ML20217D490

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity,Per Util Response to Suppl 1 to GL 92-01

ML20217D490
Person / Time
Site:	Duane Arnold
Issue date:	04/21/1998
From:	Richard Laufer NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Leslie Liu IES UTILITIES INC., (FORMERLY IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT
References
GL-92-01, GL-92-1, TAC-MA1188, NUDOCS 9804240351
Download: ML20217D490 (8)

Text

.

p uo a3st  !

I y t UNITED STATES j

j t

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASNINGToN, D.C. 30se64001

~% ...../

April 21, 1998 Mr. Lee Liu Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer IES Utilities Inc.

200 First Street, SE.

P.O. Box 351 Cedar Rapids, lA 52406-0351

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL INTEGRITY - DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER (TAC NO. MA1188)

Dear Mr. Liu:

Generic Letter (GL) 92-01, Revision 1, Supplement 1 (GL 92-01, Rev.1, Supp.1), " Reactor Vessel Structural Integrity," was issued in May 1995. This GL requested licensees to perform a review of their reactor pressure vessel (RPV) structural integrity assessments in order to identify, collect, and report any new data pertinent to the analysis of the structural integrity of their RPVs, and to assess the impact of those data on their RPV integrity analyses relative to

, the requirements of Section 50.60 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Reaulatior s (10 CFR Part 50.60),10 CFR 50.61, Appendices G and H to 10 CFR Part 50 (which encompass pressurized thermal shock (PTS) and upper shelf energy (USE) evaluations), and any potential impact on low temperature overpressure (LTOP) limits or pressure-temperature (P-T) limits.

After reviewing your response, the NRC issued you a letter dated December 12,1996, for the Duane Arnold Energy Center. In this letter we acknowledged receipt of your response, noted that additional RPV information may become available as a result of Owners Group efforts and requested that you provide us with the results of the Owners Groups' programs relative to your plant. We further indicated that a plant-specific TAC Number may be opened to review this material. Following issuance of these letters, the BWR Vessel and Intemals Project (BWRVIP) submitted the report ' Update of Bounding Assessment of BWR/2-6 Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity issues (BWRVIP-46)." This re;. ort included bounding assessments of new data from

1) the Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG) database released in July 1997 which contains all known data for CE fabricated welds in PWR and BWR vessels: 2) Framatome Technologies Incorporated (FTI) analyses of Linde 80 welds which are documented in NRC Inspection Report 99901300/97-01 dated January 28,1998; 3) FTI's analysis of electro-slag welds which was referenced in a Dresden and Quad Cities P-T limits submittal dated September 20.1996; and 4) Chicago Bridge and Iron quality assurance records. New data for one vessel fabricated by Hitachi was ah,o included in the BWRVIP report.

The staff is requesting that you re-evaluate the RPV weld chemistry values that you have previously submitted as part of your licensing basis in light of the information presented in the CEOG, FTl and BWRVIP reports. The staff expects that you will assess this new information to

-. i

4. .N Ul 4 9804240351 980421 PDR P

ADOCK 05000331 PDR ,

9f

4 L. Liu April 21, 1998 determine whether any values of RPV weld chemistry need to be revised for your facility.

Therefore, in order to provide a complete response to items 2, 3 and 4 of the GL, the NRC requests that you provide a response to the enclosed request for additional information within 90 days of receipt of this letter. If a question does not apply to your situation, please indicate this in your RAI response along with your technical basis and, per GL 92-01, Rev.1, Supp.1, provide a certification that previously submitted evaluations remain valid.

The information provided will be used in updating the Reactor Vessel Integrity Database (RVID). Also, please note that RPV integrity analyses utilizing newly identified data could result in the need for license amendments in order to maintain compliance with 10 CFR Part 50.60, and Appendices G and H to 10 CFR Part 50, and to address any potential impact on P-T limits.

If additionallicense amendments or assessments are necessary, the attached requests that you provide a schedule for such submittals.

If you should have any questions regarding this request, please contact me at (301) 415-1373.

Sincerely, ORIG. SIGNED BY:

Richard J. Laufer, Project Manager Project Directorate lll-3 Division of Reactor Projects lil/lV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-331

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ encl.: See next page Distribution :

Docket File PUBLIC PD3-3 Reading EAdensam OGC L GGrant, Rlli RSavio ACRS Alee (0-7D4)

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\DUANEARN\DAMA1188.RAI to e.e <. enny of en oncum.ne. enee i. .n en. bom c = copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures 'N' = No copy l0FFICE PD33-LA lE PD33 PM rv lMAME Eternhilt90 RLaufer lN lDATE 4 /M/98 4 /d/98 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

_a

i0 m i

l l

L L. Liu determine whether any values of RPV weld chemistry need to be revised for your facility.

l Therefore, in order to provide a complete response to items 2,3 and 4 of the GL, the NRC I requests that you provide a response to the enclosed request for additional information within l 90 days of receipt of this letter, if a question does not apply to your situation, please indicate l this in your RAI response along with your technical basis and, per GL 92-01, Rev.1, Supp.1, provide a certification that previously submitted evaluations remain valid.

i

! The information provided will be used in updating the Reactor Vessel Integrity Database (RVID). Also, please note that RPV integrity analyses utilizing newly identified data could result in the need for license amendments in order to maintain compliance with 10 CFR Part 50.60, and Appendices G and H to 10 CFR Part 50, and to address any potential impact on P-T limits.

l If additional license amendments or assessments are necessary, the attached requests that you provide a schedule for such submittals.

If you should have any questions regarding this request, please contact me at (301) 415-1373.

i Sincerely, hs.b .

fa^-

Richard J. La er, Project Manager Project Directorate ill-3 Division of Reactor Projects lil/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-331

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ encl.: See next page j

! I 1

Lee Liu Duane Arnold Energy Center ,

IES Utilities Inc.

cc:

Jack Newman, Esquire Kathleen H. Shea, Esquire Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius 1800 M Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20036-5869 Chairman, Linn County Board of Supervisors Cedar Rapids, IA 52406  ;

IES Utilities Inc.

ATTN: Gary Van Middlesworth Plant Superintendent, Nuclear 3277 DAEC Road Palo,IA 52324 John F. Franz, Jr.

Vice President, Nuclear Duane Arnold Energy Center 3277 DAEC Road Palo,IA 52324 Ken Peveler Manager of Regulatory Performance Duane Arnold Energy Center 3277 DAEC Road Palo,IA 52324 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident inspector's Office Rural Route #1 Palo,IA 52324 Regional Administrator, Rlll U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532-4531 Parween Baig Utilities Division Iowa Department of Commerce Lucas Office Building,5th floor Des Moines,IA 50319 i l

l

I t

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL INTEGRITY Section 1.0: Assessment of Best-Estimate Chemistry The staff recently received the BWRVIP report " Update of Bounding Assessment of BWR/2-6 Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity issues (BWRVIP-46)".

Based on this information, in accordance with the provisions of Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1, Supplement 1, the 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 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 1 for the limiting material also.

With respect to your response to this question, the staff notes that some issues regarding the  ;

evaluation of the data were discussed in a public meeting between the staff, NEl, and industry representatives on November 12,1997. A summary of this meeting is documented in a l meeting summary dated November 19,1997, " Meeting Summary for November 12,1997  !

Meet 5g with Owners Group Representatives and NEl Regarding Review of Responses to '

Generie Letter 92-01, Revision 1, Supplement 1 Responses" (Reference 1). The information in ,

Reference 1 may be useful in helping you to prepare your response, in addition to the issues discussed in the referenced meeting, 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. This is an important l consideration when a mean-of-the-means or coil-weighted average approach is determined to be the appropriate method for determining the best-estimate chemistry. If a weld (or welds) were fabricated as weld qualification specimens by the same manufacturer, within a short time span, using similar welding input parameters, and using the same coil (or coils in the case of tandem arc welds) of weld consumables, it may be appropriate to consider all chemistry samples from that weld (or welds) as samples from "one weld" for the purposes of best-estimate chemistry determination. If information is not available to confirm the aforementioned details, but sufficient evidence exists to reasonably assume the details are the same, the best-estimate chemistry should be evaluated both by assuming the data came from "one weld" and by assuming that the data came from an appropriate number of " multiple welds". A justification should then be provided for which assumption was chosen when the best-estimate chemistry was determined.

l Enclosure

)1 Section 2.0: P-T Limit Evaluation

2. If the limiting material for your plant changes or if the adjusted reference temperature for j the limiting materialincreases as a lesult of the above evaluations, provide the revised RT.value for the limiting material. In addition, if the adjusted RTum value increased, provide a schedule for revising the P-T limits. The schedule should ensure that 4 compliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix G is maintained.

Reference

1. Memorandum dated November 19,1997, from Keith R. Wichman to Edmund J. Sullivan,

" Meeting Summary for November 12,1997 Meeting with Owners Group Representatives and NEl Regarding Review of Responses to Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1, Supplement 1 Responses." i

Attachment:

Table 1 I

l

9 t

d n

TL

- RO rE o

_ t Ta R

A ing

_ r a

M a

c ls o ia r

t e

a ,

M g

T )yr _

i n R e )

l it iaT 1 _

(

im it R _

_ L i n( 0 r 1 o n

/

d g o t n f oin it c a a n e e d dim S H homF 1

le r in e E et eC t ir L W d W B V MeD e A P t s d T R e le n )

u q W o dl yF e r h d

e eatrC nis( ri s c

a t

s i gemr o t

a E e

u saet l

a r o

q AsMhCac ir a et a f

e r F t ad d

e n mec s n o U o gn i it a D e I c n0

") na l t

a a

s s

u m Le1 it i i l c

r Ou imev D s o

E F (xl i f l r d D n eu n I

h s t

a d

o omr f

e t l o

ae h t nf t smk or e eic i it o M BtsN a E ic f le s i s

s it b y r

n et a l a

er n e

r t

ae dmo i

A smpp t

t u lar e c

a Bteio ifr h t a

EsC ed t e

f u

n t

a en f o H a mim n e e er o

ylM ir' h e t t is s

ir W

it is l

e V P

W "t a r e u d cs od c ae Rlde eH

) )

1 2 is le FV W (( D W

_