ML20196E826

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Response to NRC RAI Re Reactor Pressure Vessel Structural Integrity at Peach Bottom Units 2 & 3
ML20196E826
Person / Time
Site: Peach Bottom  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 11/30/1998
From: Griesbach T, Marisa Herrera, Sauby M
STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20196E785 List:
References
SIR-98-112, SIR-98-112-R, SIR-98-112-R00, NUDOCS 9812040134
Download: ML20196E826 (16)
v • d • e


Text

- . --. - - .. . .-. . - - - . . . - . - . . - . ..- - - - . .

h I ~

I I

I l Response to NRC . Request for Additional Information Regarding Reactor Pressure Vessel Structural Integrity at Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 4

g { StructuraHntegrity Associates, Inc.

I 3315 Almaden Expressway Suite 24 San Jose. CA 95118-1557 Phone: 408-978-8200 Fax: 408-978-8964 www.structint.com I

i i l I r i

I 9812040134 DR 981124

  • ADOCK 05000277; PDR C

- Seerserms MD Ahren. CH Pompano Besen. F1 Charlotte. NC Corpus Chnsti.11

' -559{323 334 664 6886 954 917 2781 *N 5731369 512 879-0053

i Report No.: SIR-98-112  ;

Revision No.: 0 j Project No.: PECO-24Q File No.: PECO-24Q-401 i November 1998 l

l I

I Response to NRC Request for Additional Information {

Regarding Reactor Pressure Vessel Str uctural Integrity at Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 lJ 4

Preparedfor:  :

PECO Energy Company .

i Prepared by:

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

San Jose, California i Prepared by:

Date: U S

  1. J. Griesbach, ATI Consulting '

l Reviewedby: Date; II 5!$$

M. E. S'auby 0 '

Approved by I' & Date:  ?

- M. L. Herrera 7

h StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.

L

i

~, .

)

REVISION CONTROL SHEET Docuinent Number: SIR-98-112. Rev. A

Title:

Response to NRC Reauest for Additional Information Regarding Reactor Pressure Vessel Structural Integrity at Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 Client: PECO Energy Company SI Project Number: PECO-240 Section l Pages Revision Date Comments All All A 11/5/98 Initial Issue i .

l i

i  !

i l l

I E

d

.W SIR-98-112, Rev. O ii f StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

1 l

l l

l Table of Contents l Section Pace INTRODUCTION.. . . . . . .. ... . . . . .. .. . .... .. . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . .

......................I ;

REOUEST 1: ASSESSMENT OF BEST-ESTIMATE CHEMISTRY. . . .... . .. . . . ... .... . . 2 l REOUEST 2: P-T LIMIT EVALUATION.. . ........ . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..............4 REFERENCES..... ... . . . . . . _._ ...__...._._. . . . _ . . . . ............,,.,,5 ,

l I

1 I .

I I -

1 I

I l

I SIR-98-112, Rev. 0 iil f StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.

1 INTRODUCTION .

This report presents the response to the U.S. NRC Request for Additional Information (RAI) regarding reactor pressure vessel integrity at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 a (TAC Nos. MA1203 and MA 1204).

The RAI requests that PECO Energy re-evaluate the RPV weld chemistry values that have been previously submitted as part of the Peach Bottom. Units 2 and 3 licensing basis in light infomiation w hich has become available. Based on the new information, it will be determined revisions to the Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3 RPV weld chemistries are needed.

The responses to the RAI requests are presented in the following pages. The response r this evaluation indicate that there is no change in the limiting materials for P-T limits. Thus, there is no need to revise the P-T limit curves for Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3.

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

1 SIR-98-112, Rev. 0

REOUEST 1: ASSESSMENT OF BEST-ESTIMATE CIEMISTRY The staff recently received the Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and Internals Project (BWRVIP) report " Update of Bounding Assessment of BWR/2-6 Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity Issues (BWRVIP-46) [1].

d Based on this information, in accordance with the provisions of Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1 Supplement 1, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requests the following:

1. An evaluation of the bounding assessment in the reference above and its applicability to the determination of the best-estimate chemistry for all of your reactor pressure vessel (RPV) beltline welds. Based upon this reevaluation, supply the information necessary to completely fill out the data requested in Table 1 for each RPV beltline weld material. If the limiting material for your vessel's P-T limits evaluation is not a weld, include the information requested in Table I for the limiting material also.

d In addition..... [when evaluating weld chemistry data] you should also consider what method should be used for grouping sets of chemistry data (in particular, those from weld qualification tests) as being from "one weld" or from multiple welds..... Ajustification should then be provided for which assumption was chosen when the best-estimate chemistry was determined.

RESPONSE

Measured chemistry data for the Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3 vessel beltline weld heats were reexamined. including new data from a recent CB&I data search on submerged arc welds [1,6]

and prior B&W test data on electroslag welds [2.3]. Multiple test measurements were obtained for several submerged arc weld heats used in the beltline region of the Peach Bottom 2 and 3 vessels. These weld heats are: S3986, IP4218 and 3P4000. Electroslag weld data for heat 37C065 was obtained from Beach Bottom 2 and 3 weld prolongations. Evaluations of the best-estimate chemistries for these weld heats are given in Attachment 1.

I SIR-98-112. Rev. 0 2 { StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.

The data in Attachment I were obtained from supplier CMTRs and supplemental test data [3,6 The weld data were compiled for each individual heat, and data from unique weld sources were separated and assigned group tags. For weld heat S3986, thirteen data measurements are available from eleven different weld sources as shown in Table A-1. Each weld source assumed to be made from one or two coils depending on whether it was a single or tandem arc weld. Average values were determined for each group, and the best-estimate chemistry values were determined from the average of the group averages. The calculated coil-weighted average and sample weighted average fo copper and nickel weld chemistries are nearly identical. Using the sample weighted average values for the revised best-estimate chemistries produces a copper!

3 of 0.056 wt% and a nickel of 0.960 wt% for heat number S3986.

'E l

t Table A-2 shows the revised best-estimate values for weld heat IP4217 of 0.102 wt% copper and 0.942 wt% nickel based on the average five separate test measurements. The data for weld heat

{

3P4000 are shown in Table A-3 with a revised best-estimate copper of 0.020 wt% and nickel of O.934 wt% based on five separate test measurements. The evaluation for heat no. 37C065 is '

shown in Table A-4 with a revised best-estimate copper of 0.182 wt% and a nickel value of 0.181 wt% based on eighteen separate test measurements.

Including these updated chemistry values, the surface Adjusted Reference Temperature (ART) values were recalculated using the Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2 method [4]. The margin term, c3, was also reevaluated in calculating the ART value. According to Regulatory Guide l 1.99, Revision 2, ca for welds is 28 F,17 F for base metal, or c3 si equal to one-half of the calculated ARTsor, whichever is less.

I Table i shows the best-estimate chemistries and surface ART values for the beltline welds in the l Peach Bottom 2 vessel. This table includes revised best-estimate chemistries for weld heats 4

S3986 and 37C065. The information for the limiting plate, heat number C2873-1. is also shown li I in Table 1. It is noted that the ART values for all Peach Bottom 2 welds are bounded by the ART value for the limiting plate cf 58.3*F.

I SIR-98-112, Rev. 0 3 { StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.

Table 2 shows the best-estimate chemistries and surface ART values for the beltline welds in the l 6

Peach Bbttom 3 vessel. This table includes revised best-estimate chemistries for weld heat nos. l 3P4000, IP4217, and 37C%5. The informition for the limiting plate, heat number C2773-2, is

{'

also shown in Table 2. From this table it is noted that the ART values for all Peach Bottom 3 welds are bounded by the ART value for the limiting plate of 82.6 F.

REOUEST 2: P-T LIMIT EVALUATION j 2. If the limiting material for your plant changes or if the adjusted reference temperature f for the limiting material increases as a result of the above evaluations, provide the ,

1 t

revised RTuor value for the limiting material. In addition, if the adjusted RTsor value j 4

[ increased, provide a schedule for revising the P-T limits. The schedule should ensure '

) that compliance with 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix G, is maintained.

4

RESPONSE

There is no change in the limiting materials for P-T limits based on the revised weld chemistries for Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3. The limiting plate materials for both units are not affected by

^

this evaluation. Thus, there is no need to revise the P-T limit curves for Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3. .

4 7

SIR-98-112, Rev. 0 4 f StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.

i l

REFERENCES .

1. " Update of Bounding Assessment of BWR/2-6 Reactor Vessel Integrity Issues (BWRVIP-46)," EPRI TR-109727, December 1997. l
2. " Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 2 Vessel Surveillance Materials Testing and Analysis," General Electric, SASR 88-24, December 1991. SI File PECO-24Q-205. i
3. Reactor Vessel Electroslag Weld Report, Appendix F, B&W Report, Obtained from Dresden 2,3 FSAR,1968. SI File PECO-24Q-206.

f I

4.- Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, " Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel  !

Materials," USNRC, May 1988. i i

5. Tables 4.2.7 and 4.2.8 from PBAPS FASR. SI File PECO-24Q-207. f
6. Weld CMTRs and Information for the Beltline Welds of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3. SI File PECO-24Q-204 l !

r I

h i

i l

i A

e SIR-98-112, Rev. 0 5 StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

l T U1 C ( 4 m ut. m. m g gg g g .g g g

. i

~

Table i Infonnation Requesled on Peach Bottom Unit 2 RPV Welds and/or Limiting Afaterials l Vessel h1anufacturer: Chicago Bridge & Iron /Batuxk & Wilcox Plate and Weld Thickness (w/o cladding): 6.125 inches l 42 l.l l'Y l'eak II)llue we : M.M .=. In" n/cm* l5l 3

32 til PY Peak 1/4T lluence : 6.1 x 10" n/cm l51 141'V Welti llest- liest- EOLID Assigned Method of Wire IIcat/Ixt Initial o, a3 Margin Surface listimate Estimate Fluence Material Determining Ib, (lleltline Welds) Copper Nickel ART at (x 10") Chemistry CF (*F) (I(,,,,) (F) (*F) (F) e [1.imiting Plate IIcatl (wt%) EOL (wt%) (n/cm') Factor (CF) (*F) ('F)

('F) 37C065 (ESW) 0.182 0.181 .088 94.5 Table -45 16.4 18.5 49.4 41.4 121 121 S3986/3876 0.056 0.960 .088 76.4 Table -32 0 15.0 29.9 27.9

[2, 51

[C2873-1] 0.12 0.57 .088 82.0 Table -6 0 16.1 32.2 151 [5] 58.3 151 12, SI

[2]

G n

E E

W W

3.

R k

a B-a 9

9 Silt W- 112, lley. O 6

Table 2 I

inlotmalion Requesteti on Peach flottom Unil 3 RPV Welds and/or Limiting Afaterials ,

l i

Vessel blanufacturer: Chicago Ilridge & Iron / Babcock & Wilcox Plate and Weld Thickness (w/o cladding): 6.125 inches  !

32 EFPY Peak ID Fluence: 7.9x 10" n/cm' 15]

2 32 EFPY Peak I/4T Fluence: 5.5x10" n/cm (51  !

t ItPV Welit liest- liest- I!OI. ID Assigned Afethod of Initial

' a, a3 Margin Surface Wim Ileat/I ot listimate listimate Fluence hlaterial Determining RT., ART at (lleltline Welds) Copper Nickel (x 10") Chemistry CF (*F) (RT.,y) ( F) (*F) (*F) EOL l1.imiting Plate lleatl (wt%) }

(wt%) (n/cm') Factor (CF) (*F) (*F)

(*F)

)

37C065 (ESW) 0.182 0.181 .079 94.5 Table -45 16.4 17.6 48.1 38.2 ,

121 121 3P4000/3932 0.02 0.934 .079 27.0 Table -50 0 5.0 10 -30.0 f

[5]

IP4217/3929 0.102 0.942 .079 136.9 Table -50 0 25.4 50.8 i 51.6 15]

% [C2773-2] 'O.15 0.49 .079 104 Table 10 0 17.0 34 82.6 E

  • 151 151 151 151 ,

E .- ,

Q R

R

t.

9 B-t 5 i 9 SIR-% I l 2, Rev. 0 7 i

. . . . . . _ . . . . . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ . . . . = _ . . - , . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . - _ . . . _ . . _ _ . - _ _ . . _ . _ _ . -

l 5

t b

i i

Attachment 1 l

i

( >

j- Response to NRC Request for Additional Information L Regarding Reactor Pressure Vessel Structural Integrity

> )

at Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 L ,

i l

I-

'I 1

i i

t -;

I' l

l t

[ '.

i.

(-

l 4

I 5' , 1 1

SIR-98-112, Rev. 0 8 f StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.

<-._ /L.!

amm. -- - - - - - - - - -. samm m m m Table A-1 Evaluation of Best-Estimate Chemistry For Weld lleat No. S3986  ;

Weld Wire Heat No. S3986 Group Average Chemistry Cu Ni Group Avg.Cu Avg. Ni Est. # of Wi% wt% FLUX 'ITPE Fl.UX LOT SOURCE Tag wt% wt% Coils Group a 0.030 1.070 1 0 03 1,07 bare wire ADCOM CMTR a l l Group b 0.053 l 0.970 l 1 l 0.055 0 96 1.inde 124 387t/>34 11nmswick I. SC h 0 051 0 98 l.inde 124 IM7(#134 Ilrunswick I. SC h Group c 0.050 l 0.%0 l 1 l

0.05 0 96 Ijnde 124 l 934 l Cil&I, CTR, Irr # 200 Single Wire c

~

Group d' O.050 l 0.920 l 1 l 0.05 0.92 Linde i24 l 914 l Cll&I. CIR d Group e 0.060 l 0.900 l 2 l 0 06 0.90 1.inde i24 l 3878M34 l CB&l, CIR, Tandem Wire e Group f 0.060 l 0.810 l 1 l

0.06 0 Xl Ijnde 124 l 3878N34 l Cil&l, C1R, Single Wire f Group g 0.%0 l 0.970 l 2 l 0 06 0 97 Linde i24 l 3876/934 l CB&l, CTR,I'r # 200 Tandem Wire g Group h 0.090 l 0.970 l 1 l

0 09 0.97 l GTA Weld l CB&l CTR h i Group i 0.050 l 1.070 l 1 l

0 05 I 07 l b.uc wire l ADCOM CMTR i Group k " 0.055 l 0.970 1 l l ,

0.055 0.97 Linde 124 l 934 l D C Cook 2. SC k l

g Group I 0.056 l 0.950 l 1 l 7

~

0 051 0 91 1.inde 124 934 Trojan, SC I 0 06 0 97 linde 124 9.14 Trojan, SC

{ l N

~

g Simple Asg. Sample Weighted Average Coil Weighted Average g Cu Ni Cu Ni Cu Ni D 0.056 0.960 , 0.056 0.%0 0.056 0.956 5

h Original CMTR not available R

m-N 5

9 SIR-98-112, Rev. O 9

Table A-2 '

Evaluation of Best-Estimate Chemistry For Weld Heat No. IP4217 .,  ; +

Weld Wire Heat No. IN217 Group Average Chensistry Cu Ni Group . - Avg. Cu Avg. Ni Est. # of wt% wt% FLUX TYPE FLUX LOT SOURCE Tag wt% wt% Ceils Group a

  • 9.11 0.% 1 0.11 0.96 + Linde 124 3929 CB&I, CTR a Group b 0.10 0.91 1 0.10 0.91 Linde 124 3478 CB&l, CTR, Single Wire b Group c 0.10 0.% 2 l

0.10 0.96 Linde 124 3478 CB&I, CTR, Tandem Wire c Group d 0.09 0.95 I l 0.09 0.95 Bare Wire - CE,CTR d l l Group e 0.11 0.93 2 l

0.11 0.93 Limle 124 l 3929 l CB&I, CTR, Tandem Wire e Simple Avg. Sample Weighted Average Coil Weighted Average Cu Ni Cu Ni Cu Ni 0.102 9.942 0.102 0.942 0.103 0.943

  • Original CMTR not available.

a E

B ilt I

M x

M R

l E

D SIR-98-112, Rev. 0 10

E EE E E M M M M M M M M m m m M M , .m -

Table A-3 ~

Evaluation of Best-Estimate Chemistry For Weld Ileat No. 3P4000 - l Weld Wire licat No. 3P4000 Group Average Chemistry

  • Cu Ni Group Avg.Cu Avg. Ni Est. # ef wt% wt% FI,UX TYPE FLUX LOT SOURCE Tag wt% wt% Coils Group a 0.020 0.900 1 0.02 0.90 Linde 124 l 3932 l CB&I, CTR, Single Wire a Group b 0.020 l 0.890 l 1 l 0.02 0.89 Linde 124 l 3933 l CB&I CTR,SingleWire b

. Group c . 0.020 l 0.950 l 2 .  ;

0.02 0.95 Linde 124 l 3933 l CB&I, CTR, Tandem Wire c Group d 0.020 l 0.960 l 2 0.02 0.96 Linde 124 l 3932 l CB&I, CTR, Tandem Wire d Group e 0.020 l 0.970 l 1 l 0 02 0.97 l hare wire l RlilD- AVERY, CMTR e Simple Avg. Sampic Weighted Average Coil Weighted Average Cu Ni Cu Ni Cu Ni 0.020 0.934 0.020 0.934 0.020 0.940 en E

n E

E R

W 3.

9 k

a E-E 9

57 9 SIR 112. Rev. 0 11

Table 'A-4 ,

Evaluation of Best-Estimate Chemistry For Weld IIcat No. 37C065 (ESW) )

Group Average CA..atry Weld Wire Heat No. 37C065 (ESW)

Test Avg.Cu Avg.Ni Est. # ef  ;

Cu Ni SOURCE Weld No. wt% wt% Coils wi% wt% FI.UX TYPE FLUX LOT Group a 0.160 0.210 1 0.16 0.21 Linde 124 l l B&W, Test [3]

  • 1 Group h 0.190 l 0.210 l 1 l l f

1.inde 124 l Il&W. Test 13]

  • 2 0 19 0.21 l Group c 0.200 l 0.190 l 1 l 3  :

O 20 0.19 I.inde 124 l l B&W, Test [3]

  • Group d 0.2I0 l 0.I40 l I l l B&W, Test [3]
  • 4 0.21 0.14 Linde 124 l Group e 0.160 l 0.160 l I l

~

5 0.16 0.16 Lindc l24 l l B&W. Test [31 '

Group f 0.190 l 0.160 l 1 l l l

Linde 124 l B&W, Test [31' 6 0.19 0.16 l Group g 0.180 l 0.190 l I l l B&W, Test [3]

  • 7 0.18 0.19 Linde 124 l Group h 0.170 l 0.190 l 1 l l B&W, Test [3]
  • 8 0.17 0.19 Linde 124 l Group i 9.190 l 0.190 l 1 l Linde 124 l B&W, Test [3]' 9 0.19 0.19 l Group j 0.200 l 0.170 l 1 l

{

i!?

0.20 0.17 Linde 124 l Group k l B&W. Test (3)

  • 13 0.200 l 0.180 l I l 14 0.20 0.18 Linde 124 l l B&W. Test l3]
  • Group I 0.190 l 0.170 l 1 l

3*-

Linde 124 l B&W, Test [3]

  • 15 E

9 0.19 0.17 l k .

8 B

M Er 12 P SIR-98-l 12, Rev. 0

(._ _ - _ _ _ . . - - . _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___

M M M M M m m m m m m- m m luumi e m M m .. m t

Table A-4 Evaluation of Best-Estimate Chemistry For Weld Heat No. 37C065 (ESW) )

Weld Wire Heat No. 37C065 (ESW) Group Average Chemistry ,

Cu Ni Test Avg.Cu Avg.Ni Est. # of wI% wI% Fl.IlX TYPE Fl.1IX LOT SOllRCE Weld No. wt% wt% Coils Group m 0.16 0.190 1 0.16 0.19 Linde 124 l l B&W. Test [3]

  • 16 Group n 0.160 l 0.160 l 1 l ,

0.16 0.16 Linde 124 l l B&W, Test [3]

  • 17 Group o t(160 l 0.190 l 1 l

0.16 0.19 Linde 124 l l B&W, Test [3]

  • 18 Group p 0.210 l 0.200 l 1 l

0.21 0.20 Linde 124 l l B&W, Test [3]

  • 19 Group q 0.150 l 0.180 l 1 l 0.15 0.18 Linde 124 l l B&W. Test [3]
  • 20 Group r 0.190 I 0.180 l 1 l

0.19 0.18 I_inde 124 l l B&W. Test [3)

  • 21 Simple Avg. Sample Weighted Average Coil Weighted Average Cu Ni Cu Ni Cu Ni 0.182 0.181 0.182 0.181 0.182 0.181 e
  • Results from B&W tests on nine electrostag weld prolongations from the Peach Bottom 2 vessel

[

Results from B&W tests on nine electroslag wcld prolongations from the Peach Bottom 3 vessel ,

= .

3.

9

& t 8

8-Eit 9

ET 9 Sill 1 I 2, Itcv. O I3

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ - _ - - _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ .

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20196E826&oldid=2985897"