables and number of electrodes used in the welding process.
Weld Flux Chemical anal) sis of w eld material in an as-welded condition. WFDC include the !
Deposit Chemistry effects of the consumables used in fabrication of the specific weld on which the !
(WFDC) analysis was performed. i Table 2: Types of Chemical Analyses Performed Methodology SNC reviewed the WIFs for the reactor vessel beltline seams for Farley I and 2, including welds in surveillance test plates. and identified the heat numbers of the weld filler material used to fabricate the beltline and surveillance welds. Tables 3 and 4 contain a list of all consumables used in the fabrication of the Farley 1 and 2 reactor vessel beltline welds, respectively.
3
ATTACHMENT 2
, I l
SEAM WELD FLt'X N D1BER LOCATION HEAT NDIBER(S) TYPE LOT REFERESCE Middle to Lower Shell Cire. Weld 6329637 (1) 0091 3999 RVG-0000002963 11-894 Fit up.Backgroove Weld l FOCA*I (3) (4) [4] RVG-0000002963 Fit-upBackgroove Weld FOAAt21 (3) (4) [4] RVG-0000002963 Repair Weld BOLA t21 [3] 14) [4] RVG-0000002962 19-894A Middle Shell Axial Seam A 33A277 33A277 1092 3889 RVG-0000002949 I l
Fit-upBackgroove Weld DBlJt2) [3] 14) [4] RVG-0000002949 l 19-894B Middle Shell Axial Seam B 33A277 33A277 1092 3889 RVG-0000002948 1
Fit-up Backgroove Weld EOD/*3 [3] [4] [4] RVG-0000002948 l
Lower Shell Axial Seam A 90099 90099 0091 3977 RVG-0000002947 l Fit-up'Backgroove Weld ICJf23 (3) 141 [4] RVG-0000002947 l l
20-894A Fit up'Backgroove Weld IOBf*I [3] [4] [4] RVG-0000002947 Repair Weld KBEf21 (3) [4] (4) RVG-0000002944 Repair Weld JADf'I [3] [4] [4] RVG-0000002944 Lower Shell Axial Scam B 90099 90099 0091 3977 RVG-0000002946 20-894B Fit upBackgroove Weld GBC/21 [3] [4] [4] RVG-0000002946 Repair Weld KBEf21 (3) [4] [4] RVG-0000002944 Repair Weld JAD/21 [3] [4] (4) RVG-0000002944 Sury. Weld Surseillance Test Plate / Weld 33A277 33A277 0091 3922 RVG-0000002441 TABLE 3 - FARLEY UNIT I BELTLINE WELD CONSUiABLES NOTES: [1] Listing of a single heat number indicates single arc weld. Therefore, second heat number is not applicable.
[2] E8018 tiller material
[3] Multiple electrodes are not applicable to Shielded Metal Arc Welds.
[4] Powdered flux is not applicable to Shielded Metal Arc Welds.
4
t ., , .
~
ArrACilMENT 2 I
l l
SEAM WELD FLt%
i NL'MBER LOCATION LOT HEAT NDiBER(S) TYPE REFERENCE
- 1
{ Middle to Lower Shell Cire. Weld 5P5622 ll) 0091 1122 RVG-0000003881 l 11 923 Fit-up/Backgroove Weld GACJCA [3] 14) 14] RVG-0000003881 Repair Weld IIABJd21 13] [4] [4] RVG-0000003882 19-923A Middle Shell Axial Scam A BOLAW [3] [4] [4} RVG 0000003903 Middle Shell Axial Scam A IiODA II [3] [4] (4) RVG-0000003903 Middle Shell Axial Seam B BOLAN (3) (4} [4] RVG-0000003902 ;
19-923B Repair Weld HABJCA [3] [4] 14] RVG-0000003904 Repair Weld Ca5GC W (3) 14] [4] RVG-0000003905 Repair Weld JAOICm [3] [4] [4] RVG-0000003905 Lower Shell Axial Seam A 83640 (1) 0091 3490 RVG-00000039%
Fit-up/Backgroove Weld ABEA A (3) [4] 14] RVG-0000003906 20-923A Repair Weld lAGA) t2 13] (4) 141 RVG-0000003907 Repair Weld EOBCA (3) [4] [4] RVG-0000003908 Lower Shell Axial Seam B 83640 (1) 0091 3490 RYG-0000003909 Fit-up/Backgroove Weld ABEAA [3] 14) [4] RVG-0000003909 20-923B Fit-up; Backgroove Weld BOLAA 13) [4] [4] RVG-0000003909 Repair Weld IAGAA (3) (4) [4] RVG-0000003910 Surv Weld Surveillance Test Plate /V cid BOLAW [3] (4) (4) RVG-0000004043 TABLE 4 - FARLEY UNIT 2 BELTLINE VIELD CONSL'MABLES Nons. [1] Listing of a single heat number indicates single arc we'd. Therefore, second heat nurnber is not applicable.
(2) E8018 filler material 13] Multiple electrodes are not applicable to Shielded Metal Arc Welds.
[4] Powdered flux is not applicable to Shielded Metal Arc Welds.
5
_ . - - - . . - - . = -
. .s 1 ATTACHMENT 2 As stated previously, shielded metal arc welds using E8018 weld rods were generally l
used for fit-up and repair welds and are included on the WIF where applicable for a l l specific seam. For Farley 2, E8018 filler material was used to fabricate the full thickness i
of the middle shell axial welds. In the case of fit up welds, the E8018 filler material was typically removed prior te completion of the submerged are welding process and therefore, does not contribute significantly to the copper and nickel content of the fmal weld. For weld repairs containing E8018 filler material, the repair typically represents a small fraction of the final weld volume. Additionally, E8018 filler material typically contained a very small amount of copper, in the range of 0.02 to 0.03 weight percent, and approximately 1.0 weight percent nickel. Due to the relatively limited volume of filler j material contained in the weld repairs and the low copper content associated with E8018 !
filler material, the contribution of copper and nickel associated with the weld repair is not considered to have a significant impact on the best-estimate copper and nickel content of a particular weld seam. Tables 5 and 6 provide a list of primary weld filler material heat numbers used in the Farley 1 and 2 reactor vessels, respectively.
SEAM WELD FLUX NUMBER LOCATION TYPE HEAT Nt3tBER(S) lot REFERENCE Il-894 Middle to Lower Shell Cire. Weld 632 % 37 , [1] 0091 3999 RVG-0000002963 19-894 A Middle Shell Axial Seam A 33A277 33A277 1092 3889 RVG-0000002949 19-894B Middle Shell Axial Scam B 33A277 33A277 1092 3889 RVG-0000002948 20-894A Lower Shell Axial Seam A 90o99 90099 0091 3977 RVG-0000002947 20-8948 Lower Shell Axial Seam B 90099 90099 0091 3977 RVG-0000002946 Surv. Weld Surveillance Test PlateWeld LA277 33A277 0091 3922 RVG-0000002441 TABLE 5 - FARLEY UNIT I PRIMARY BELTLINE WELD CONSUMABLEs Notts: .
(1) Listing of a single heat number indicates single are meld. Therefore, second heat number is not applicable.
I 6
\
,, .s
, ATTACMMENT 2 SEAM WELD Ftrx NUMBER LOCATION llEAT NUMBER (s) TYPE LOT REFERENCE Il-923 Middle to Lower Shell Cire. Weld $P5622 [1] 0091 1122 RVG-0000003881 1
l 19 923A Middle Shell Axial Seam A BOLA (21 [3] [4]
14] RVG-0000003903 !
Middle Shell Axial Seam A flODAl 'I 13) [4] 14) RVG-0000003903 19-923B Middle Shet! Axial Seam B BOLA I*I [3] 14} 14] RVG-0000003902 20-923A Lower Shell Axial Seam A 83640 [Il 0091 3490 RVG-0000003906 20-923B Lower Shell Axial Scam B 83640 [1) 0091 3490' RVG-0000003909 Surv. Weld Surveillance Test Plate / Weld BOLAl21 [3] !4] [4] RVG-0000004043 l TABLE 6 - FARLEY UNfT 2 PRIMARY BELTLINE WELD CoNsUMABLEs NOTts: [1j Listing of a single heat number indicates single arc weld. Therefore. second heat number is not applicable.
[2] E8018 filler material
[3] Multiple electrodes are not applicable to shicided Metal Arc Welds.
[4] Powdered flux is not applicable to shielded Metal Arc Welds.
The follcwing databases were searched to identify the existence of chemical analyses for '
those weld material heats listed in Tables 5 and 6:
. Draft CE-RVG Phase II Reports (including PR-EDB) e NRC Reactor Vessel Integrity Database (RVID) e EPRI RMATCH >
e EPRI PREP 3 e Draft ATI/WOG RPVDATA Individual discussions were held with plants containing the same weld filler material heats (i.e., sister plants) to share information and determine the existence of supplemental chemical testing that might have been performed, in instances where the chemical analysis for a particular weld filler material heat exactly matched the analysis reported by another source for all elements, they were considered to be duplicates of the same chemical analysis to avoid " double counting" a particular analysis. The information contained in the NRC-RVID was considered to be best-estimate licensing values reported by other utilities and use of this information was limited to identification of sister plants.
For the same reason, information contained in RMATCH, PREP 3, and RPVDATA that did not reference a specific analysis number or a specific test report was not included in the determination of the beltline weld best-estimate copper and nickel values.
7
) . ',, .-
\* .' ArrACHMENT 2
- l. .
Following collection of weld chemistry data, a weighted average methodology was used to determine the best-estimate copper and nickel content for the weld filler material heat numbers listed in Tables 5 and 6. 'Ibe weighted average approach appropriately accounts 1 for chemical analyses that were perfor.ned on tandem arc welds in the as-deposited I l
condition. Chemical analyses of tandem are welds are considered to represent an average chemistry of the two weld wires used to fabricate the weld. Accordingly, chemical analyses performed on tandem arc welds are counted twice in determination of the best-estimate copper and nickel values while chemical analyses performed on single arc welds )
are counted only once. This methodology is applicable to WFDCs, IPWDAs, and chemical malyses performed on surveillance welds. Although BWCAs are sometimes listed a ceing applicable to tandem arc welds, they represent an analysis that was performed on only a single wire or stick electrode and therefore, are only counted once in the best estimate copper and nickel determination. ;
Due to the copper coating applied to certain heats of weld wire used in the submerged arc !
process, the BWCA for copper coated weld wire were treated somewhat differently from l welds fabricated using either non-copper coated weld wire or shielded metal are j electrodes. In the case of copper coated weld wire, the BWCA were performed on weld 1 wire prior to coating with copper or with the copper coating removed. Therefore, BWCA 1 do not accurately reflect the copper content of reactor vessel welds fabricated using I copper coated electrode and are not appropriate for use in determination of the best-estimate copper for copper coated electrodes. The nickel content of the weld wire was.
not significantly altered in the copper coating process and therefore, the BWCA are appropriate for use in determination of the best-estimate nickel value for copper coated j weld wires. I BWCA performed on non-copper coated or shielded metal arc electrodes are representative of reactor vessel welds with regard to copper and nickel content. For this ;
8 reason, BWCA are incorporated into the determination of best estimate copper and nickel for welds fabricated using non-copper coated weld wire and shielded metal are electrodes.
The copper coating applied to weld wire used for submerged are welds varied primarily l from spool to spool. Due to the limited number of wire spools used to fabricate i surveillance welds, multiple chemical analyses performed on a single surveillance weld may not reflect the copper variation that may exist in the reactor vessel welds. In order to prevent a large number of chemical analyses performed on a single surveillance weld from skewing the best-estimate copper and nickel based solely on the number of chemical analyses performed, multiple chemical analyses performed on a single surveillance weld were averaged to determine a single value for the surveillance weld The average for the surveillance weld was then factored into the weighted average based on whether it was a single or tandem arc weld. This approach is used only for welds fabricated using copper coated weld wires.
Chemical analyses performed on surveillance welds fabricated using non-copper coated weld wires or shielded metal arc electrodes are not expected to demonstrate the copper variability exhibited by those fabricated using copper coated wire. Therefore, multiple 8
i
,- ATTACHMENT 2 I chemical analyses performed on a single surveillance weld fabricated using non-copper coated weld wire or shielded metal arc electrodes are considered to be unique analyses instead of duplicates of the same analysis. In determination of the best-estimate copper and nickel value for a non-copper coated weld wire, chemical analyses performed on surveillance weld filler material are weighted as indicated in Table 7 based on whether the surveillance weld was fabricated using tandem or single submerged arc welding 1 process. It should be noted that the copper and nickel values for surveillance welds fabricated using non-copper coated weld wire are not averaged prior to applying the weighting factors in Table 7.
Table 7 illustrates the weighting factors used to determine the best-estimate copper and nickel content of the beltline welds.
WIRE TYPE / WELD CONFIGURATION l ANALYSIS Copper Coated Non-Copper Coated TYPE Single Arc Tandem Arc Single Arc Tandem Arc Cu~ Ni Cu Ni Cu Ni Cu Ni BWCA 0 1 N/A N 'A i 1 N/A N/A J
CEDC N/A N/A N/A N 'A 1 1 N/A N/A WFDC 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 IPWDA 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 Surv. Welds 1 I 2 2 1 1 2 2 Table 7 -Weighting Factors used to Determine Best-Estmate Copper and Nickel Based on the above methodology, best-estimate copper and nickel values were
+
determined for each of the weld filler material heat numbers contained in the Farley 1 and 2 reactor vessel beltlines. The resulting best-estimate copper and nickel values for the weld filler materials are found in Table 1. Appendix A contains the detailed calculation of the best-estimate values for each of the Farley 1 and 2 beltline weld filler material
! heats.
F The above described methodology is consistent with that described by NEI letter dated October 20,1995.
9
4 t
l APPENDIX A Determination of Best-Estimate Copper and Nickel i
l l
l l
+
e ATTACilMENT 2 '; '-
t Heat Number: 33A277 (Copper :cated Sectrode)
Analysis Analysis Wold Weighting Factor Contribunon to Best Estimate Source Type Wt%Cu Wt% NI Type Cu M Cu 16 Reference Farley Surv. Weld WFDC 0.14 0.19 Tandem Arc 2 2 028 038 WCAP-8810 Plant A Suneillance Weld WFDC 0.175 0.149 Tandem Ac 2 2 035 0.25,8 See Table A1b D11326 WFDC 0.18 Single Ac 1 0 0.18 0 R\G0000000385 D9711 WFDC 0.18 0.19 Tandem Ac 2 2 0 36 038 BGE 92-01.St Submittel !
Plant B Weld WFDC 0.208 0.167 Single Ac 1 1 0208 0.167 See Table Atc Plant C Suneillance Weld WFDC 0223 0.164 Tandem Ac 2 2 0.446 0328 See Table Ata g D7948 WFDC 023 Tandem Ac 2 0 0.46 0 R\G-0000000219 D9217 WFDC 023 Single Ac 1 0 0.23 0 RVG-0000000122 D8371 WFDC 026 S ngle Ac 1 0 026 0 SIS 4048734407 D8601 WFDC 026 Single Ac 1 0 026 0 RVGC000006987 D8778 iPWDA 026 0.17 Single Ac 1 1 026 0.17 SIS-0147938615 D7514 WFDC 027 Single Ac 1 0 0.27 0 R\G0000306200 D8583 WFDC 027 Single Ac 1 0 027 0 RtGO@006987 D8777 IPWDA 0.27 0.16 Single hc 1 1 027 0.16 STS-0147938615 D7986 WFDC 029 0.16 Tandem Ac 2 2 0.58 032 BGE 92-01, S1 Submittal -
D7985 WFDC 029 0.16 Tandem Ac 2 2 0.58 032 BGE 92-01, S1 Submittal D7629 WFDC 029 Single Ac 1 0 029 0 S!S-0000045842 D7947 WFDC 03 Single Ac 1 0 03 0 R W 000000219 D7416 WFDC 0.32 Single Ac 1 0 032 0 C-E Response to IEB 78-12 D7417 WFDC 032 Single Ac 1 0 032 0 C-E Response to IEB 78-12 D7565 WFDC 032 Single he 1 0 032 0 BGE 92-01.St Submittal 25 15 6.514 2.523 seat Estimate copper E.814/28 = 0.24 Best Estimate Nickel = 2.523/15 = 0.17 ,
TAllt.E A CAI.CULAT10N OF Bl3T-ESTIMATE COPPER AND NICKEL val.UES FOR WELD WIRE HEAT 33A277 I 1
i A-I
9 ATTACilMENT 2 ,
Plant C Surveillance Weld Supplemental Chemical Analyses - Heat kmber 33A277 W eld Weighting Factor Contribution to Best Estimate Specimen Wt%Cu Wt% Ni Type Cu Ni Cu Ni Plant C Surveillance Weld - Pt 1 024 0.18 Tandem 2 2 0.48 0.36 Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 2 026 0.16 Tandem 2 2 0.56 0.32 ;
Plant C Surveillance Weld - Pt 3 0.27 0.15 Tandem 2 2 0.54 0.3 Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 4 024 0.15 Tandem 2 2 0.48 0.3 Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 5 0.26 0.14 Tandem 2 2 0.52 028 Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 6 1. 23 02 Tandem 2 2 0.46 0.4 Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 7 0.26 0.16 Tandem 2 2 0.52 0.32 Plant C Surveillance Weld - Pt 8 0.25 0.16 Tandem 2 2 0.5 0.32 Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 9 024 0.15 Tandem 2 2 0.48 0.3 '
Plant C Suneitience Weld - Pt 10 024 0.16 Tandem 2 2 0.48 0.32 Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 11 0.25 0.15 Tandem 2 2 0.5 0.3 Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 12 0.26 0.16 Tandem 2 2 0.52 0.32 Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 13 025 0.16 Tandem 2 2 0.5 0.32 Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 14 0.28 0.14 Tandem 2 2 0.56 028 !
Plant C Sunei!!ance Weld - Pt 15 02 0.15 Tandem 2 2 0.4 0.3 Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 16 0.19 0.14 Tandem 2 2 0.38 028 Plant C Surveillance Weld - Pt 17 0.18 0.14 Tandem 2 2 0.36 028 ,
Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 18 0.18 0.15 Tandem 2 2 0.36 0.3 Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 19 022 0.16 Tandem 2 2 0.44 0.32 Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 20 022 0.16 Tandem 2 2 0.44 0.32 Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 21 0.21 021 Tandem 2 2 0.42 0.42 Plant C Surveillance Weld - Pt 22 0.17 0.18 Tandem 2 2 0.34 0.36 Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 23 0.2 022 Tandem 2 2 0.4 0.44 Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 24 0.16 0.17 Tandem 2 2 0.32 0.34 Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 25 0.16 0.16 Tandem 2 2 0.32 0.32 Plant C Suneillance Weld - Pt 26 0.16 0.21 Tandem 2 2 0.32 0.42 52 52 11.60 8.54 Best Estimate Copper = 11.60/52 = 0.223 Best Estimate Nickel = 8.54/52 = 0.164 L
TAllt.F A-la-CALCULATION OF BEST-ESTIMATE COPPER AND NICKri. VALUES FOR Pl. ANT C SURVEILLANCE WEl.D (IIEAT 33 A277)
A-2
i ATTACHMENr2 ,'#
Plant A Surveillance Weld Su;mlemental Chemical Analyses - Heat Number 33A277 W eld ,W eighting Factor Contribution to Best Estimate i Specimen Wt%Cu Wt% NI Type Cu Ni Cu Ni Plant A Surwi!!ance Weld - Pt 1 0.15 0.15 Tandem 2 2 0.3 0.3 Piant A Surveillance Weld - Pt 2 0.15 0.15 Tandem 2 2 0.3 03 I Plant ASuneillance Weld - Pt 3 0.16 0.15 Tandem 2 2 032
, 0.3 Plant ASuneillance Weld - Pt4 0.16 0.14 Tandem 2 2 0.32 0.28 P! ant ASuneillance Weld - Pt 5 0.15 0.15 Tandem 2 2 03 03 Plant A Suneillance Weid - Pt S 0.15 0.15 Tandem 2 2 03 0.3 Plant A Suneillance Weld - Pt 7 0.15 0.14 Tandem 2 2 0.3 028 Plant A Suneillance Weld - Pt 8 0.15 0.16 Tandem 2 2 03 0.32 !
Plant A Suncil!ance Weld- Pt 9 014 0.17 Tandem 2 2 028 0.34 Plant A Suneillance Weld - Pt to .;
0.15 0.14 Tandem 2 2 0.3 028 Plant ASunei!!ance Weld - Pt 11 0.19 0.17 Tandem 2 2 0.38 034 Plant A Suneillance Weld - Pt 12 021 0.14 Tandem 2 2 0.42 028 Plant A Suneillance Weld - Pt 13 021 0.14 Tandem 2 2 0.42- 0 28 Plant A Suneillance Weld - Pt 14 021 0.14 Tandem 2 2 0.42 028 Plant A Suneillance Weld - Pt 15 0.21 0.14 Tandem 2 2 0.42 028 Plant A Suneillance Weld - Pt 16 022 0.15 Tandem 2 2 0.44 0.3 Plant A Suneillance Weld - Pt 17 021 0.15 Tandem 2 2 0.42 0.3 34 34 5.94 5.06 Best Estimate Copper = 5.94/34 = 0.175 Best Estimate Nickel = 5.06/34 = 0.149 L
TABLE A-I b - CALCULATION OF BEST-ESTIMATE COPPER AND NICKEL VALUES FOR PLANT A SURVEILLANCE WELD (HEA L
A-3 '
. . _ _ - . . . - - . _ . . .- _ . . . .- ~ .-.
t *
,e a O 4
+
N l
Ltd E
O
< c .
- c. 1 3 f4 me,se esnecamenemo~eme <
m I E ---n---------------nme-d de6do6oo6o6d666doo6oo od6o o e n,-----n-n
,,es, nee -
o m d" oo6666oo6 e H ,
3 j i g C i
s S
j W vnenevn nnne-namme N ,
E 8
u, nnnnnnnn-eN ooooooooo o oooooooooo nnnnnnen-nN-amen n---n n o ooo6o odod6o meme e--n Ne odoo s
N-e a, s C l
1 I $
s a A
N 5
c.
4 g Q g f e---------- ----e-------------------- g ., b" k 2 f
99 a=
?
1 ..
S 4 I >
- 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - g g E 5.5 wo
- 2 y
E SE E
- e. g y
- 22222222222222222222222222222222*222 ua y 8 FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF = 4
=
9 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassaGaassessas t w v t as a. i 2
s 8 <
E .e,se n.~ me.......se.e-----eme n-en-ee-n,,,es,ne. II U y g e-- e -------eee g o66o6C o c o o 6 o 6 6 c o' 6 6 6 o o o o ooo o6oooo6eo o -en-n .,., w g
~
gg 3 am a. e c
AA E l b .nnumen-a U nnnnnnnn Nnnn--namme unnnnn-nen Nn eme
--n n eeeaseNe
-n ne Ne
- 4-R oooooooo6o oooooooooo o o6ooo ododo o66 6 Q a
a on M
3!
e ?
k M O c i e * ==
j r=
- N M , .A e N e @ e - o,anene8eao.um,ee~eeo-un,ee ee - e- e w
- eeeNNNNNNNNNNMMMMMMM d Y <
& E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E.UE. E. E. E. E. E. E. E
=
k kkkkk!kkk mmmememmmememmemmmmmmemememmeemmmmem kk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk k C
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETEEE <
eaeeaeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeaeeeee w a
EEEEEEEEEEEEEbb5EEEEEEEEEEEEEEkEEEEE m f<-
_ . . _ . . _ _ - . . _ _ . ~ __ _ -..
1 ATTACilMENT 2 .
Heat kmber: $P5622 (COPPER COATED ELECTRODQ Analysis Analysis Weld weighting Factor Contribubon to Seat Estimate ,
Source Type Wt%Cu Wt% M Type Cu M Cu M Reference !
D14146 WFDC 0.13 Sngle Nc 1 0 0.13 0 R & 0000000109 D16288 WFDC 0.13 0.06 Single Ac 1 1 0.13 0.06 R W 000000207 D16199 WFDC 0.14 0.09 Single Ac 1 1 0.14 0.09 RNG-0000011794 D16287 WFDC 0.15 0.05 Singte Ac 1 1 0.15 0.05 R W 000000208 4 3 0.55 02 Best Estimate Copper = 0.55/4 - 0.14 Best Estimate Nickel = 0.20/3 - 0.07 TABLE A CALCULATION OF BEST-ESTIMATE COPPER AND NICKEL VALUES FOR WELD WIRE HEAT SP5622 Heat hmber: 6329637(COPPER COATED ELECTRODQ Analysis Analysis Weld Woighting Factor Contribution to Best Estimate Source Type Wt%Cu Wt%M Type Cu M Cu M Reference R2891 BWCA 0.08 0.11 NA O 1 0 0.11 R\G0000000240 D11271 WFDC 0.18 Single Ac 1 0 0.18 0 R & 0000000111 D11314 WFDC 0 19 Tandem Nc 2 0 0.38 0 R & 0000000114 D11020 WFDC 0 21 Single he 1 0 021 0 RVG-0000000240 D11213 WFDC 024 Tandem Ac 2 0 0.48 0 RW,-0000000190 6 1 1.25 0.11 Best Estimate Copper = 1.25/6 - 0.21 Best Estimate Nickel = 0.11/1 = 0.11 TAllLE A CALCULATION OF BEST-ESTIMATE COPPER AND NICKEL VALUES FOR WELD WIRE HEAT 632%37 A-5
'T5 ', 7 ATTACHMENT 2
'i )
Heat Number: 83640(NON-COrPER COATED ELECTRODE) '
Analys6s Analysis Wold We6ghting Fector Contr2utson to Bost Estimate Source Type Wt%Cu Wt%M Type Cu M Cu M Reference D12745 WFDC 0.05 Sngle Nc 0 1 0.05 0 R\G0000000168 D14090 YEDC 0.05 Single Ac 0 0.05 013964 1 0 sis-0000011071 WFDC 0.05 0.09 Single Ac 1 1 0.05 0.09 D23725 WFDC 0.06 RNG0000012068 0.04 Single Ac 1 1 0.06 0.04 C-E Response to IEB 78-12 '
4 2 021 0.13 i
Best Estimate copper = 0.21/4 = 0.05 Best Estimate Nickel = 0.13/2 = 0.07 i TAtiLit A CAI Clll.ATION Ol' BINT-EsTIMAili COPPER AND NICKi:1. VAI.lll5 FOR WEl D WIRE lil%T 83640 Heat Number: 90099(COPPER COATED ELECTRODE)
Analys6s Analysis Wold Weighting Factor Contribution to Boot Estimate Source Type Wt%Cu Wt% M Type Cu M Cu M Reference D8280 WFDC 0.09 Single Ac 0 0.09 1 0 StS-0000052946 D8955 WFDC 0.17 Tandem Nc 2 0 0.34 0 SIS-0000010862 D9295 WFDC 0.17 Singte Nc 0 0.17 D9248 1 0 R\G0000006187 WFDC 0.18 Single Ac 1 0 0.18 0 ATUWOG RPNOATA D8954 WFDC 0.19 Single Ac 0 1 0.19 0 SIS-0000010247 D11313 WFDC 022 Tandem Ac 2 0 0.44 0 RNG0000000112 D11302 %WDC 025 Single Ac 1 0 025 0 R\G0000000107 D11027 WFDC 0.3 Single Ac 0 1 0.3 0 R\G0000000242 10 0 1.96 0 Best Estimate Copper = 1.96/10 = 0.20 Best Estimate Nickel = = 0.20 '! Note 1]
Notes: [1] Based on upper Ismit of nickel content Ibr Type B-4 weld wire stated in Combustion Engineering report for Salem 1 and 2, dated November 1985.
TArti.E A CAI.Ctit.ATION 01:BEST-EsTIMATI: COPPER AND NicKrt. VAI.UES I OR WEI.D WIRE IIEAT 90099 l i
A-6 l
a i ArrACHMENT 2 's **'
Heat Number: BOLA Analysh Analysts Weld We6ghting Factor Contribubon to 9est Estimate Source Type Wt%Cu Wt% M Type Cu M Cu M Reference SuppherMalysis CEDC 0.02 0 93 Manual Ac 1 1 0.02 0.93 R\G0000004362 Farley2 Sury. Weld CEDC 0026 0.88 Manual Ac 1 1 0.026 0.88 WCAP-11438 Fariey2 Surv. Weld CEDC 0.03 0.9 Manual Ac 1 1 0.03 0.9 WCAP-8956 D18153 WFDC 0 03 0.9 Manual Ac 1 1 0.03 0.9 SONGS 92-01, Rt. St Response D18154 WFDC 0.03 0.91 Manual Ac 1 1 0.03 0.91 SONGS 92-01. Rt. S1 Response D18155 WFDC 0.03 0.95 ManuatAc 1 1 0.03 0.95 SONGS 92-01.Rt.St Response 6 6 0.166 5.47 Best Estimate Copper = 0.166/6 = 0.03 Best Estimate Nickel = 5.47/6 = 0.91 TABLE A CALCULATION OF BEST-ESTIMATE COPPER AND N'.CKEL VALUES FOR WELD WIRE HEAT BOLA s
Heat Number: HODA Anatysis Analysis Wold Weighbng Factor Contribubon to Best Estunate Source Type Wt%Cu Wt%Ni Type Cu M Cu M Reference SuppherAnalysis CEDC 0 02 0.96 Manual Ac 1 1 0.02 0.96 RWr.0000004556 1 1 0.02 0.96 Best Estimate Copper = 0.02/1 = 0.02 Best Estimate Nickel = 0.96/1 = 0.96 TABLE A CALCULATION OF BEST-ESTIMATE COPPER AND NICKEL VALUES FOR WELD WIRE HEAT HODA A-7
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - _ _