ML17309A716

Forwards Response to 930728 Request for Addl Info Re GL 92-01,Rev 1,including New Mean Chemistry Valves for Unit 1 Lower Longitudinal Welds,Changes to TS Bases Table B 3/4. 4-1 & CE-NPSD-906-P & CE-NPSD-906-NP.CE-NPSD-906-P Withheld

ML17309A716
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	11/15/1993
From:	Sager D FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML17228A369	List: ML17228A368 ML17309A716
References
GL-92-01, GL-92-1, L-93-286, NUDOCS 9311300069
Download: ML17309A716 (110)

Text

(BIDS REG g ORY INFORMATION DISTR IBU N SYSTEM )

ACCESSION NBR: 9311300069 DOC. DATE: 93/11/15 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET 0 FACIL: 50-335 St. Lucie Planti Unit ii Florida Poujer & Light Co. 05000335 50-389 St. Lucie Planti Unit 2i Florida Poujer 5 Light Co. 05000389 AUTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION SAGER'. *. Florida Poeer 5 Light Co.

REC I P. NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)

SUBJECT:

Forwards response to 930728 request for addi info re I GL 92-OIi Rev Ii including new mean chemistry valves for Unit I loujer longitudinal ujelds~ changes to TS Bases Table B 3/4. D 4-1 5 CE-NP SD-906-P Zc CE-NPSD-906-NP. CE-NPSD-906-P e i th h e 1 d.

S DISTRIBUTION CODE: A028D COPIES RECEIVED: LTR ENCL SIZE:

TITLE: Generic Letter 92-01 Responses (Reactor Vessel Structural Integritg NOTES:

REC IP IENT COPIES RECIPIENT COP IES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL PD2-2 PD 1 1 NORRIS' 2 2 INTERNAL: ACRS NRR/DE/EMCB 2 2 NRR/DORS/OGCB NRR/DRPE/PDI-1 1 NRR/DRPW NUDOCS-ABSTRACT 1 1 OC/LFDCB OGC/HDS3 1 0 01 RES/DE/MEB 1 EXTERNAL: NRC PDR 1+P, NSIC 1~P NOTE TO ALL RIDS" RECIPIENTS:

PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE! CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK.

ROOM Pl-37 (EXT. 504-2065) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAME FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED!

TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 21 ENCL 19

8 1

I'

P.O. Box 128, Ft. Pierce, FL 34954-012$

November 15, 1993 L-93-286 10 CFR 50.4

't0 CFR 2.790 10 CFR 50. 54 (f) fNFORMATJON EXEMPT FROM DlSCLOSURE U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 RE: St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389 Generic Letter 92-01 Revision 1 Res onse to Re uest for Additional Information The additional information and clarifications requested letter dated July 28, 1993, are provided in attachments 1 andby 2 to NRC this letter. Attachment 1 also provides new mean chemistry values for St. Lucie Unit 1 lower longitudinal welds. Attachment 3 and enclosures 1 through 4 provide supporting information for the

, response.

The preparation of the response required review of the reactor vessel fabrication records by the original equipment manufacturer (Combustion Engineering) as background for part of the response.

FPL letter (L-93-232) dated September 10, 1993, provided the schedule for responding to the subject RAI.

Attachment 3 provides changes to the Technical Specification Bases Table B 3/4.4-1 for each unit. The changes were identified during the preparation of this response and were reviewed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. The review determined the changes were not an unreviewed safety question and do not require a change to their respective Technical Specifications.

Enclosures 1 and 2 are proprietary and non-proprietary versions of ABB Combustion Engineering letter (F-MECH-93-050) dated September 28, 1993. This letter provides the upper shelf energy (USE) information on beltline welds for the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 reactor vessels. Enclosure 3, CE NPSD-906-P, and Enclosure 4, CE NPSD-906-NP, are proprietary and non-proprietary versions of the ABB Combustion Engineering report "CEOG Program to Evaluate Chemical Content of Weld Deposits Fabricated Using Heats A8746-and 34B009" prepared for the Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG). This report provides the basis for the copper and nickel content of reactor vessel welds for two (2) of the weld wire heats used in the fabrication of the St; Lucie Unit 1 reactor vessel.

Enclosures 1 and 3 to this letter=contain proprietary information, the disclosure of which could compromise trade secrets or PDR ADOCK 05000335 P PDR, an FPL Group company

~/5 j

4 7

~ J

= <-AJSQD JetQ PZ~Gr'i-l H

I k

~ J'

commercial information considered by ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. as privileged and confidential. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(a)(4), FPL requests that proprietary versions of the Combustion Engineering letter and report be withheld from public disclosure. The affidavits required by 10 CFR 2.790 (b)(1) executed by ABB Combustion Engineering supporting this request are included.

Please contact us if there are any questions about this submittal.

Very truly yours, D. A. ger Vice r 'esident St. L Plant DAS/GRM/kw DAS/PSL 11014-93 cc: Stewart D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator, Region Senior Resident Inspector, USNRC, St. Lucie Plant II, USNRC

St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389 Generic Letter 92%1 Revision 1 AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT FPL Letter L-93-286 Attachment TO 10 CFR 2.790 Combustion Engineering, Inc. )

State of Connecticut )

County of Hartford ) SS.:

I, S. A. Toelle, depose and say that I am the Manager, Nuclear Licensing, of Combustion Engineering, Inc., duly authorized to make this affidavit, and have reviewed or caused to have'eviewed the information which is identified as proprietary and referenced in 'the paragraph immediately below. I am submitting this affidavit. in conjunction with the Florida Power and Light Company and in conformance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations for withholding this information.

The information for which proprietary treatment is sought is contained in the following document:

ABB Letter F-MECH-93-050 .-/ L-MECH-93-015, "Upper Shelf Energy Information Pertaining to the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 Reactor Vessel Weld," September 28, 1993.

This document has been appropriately designated as proprietary.

I have personal knowledge of the criteria and procedures utilized by Combustion Engineering in designating information as a trade secret, privileged or as confidential commercial or financial information.

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph {b) {4) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, the following is furnished for

p1 2

consideration by the Commission in determining whether the information sought to be withheld from public disclosure, included in the above referenced document, should be withheld.

1 ~ The information sought to be withheld from public disclosure, which is owned and has been held in confidence by Combustion Engineering, is specific material and mechanical properties pertaining to the welds in reactor vessels fabricated by Combustion Engineering.

2. The information consists of test data or other similar data concerning a process, method or component, the application of which results in substantial competitive advantage to Combustion Engineering.

3 ~ The information is of a type customarily held in confidence by Combustion Engineering and not customarily disclosed to the public. Combustion Engineering has a rational basis for determining the types of information customarily held in confidence by it and, in that connection, utilizes a system to determine when and whether to hold certain types of information in confidence. The details of the aforementioned system were provided to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission via letter DP-537 from F. M. Stern to Frank Schroeder dated December 2, 1974.

This system was applied in determining that the subject document herein is proprietary.

4. The information is being transmitted to the Commission in confidence under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.790 with the understanding that it is to be received in confidence by the

0 ~ r Commission.

5. The information, to the best of my knowledge and belief, is not available in public sources, and any disclosure to third parties has been made pursuant to regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements which provide for maintenance of the information in confidence.

6. Public disclosure of the information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of Combustion Engineering because:

a ~ A similar product is manufactured and sold by major pressurized water reactor competitors of Combustion Engineering.

b. Development of this information by C-E required hundreds of manhours and hundreds of thousands of dollars. To the best of my knowledge and belief, a competitor would have to undergo similar expense in generating equivalent information.

c ~ In order to acquire such information, a competitor would also require considerable time and inconvenience to ascertain the specific material and mechanical properties pertaining to the welds in reactor vessels fabricated by Combustion Engineering.

d. The information required significant effort and expense to obtain the licensing approvals necessary for application of

'I the information. Avoidance of this expense would decrease a competitor's cost in applying the information and

~

marketing the product to which the information is applicable.

e. The information consists of specific material and mechanical properties pertaining to the welds in reactor vessels fabricated by Combustion Engineering, the application of which provides a competitive economic advantage. The availability of such information to competitors would enable them to modify their product to better compete with Combustion Engineering, take marketing or other actions to improve their product's position or impair the position of Combustion Engineering s product, and avoid developing similar data and analyses in support of their processes, methods or apparatus.

f.- In pricing Combustion Engineering's products and services, significant research, development, engineering, analytical, manufacturing, licensing, quality assurance and other costs and expenses must be included. The ability of Combustion Engineering's competitors to utilize such information without similar expenditure of resources may enable them to sell at prices reflecting significantly lower costs.

g. Use of the information by competitors in the international marketplace would increase their ability, to;market nuclear steam supply systems by reducing the costs associated with their technology development. In addition, disclosure would have an adverse "economic ,impact on Combustion f

Engineering's potential for obtaining or maintaining

l St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389 Generic Letter 92-01 Revision 1 AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT FPL Letter L-93-286 Attachment TO 10 CFR 2.790 Combustion Engineering, Inc. )

State of Connecticut )

County of Hartford ) SS.:

I, S. A. Toelle, depose and say that I am the Manager, Nuclear Licensing, of Combustion Engineering, Inc., duly authorized to make this affidavit, and have reviewed or caused to have reviewed the information which is identified as proprietary and referenced in the paragraph immediately below. I am submitting this affidavit in conjunction with the Florida Power and Light Company and in conformance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations for withholding this information.

The information for which proprietary treatment is sought is contained in the following document:

ABB Letter F-MECH-93-050 / L-MECH-93-015( "Upper Shelf Energy Information Pertaining to the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 Reactor Vessel Weld," September 28, 1993.

This document has been appropriately designated as proprietary.

I have personal knowledge of the criteria and procedures utilized by Combustion Engineering in designating information as a trade secret, privileged or as confidential commercial or financial information.

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b) (4) of Section 2.790 of the Commission s regulations, the following is furnished for

2 of the Commission s regulations, the following is furnished for consideration by the Commission in determining whether the information sought to be withheld from public disclosure, included in the above referenced document, should be withheld.

The information sought to be withheld from public disclosure, which is owned and has been held in confidence by Combustion Engineering, is the reactor pressure vessel weld material specifications and procedures.

2 ~ The information consists of test data or other similar data concerning a process, method or component, the application of which results in substantial competitive advantage to Combustion Engineering.

3 ~ The information is of a type customarily held in confidence by Combustion Engineering and not customarily disclosed to the public. Combustion Engineering has a rational basis for determining the types of information customarily held in confidence by it and, in that connection, utilizes a system to determine when and whether to hold certain types of information in confidence. The details of the aforementioned system were provided to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission via letter DP-537 from F. M. Stern to Frank Schroeder dated December 2, 1974.

This system was applied in determining that the subject document herein is proprietary.

The information is being transmitted to the Commission in confidence under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.790 with the understanding that it is to be received in confidence by the Commission.

The information, to the best of my knowledge and belief, is not available in public sources, and any disclosure to third parties has been made pursuant to regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements which provide for maintenance of the information in confidence.

Public disclosure of the information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of Combustion Engineering because:

a. A similar product is manufactured and sold by major pressurized water reactor competitors of Combustion Engineering.

b. -Development of this information by C-E required hundreds of thousands of manhours and millions of dollars. To the best of my knowledge and belief, a competitor would have to undergo similar expense in generating equivalent information.

c ~ In order to acquire such information, a competitor would also require considerable time and inconvenience to ascertain the reactor pressure vessel weld material specifications and procedures.

The information required significant effort and expense to obtain the licensing approvals necessary for application of the information. Avoidance of this expense would decrease a competitor's cost in applying the information and marketing the product to which the information is applicable.

e. The information consists of the details concerning the reactor pressure vessel weld material specifications and procedures, the application of which provides a competitive economic advantage. The availability of such information to competitors would enable them to modify their product to better compete with. Combustion Engineering, take marketing or other actions to improve their product's position or impair the position of Combustion Engineering's product, and avoid developing similar data and analyses in support of their processes, methods or apparatus.

In pricing Combustion Engineering's products and services, significant research, development, engineering, analytical, manufacturing, licensing, quality assurance and other costs and expenses must be included. The ability of Combustion Engineering's competitors to utilize such information without similar expenditure of resources may enable them to sell at prices reflecting significantly lower costs.

gi Use of the information by competitors in the international marketplace would increase their ability to market nuclear steam supply systems by reducing the costs associated with

H' their technology development. In addition, disclosure would have an adverse economic impact on Combustion Engineering's potential for obtaining or maintaining foreign licensees.

Further the deponent sayeth not.

s. 8.

S. A. Toelle Manager Nuclear Licensing Sworn to before me this ~d + day of 1993 04M~

o ary Pub c

'-My commission expires: 3 8(-~

J 0

I J

l'l

foreign licensees.

Further the deponent sayeth not.

S. A. Toelle Manager Nuclear Licensing Sworn to before me this ~9 dsy of 1993 I y'I o ary Publ c

,"" My.commission expires:

P t

/

St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389 Generic Letter 92-01 Revision 1 Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI)

ATTACHMENT 1 RESPONSE FOR ST. LUCIE UNIT 1 Ori inal GL 92-01 uestion 2.a Certain addressees are requested to provide the following information regarding Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50:

Addressees of plants for which the Charpy upper shelf energy is predicted to be less than 50 foot-pounds at the end of their licenses using the guidance in Paragraph C.1.2 or C.2.2 in Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, are requested to provide to the NRC the Charpy upper shelf energy predicted for December 16, 1991, and for the end of their current license for the limiting beltline weld and the plate or forging and are requested to describe the actions taken pursuant to Paragraphs IV.A.1 or V.C of Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50.

uestion 2.a in GL 92-01 RAI The response indicates that the initial upper shelf energy (USE) values for welds 2-203A, B, C are not known. Either provide the Charpy USE values for each beltline weld with no documented initial USE value or provide the Charpy USE and analysis from welds that were fabricated using the same vendor, fabrication time frame, fabrication process, and material specification to demonstrate that all beltline welds with no documented initial USE values will meet the USE 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.

The response indicates that the initial USE value for the limiting plate, C-8-2, is 103 ft-lb. The staff believes that this initial USE value of 103 ft-lb is from longitudinal Charpy specimens, mistakenly reported as from transverse Charpy specimens. Two sources support this conclusion: pages 57 and 58 of report TR-F-MCM-004 labelled this USE value as "longitudinal," and Table B 3/4.4-1 of the plant's Technical Specification listed 78 ft-lb as the "transverse" USE value of this plate. Confirm this and update the EOL USE value for this plate. If the updated EOL USE is below 50 ft-lb based on NRC criteria, 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.

P I

k

~

) N

Res onse to RAI uestion 2.a The response to GL 92-01+ did not include the upper shelf energy (USE) values for the St Lucie Unit 1 intermediate shell longitudinal welds (2-203A, B, C), because these welds were not considered "limiting" based on their relatively low estimated copper (Cu) and nickel (Ni) content and low RT~~. The unirradiated Charpy USE value for welds 2-203A, B & C was not obtained during fabrication. These weld seams were all fabricated using the same weld wires A8746 and 34B009 with Linde 124 flux noted in Table 1.

Combustion Engineering (CE) performed an analysis of USE values for 68 other CE fabricated welds using Mil B-4 wire and Linde 124 flux+. The average USE value of this data set is 102.3 ft-lbs with a standard deviation of 9.4 ft-lbs. The analysis concluded this average USE value of 102.3 ft-lbs. is applicable for the St Lucie Unit 1 welds 2-203A, B, C.

Since the response to GL 92-01, a better estimate for Cu and Ni has been developed for welds 2-203A, B, C. The weld process was a single wire process without the use of additional Ni wire. Two wire heats and flux lots (Table 1) were used indicating a change during fabrication to another heat/lot combination. An analysis of the best estimates of generic data for the time period for these types of wires was performed by CE+. This analysis concluded that the best estimate (mean plus one standard deviation) Cu and Ni value for the A8746 weld deposits and 34B009 weld deposits are 0.16% Cu and 0.194 Cu respectively and 0.10% Ni for both welds.

Since the exact location of the weld wire switch is not known, the conservatively high 0.194 Cu and 0.104 Ni values are considered the best estimate values for the intermediate longitudinal welds (2-203A, B, C) and will be used to make the decrease in USE value projections. The new chemistry values do not significantly effect the embrittlement predictions for these welds as they are the least "limiting" of all the St. Lucie Unit 1 beltline welds.

The response to GL 92-01 reported that FPL has identified the Beaver Valley Unit 1 surveillance weld was fabricated by the same vendor (CE) using the identical weld wire heat and flux lot as the St. Lucie Unit 1 lower longitudinal welds (3-203A, B, C). The Beaver Valley surveillance weld chemical analysis and the CE qualification chemical analysis are the only two known sources of weld deposit data for this weld wire and flux lot according to the EPRI RMATCH data base. A mean value of Cu, Ni, P, and S are provided in Table 1 as the new chemistry values for this weld.

The chemistry and Charpy USE values for all the beltline plates are shown in Table 2. Only the "limiting" surveillance plate was reported in the response to GL 92-01<'>.

Using the Cu and USE values from Table 1 and the St. Lucie Unit 1 conservative maximum end of license (EOL) 1/4 T vessel fluence (actual azimuthal fluence is less at these longitudinal weld locations) , the welds 2-203A, B, C will not fall below the 10 CFR 50 Appendix G, 50 ft.-lb., limit within the license life.

I The new mean Cu value of 0.28 wt4, does not effect the previous EOL USE projection for the limiting 3-203A, B, C welds because the projection line for the new Cu value is at the upper limit on R.G.

1.99 Rev. 2, Figure 2. The projected EOL USE does not fall below the 10 CFR 50 Appendix G, 50 ft.-lb., limit within the license life.

The same calculation was performed for two beltline plates that have the highest Cu value and lowest USE values from Table 2.

Using these values and the maximum 1/4 T vessel fluence, the beltline plates will not fall below the 10 CFR 50 Appendix G, 50 ft.-lb., limit within the license life.

Below are the end of life (EOL) USE projections for St Lucie Unit 1 reactor vessel beltline welds 2-203A, B, C; 3-203A, B, C; and the lowest predicted USE beltline plates.

Material Initial USE '%u EOL 1/4 T Reg Guide EOL USE ft-lb Fluence 1.99 Rev 2 ft-lb (Transverse) (n/cm )  % Reduction Intermediate 102.3 0.19( ) 2.01 x 1019 39 62. 4 shell long welds (2-203Ai B, C)

Lower shell 112( ) 0.28 1.27 x 10 44% 62.7 long welds (3-203Ag B, C)

Intermediate 76 0. 11 2.01 x 10~9 23% 58.5 shell plate c-7-3 Lower shell 81.9 0. 15 2.01 x 1019 28  % 59.7 plate C-8-1 The response to GL 92-01 Rev. 1 indicated that the unirradiated USE for the limiting St. Lucie Unit 1 beltline plate, C-8-2, is 103 ft.-lb. taken in the transverse direction. The data was obtained from the baseline surveillance program limiting plate.

The specimens were oriented to provide transverse data. This value is also reported on pages 61 and 80 of TR-F-MCM-004().

Pages 57 and 58 of the same report that the Request for Additional Information refers to, is for irradiated data. Since the 103 ft.-lb. value reported in the GL 92-01 response is correct, no updated projection of end of license USE is necessary.

A change to the FSAR will be made to reflect this new data. is the change to the Technical Specification Bases page.

TABLE 1 ST. LUCIE UNIT 1 REACTOR VESSEL BELTLINE WELD MATERIAL DROP RTNDT CHARPY USE WELD LOCATION HEAT FLUX FLUX  % Cu Ni WEIGHT ( F ) (FT-LBS)

No. TYPE LOT TEST

('F-)

Intermediate A8746/ Linde 3878/ 0 19c 0. 10c 0.018( ) 0.017( ) NA 102. 3(2)

Shell Long Seam 34B009 124 3688 (2-203A, B, C) -S6'60(>>

Lower Shell 305424 Linde 3889 0.28~ 0. 63 0.0164 0.0084 -60(>> 112( )

Long Seam 1092 3-203A, B, C Intermediate to 90136 Linde 3999 0. 23b 0.11b 0 013b 0.012b -60b -60b 144b Lower Shell Girth 0091 Seam (9-203)

NA Not Available a Generic data for CE submerged arc welds using Linde 0091, 1092 and 124 Flux per 10 CFR 50.6 b Surveillance Program Data+

c Best estimated Cu and Ni content (low nickel type wire)@

d Mean value of weld deposit data from CE qualification<@ and the Beaver Valley Surveillance Weld@.

TABLE 2 ST. LUCIE UNIT 1 REACTOR VESSEL BELTLINE PLATE MATERIAL DROP WEIGHT NDT MINIMUM TRANSVERSE PLATE LOCATION 't Cu  % Ni TEST (0F.) ('F-) LONGITUDINAL CHARPY USE( )

CHARPY USE (FT-LBS)

(FT-LBS)

Intermediate Shell 0.11 0.64 0.004 0.013 126 81.9 Heat No. A4567-1 Code No. C-7-1 Intermediate Shell 0.11 0.64 0.004 0. 010 -30 -10 126 81.9 Heat No. B9427-1 Code No. C-7-2 Intermediate Shell 0.11 0.58 0.004 0.012 -30 +10 124 80. 6 Heat No. A4567-2 Code No. C-7-3 Lower Shell 0.15 0.56 0.006 0.010 -10 +20 126 81.9 Heat No. C5935-1 Code No. C-8-1 Lower Shell 0.15 0.57 0.006 0.010 10b +20 139b 103b Heat No. C5935-2 Code No. C-8-2 Lower Shell 0.12 0.58 0.004 0.010 135 87.8 Heat No. C5935-3 Code No. C-8-3 Note: Data obtained from Tables 5.2-4A and 5.2-6 from the St Lucie Unit 1 FSAR( ) unless noted.

a) Calculated value using 65% of longitudinal specimen data per MTEB Position 5.2 Paragraph 1.2 b) Surveillance Program Data() (average USE Data)

)8 REFERENCE LIST (1) FPL Letter, L-92-189, St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389, Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1, Response, PT Limits and LTOP Analysis, W. H. Bohlke to NRC, July 7, 1992 (2) "Upper Shelf Energy Information Pertaining to the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 Reactor Vessel Welds", ABB-Combustion Engineering, F-MECH-93-050/L-MECH-93-015, September 28, 1993 (3) "CEOG," Program to Evaluate Chemical Content of Weld Deposits Fabricated Using Heats A8746 and 34B009", Combustion Engineering Owners Group, February 1993, CE NPSD-906-P and CE NPSD-906-NP (4) "Florida Power & Light Co. St. Lucie Unit 1 Post Irradiation Evaluation of Reactor Vessel Surveillance Capsule W-97",

Combustion Engineering, Inc., December 1983, TR-F-MCM-004 (5) "Evaluation of Pressurized Thermal Shock Effects Due to Small Break LOCA's with Loss of Feedwater for the Combustion Engineering NSSS", Combustion Engineering Owners Group, December 1981, CEN-189 and CEN-189 Appendix F (6) FPL Letter, L-77-308, St. Lucie Unit 1 Reactor Vessel Material Information, R. E. Uhrig to D. K. Davis, NRC, September 30, 1977 (7) "Florida Power & Light Co. St. Lucie Unit 1 Evaluation of Base Line Specimens", Combustion Engineering, Inc., October 1984, TR-F-MCM-005 (8) "Florida Power & Light Co., St. Lucie Unit 1 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report", Amendment 11, Chapter 5.0 (9) "Analysis of Capsule W from Duquesne Light Co. Beaver Valley Unit 1 Reactor Vessel Radiation Surveillance Program",

Westinghouse Electric Corp., November 1988, WCAP-12005

St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389 Generic Letter 92-01 Revision 1 Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI)

ATTACHMENT 2 RESPONSE FOR ST. LUCIE UNIT 2 Ori inal GL 92-01 uestion 2.a Certain addressees are requested to provide the following information regarding Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50:

Addressees of plants for which the Charpy upper shelf energy is predicted to be less than 50 foot-pounds at the end of their licenses using the guidance in Paragraph C.1.2 or C.2.2 in Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, are requested to provide to the NRC the Charpy upper shelf energy predicted for December 16, 1991, and for the end of their current license for the limiting beltline weld and the plate or forging and are requested to describe the actions taken pursuant to Paragraphs IV.A.1 or V.C of Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50.

uestion 2.a in GL 92-01 RAI The response indicates that the initial USE values for all beltline welds, except for the surveillance weld, are not known. Either provide the Charpy USE values for each beltline weld with no documented initial USE value or provide the Charpy USE and analysis from welds that were fabricated using the same vendor, fabrication time frame, fabrication process, and material specification to demonstrate that all beltline welds with no documented initial USE values will meet the USE 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.

The response indicates that the initial USE value for the limiting plate, M-605-1, is 105 ft-lb. The staff believes that this initial USE value of 105 ft-lb is from longitudinal Charpy specimens, mistakenly reported as from transverse Charpy specimens. The plant's Technical Specifications support this conclusion, where all USE values in Table B 3/4.4-1 were labelled as "longitudinal," and the least USE value recorded there was 91 ft-lb for plate M-4116-1.

The "transverse" USE value for plate M-4116-1, after applying a factor of 0.65, is 59.2 ft-lb. Confirm this and update the EOL USE value for this new limiting plate. If the updated EOL USE is below 50 ft-lb based on NRC criteria, 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.

I C

M

Res onse to RAI uestion 2.a.

The initial response to Generic Letter 92-01+ indicated that all the St Lucie Unit 2 upper shelf energy (USE) values for the beltline welds and plates were known and reported in the St Lucie Unit 2 FSAR"). Table 1 is a summary of all the beltline weld data from the Tables 5.2-6 and 5.2-7a of the FSAR. The intermediate to lower shell girth seam (101-171) is the most limiting weld for predictions of USE at end of license (EOL). Table 2 is a summary of all the beltline plate data from the Tables 5.2-5 and 5.2-7 of the FSAR. The "limiting" beltline plate with respects to shift in RTND~ is the M-605-1 plate and is contained in the St. Lucie Unit 2 Reactor Vessel Surveillance Program. The most limiting beltline plate from an USE prospective would be the lower shell plate M-4116-1 with 91 ft-lbs USE in the transverse orientation.

Using the data from Tables 1 and 2, the maximum vessel fluence and the Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2 prediction for Charpy USE, all the beltline welds and the most limiting beltline plate (USE perspective) do not fall below 50 ft.-lbs USE at or before the end of the current operating license. Below is a table showing the predicted end of license USE at the 1/4 T location for the beltline welds and the limiting (USE) beltline plate requested in the RAI.

Material Initial USE  % Cu EOL 1/4 T Reg Guide EOL ft-lb Fluence 1.99 Rev 2 USE (Transverse) (n/cm )  % reduction ft-lb Plate M4116-1 91 0.06 1.83 x 1019 71 Inter. Shell 116 0.04 1.83 x 10~9 22 90 Long Seams

( 101-124A, B, C( ) )

Lower Shell 136 0.05 1. 83 x 10~9 22 106 Long Seams (101 142Ag Bg C)

Intermediate to 96(') 0.07 1.83 x 10~9 22 't 75 Lower Shell Girth Weld (101-171)

Lowest USE value of the two weld wires used to fabricte this seam.

The USE values reported for the St Lucie Unit 2 beltline plate materials are transverse Charpy values. Section 5.3.1.5 of the FSAR+ indicates that the beltline material was tested in the weak (transverse) direction and reports that the lowest plate USE value is 91 ft-lbs. A search of the reactor vessel fabrication data package verified that the values reported in the FSAR and Technical Specification Bases are transverse data. A copy of the CMTR for the plate in question is shown in Figure 1 with the heat code and test direction noted.

A change to the FSAR will be made to reflect the data as transverse. Attachment 3 is the change to the Technical Specification Bases pages.

TABLE 1 ST. LUCIE UNIT 2 REACTOR VESSEL BELTLINE WELD MATERIAL DROP WEIGHT CHARPY USE RTyD~

WELD LOCATION HEAT NO FLUX FLUX  % Cu %Ni %P TEST (oF ) (FT-LBS)

TYPE LOT Inter. Shell Long 83642 Linde 3536 0.04 0.06 0.009 0.010 -80 -80 116 Seam (101-124 A) 0091 Inter. Shell Long 83642 Linde 3536 0.03 0.06 0.011 0.014 -80 -80 116 Seam 101-124 B 0091 Inter. Shell Long 83642/ Linde 3536/ 0.04 0.07 0.009 0.011 -80/ -80/ 116/136 Seam (101-124 C) 083637 0091 1122 -50 -50 Lower Shell Long 83637 Linde 1122 0.04 0.10 0.008 0.009 -50 -50 136 Seam (101-142A) 0091 Lower Shell Long 83637 Linde 1122 0.05 0.09 0.008 0.009 -50 -50 136 Seam (101-142B) 0091 Lower Shell Long 83637 Linde 1122 0.04 0.09 0.008 0.008 -50 -50 136 Seam 101-142C 0091 Intermediate to 83637/ Linde 0951 0.07 0.08 0.009 0.011 -70/ -70/ 115/96 Lower Shell Girth 3P7317 124 -80 -80 Seam (101-171)

Note: Data obtained from Table 5.2-6 and 5.2-7a from the St Lucie Unit 2 FSAR+.

TABLE 2 ST. LUCIE UNIT 2 REACTOR VESSEL BELTLINE PLATE MATERIAL DROP WEIGHT NDT TRANSVERSE LOCATION HEAT NO  % Cu  % Ni TEST ('F.) ('F.) CHARPY USE (CODE f) (FT-LBS)

Intermediate Shell A-8490-2 0.11 0.61 0.008 0.012 +30 105 (M405-I)

Intermediate Shell B-3416-2 0.13 0.62 0.008 0.014 -10 +10 113 (M%05-2)

Intermediate Shell A-8490-2 0.11 0.61 0.009 0.017 -20 113 (M405-3)

Lower Shell Plate B-8307-2 0.06 0.57 0.007 0.010 -30 +20 91 (M4116-I)

Lower Shell Plate A-3131-1 0.07 0.60 0.007 0.009 -50 +20 105 (M4116-2)

Lower Shell Plate A-3131-2 0.07 0.60 0.008 0.008 -40 +20 (M4116-3)

Note: Data obtained from Table 5.2-5 and 5.2-7 from the St Lucie Unit 2 FSAR@.

fl "'

JI, ll, Moss Alh)l:Il)h).5 O,l'III'll:hJll)II ill i'0)J) Itl:VISIJO)J )) I: 2-10-75 55A I Clitht SI f CII ICAI Ilu '-P3 I'lg 0!) EOIITRACT ll(A 7II72 VCIII)08 S.ukl!nn~ !'trr.l C:n. IOII RO . 72OIM2-OIII IICAT IIO. ll0307-7 COOC NO, M-4) )G-)

IAATCI,'IAL OCSCI;!r Tlt)II 220-3/I" X 99-9/1 G" X 9-11/1G>> l.ower Shell LIILI. CIII'I!II:AI. AIIAI.YGIG J Trf. ~ 23 Jt<<

A43 0 0 0 2 75 Cil) !22 LI C C I I A III Ch I. 1 I. ST 5 UL'Iluh I C Itc. TC5T TICLO TfIIS(LLT CLOIIO RCOUCI IN!

IC5T CAUOC TCUI'LRATIISIC of STRCIA~>>TIIA KSI $ 1RCIIG'III, KSI III 0A Of ARCA ni EE-TA . 505 A. T. 67 7 6 26 0 6 6 EE-TB .505 68.3 88.4 2G.O -~ 61.5 IMPA5T *HO OM TRACTURP 'tESTS

'ITfC 'TfLtts. Of VALltCS 1tu~. ~ F VAUKS Charpy

-40 Mlitt TII:Mo ~DTO Wll lith tt impacts 4 -40 1 F -30'F

-40 10 0 4 -30 1 F.~

-40 10 0 5 -20 2 NF

+30 26 10 18

+30 36 lb 22

+30 38 15 25

+60 53 25 39 +100 62 40 42

+60 48 20 33 +100 69 40 50

+60 45 20 32 +100 68 40 53

+70 45 20 30 +160 93 100 ~ 68

+70 53 25 38 +160 94 100 68

+70 60 30 42 +160 91 100 63

+80 62> 30 80 60+ 30 41

'5~

0 63 30 AOOITIOIIAL OAT* RICLUOIIIO IIKAT TRCAT!2CIITI i(-

(a) 1600'F a 25'F 4hours. Water quenched.

(b) 122 F a 25'F 4hours.

(c) 1150'F k 50'F 40 hour4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> Jurnaco~co)cd to G00'F.

Thc Impacts werc taken transverse to the maior rolling dlrcctlon oJ the plate at the 1/42 T lcvcl and notched pcrpcndlcular to thc plate surface.

The dropwclght and tcnsllcs vicrc taken transverse to tho maJor rolling dlrcctlon.

Testing wns done In accordance vf1th M f, P Spcclllcatlon N-5.5.2.11 (b). Add. 1 (a).

Fott<<C II50 Lo LRTOLO Rttttlf tLot tl>> Iottlot<<0 Joto lt ~ ttw OOOO ol!LO At~

I:c: P ~ Webb IAO<<ltl>>(OS Lf tl>> IMOJWI<> I ~ ttt Oot ll. Dlnwlddle 122>>>>l!<< tl>> CO<<AOSttO>> llotOIIIRSttOI LOtOTOOOMO.

T. U. lvlarston COUOUST!fAI rlmR LCRRIO, lttc.

S. A. Lcvfl It. C. Jara!!tf., Jr, OT Afno III Ith ~

ganuarst 31 1975 ~

Figure 1: St Lucie Unit 2 Beltline Plate M4116-1 Certified Material Test Report (CMTR)

REFERENCE LIST (1) FPL Letter, L-92-189, "St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389, Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1, Response, PT Limits and LTOP Analysis", W. H. Bohlke to NRC, July 7, 1992 (2) "Florida Power & Light Co., St. Lucie Plant Unit 2, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report", Amendment 8, Chapter 5.0 (3) "Analysis of Capsule W-83, Florida Power & Light Co., St. Lucie Plant Unit 2",

Babcock & Wilcox, September 1985, BAW-1880

St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389 Generic Letter 92-01 Revision 1 Response to Request for Additional Information (RAg ATTACHEMENT 3 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION BASES CHANGES UNIT 1 PAGE B 3/4 4-9 UNIT 1 PAGE 3/4 4-10 UNIT 2 PAGE 3/4 4-9

St+ucie Units 1 and 2 Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389

'eneric Letter 92%1 Revision 1 AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT FPL Letter L-93-286 Attachment TO 10 CFR 2.790 Combustion Engineering, Inc. )

State of Connecticut )

County of Hartford ) SS.:

I, S. A. Toelle, depose and say that I am the Manager, Nuclear Licensing, of Combustion Engineering, Inc., duly authorized to make this affidavit, and have reviewed or caused to have reviewed the information which is identified as proprietary and referenced in the paragraph immediately below. I am submitting this affidavit in conjunction with the application of Florida Power & Light Company in conformance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations for withholding this information.

The information for which proprietary treatment is sought is contained in the following document:

CE NPSD-906-P, "GEOG Program to Evaluate Chemical Content of Weld Deposits Fabricated Using Heats A8746 and 34B009,"

February 1993.

This document has been appropriately designated as proprietary.

I have personal knowledge of the criteria and procedures utilized by Combustion Engineering in designating information as a trade secret, privileged or as confidential commercial of financial information.

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b) (4) of Section 2.790

&f 4 ,t s ~ J'" L~

II

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION This Document contains proprietary information and is not to be transmitted or reproduced without specific written approval from Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Copy No. 6S CE NPSD-906-P OMBUSTtON ENGINEERING OWNERS GROUP CEOG PROGRAM TO EVALUATE CHEMICAL COXIKNT OF WELD DEPOSITS FABRICATED USING HEATS AS746 AZ'6) 34B009 CEOG TASK 747

'f0 CFR 2.790 fNFORMATlON EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSuRE Prepared for the C-E OWNERS GROUP February 1993 8D, QD (ID ABB Combustion Enaineering Nuclear Power liQQDQD ASEA BROWN BOVERI P. . 9311300069

I I

wary

. )'I I P

i I

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information TABLE OF CONTENTS Section No. Title ~Pa e Introduction

Background

Scope IV Results V Conclusions VI References 10

I Q /

i I

i 4

I I

I

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information LIST OF TABLES Number Title ~Pa e

'Nickel Content for Coiled Wire Electrode Weld Deposits Weld Seams and Consumables Using [Adcom] Heat ¹A8746 12 Copper Analysis Results for Weld Wire Heat ¹A8746 13 Weld Deposit Copper Content for [Adcom] Wire Heats Weld Seams and Consumables Using [Reid Avery] Heat ¹34B009 15

'opper Content Analysis Results for Weld Wire Heat ¹34B009 16 Weld Deposit Nickel Content with Cold Nickel Feed 17 Nickel Content for Heat ¹34B009 with Cold Nickel Feed and Linde 1092 Flux 18 Best Estimate Copper and Nickel Content for Vessel Welds 19

I

~4=f" II I

v~

4 C

P, I

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information I. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a task undertaken for the Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG) to provide the basis for the copper and nickel content of reactor pressure vessel welds made using two specific heats of weld wire. These heats are common to beltline welds in several reactor vessels fabricated by ABB/CE in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The as<eposited welds were not always analyzed explicitly for copper or nickel during fabrication because the significance of those chemical elements to irradiation embrittlement was not then recognized. Subsequent efforts to.estimate the as-deposited weld chemistry from limited data sometimes have resulted in different values for the same weld consumables. The purpose of this evaluation is to utilize a broad set of chemical analysis results in conjunction with information from material specifications to establish a consistent and viable basis for the as-deposited weld chemical content for four specific reactor pressure vessels involving two heats of weld wire.

II. BACKGROUND Submittals were made in December 1991 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to 10 CFR 50.61, "Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) Events" (Federal Register, v.5694, page 22304, May 15, 1991). The NRC expressed concern regarding the consistency and credibility of data used as the basis for PTS submittals, especially with respect to chemical content. Two or more licensees have reported different copper or nickel contents for reactor vessel welds for which an identical heat of weld wire was used. These differences arose in part because of the way multiple analyses were handled, the type of estimation methods used by licensees, or the degree to which data traceability was established.

I I

I I

I I

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information The PTS submittal of one CEOG licensee was questioned by the NRC regarding the copper and nickel content of a vessel beltline weld formed using weld wire heat number A8746. This same weld wire heat was also used for two other CEOG licensees'essel beltline welds. The same copper content (a single measurement, not an average) was reported by all three licensees, but different nickel contents were reported. An initial response to the question was prepared based on a review of fabrication records, procedures and specifications as described in the results section.

This report builds upon that initial review using chemical analysis data representative of weld wire specifications and weld procedures employed by ABB/CE.

NRC guidance for determination of copper and nickel content is contained in 10 CFR 50.61, "Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events". Four alternatives are available to obtain bestmtimate copper and nickel values for the plate or forging, or for weld samples made with the weld wire heat number that matches the critical vessel weld as follows:

(1) The mean of the measured values, or, if these values are not available, (2) the upper limiting values in the material specifications to which the vessel was built, or if not available, (3) conservative estimates (mean plus one standard deviation) based on generic data from reactor vessels fabricated in the same time period to the same material specifications, ifjustification is provided.

(4) If none of the first 3 alternatives are available, 0.35% copper and 1.0% nickel must be assumed.

The preceding guidance was employed in this evaluation.

I

,l I

I

+c l

~ I~

I I

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information III~ SCOPE The objective of this evaluation is to provide best estimate values of copper and nickel content for weld deposits produced using the following materials:

[Adcom HiMnMo] weld wire heat A8746 and Linde 124 fiux

2. [Reid Avery HiMnMo] weld wire heat 34B009 and Linde 124 or 1092 flux

3. [Reid Avery HiMnMo] weld wire heat 34B009 with Ni-200 cold wire feed and Linde 1092 flux The preceding materials were used to fabricate reactor vessel beltline welds in Calvert Cliffs Unit 2, St. Lucie Unit 1, Millstone Unit"1, and Millstone Unit 2. The .

guidelines contained in 10 CFR 50.61 are followed to provide those best estimates.

The approach taken is to review ABB/CE welding procedures and specifications, to collect chemical analysis results specific to the three weld materials noted, and to collect chemical analysis results for comparable and contrasting weld materials. This information is then evaluated to determine the best estimate value for:

the nickel content of [HIMnMo] wire weld deposits, specifically heats

¹A8746 and 34B009,

2. the copper content of [Adcom] wire weld deposits, specifically heat

¹A8746

3. the copper content of [Reid Avery] heat ¹34B009.weld deposits, and the nickel content of [Reid Avery] heat ¹34B009 plus Ni-200 cold wire feed weld deposits.

In this evaluation, chemical analysis results were obtained from weld deposits fabricated using Linde 0091, 1092, 124 and 80 fluxes. The toughness properties of welds made using Linde 0091, 1092 and 124 fluxes have been previously shown to be sh ~

K a. 1 I

8

~r

~L I 1 m't C+~

r~.

wl I

I

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information comparable'". [Flux type is known to affect certain chemical elements, but nickel and copper contents in the weld deposit have not been found to be substantially affected by fiux'ype for Linde 0091, 1092 and 124 for a given heat of weld wire"'.] There is insufficient information from ABB/CE fabrication records to draw similar conclusions regarding Linde 80 flux welds. Therefore, copper and nickel analysis results from Linde 80 flux welds will be considered for information only.

IV. RESULTS

1. Welding Procedures and Specifications ABB/CE fabricated many reactor pressure vessels using automatic submerged

. arc welding. [Type Mil-B4 electrode wire specifications (see MIL-E-18193A, Military Specification, "Electrodes, Welding, Carbon Steel and Alloy Steel, Base, Coiled," July 23, 1957) were used as the basis for ABB/CE procurement of the filler wire. In this report, the terminology "wire type" is used to represent the broad classification of weld filler material: Mil-B4 of Mil-B4 Modified (Mil-B4 Mod). The terminology "specification" is used to represent I

the specific classification of weld filler material: HIMnM, MnMoNi, MnMo, or Low Cu-P. The terminology "supplier designation" is used to represent the specific compositional classification of wire provided by the supplier to meet the CE specification: HiMnMo, MnMoNi or Low Cu-P. ABB/CE purchase specifications in place between 1965 and 1971 called for several groups of coiled electrodes differentiated by the manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo) and nickel (Ni) content: k

~Wire T e Mil-B4 Mod S~

ABB/CE HiMnMo Specified Nickel Content Supplier

~Desi nation HiMnMo Mil-B4 Mod MnMoNi 0.90 to 1.10% MnMoNi Mil-B4 MnMo HiMnMo Mil-B4 Mod MnMoNi 0.65 to 0.85% MnMoNi Mil-B4 Low Cu-P Low Cu-P

-4

L I

I I

Il I

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information Only'n the case of the wire designation MnMoNi was any nickel required (specified by CE) to be included in the wire. Note also that Mil-B4 Modified was originally specified by CE as either HiMnMo or MnMoNi. In subsequent specifications, Mil-B4 Modified referred only to MnMoNi wires with nominally 0.75% or 1.00% nickel, and Mil-B4 referred only to HiMnMo, MnMo, or Low Cu-P wires which all had no nickel specified.

The suppliers of coiled wire electrodes typically used the designations as indicated above on their certiftcations. Supplier certifications and weld material release reports (generated by ABB/CE upon receipt of the wire) included nickel content only for the MnMoNi wires, i.e., the nickel was determined only where it was specified. Weld material certification tests (weld deposits) and actual vessel weld deposit analyses generally included an analysis for nickel only when MnMoNi wires were utilized or when the vessel equipment specification called for a nickel analysis, Nickel was not intentionally added to a heat because of the extra expense to the wire supplier.

Therefore, the nickel content for a HiMnMo or a MnMo wire is expected to be low (significantly less than 0.75%).]

2. Observed Nickel Content of [HiMnMo and MnMoNi] Coiled Wire Electrode Weld Deposits

[The nickel content of welds deposited using HiMnMo heats "¹A8746 and

¹34B009 is not available from ABB/CE weld deposit analysis records.

However, nickel content was determined for other HiMnMo heats and for many MnMoNi heats. [Note: welds fabricated using a Ni-200 cold wire addition are not included in the discussion which follows.] A search was "

performed of ABB/CE weld receipt and weld deposit analysis records for the years 1965 to 1971, and a list was compiled of each analysis that included nickel content. For each analysis with a reported value of nickel, the supplier I

(I *

.Pi ~ t i

gi'Y, p I

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information designation and wire supplier is noted as shown in Table I; multiple analyses on a single heat are grouped together. The mean and standard deviations described below are based on the average nickel for each heat, whereas the ranges reflect all reported nickel values within each set of wires.

The MnMoNi wires fall within two ranges of nickel, 0.59 to 0.82% Ni and 0.89 to 1.10% Ni. The corresponding mean and standard deviation are:

mean = 0.706% Ni, o' 0.051% Ni mean = 0.990% Ni, u = 0.069% Ni These correspond well to the two specification levels of 0.75% and 1.00% Ni discussed in the previous section.

For the HiMnMo wires, nickel content is in the range of 0.01 to 0.16%. The mean nickel value for the 16 heats is 0.058% with a standard deviation of 0.037% Ni, It is clear from the HIMnMo data that nickel was not intentionally added to the original heats from which the electrode wires were drawn. Therefore, for the HiMnMo heats ¹A8746 and ¹348009, a conservative best estimate (mean plus one standard deviation) of the nickel in the weld deposit is 0.10% Ni.]

3. Copper Content of Weld Deposits Using Wire Heat ¹A8746

[Weld wire heat ¹A8746, a HiMnMo coiled electrode supplied by Adcom, was used to fabricate the weld seams described in Table 2. In each case, the submerged arc welding was performed using Linde 124 flux.

Two separate weld deposit chemical analyses were performed which involved heat ¹A8746 as described in Table 3. Only one of the analyses relates directly to the four weld deposits listed in Table 2. Each of the vessel welds were I

II

~

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information deposited using Linde 124 flux, whereas only one of the chemical analyses reflected a Linde 124 flux weld. Therefore, the Linde 80 weld deposit analysis can only be used for information.

The Linde 124 flux weld deposit analysis resulted in a copper content of 0,12% using Adcom weld wire heat A8746. In order to judge the viability of the 0.12% copper value, a compilation was made of weld deposit copper contents of other Adcom heats which is given in Table 4. Treating each copper analysis as independent (i.e., assuming that each reflects results from a unique coil), the mean copper content is 0.20%, the standard deviation is 0.036%, and the range is 0.12 to 0.27%. The data include seven different heats or combinations of heats, four different types of flux, two different wire specifications, and a 29 month time period over which wire was procured and analyses were performed. Therefore, the 0.036% standard deviation for copper reflects heat-to-heat and coil-to-coil variations as well as the influence t

of weld flux and the time dependence of the copper coating process on weld deposit copper content. In other words, since the standard deviation represents many Adcom wire heats and other factors, the 0.036% copper (one standard deviation) should conservatively represent the copper variability of welds deposited using a single heat of Adcom wire, heat PA&746.

Comparison of the data from Table 3 and Table 4 indicates that the range of available measurements specific to heat PA8746, 0. 12 to 0.17% copper, is within the range of the seven different Adcom supplied heats and combinations of heats. Furthermore, the mean of the two A8746 analyses, 0.145% Cu, is within one standard deviation of the single Linde 124 weld deposit analysis (0.036% plus 0.12% equals 0.156% Cu). Therefore, a conservative best It

,e L

I

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information estimate of the copper content of the welds described in Table 2 is 0.16%

based on the heat-specific measurement and the standard deviation for generic Adcom wire heat data.]

4. Copper Content of Weld Deposits Using Wire Heat ¹348009

[Weld wire heat ¹348009, a HiMnMo coiled electrode supplied by Reid Avery, was used to fabricate the weld seams described in Table 5, The submerged arc welding was performed using either Linde 124 or Linde 1092 flux.

Nine chemical analyses involving heat ¹348009 are described in Table 6. The first two entries are laboratory experiment results and, therefore, are not representative of production weld deposits. Four entries are analysis results from samples extracted from a H.B. Robinson Unit 2 (HBR-2) reactor vessel head weld. Three entries are analysis results for the Millstone Unit 1 (MP-1) surveillance weld performed for EPRI and General Electric. The seven representative measurements were from welds deposited using Linde 1092 flux, and the two experimental analysis results were from welds deposited using Linde 1092 or Linde 124.

The Linde 1092 flux weld deposit analyses resulted in a mean copper content of 0.19%. This mean of measured values is directly applicable to the Millstone Unit 1 weld described in Table 5. Given that the weld flux does not affect the copper content significantly (see Section III), the 0.19% mean copper is also applicable to the St. Lucie Unit 1 weld described in Table 5 which was deposited using Linde 124 flux.]

5. Nickel Content of Weld Deposits Using Wire Heat ¹348009 and a Cold Nickel Wire Feed

[The Millstone Unit 1 weld described in Table 5 was fabricated using a cold nickel f

I

~ ~

I t

~

r v~

1' d

I

I Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information wire feed in addition to the electrode wire heat ¹34B009. Therefore, the nickel 4

content of that weld would be greater than normal for a HiMnMo wire weld deposit without the nickel feed wire (as discussed in Section IV.2).

Table 7 presents 24 sets of data on the nickel content of welds deposited using RACO-3 (Reid Avery) wires, Ni-200 wire (cold nickel feed) and Linde 1092 flux.

Only two different wire heats, singly or in tandem, were used. The mean nickel content is 1.065% and the range is 0.72% to 1.21% Ni.

Table 8 presents nickel content associated with the Table 6 data in which heat

¹34B009 was used with Ni-200 wire and Linde 1092 flux. All but two of the nickel contents specific to heat ¹34B009 are within the range of the data from Table 7. The average of the three MP-1 surveillance weld values is 0.94% Ni, and the range is 0.81 to 1.03% Ni. The average of the MP-1 and the two in-range HBR-2 values is 0.88% Ni, and the range is 0.75 to 1.03% Ni for the welds deposited with heat

¹34B009. The 0.88% Ni represents the mean of measured values for weld deposits formed using heat ¹34B009 with a cold nickel wire feed. However, given the higher mean of the generic data (Table 7), a more conservative estimate of the heat-specific weld nickel content is 1.03%, the upper bound of the data from Table 8.]

V. CONCLUSIONS PVelds deposited by Combustion Engineering using HiMnMo coiled wire electrodes yield a mean nickel content of 0.058% with a standard deviation of 0.037%.

Therefore, a conservative estimate (mean plus one standard deviation) of nickel content in such welds is 0.10% Ni.]

2. [Welds deposited using Adcom Heat ¹A8746 (HiMnMo) and Linde 124 flux are conservatively estimated to contain 0.16% Cu and 0.10% Ni.]

I t

I I

I I

I

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information

[The welds deposited using Reid Avery Heat ¹34B009 (HiMnMo) with Linde 124 or Linde 1092 flux are estimated to contain 0.19% Cu based on the mean of measured values, and conservative estimates of nickel content are 1.03% Ni with a Ni-200 wire addition and 0.10% Ni without a Ni-200 wire addition.]

These best estimate chemical contents are summarized in Table 9 for the welds described in Tables 2 and 5.

VL REFERENCES

1. "Evaluation of Pressurized Thermal Shock Effects due to Small Break LOCA's with Loss of Feedwater for the Combustion Engineering NSSS," Combustion Engineering Report CEN-189, December 1981.

2. "Application of Reactor Vessel Surveillance Data for Embrittlement Management,"

Combustion Engineering Owners Group Report CEN-405-P (Draft Revision 2),

December 1992.

l Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information TABLE 1 Nickel Content for Coiled Wire Electrode Weld Deposits Supplier Wire Nickel

~Desi nation ~Sn lier ~Content e HiMnMo Page 0.03, 0.05 HiMnMo Page 0.02, 0.02 HiMnMo Page 0.01, 0.03, 0.03 HiMnMo Page 0.03, 0.03, 0.04, 0.04, 0.05, 0.07, 0.11 HiMnMo Page 0.02, 0.03, 0.03, 0.03, 0.03, 0.04, 0.04, 0.05 HiMnMo Page 0.02, 0.03, 0.03, 0.03 (Not Reported) Page 0.03, 0.03 HiMnMo (Not Reported) 0.05 HiMnMo Page 0.06 HiMnMo Reid Avery 0.08, 0.09 HiMnMo Reid Avery 0.07, 0.08, 0.12 HiMnMo Reid Avery 0.16, 0.16 HiMnMo Reid Avery 0.04 HiMnMo Reid Avery 0.03, 0.06, 0.07 HiMnMo Reid Avery 0.10, 0.11 HiMnMo Reid Avery 0.05, 0,05, 0.06 MnMoNi Adcom 0.74 MnMoNi Adcom 0.73, 0.74 MnMoNi Page 0.64, 0.68, 0.68, 0.70, 0.71 MnMoNi Adcom 0.59, 0.61, 0.72, 0.72 MnMoNi Reid Avery . 0.59, 0.60, 0.62, 0,64, 0.64 MnMoNi Reid Avery 0.64, 0.64, 0.64, 0.66 MnMoNi Adcom 0.73 MnMoNi (Not Reported) 0.69 MnMoNi Reid Avery 0.73, 0.74 MnMoNi Reid Avery 0.69, 0.72, 0.72, 0.73, 0.74, 0.76, 0.81 MnMoNi Reid Avery 0.75, 0.78, 0.79, 0.80, 0.82 MnMoNi Adcom 1.00, 1.01 MnMoNi Adcom 1.02, 1.03, 1.03, 1.04, 1.04, 1.05, 1.05, 1.05, 1.08 MnMoNi Adcom 0.96, 1.00(4), 1.02(2), 1.06(2), 1.10 MnMoNi (Not Reported) 0.89 I

I I

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information TABLE 2 Weld Seams and Consumables Using [Adcom Heat] PA8746

[(HiMnMo)]

Weld Procedure Reactor Vessel Weld Seam No ote 1 Weld Flux T e ~Sufi Calvert Cliffs Unit 2 2-203 A,B,C Linde 124 SAA-4-0 St. Lucie Unit 1 2-203 A,B,C (Note 2) Linde 124 SAA-4-0 Millstone Unit 2 2-203 A,B,C Linde 124 SAA-4-0 3-203 A,B,C Linde 124 SAA-MA-501-2 Note 1: All of the weld seams listed were deposited without a cold nickel wire feed.

Note 2; Weld wire heat ¹34B009[(Reid Averyi]was also used with heat ¹A8746 to deposit the weld seams in a single are process.

I l

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information TABLE 3 Copper Content Analysis Results for Weld Wire Heat ¹A8746 KAdcom HiMnMo)]

of Anal sis Date Flux /Lot No. ~Co euro Weld Deposit 8/19/69 Linde 80/¹8651 0.17 Weld Deposit . 8/27/69 Linde 124/¹3878 0.12 I

l n,

l

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information TABLE 4 Weld Deposit Copper Content for [Adcom] Wire Heats Supplier Flux 'Copper

~Desi nation ~Te ~Content o HiMnMo Linde 124 0. 12 (Note A)

HiMnMo Linde 80 0.17 (Note A)

MnMoNi Linde 0091 0.16 MnMoNi Linde 1092 0.16, 0.20 MnMoNi Linde 1092 0.18, 0.19, 0.20(2), 0.21(2), 0.22(2), 0.24, 0.25 MnMoNi Linde 1092 0.22 MnMoNi Linde 1092 0.22 (Note B)

MnMoNi Linde 1092 0.27 (Note B)

Note A - From Table 3 Note B - Combination of two Adcom heats in weld deposit I

I l

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information TABLE 5 Weld Seams and Consumables Using [Reid Avery] Heat ¹34B009

[(HiMnMo)]

Weld Procedure eactor Vessel Weld Seam No. Weld Flux T S N St. Lucie Unit 1 2-203 A, B, C (Note 1) Linde 124 SAAMO Millstone Unit 1 3-073 (Note 2) Linde 1092 SAA-33-J(1)

Note 1: Weld wire heat ¹A8746 [(Adcom)] was also used with heat ¹34B009 to deposit the weld seams in a single arc process. A cold nickel wire feed was not used.

Note 2: The weld process included the addition of a cold nickel wire feed.

5 b

~4 I

l l

I l

Combustion Engineering, lnc.

Proprietary Information TABLE 6 Copper Content Analysis Results for Weld Wire Heat 434B009 T~IA I I Tl ~T C~C Source Weld Deposit Linde 1092 0.15 CE Lab Experiment Weld Deposit Linde 124 0.17 CE Lab Experiment Weld Deposit Linde 1092 0.180 HBR-2 Head Sample Weld Deposit Linde 1092 0.182 HBR-2 Head Sample Weld Deposit Linde 1092 0.183 HBR-2 Head Sample Weld Deposit Linde 1092 0.202 HBR-2 Head Sample Weld Deposit Linde 1092 0.18 MP-1 Surveillance Weld (EPRI)

Weld Deposit Linde 1092 0.19 MP-1 Surveillance Weld (EPRI) II Weld Deposit Linde 1092 0.18 MP-1 Surveillance Weld (GE Report NEDC-30299)

~

~

~

(g y

5

~

~

~

~

~

~

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information TABLE 7 Weld Deposit Nickel Content with Cold Nickel Feed Source Nickel Content o Mixed Reid Avery Heats, Linde 1092 1.06, 1.03, 1.15, 1.16, 1.15, 1.08, flux and Ni-200 wire 1.03, 1.06, 1.06, 1.04, 1.10, 1.01, 1.04, 1.15, 1.07 Single Reid Avery Heat, Linde 1092 0.99, I. 12, 0.92, 0.94 (Note 1),

fiux and Ni-200 wire 1.115 (Note 2), 1.05, 1.20, 0.97 Note 1: Average of 20 analyses from single weld, with a range of 0.72 to 1.08% Ni.

Note 2: Average of 2 analyses from one surveillance program weld (1.02 and 1.21% Ni).

~

~

~

~

)

'1

~

~

I

~

~

~

~

~

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information TABLE 8 Nickel Content for Heat 0'34B009 with Cold Nickel Feed and Linde 1092 Flux Nickel Content Source 0.75 HBR-2 Head Sample 0.32 HBR-2 Head Sample 0.84 HBR-2 Head Sample 0.43 HBR-2 Head Sample

" 0.81 MP-1 Surveillance Weld (EPRI) 0.98 MP;1 Surveillance Weld (EPRI) 1.03 MP-1 Surveillance Weld (GE Report NEDC-30299)

I l

~

l

~

~

~

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Proprietary Information TABLE 9 Best Estimate Copper and, Nickel Content for Vessel Welds

~Content e Reactor Vessel Weld Seam No. Cu Ni Calvert Cliffs Unit 2 2-203 A,B,C 0.16" 0.10 St. Lucie Unit 1 2-203 A B Ctt) 0.16 0.10 2-203 A,B,Ct') 0.19 0.10 Millstone Unit 2 2-203 A,B,C 0.16 0.10 3-203 A,B,C 0.16 0.10 Millstone'nit 1 3-073 0.19 1.03 Notes e

(1) Chemical content contribution from wire heat PA8746 (2) Chemical content contribution from wire heat 034B009 I

~

1I

~

I

"St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 iL Il)IR

~~meme Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389 ~

Generic Letter 92%1 Revision 1 FPL Letter L-93-286 Enclosure 1 10 CFR 2.7SO INFORMATION September 28, 1993 EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE F-MECH-93-050 .

Cobol ol I MECH-93-015 Mr. R. Scott Boggs Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 1400 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420

Subject:

Upper Shelf Energy Information Pertaining to the St. Lucie Unit 1 and ~

Unit 2 Reactor Vessel Welds.

Appendices: A) Certified Material Test Reports Pertinent to St. Lucie Unit 2 Attachments: "Atypical Weld Material In Reactor Pressure Vessel Welds; Information Requested by Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspection & Enforcement Bulletin No. 78-12", Prepared By Combustion Engineering Inc., dated June 8, 1979.

Dear Mr. Boggs:

The purpose of this report is to provide upper shelf energy (USE) information on beltline welds for Florida Power and Light Company (FP&L), St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 reactor vessels. This information is required by FP&L in order to respond to a NRC request for additional information associated with Generic Letter 92-01 (Ref 1) as described in References 2 and 3.

Additionally, two copies of the Combustion Engineering Document "Atypical Weld Material In Reactor Pressure Vessel Welds" are included as requested in Reference 3.

Please recognize that this letter report, including Appendix A, contains proprietary information and is not to be transmitted or reproduced without specific written approval from Combustion Engineering, Inc. The Attachment "Atypical Weld Material In Reactor Pressure Vessels", is not proprietary because it was publicly released in the past.

1.0 St. Lucie Unit 1:

1.1 Barrack round The St. Lucie Unit 1 reactor vessel intermediate shell longitudinal seam welds (2-203 A,B,C) were fabricated using wire heat numbers A8746 and 34B009 and Linde 124 Flux lots 3878 and 3688 respectively based upon input provided by FP&L and repeated in Reference 2. The initial Charpy upper shelf energy (USE) for this weld was not ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power Combustion Engineering, tnc. 1000 Prospect Hitl Road Telephone (203) 688 1911 Post Otfice Box 500 Fax (203) 285-9512 Windsor, Connecticut 060954500 Tetex 99297 COMBEN WSOR

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

Mr. Scott Boggs F-MECH-93-050 September 28, 1993 I MECH-93-015 Page 2 of 10 determined at the time of manufacture, nor is such data known to be available from other sources (e.g., surveillance program welds) for the aforementioned welding consumables.

The NRC has stated that an acceptable approach for satisfaction of 10CFR50, Appendix G requirements for initial USE is to use the average value from similarly fabricated welds (Ref 1); in this case, from USE measurements on submerged arc welds produced using MIL-B4 wire and Linde 124 Flux.

1.2 ~Sco e This report provides a basis for the initial upper shelf energy for weld wire heat numbers A8746 and 34B009 fabricated with Linde 124 flux using USE data from welds fabricated with Linde 124 flux.

1,3 Procedure Weld material certifications (WMC) (Ref 4) at the ABB Combustion Engineering facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee were searched to obtain Charpy impact test data specific to Linde 124 flux welds. The WMCs were compiled and the initial USE determined from the Charpy impact data in accordance with the definitions provided in ASTM E185-82 (Ref 5). The primary definitions necessary to establish the upper shelf energy are provided as follows:

1.3.1 Upper Shelf Energy is defined as the average energy value for all Charpy specimens (normally three) whose test temperature is above the upper end of the transition region. For specimens tested in sets of three at each test temperature, the set having the highest average may be regarded as defining the upper shelf energy (Ref 5),

1.3.2 Charpy Transition Curve is defined as a graphic presentation of Charpy data, including absorbed energy, lateral expansion and fracture appearance, extending over a range including the lower shelf energy (<5% shear), transition region and the upper shelf energy () 95% shear) (Ref 5).

1.3.3 Transition Region is defined as the region on the transition temperature curve in which toughness increases rapidly with rising temperature. In terms of fracture appearance, it is characterized by a rapid change from a primarily cleavage (crystalline) fracture mode to primarily shear fracture mode (Ref 5).

Charpy test data for each weld wire heat and flux lot combination showing a fracture appearance of 95% shear or greater were compiled. The Charpy tests tended to be conducted in sets of three over a range of test temperatures. This allowed each set of

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

Mr. Scott Boggs F-MECH-93-950 September 28, 1993 L-MECH-93-015 Page 3 of 10 three tests to be averaged to determine the USE at a given temperature. The highest averaged USE for each weld wire heat and flux lot combination was taken to be the initial USE for the material and used to determine the best estimate (mean) and standard deviation for welds fabricated using Linde 124 flux. This best estimate can then be used as input for projecting USE after irradiation.

1.4 Results Charpy impact energy data was assessed for 68 different weld wire heat / flux lot combinations to determine the initial upper shelf energy in accordance with ASTM E185-82 definitions (Ref 5). 67 USE values represented the average of three Charpy impact specimens usually tested at a single temperature. The remaining one USE value comes

'from an average of two Charpy specimens tested at 100'F. This USE value was judged to be adequate for the purposes of this analysis and would not significantly alter the results if omitted. All fracture specimens have a fracture appearance showing no less than 95% shear.

The average upper shelf energy for the Linde 124 flux welds is [102.3 ft-lbs with a standard deviation of 9.4 ft-lbs.] The data ranges from [82.7 ft-lb to 125.7 ft-lb.] This represents an average of 68 different weld wire heat / Linde 124 flux lot combinations presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Initial Upper Shelf Energy Values for Linde 124 Welds.

Count Wire Heat / Flux Lot Initial USE ft-lb 1 30502 / 0342 104.3 2 3P7150 / 0662 97.0 3P7150 / 1061 86.0 3P7246 / 0662 97.3 3P7246 / 0951 108.0 3P7246 / 1061 103.7 7 3P7317 / 0281 94.0 3P7317 / 0662 98.3 3P7317 / 0951 102.7 10 3P7317 / 1061 103.0 3P7802 / 0171 109.7

\~

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

Mr. Scott Boggs F-MECH-93-950 September 28, 1993 L-MECH-93-015 Page 4 of 10 Count Wire Heat / Flux Lot Initial USE ft-Ib 12 3P7802 / 0281 104.7 13 3P8013 / 0281 93.7 14 3P8013 / 0871 110.0 15 CU3P8013 / 0281 104.7 16 4P6524 /0951 106.3 17 4P7656 / 0951 88.0 18 4P7656 / 1061 91.3 19 4P7869 / 0171 107.7 20 4P7869 / 0281 104.7 21 4P7869 / 0871 93.7 22 4P7869 / 1061 97.3 23 4P7927 / 0662 115.7 4P7927 / 1061 116.3 25 4P8632 / 0281 109.3 26 SP7388 / 0662 107.7 27 SP8866 / 0171 91.3i 28 SP8866 / 1061 107.7 SP9028 / 0281 96.7 30 651A708 / 0281 94.0 31 651A708 / 0871 96.3 32 90071 / 0951 112.7 33 83637 / 0951 116.7 34 83646 / 1061 106.0 35 83653 / 1061 106.7 36 87005 / 1061 90.3 37 89408 / 0751 '110.7 38 89476 / 1061 100.0 39 89827 / 0951 118.3

0~ 4, >>e l H1 1t

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

Mr. Scott Boggs F-MECH-93-950 September 28, 1993 L-MECH-93-015 Page 5 of 10 Count Wire Heat/ Flux Lot Initial USE ft-lb 40 89828 / 0281 96.0 41 89828 / 0951 109.3 42 89828 / 1061 104.3 43 89833 / 0871 113.3 89833 / 0951 105.3 45 89833 / 1061 95.7 46 90067 / 0951 124.3 47 90069 / 0951 125.7 48 90069 / 1061 97.6 49 90077 / 0951 115.7 50 90077 / 1061 112.3 51 90128 / 0951 99.3 52 90132 / 0951 115.0 53 90144 / 1061 93.0 54 90146 / 1061 96.7 55 90149 / 1061 94.0, 56 90154 / 0951 102.3 57 90157 / 1061 98.0 58 90159 / 0951 112.7 59 90209 / 1061 100.7 60 90211 / 1061 82.7 61 91762 / 0662 88.0 62 91762 / 1061 100.3 63 E56906 / 0662 89.3 F69025 / 0171 91.0 65 69025 / 1061 88.6 66 LP2P8374 / 0597 98.3 67 LPSP9744 / 0281 109.0

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

Mr. Scott Boggs F-MECH-93-950 September 28, 1993 L-MECH-93-015 Page 6 of 10 Count Wire Heat/ Flux Lot Initial USE ft-lb 68 PSP73Sg /0342$ 97.7 Average USE: 102.3 (ft-Ib)

Standard Deviation: 9.4 (ft-ib) 2.0 St. Lucie Unit 2:

2.1 ~Back round The St. Lucie Unit 2 reactor vessel beltline welds were fabricated using the consumable presented in Table 2 based upon input provided by FP8rL and repeated in Reference 2.

The basis for the initial upper shelf energy for these welds was weld material certification tests performed at the time of vessel manufacture (Ref 4).

Table 2: Beltline Weld Wire Consumable used in St. Lucie Unit 2 Seam No. Wire Heat No. Flux Type Flux Lot No.

101-124 A,B,C 83642 Linde 0091 3536 101-124 C (Repair) 83637 Linde 0091 1122 101-142 A,B,C 83637 Linde 0091 1122 101-171 83637 Linde 124 0951 101-171 3P7317 Linde 124 0951 2.2 ~Sco e Weld material certification test reports (WMCs) for the following weld wire heat and flux lots are provided: Wire heat 83642, Linde 0091 flux lot 3536; wire heat 83637, Linde 0091 flux lot 1122; wire heat 83637, Linde 124 flux lot 0951; and wire heat 3P7317, Linde 124 flux lot 0951. Upper shelf energy values for the aforementioned wire/flux combinations will be determined if sufficient information is presented in the WMC.

Where fully applicable information is not available, the degree of applicability will be addressed as per the project proposal (Ref 2) ~

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

Mr. Scott Boggs F-MECH-93-950 September 28, 1993 L-MECH-93-015 Page 7 of 10 2.3 Procedure Weld material certifications (WMC) at the ABB Combustion Engineering facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee were searched to obtain Charpy impact test data specific to the consumable presented in Table 2. The WMCs were compiled and the initial USE determined, when possible, from the Charpy impact data in accordance with the definitions provided in ASTM E185-82 (Ref 5) and presented in sections 1.3.1 - 1.3.3.

Where fully applicable information was not available in the WMC (e,g., where percent shear fracture was not reported) the degree of applicability to the Unit 2 weld seam USE is addressed.

2.4 Results Weld material certification (WMC) reports for the weld wire heat / flux lot number combinations presented in Table 2 were obtained from records in possession of Combustion Engineering. The WMCs pertaining to the Linde 124 welds contained enough information to fully determine the initial upper shelf energy values for the consumable used. The WMCs pertaining to the Linde 0091 welds did not contain sufficient information; however, enough information was available to determine a conservative (lower bound) upper shelf energy value relevant to the consumables used.

A copy of the WMCs for the consumables listed in Table 2 are provided in Appendix A, A description of the process used to determine the USE is described for each weld wire heat / flux lot combination as follows:

2.4.1 Wire Heat 83637, Flux Type Linde 124, Flux Lot No. 0951: The WMC pertaining to this combination of weld consumables contains a full array of Charpy tests over a range of temperatures. [The initial upper shelf energy was determined from a set of three Charpy specimens tested at 160'F. All three specimens show a fracture appearance of 100% shear failure and the initial upper shelf energy calculated to be 116.7 ft-lb.]

2.4.2 Wire Heat 3P7317, Flux Type Linde 124, Flux Lot No. 0951: The WMC pertaining to this combination of weld consumables contains a full array of Charpy tests over a range of temperatures. [The initial upper shelf energy was determined from a set of three Charpy specimens tested at 160'F. All three specimens show a fracture appearance of 100% shear failure and the initial upper shelf energy was calculated to be 102.7 ft-lb.]

2.4.3 Wire Heat 83642, Flux Type Linde 0091, Flux Lot No. 3536: The WMC pertaining to this combination of weld consumables contains limited Charpy tests at two test- temperatures and fracture appearance is not recorded. [An average

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

Mr. Scott Boggs F-MECH-93-950 September 28, 1993 L-MECH-93-015 Page 8 of 10 Charpy energy at 10'F was calculated from three specimens to be 116.3 ft-lbs.]

This value does not represent an "official" upper shelf energy for these weld consumables because no measurement of the fracture appearance (i.e., % shear fracture) is available. However, this value suggests very good fracture toughness characteristics for the material at 10'F and, therefore, may be used as a lower bound approximation to the initial USE.

2.4.4 Wire Heat 83637, Flux Type Linde 0091, Flux Lot No. 1122: The WMC pertaining to this combination of weld consumables contains limited Charpy tests at 10'F and fracture appearance is not recorded. [An average Charpy energy was calculated from three specimens to be 136.3 ft-lb.] This value does not represent an official upper shelf energy for these weld consumables because no measurement of the fracture appearance (i.e., % shear failure) is available.

However, this value suggests very good fracture toughness characteristics for the material at 10'F and, therefore, may be used as a lower bound approximation to the initial USE.

3.0 CONCLUSION

S:

No information is available to determine the initial upper shelf energy specific to the weld consumables used in the St. Lucie Unit 1 reactor vessel 2-203 A,B,C weldments.

As an alternate approach, a best estimate value of initial USE was calculated using 68 welds fabricated with Linde 124 flux. The best estimate initial USE of these welds fabricated with MII B4 wire and Linde 124 flux was calculated to be [102.3 ft-lb with a standard deviation of 9.4 ft-lb.] This best estimate value can be used as input for projecting USE after irradiation.

Complete or partial information is available to determine the initial upper shelf energy specific to the consumable used in the St. Lucie Unit 2 beltline welds. Weld material certification reports for these materials are provided in Appendix A. Weld wire heat 3P7317 with Linde 124 flux lot 0951 has a calculated initial upper shelf energy value of

[102.7 ft-lb.] Weld wire heat 83637 with Linde 124 flux lot 0951 has a calculated initial upper shelf energy value of [116.7 ft-lb.] Weld wire heat 83637 with Linde 0091 flux lot 1122 has an average Charpy energy at 10'F of [136.3 ft-lb;] weld wire heat 83642 with Linde 0091 flux lot 3536 has an average Charpy energy at 10 F of [116.3 ft-lb.]

These average energies can be conservatively assumed to be a lower bound approximation of the initial upper shelf energy for the two Linde 0091 flux welds.

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

Mr. Scott Boggs F-MECH-93-950 September 28, 1993 I MECH-93-015 Page 9 of 10 Ifyou have any questions or concerns regarding this information, please feel free to contact me at (203) 285-3794 or Steve Byrne at (203) 285-3469.

Sincerely, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC Davi J. Woodilla Project Engineer Enclosure VERlFlCATION STATUS: COMPLETE

~

atro Saloty8ctatod dostgnMormatton to bo corral by moans or:

Pwarc DaogogooooogoggcocigslisL Ogosssss Oosiogs- Coco asac D. Srrrm~n,v Indopondont RoNtowon coo.

Vsllgscil co To so os Toss go sag Narno/SignaturolOato Soo. ~

tnlhh dooratrtlt boa boonverifkd

'tOAMigL

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

Mr. Scott Boggs F-MECH-93-950 September 28, 1993 L-MECH-93-015 Page 10 of 10

References:

1. Letter from J. A. Norris (NRC) to J. H. Goldberg (FP&L), dated July 28, 1993, Docket No. 50-335, 50-389.

Subject:

St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 - Request for Additional Information - Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1 (TAC NOS. M83505 and M83506).

2. ABB/CE Letter No. F-MECH-93-042, "St. Lucie Upper Shelf Energy Evaluation, Proposal No. 93-241-A6A," S. T. Byrne, dated August 27, 1993.

3. Florida Power and Light Company Purchase Order No. B93633-30016, dated August 31, 1993.

4. ABB/CE Letter No. MECH-93-1214, "Weld Material Certification Reports", S. T.

Byrne, dated October 14, 1993.

5. ASTM Designation E 185-82, "Standard Practice for Conducting Surveillance Tests for Light-Water Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Vessels," Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 12.02, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

Mr. Scott Boggs F-MECH-93-050 September 28, 1993 L-MECH-93-015 Page A1 of A10 APPENDIX A Certified Material Test Reports Pertinent to St. Lucie Unit 2

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

Mr. Scott Boggs F-MECH-93-050 September 28, 1993 L-MECH-93-015 Page A2 of A10 Contents of Appendix A

~Pa e Title A4 Certified Material Test Report for Weld Wire Heat No. 83637 Linde Flux Type 124, Flux Lot No. 0951 A6 Certified Material Test Report for Wire Heat No. 3P7317, Linde Flux Type 124, Flux Lot No. 0951 A8 Certified Material Test Report for Weld Wire Heat No. 83642, Linde Flux Type 0091, Flux Lot No. 3536 A10 Certified Material Test Report for Weld Wire Heat No. 83637, Linde Flux Type 0091, Flux Lot No. 1122.

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

Mr. Scott Boggs F-MECH-93-050 September 28, 1993 I MECH-93-015 Page A3 of A10 Certified Material Test Re ort for Weld Wire Heat No. 83637 Linde Flux e 124 Flux Lot No. 0951

Mr. Scott Boggs PROPRIETARY INFORMATION F-MECH-93-050 September 28, 1993 COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. I MECH-93-015 Page A4 of A10

"~ PQQJFR SYSTEMS To J. McDowell Sub ject Welding Material Certlficatlon To Requirements of, ASME

'rom Metallurgical Laboratory

- Date

& Materials cc: R. E. Lorentz, Jr. Section III S. R. Lewis Job Number M-32255 Chattanooga S. A. Lewis Project Number 960009 B. Goins 4-22-76 The following test dat s for 3/16" dl eter bare 're, Type Low Cu-Phos, Heat No. 83637, Flux Type 124, Lot No. 09 (Test No. 1824).

A weld deposit was made using the above heat of wire and lot of flux.

Welding was done in accordance with SAA-SMA-511-0. The completed weldment was given a post weld heat treatment of 1150'F + 50'F for 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> and furnace cooled to 600 F.

IMPACT AND/OR F RACTUR E TESTS TYPE TEMP OF VALUE TEMP. 0F VALUES NOT CVN ~tJ bs ~her ilsLatEx Dro We laht

-80 21 21 -70 1 F -70 F

-80 26 18 -60 NF

-80 S~ 17 -50 2

1 NF

'40

-40

-40 52

40. '035 42 32

\

55 35 60 40~ +100 112/

6Fg

-108 9 80 72+ +100 100 84 ~

-1oi 94 70 +100 116'17 100/ 8&

+60 105 80 78 +160 .100 90

+60 106 80 ~ 75 +160 120 100 86

+60 108 80 77 +160 113 100 86 ALL'WELD METAL .505 TENSILE Lab Yie ld Streng th Ultimate Tensile Elongation Reduction of C;ode . KS[ Strenath KS 2 41n/ Area %

i'P 69.0 84.3 69.2 JMA:gb

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

Mr. Scott Boggs F-MECH-93-050 September 28, 1993 L-MECH-93-015 Page AS of A10 Certified Material Test Re ort for Wire Heat No. 3P7317 Linde Flux T e 124 Flux Lot No. 0951

Mr. Scott Boggs PROPRIETARY INFORMATION F-MECH-93-050 September 28, 1993 COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. L-MECH-93-015 pj444 '<<< 52> 3O +100 100< 100> 70

+20 72 60 48 +160 96 100 68

+20 75 . 60 S3~ +160 104 100 73

+20 77 60 51 +160 108 100 79

+60 97 100 66

+60 102 100 70

+60 99 100 68 WELD METAL . 505 TENSILE Lab Yield Strengt Ultimate Tensi Elongation Reduction of Code KS[ Streneth K. in 2 "% Area %

69.5 p 85.5 28.5 69.0 4-(r"J

'A'mold JMA:gb

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

Mr. Scott Boggs F-MECH-93-050 September 28, 1993 L-MECH-93-015 Page A7 of A10 Certified Material Test Re ort for Weld Wire Heat No. 83642 Linde Flux e 0091 Flux Lot No. 3536

~ I I

~ ~ ~ ~

~ 0

~ ~ s g ~

~

' ~ ~ o

~ o

~

~ 4 I s ~

~

~

~ o

~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ - ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~

' I II ' ~ ~

~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ o

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

0 ' 0 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II

~ ~ - ~

~ ~

~ I ~ I

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

Mr. Scott Boggs F-MECH-93-050 September 28, 1993 L-MECH-93-015 Page A9 of A10 Certified Material Test Re ort for Weld Wire Heat No. 83637 Linde Flux e 0091 Flux Lot No. 1122.

Mr. Scott Boggs F-MECH-93-050 September 28, 1993 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION L-MECH-93-015 COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. Page A10 of A10 ill I CM-Uf I IUD UUHVCEDl UIM!.)I..II'Est l

E-f CONIHUSYIQM DIVISIIGM PROPRf Sub ect From - Date Mr. P. C. Kiefer Welding Material Qualification Metallurgical Research and to Requirements of ASME Development Department

c: Mr. R. Jay Section III Chattanooga Mr. S. A. Lewis Job Number D-32255 Mr. S. R. Lewis Project Number 960009 February 8, 1973 Mr. R. E. Lorentz, jr.

Mr. G. Porter Mr. R. E. Smith The following test data is for 3/16" diameter bare wire, type low Cu-Phos.,

Heat No. 83637, Flux Type 0091, Lot No. 1122.

A weld deposit was made using the above heat of wire and lot of flux. Welding was done in accordance with C-E Welding Procedure Specification SA-33-34.

The completed weldment was given a post weld heat treatment of 1150'F + 25 F for 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> and furnace cooled to 600'F .

IMPACT AND OR FRACTURE TESTS TYPE TEMP oF VALUES TEMP. oF VALUES NOT

~Ft. Lbs. Mils Lat.Exn. Dro Wei hts

+10 153 85 -50 1F

"+10 131 81 -40 2 NF -50 F

+10 125 77 ALL WELD METAL .505 TENSILE Lab Yield Strength Ultimate Tensile Elongation in Reduction of Code KSI Strength. KSI 2" Area /o BC 77 ~ 2 29.$ 73.1

. Arnold