facil: st. lucie ii poujer light affiliation sager'. floridap.o. box 128, ft. pierce, fl...

REG g ORY INFORMATION DISTR IBU N SYSTEM(BIDS�

)

ACCESSION NBR: 9311300069 DOC. DATE: 93/11/15 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET 0FACIL: 50-335 St. Lucie Planti Unit ii Florida Poujer & Light Co. 05000335

50-389 St. Lucie Planti Unit 2i Florida Poujer 5 Light Co. 05000389AUTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION

SAGER'. *. Florida Poeer 5 Light Co.REC IP. NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION

Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)

SUBJECT: Forwards response to 930728 request for addi info re IGL 92-OIi Rev Ii including new mean chemistry valves for UnitI loujer longitudinal ujelds~ changes to TS Bases Table B 3/4. D4-1 5 CE-NP SD-906-P Zc CE-NPSD-906-NP. CE-NPSD-906-P e it h h e 1 d.

SDISTRIBUTION CODE: A028D COPIES RECEIVED: LTR ENCL SIZE:TITLE: Generic Letter 92-01 Responses (Reactor Vessel Structural IntegritgNOTES:

REC IP IENTID CODE/NAME

PD2-2 PD

COPIESLTTR ENCL

1 1

RECIPIENTID CODE/NAME

NORRIS'

COP IESLTTR ENCL

2 2

INTERNAL: ACRSNRR/DORS/OGCBNRR/DRPWOC/LFDCB

EXTERNAL: NRC PDR

01

NRR/DE/EMCBNRR/DRPE/PDI-1NUDOCS-ABSTRACTOGC/HDS3RES/DE/MEB

1+P, NSIC

2 21

1 1

1 01

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 DISTRIBUTIONLISTS 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

't0 CFR 2.790 fNFORMATJONEXEMPT FROM DlSCLOSURE

L-93-28610 CFR 50.410 CFR 50. 54 (f)

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionAttn: Document Control DeskWashington, D. C. 20555

RE: St. Lucie Units 1 and 2Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389Generic Letter 92-01 Revision 1Res onse to Re uest for Additional Information

The additional information and clarifications requested by NRCletter dated July 28, 1993, are provided in attachments 1 and 2 tothis letter. Attachment 1 also provides new mean chemistry valuesfor St. Lucie Unit 1 lower longitudinal welds. Attachment 3 andenclosures 1 through 4 provide supporting information for the

, response.

The preparation of the response required review of the reactorvessel 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 theschedule for responding to the subject RAI.

Attachment 3 provides changes to the Technical Specification BasesTable B 3/4.4-1 for each unit. The changes were identified duringthe preparation of this response and were reviewed pursuant to 10CFR 50.59. The review determined the changes were not anunreviewed safety question and do not require a change to theirrespective Technical Specifications.Enclosures 1 and 2 are proprietary and non-proprietary versions ofABB Combustion Engineering letter (F-MECH-93-050) dated September28, 1993. This letter provides the upper shelf energy (USE)information on beltline welds for the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2reactor vessels. Enclosure 3, CE NPSD-906-P, and Enclosure 4, CENPSD-906-NP, are proprietary and non-proprietary versions of theABB Combustion Engineering report "CEOG Program to EvaluateChemical Content of Weld Deposits Fabricated Using Heats A8746-and34B009" prepared for the Combustion Engineering Owners Group(CEOG). This report provides the basis for the copper and nickelcontent of reactor vessel welds for two (2) of the weld wire heatsused in the fabrication of the St; Lucie Unit 1 reactor vessel.Enclosures 1 and 3 to thisthe disclosure of which

PDR ADOCK 05000335P PDR,

an FPL Group company

letter=contain proprietary information,could compromise trade secrets or

~/5 j

4 7

~ J

= <-AJSQDJetQ PZ~Gr'i-l >"..».

H

I

k

~ J'

commercial information considered by ABB Combustion Engineering,Inc. as privileged and confidential. Pursuant to 10 CFR2.790(a)(4), FPL requests that proprietary versions of theCombustion Engineering letter and report be withheld from publicdisclosure. The affidavits required by 10 CFR 2.790 (b)(1)executed by ABB Combustion Engineering supporting this request areincluded.

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

Very truly yours,

D. A. gerVice r sidentSt. L 'e Plant

DAS/GRM/kw

DAS/PSL 11014-93

cc: Stewart D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator, Region II, USNRCSenior Resident Inspector, USNRC, St. Lucie Plant

St. Lucie Units 1 and 2Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389Generic Letter 92%1 Revision 1

FPL Letter L-93-286 Attachment

AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT

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. inconjunction with the Florida Power and Light Company and inconformance 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 iscontained 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 financialinformation.

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 ~

2.

3 ~

4.

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.

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.

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 fordetermining the types of information customarily held inconfidence 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 inconfidence under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.790 with the

understanding that it is to be received in confidence by the

Commission.

5. The information, to the best of my knowledge and belief, is not

6.

available in public sources, and any disclosure to third partieshas been made pursuant to regulatory provisions or proprietaryagreements which provide for maintenance of the information inconfidence.

Public disclosure of the information is likely to cause

substantial harm to the competitive position of Combustion

Engineering because:

a ~

b.

c ~

d.

A similar product is manufactured and sold by major

pressurized water reactor competitors of Combustion

Engineering.

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.

In order to acquire such information, a competitor would

also require considerable time and inconvenience toascertain the specific material and mechanical properties

pertaining to the welds in reactor vessels fabricated by

Combustion Engineering.

The information required significant effort and expense toobtain 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 isapplicable.

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 tocompetitors would enable them to modify their product tobetter 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 tosell at prices reflecting significantly lower costs.

g. Use of the information by competitors in the internationalmarketplace 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 Combustionf

Engineering's potential for obtaining or maintaining

lr',St. Lucie Units 1 and 2Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389Generic Letter 92-01 Revision 1

FPL Letter L-93-286 Attachment

AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT

TO 10 CFR 2.790




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 inconjunction with the Florida Power and Light Company and inconformance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's


The information for which proprietary treatment is sought iscontained 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


trade secret, privileged or as confidential commercial or financialinformation.

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 proprietaryagreements 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

c ~

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.

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,

gi

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.

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

Engineering's potential for obtaining or maintaining

foreign licensees.

Further the deponent sayeth not.

s. 8.S. A. ToelleManagerNuclear Licensing

Sworn to before me

this ~d + day of 1993

04M~o ary Pub c

'-My commission expires: 3 8(-~

0J

I

J

l'l

foreign licensees.

Further the deponent sayeth not.

S. A. ToelleManagerNuclear 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 2Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389Generic Letter 92-01 Revision 1Response 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 followinginformation regarding Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50:

Addressees of plants for which the Charpy upper shelf energy ispredicted to be less than 50 foot-pounds at the end of theirlicenses using the guidance in Paragraph C.1.2 or C.2.2 inRegulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, are requested to provide to theNRC the Charpy upper shelf energy predicted for December 16, 1991,and for the end of their current license for the limiting beltlineweld and the plate or forging and are requested to describe theactions taken pursuant to Paragraphs IV.A.1 or V.C of Appendix G to10 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 theCharpy USE values for each beltline weld with no documented initialUSE value or provide the Charpy USE and analysis from welds thatwere fabricated using the same vendor, fabrication time frame,fabrication process, and material specification to demonstrate thatall beltline welds with no documented initial USE values will meetthe USE requirements of Appendix G, 10 CFR 50. If this cannot beprovided, then submit an analysis which demonstrates that lowervalues of USE will provide margins of safety against fractureequivalent to those required by Appendix G of the ASME Code.

The response indicates that the initial USE value for the limitingplate, C-8-2, is 103 ft-lb. The staff believes that this initialUSE value of 103 ft-lb is from longitudinal Charpy specimens,mistakenly reported as from transverse Charpy specimens. Twosources support this conclusion: pages 57 and 58 of report TR-F-MCM-004 labelled this USE value as "longitudinal," and Table B3/4.4-1 of the plant's Technical Specification listed 78 ft-lb asthe "transverse" USE value of this plate. Confirm this and updatethe EOL USE value for this plate. If the updated EOL USE is below50 ft-lb based on NRC criteria, then submit an analysis whichdemonstrates that lower values of USE will provide margins ofsafety against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix Gof 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 shelllongitudinal welds (2-203A, B, C), because these welds were notconsidered "limiting" based on their relatively low estimatedcopper (Cu) and nickel (Ni) content and low RT~~. The unirradiatedCharpy USE value for welds 2-203A, B & C was not obtained duringfabrication. These weld seams were all fabricated using the sameweld wires A8746 and 34B009 with Linde 124 flux noted in Table 1.Combustion Engineering (CE) performed an analysis of USE values for68 other CE fabricated welds using Mil B-4 wire and Linde 124flux+. The average USE value of this data set is 102.3 ft-lbs witha standard deviation of 9.4 ft-lbs. The analysis concluded thisaverage USE value of 102.3 ft-lbs. is applicable for the St LucieUnit 1 welds 2-203A, B, C.

Since the response to GL 92-01, a better estimate for Cu and Ni hasbeen developed for welds 2-203A, B, C. The weld process was asingle wire process without the use of additional Ni wire. Twowire heats and flux lots (Table 1) were used indicating a changeduring fabrication to another heat/lot combination. An analysis ofthe best estimates of generic data for the time period for thesetypes of wires was performed by CE+. This analysis concluded thatthe best estimate (mean plus one standard deviation) Cu and Nivalue for the A8746 weld deposits and 34B009 weld deposits are0.16% 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, theconservatively high 0.194 Cu and 0.104 Ni values are considered thebest estimate values for the intermediate longitudinal welds (2-203A, B, C) and will be used to make the decrease in USE valueprojections. The new chemistry values do not significantly effectthe 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 theBeaver Valley Unit 1 surveillance weld was fabricated by the samevendor (CE) using the identical weld wire heat and flux lot as theSt. Lucie Unit 1 lower longitudinal welds (3-203A, B, C). TheBeaver Valley surveillance weld chemical analysis and the CEqualification chemical analysis are the only two known sources ofweld deposit data for this weld wire and flux lot according to theEPRI RMATCH data base. A mean value of Cu, Ni, P, and S areprovided in Table 1 as the new chemistry values for this weld.

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

Using the Cu and USE values from Table 1 and the St. Lucie Unit 1conservative maximum end of license (EOL) 1/4 T vessel fluence(actual azimuthal fluence is less at these longitudinal weldlocations) , the welds 2-203A, B, C will not fall below the 10 CFR50 Appendix G, 50 ft.-lb., limit within the license life.

The new mean Cu value of 0.28 wt4, does not effect the previous EOLUSE projection for the limiting 3-203A, B, C welds because theprojection 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 belowthe 10 CFR 50 Appendix G, 50 ft.-lb., limit within the licenselife.The same calculation was performed for two beltline plates thathave the highest Cu value and lowest USE values from Table 2.Using these values and the maximum 1/4 T vessel fluence, thebeltline plates will not fall below the 10 CFR 50 Appendix G, 50ft.-lb., limit within the license life.Below are the end of life (EOL) USE projections for St Lucie Unit1 reactor vessel beltline welds 2-203A, B, C; 3-203A, B, C; and thelowest predicted USE beltline plates.

Material Initial USEft-lb(Transverse)

'%u EOL 1/4 T

Fluence(n/cm )

Reg Guide1.99 Rev 2% Reduction

EOL USEft-lb

Intermediateshell long

welds(2-203Ai B, C)

Lower shelllong welds

(3-203Ag B, C)

Intermediateshell plate

c-7-3

Lower shellplate C-8-1

102.3

112( )

76

81.9

0.19( )

0.28

0. 11

0. 15

2.01 x 1019

1.27 x 10

2.01 x 10~9

2.01 x 1019

39

44%

23%

28 %

62. 4

62.7

58.5

59.7

The response to GL 92-01 Rev. 1 indicated that the unirradiatedUSE for the limiting St. Lucie Unit 1 beltline plate, C-8-2, is103 ft.-lb. taken in the transverse direction. The data wasobtained from the baseline surveillance program limiting plate.The specimens were oriented to provide transverse data. Thisvalue is also reported on pages 61 and 80 of TR-F-MCM-004().Pages 57 and 58 of the same report that the Request forAdditional Information refers to, is for irradiated data. Sincethe 103 ft.-lb. value reported in the GL 92-01 response iscorrect, no updated projection of end of license USE isnecessary.

A change to the FSAR will be made to reflect this new data.Attachment 3 is the change to the Technical Specification Basespage.

TABLE 1

ST. LUCIE UNIT 1 REACTOR VESSELBELTLINE WELD MATERIAL

WELD LOCATION

IntermediateShell Long Seam(2-203A, B, C)

Lower ShellLong Seam

3-203A, B, C

Intermediate toLower Shell GirthSeam (9-203)

HEATNo.

A8746/34B009

305424

90136

FLUXTYPE

Linde124

Linde1092

Linde0091

FLUXLOT

3878/3688

3889

3999

% Cu

0 19c

0.28~

0. 23b

Ni

0. 10c

0. 63

0.11b

0.018( )

0.0164

0 013b

0.017( )

0.0084

0.012b

DROPWEIGHT

TEST('F-)

NA

-60(»

-60b

RTNDT( F )

-S6'60(»

-60b

CHARPY USE(FT-LBS)

102. 3(2)

112( )

144b

NA — Not Availablea — Generic data for CE submerged arc welds using Linde 0091, 1092 and 124 Flux per 10 CFR 50.6b — 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 VESSELBELTLINE PLATE MATERIAL

PLATE LOCATION 't Cu % NiDROP WEIGHTTEST (0F.) NDT('F-)

MINIMUMLONGITUDINAL

CHARPY USE(FT-LBS)

TRANSVERSECHARPY USE( )

(FT-LBS)

Intermediate ShellHeat No. A4567-1Code No. C-7-1

Intermediate ShellHeat No. B9427-1Code No. C-7-2

Intermediate ShellHeat No. A4567-2Code No. C-7-3

Lower ShellHeat No. C5935-1Code No. C-8-1

Lower ShellHeatNo. C5935-2Code No. C-8-2

Lower ShellHeat No. C5935-3Code No. C-8-3

0.11 0.64 0.004

0.11 0.64 0.004

0.11 0.58 0.004

0.15 0.56 0.006

0.15 0.57 0.006

0.12 0.58 0.004

0.013

0. 010

0.012

0.010

0.010

0.010

-30

-30

-10

10b

-10

+10

+20

+20

126

126

124

126

139b

135

81.9

81.9

80. 6

81.9

103b

87.8

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)

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, PTLimits and LTOP Analysis, W. H. Bohlke to NRC, July 7, 1992

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

(3) "CEOG," Program to Evaluate Chemical Content of Weld DepositsFabricated Using Heats A8746 and 34B009", CombustionEngineering Owners Group, February 1993, CE NPSD-906-P and CENPSD-906-NP

(4) "Florida Power & Light Co. St. Lucie Unit 1 Post IrradiationEvaluation 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 SmallBreak LOCA's with Loss of Feedwater for the CombustionEngineering 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 MaterialInformation, R. E. Uhrig to D. K. Davis, NRC, September 30,1977

(7) "Florida Power & Light Co. St. Lucie Unit 1 Evaluation of BaseLine Specimens", Combustion Engineering, Inc., October 1984,TR-F-MCM-005

(8) "Florida Power & Light Co., St. Lucie Unit 1 Updated FinalSafety Analysis Report", Amendment 11, Chapter 5.0

(9) "Analysis of Capsule W from Duquesne Light Co. Beaver ValleyUnit 1 Reactor Vessel Radiation Surveillance Program",Westinghouse Electric Corp., November 1988, WCAP-12005

St. Lucie Units 1 and 2Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389Generic Letter 92-01 Revision 1Response 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 followinginformation regarding Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50:

Addressees of plants for which the Charpy upper shelf energy ispredicted to be less than 50 foot-pounds at the end of theirlicenses using the guidance in Paragraph C.1.2 or C.2.2 inRegulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, are requested to provide to theNRC the Charpy upper shelf energy predicted for December 16, 1991,and for the end of their current license for the limiting beltlineweld and the plate or forging and are requested to describe theactions taken pursuant to Paragraphs IV.A.1 or V.C of Appendix G to10 CFR Part 50.

uestion 2.a in GL 92-01 RAI

The response indicates that the initial USE values for all beltlinewelds, except for the surveillance weld, are not known. Eitherprovide the Charpy USE values for each beltline weld with nodocumented initial USE value or provide the Charpy USE and analysisfrom welds that were fabricated using the same vendor, fabricationtime frame, fabrication process, and material specification todemonstrate that all beltline welds with no documented initial USEvalues willmeet the USE requirements of Appendix G, 10 CFR 50. Ifthis cannot be provided, then submit an analysis which demonstratesthat lower values of USE will provide margins of safety againstfracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of the ASMECode.

The response indicates that the initial USE value for the limitingplate, M-605-1, is 105 ft-lb. The staff believes that this initialUSE value of 105 ft-lb is from longitudinal Charpy specimens,mistakenly reported as from transverse Charpy specimens. Theplant's Technical Specifications support this conclusion, where allUSE values in Table B 3/4.4-1 were labelled as "longitudinal," andthe 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 afactor of 0.65, is 59.2 ft-lb. Confirm this and update the EOL USEvalue for this new limiting plate. If the updated EOL USE is below50 ft-lb based on NRC criteria, then submit an analysis whichdemonstrates that lower values of USE will provide margins ofsafety against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix Gof the ASME Code.

I

C

M

Res onse to RAI uestion 2.a.

The initial response to Generic Letter 92-01+ indicated that allthe St Lucie Unit 2 upper shelf energy (USE) values for thebeltline welds and plates were known and reported in the St LucieUnit 2 FSAR"). Table 1 is a summary of all the beltline weld datafrom the Tables 5.2-6 and 5.2-7a of the FSAR. The intermediate tolower shell girth seam (101-171) is the most limiting weld forpredictions of USE at end of license (EOL). Table 2 is a summaryof all the beltline plate data from the Tables 5.2-5 and 5.2-7 ofthe FSAR. The "limiting" beltline plate with respects to shift inRTND~ is the M-605-1 plate and is contained in the St. Lucie Unit2 Reactor Vessel Surveillance Program. The most limiting beltlineplate 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 andthe Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2 prediction for Charpy USE,all the beltline welds and the most limiting beltline plate (USEperspective) do not fall below 50 ft.-lbs USE at or before the endof the current operating license. Below is a table showing thepredicted end of license USE at the 1/4 T location for the beltlinewelds and the limiting (USE) beltline plate requested in the RAI.

Material

Plate M4116-1

Inter. ShellLong Seams

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

Lower ShellLong Seams

(101 142Ag Bg C)

Intermediate toLower Shell Girth

Weld (101-171)

Initial USEft-lb(Transverse)

91

116

136

96(')

% Cu

0.06

0.04

0.05

0.07

EOL 1/4 TFluence(n/cm )

1.83 x 1019

1.83 x 10~9

1. 83 x 10~9

1.83 x 10~9

Reg Guide1.99 Rev 2

% reduction

22

22

22 't

EOLUSEft-lb71

90

106

75

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

The USE values reported for the St Lucie Unit 2 beltline platematerials are transverse Charpy values. Section 5.3.1.5 of theFSAR+ indicates that the beltline material was tested in theweak (transverse) direction and reports that the lowest plate USEvalue is 91 ft-lbs. A search of the reactor vessel fabricationdata package verified that the values reported in the FSAR andTechnical Specification Bases are transverse data. A copy of theCMTR for the plate in question is shown in Figure 1 with the heatcode and test direction noted.

A change to the FSAR will be made to reflect the data astransverse. Attachment 3 is the change to the TechnicalSpecification Bases pages.

TABLE 1

ST. LUCIE UNIT 2 REACTOR VESSELBELTLINE WELD MATERIAL

WELD LOCATION HEAT NO FLUXTYPE

FLUXLOT

% Cu %Ni %PDROP WEIGHTTEST (oF )

RTyD~ CHARPY USE(FT-LBS)

Inter. Shell LongSeam (101-124 A)

Inter. Shell LongSeam 101-124 B

Inter. Shell LongSeam (101-124 C)

Lower Shell LongSeam (101-142A)

Lower Shell LongSeam (101-142B)

Lower Shell LongSeam 101-142C

Intermediate toLower Shell GirthSeam (101-171)

83642

83642

83642/083637

83637

83637

83637

83637/3P7317

Linde0091

Linde0091

Linde0091

Linde0091

Linde0091

Linde0091

Linde124

3536

3536

3536/1122

1122

1122

1122

0951

0.04

0.03

0.04

0.04

0.05

0.04

0.07

0.06 0.009

0.06 0.011

0.07 0.009

0.10 0.008

0.09 0.008

0.09 0.008

0.08 0.009

0.010

0.014

0.011

0.009

0.009

0.008

0.011

-80

-80

-80/-50

-50

-50

-50

-70/-80

-80

-80

-80/-50

-50

-50

-50

-70/-80

116

116

116/136

136

136

136

115/96

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 VESSELBELTLINE PLATE MATERIAL

LOCATION(CODE f)

HEAT NO % Cu % NiDROP WEIGHT

TEST ('F.)NDT

('F.)TRANSVERSECHARPY USE

(FT-LBS)

Intermediate Shell(M405-I)

Intermediate Shell(M%05-2)

Intermediate Shell(M405-3)

Lower Shell Plate(M4116-I)

Lower Shell Plate(M4116-2)

Lower Shell Plate(M4116-3)

A-8490-2

B-3416-2

A-8490-2

B-8307-2

A-3131-1

A-3131-2

0.11

0.13

0.11

0.06

0.07

0.07

0.61

0.62

0.61

0.57

0.60

0.60

0.008

0.008

0.009

0.007

0.007

0.008

0.012

0.014

0.017

0.010

0.009

0.008

-10

-20

-30

-50

-40

+30

+10

+20

+20

+20

105

113

113

91

105

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

JI, ll, Moss55A I Clitht SI fCII ICAIIlu

VCIII)08

IICAT IIO.

IAATCI,'IAL OCSCI;!r Tlt)II

Alh)l:Il)h).5 O,l'III'll:hJll)II ill i'0)J) Itl:VISIJO)J )) I: 2-10-75'-P3 I'lg 0!) EOIITRACT ll(A 7II72S.ukl!nn~ !'trr.l C:n. IOII RO . 72OIM2-OIII

ll0307-7 COOC NO, M-4) )G-)220-3/I" X 99-9/1 G" X 9-11/1G» l.ower Shell

LIILI. CIII'I!II:AI.AIIAI.YGIG

7 5 Cil)

LIC C I IAIII Ch I. 1 I.ST 5

J Trf. ~ Jt«

23 A43 0 0 0 2 !22

EE-TA . 505

IC5T Itc. CAUOC TC5TTCUI'LRATIISIC of

A. T.

TICLOSTRCIA~»TIIA KSI

67

UL'Iluh I CTfIIS(LLT

$ 1RCIIG'III, KSI

7 6

CLOIIOIII 0'™A

26 0

RCOUCI IN!Of ARCA ni

6 6EE-TB .505 68.3 88.4 2G.O -~ 61.5

IMPA5T *HO OM TRACTURP 'tESTS'ITfC 'TfLtts. Of VALltCS 1tu~. ~ F VAUKS

Charpyimpacts -40

-40-40+30+30+30+60+60+60+70+70+70+80

800

10 010 026 1036 lb38 1553 2548 2045 2045 2053 2560 3062> 3060+ 3063 30

MlittTII:Mo445

182225393332303842

41'5~

-40-30-20

+100+100+100+160+160+160

626968939491

404040

100 ~

100100

~DTO Wll lith tt1 F1 F.~2 NF

425053686863

-30'F

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 hour Jurnaco~co)cd to G00'F.Thc Impacts werc taken transverse to the maior rolling dlrcctlon oJ the plate at the1/42 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

I:c: P ~ Webbll. DlnwlddleT. U. lvlarstonS. A. LcvflIt. C. Jara!!tf., Jr,

Lo LRTOLO Rttttlf tLot tl» Iottlot«0 Joto lt ~ ttw OOOO ol!LO At~

IAO«ltl»(OS Lf tl» IMOJWI«S POIIA SO JOT ~ SP ~ ttltlth! IIO» I~ ttt Oot122»»l!« tl» CO«AOSttO» llotOIIIRSttOI LOtOTOOOMO.

COUOUST!fAI rlmR LCRRIO, lttc.

OT

Afno III

Ith~

ganuarst 31 ~ 1975

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

REFERENCE LIST

(1) FPL Letter, L-92-189, "St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389, GenericLetter 92-01, Revision 1, Response, PT Limits and LTOP Analysis", W. H. Bohlketo NRC, July 7, 1992

(2) "Florida Power & Light Co., St. Lucie Plant Unit 2, Updated Final Safety AnalysisReport", 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 2Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389Generic Letter 92-01 Revision 1

Response to Request for Additional Information (RAg

ATTACHEMENT 3

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION BASES CHANGES

UNIT 1 PAGE B 3/4 4-9UNIT 1 PAGE 3/4 4-10

UNIT 2 PAGE 3/4 4-9

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

'eneric Letter 92%1 Revision 1

FPL Letter L-93-286 AttachmentAFFIDAVIT PURSUANT

TO 10 CFR 2.790




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


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


trade secret, privileged or as confidential commercial of financial

information.

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

&f,t4

Ls ~ J'" ~

II

PROPRIETARY INFORMATIONThis Document contains proprietary information and isnot to be transmitted or reproduced without specificwritten approval from Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Copy No. 6S

CE NPSD-906-P

OMBUSTtON ENGINEERING OWNERS GROUP

CEOG PROGRAM TO EVALUATE

CHEMICALCOXIKNTOF WELD DEPOSITS

FABRICATEDUSING

HEATS AS746 AZ'6) 34B009

CEOG TASK 747

'f0 CFR 2.790 fNFORMATlONEXEMPT FROM DISCLOSuRE

Prepared for theC-E OWNERS GROUP

February 1993

ABB Combustion Enaineering Nuclear Power

P. . 9311300069

8D, QD (IDliQQDQDASEA BROWN BOVERI

I

I

i

wary

. )'I IP

I

Combustion Engineering, Inc.Proprietary Information

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section No. Title ~Pa e

Introduction

Background

Scope

IV

V

VI

Results

Conclusions

References 10

I

Q /

i

iI

4

I

I

I


LIST OF TABLES

Number Title ~Pa e

'Nickel Content for Coiled Wire Electrode Weld Deposits

Weld Seams and Consumables Using [Adcom] Heat ¹A8746

Copper Analysis Results for Weld Wire Heat ¹A8746

Weld Deposit Copper Content for [Adcom] Wire Heats

12

13

Weld Seams and Consumables Using [Reid Avery] Heat ¹34B009 15

'opper Content Analysis Results for Weld Wire Heat ¹34B009

Weld Deposit Nickel Content with Cold Nickel Feed

Nickel Content for Heat ¹34B009 with Cold Nickel Feed andLinde 1092 Flux

16

17

18

Best Estimate Copper and Nickel Content for Vessel Welds 19

I

~4=f" II

I

v~

4C

P,

I


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 ofreactor 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 forthe 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 forProtection 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.

II

I

I

I

I


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)

(2)

(3)

(4)

The mean of the measured values, or, if these values are not available,

the upper limiting values in the material specifications to which the vessel was

built, or ifnot available,

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.

Ifnone 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.

-2-

I,l

I

I

+c~ I ~

l

I

I


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:

2.

3.

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

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

flux

[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:

2.

3.

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

¹A8746 and 34B009,

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

¹A8746

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 ofwelds made using Linde 0091, 1092 and 124 fluxes have been previously shown to be

-3-

sh ~

K a.1

I

8

~r ~ L I1 m'tC+~

r~.wl

I

I


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 willbe 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-B4electrode wire specifications (see MIL-E-18193A,

MilitarySpecification, "Electrodes, Welding, Carbon Steel and Alloy Steel,

Base, Coiled," July 23, 1957) were used as the basis for ABB/CE procurement

of the fillerwire. In this report, the terminology "wire type" is used to

represent the broad classification of weld fillermaterial: Mil-B4of Mil-B4

Modified (Mil-B4Mod). The terminology "specification" is used to representI

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 ofcoiled electrodes differentiated by the manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo) and

nickel (Ni) content: k

~Wire T e

Mil-B4 ModMil-B4 ModMil-B4Mil-B4 ModMil-B4

ABB/CES~HiMnMoMnMoNiMnMo

MnMoNiLow Cu-P

SpecifiedNickel Content

0.90 to 1.10%

0.65 to 0.85%

Supplier~Desi nation

HiMnMoMnMoNiHiMnMoMnMoNiLow Cu-P

-4

L

I

II

Il

I


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-B4Modified 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 MnMoNiwires, 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 [HiMnMoand 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

-5-

I(I *

.Pi ~ t

i

gi'Y, p

I


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 HIMnModata 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

-6-

I

II

~


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 influencet

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

-7-

It

,e

L

I


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 ofproduction 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 of0.19%. 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

-8-

f

I

~ ~t

I

r~

v~

1'

d

I

I


wire feed in addition to the electrode wire heat ¹34B009. Therefore, the nickel4

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. Allbut 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.]

-9-

I

t''

I

I

I

I

I


[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.

- 10-


TABLE 1

Nickel Content for Coiled Wire Electrode Weld Deposits

Supplier~Desi nationHiMnMoHiMnMoHiMnMoHiMnMoHiMnMoHiMnMo(Not Reported)

HiMnMoHiMnMoHiMnMoHiMnMoHiMnMoHiMnMoHiMnMoHiMnMoHiMnMo

Wire~Sn lierPage

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

(Not Reported)

Page

Reid AveryReid AveryReid AveryReid AveryReid AveryReid AveryReid Avery

Nickel~Content e

0.03, 0.05

0.02, 0.02

0.01, 0.03, 0.03

0.03, 0.03, 0.04, 0.04, 0.05, 0.07, 0.11

0.02, 0.03, 0.03, 0.03, 0.03, 0.04, 0.04, 0.050.02, 0.03, 0.03, 0.03

0.03, 0.03

0.05

0.06

0.08, 0.09

0.07, 0.08, 0.12

0.16, 0.16

0.04

0.03, 0.06, 0.07

0.10, 0.11

0.05, 0,05, 0.06

MnMoNiMnMoNiMnMoNiMnMoNiMnMoNiMnMoNiMnMoNiMnMoNiMnMoNiMnMoNiMnMoNi

Adcom

Adcom

Page

AdcomReid Avery .

Reid AveryAdcom

(Not Reported)

Reid AveryReid AveryReid Avery

0.74

0.73, 0.74

0.64, 0.68, 0.68,0.59, 0.61, 0.72,0.59, 0.60, 0.62,0.64, 0.64, 0.64,0.73

0.69

0.73, 0.74

0.69, 0.72, 0.72,

0.75, 0.78, 0.79,

0.70, 0.71

0.72

0,64, 0.640.66

0.73, 0.74, 0.76, 0.81

0.80, 0.82

MnMoNiMnMoNiMnMoNiMnMoNi

Adcom

Adcom

Adcom

(Not Reported)

1.00, 1.01

1.02, 1.03, 1.03, 1.04, 1.04, 1.05, 1.05, 1.05, 1.08

0.96, 1.00(4), 1.02(2), 1.06(2), 1.10

0.89

- 11-


TABLE 2

Weld Seams and Consumables

Using [Adcom Heat] PA8746

[(HiMnMo)]

Reactor Vessel

Calvert Cliffs Unit 2

St. Lucie Unit 1

Millstone Unit 2

Weld Seam No ote 1

2-203 A,B,C

2-203 A,B,C (Note 2)

2-203 A,B,C3-203 A,B,C

Weld Flux T e

Linde 124

Linde 124

Linde 124Linde 124

Weld Procedure~Sufi

SAA-4-0

SAA-4-0

SAA-4-0SAA-MA-501-2

Note 1:

Note 2;

Allof the weld seams listed were deposited without a cold nickel wire feed.

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

-12-


TABLE 3

Copper Content Analysis Resultsfor Weld Wire Heat ¹A8746

KAdcom HiMnMo)]

of Anal sis Date Flux /Lot No. ~Co euro

Weld Deposit

Weld Deposit . 8/27/69 Linde 124/¹3878

8/19/69 Linde 80/¹8651 0.17

0.12

-13-

Il

n,

l


TABLE 4

Supplier~Desi nation

Flux~Te

Weld Deposit Copper Contentfor [Adcom] Wire Heats

'Copper~Content o

HiMnMo

HiMnMo

MnMoNi

MnMoNiMnMoNiMnMoNiMnMoNi

MnMoNi

Linde 124

Linde 80

Linde 0091

Linde 1092

Linde 1092

Linde 1092

Linde 1092

Linde 1092

0. 12 (Note A)0.17 (Note A)0.16

0.16, 0.20

0.18, 0.19, 0.20(2), 0.21(2), 0.22(2), 0.24, 0.25

0.22

0.22 (Note B)

0.27 (Note B)

Note A - From Table 3

Note B - Combination of two Adcom heats in weld deposit

- 14-

I

I

l


TABLE 5

Weld Seams and Consumables

Using [Reid Avery] Heat ¹34B009

[(HiMnMo)]

eactor Vessel Weld Seam No. Weld Flux TWeld Procedure

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 theweld 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.

- 15-

5

b~4

Ill

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

Weld Deposit

Linde 124

Linde 1092

0.17

0.180

CE Lab Experiment

HBR-2 Head Sample

Weld Deposit Linde 1092 0.182 HBR-2 Head Sample



Weld Deposit Linde 1092 0.18 MP-1 Surveillance Weld

(EPRI)


(EPRI) II


(GE Report NEDC-30299)

- 16-

~

~

~

(g

y''

5

~

~

~

~

~

~


TABLE 7Weld Deposit Nickel Content

with Cold Nickel Feed

Source Nickel Content o

Mixed Reid Avery Heats, Linde 1092flux and Ni-200 wire

1.06, 1.03, 1.15, 1.16, 1.15, 1.08,1.03, 1.06, 1.06, 1.04, 1.10, 1.01,1.04, 1.15, 1.07

Single Reid Avery Heat, Linde 1092fiux and Ni-200 wire

0.99, I.12, 0.92, 0.94 (Note 1),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).

-17-

)

~

~

~

~

'1

~

~

I~

~

~

~

~


TABLE 8

Nickel Content for Heat 0'34B009with Cold Nickel Feed and

Linde 1092 Flux

Nickel ContentSource

0.750.320.840.43" 0.810.981.03

HBR-2 Head SampleHBR-2 Head SampleHBR-2 Head SampleHBR-2 Head SampleMP-1 Surveillance Weld (EPRI)MP;1 Surveillance Weld (EPRI)MP-1 Surveillance Weld (GE ReportNEDC-30299)

- 18-

I

l~

l~

~

~


TABLE 9

Best Estimate Copper and,

Nickel Content for Vessel Welds

Reactor Vessel

Calvert Cliffs Unit 2

Weld Seam No.

2-203 A,B,C

~Content e

Cu Ni

0.16" 0.10

St. Lucie Unit 1 2-203 A B Ctt)

2-203 A,B,Ct')

0.16 0.10

0.19 0.10

Millstone Unit 2 2-203 A,B,C

3-203 A,B,C

0.16 0.10

0.16 0.10

Millstone'nit 1 3-073 0.19 1.03

Notese

(1) Chemical content contribution from wire heat PA8746

(2) Chemical content contribution from wire heat 034B009

- 19-

I

~

1I

~

I

,"St. Lucie Units 1 and 2Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389

Generic Letter 92%1 Revision 1

FPL Letter L-93-286 Enclosure 1

iL Il)IR~ ~~meme

10 CFR 2.7SO INFORMATIONEXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE

Cobol ol

September 28, 1993F-MECH-93-050 .

I MECH-93-015

Mr. R. Scott BoggsFlorida Power & Light CompanyP.O. Box 1400Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420

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

Unit 2 Reactor Vessel Welds.

Appendices:

Attachments:

A) Certified Material Test Reports Pertinent to St. Lucie Unit 2

"Atypical Weld Material In Reactor Pressure Vessel Welds; InformationRequested by Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspection &EnforcementBulletin No. 78-12", Prepared By Combustion Engineering Inc., datedJune 8, 1979.

Dear Mr. Boggs:

The purpose of this report is to provide upper shelf energy (USE) information on beltline weldsfor Florida Power and Light Company (FP&L), St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 reactor vessels. Thisinformation is required by FP&L in order to respond to a NRC request for additionalinformation 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 InReactor Pressure Vessel Welds" are included as requested in Reference 3.

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

1.0 St. Lucie Unit 1:

1.1 Barrackround

The St. Lucie Unit 1 reactor vessel intermediate shell longitudinal seam welds (2-203A,B,C) were fabricated using wire heat numbers A8746 and 34B009 and Linde 124 Fluxlots 3878 and 3688 respectively based upon input provided by FP&L and repeated inReference 2. The initial Charpy upper shelf energy (USE) for this weld was not

ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power

Combustion Engineering, tnc. 1000 Prospect Hitl RoadPost Otfice Box 500Windsor, Connecticut 060954500

Telephone (203) 688 1911Fax (203) 285-9512Tetex 99297 COMBEN WSOR

PROPRIETARY INFORMATIONCOMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

Mr. Scott BoggsSeptember 28, 1993

F-MECH-93-050I MECH-93-015

Page 2 of 10

determined at the time of manufacture, nor is such data known to be available from othersources (e.g., surveillance program welds) for the aforementioned welding consumables.The NRC has stated that an acceptable approach for satisfaction of 10CFR50, AppendixG requirements for initial USE is to use the average value from similarly fabricatedwelds (Ref 1); in this case, from USE measurements on submerged arc welds producedusing MIL-B4wire and Linde 124 Flux.

1.2 ~Sco e

This report provides a basis for the initialupper shelf energy for weld wire heat numbersA8746 and 34B009 fabricated with Linde 124 fluxusing USE data from welds fabricatedwith Linde 124 flux.

1,3 Procedure

Weld material certifications (WMC) (Ref 4) at the ABB Combustion Engineering facilityin Chattanooga, Tennessee were searched to obtain Charpy impact test data specific toLinde 124 flux welds. The WMCs were compiled and the initial USE determined fromthe 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 areprovided as follows:

1.3.1 Upper Shelf Energy is defined as the average energy value for all Charpyspecimens (normally three) whose test temperature is above the upper end of thetransition 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 shelfenergy (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, extendingover a range including the lower shelf energy (<5% shear), transition region andthe upper shelf energy () 95% shear) (Ref 5).

1.3.3 Transition Region is defined as the region on the transition temperature curve inwhich toughness increases rapidly with rising temperature. In terms of fractureappearance, 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 fractureappearance of 95% shear or greater were compiled. The Charpy tests tended to beconducted in sets of three over a range of test temperatures. This allowed each set of



F-MECH-93-950L-MECH-93-015

Page 3 of 10

three tests to be averaged to determine the USE at a given temperature. The highestaveraged USE for each weld wire heat and flux lot combination was taken to be theinitial USE for the material and used to determine the best estimate (mean) and standarddeviation for welds fabricated using Linde 124 flux. This best estimate can then be usedas input for projecting USE after irradiation.

1.4 Results

Charpy impact energy data was assessed for 68 different weld wire heat / flux lotcombinations to determine the initialupper shelf energy in accordance withASTM E185-82 definitions (Ref 5). 67 USE values represented the average of three Charpy impactspecimens 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 judgedto be adequate for the purposes of this analysis and would not significantly alter theresults ifomitted. All fracture specimens have a fracture appearance showing no lessthan 95% shear.

The average upper shelf energy for the Linde 124 flux welds is [102.3 ft-lbs with astandard deviation of 9.4 ft-lbs.] The data ranges from [82.7 ft-lb to 125.7 ft-lb.] Thisrepresents an average of 68 different weld wire heat / Linde 124 flux lot combinationspresented 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

2 3P7150 / 0662

3P7150 / 1061

3P7246 / 0662

3P7246 / 0951

3P7246 / 1061

7 3P7317 / 0281

3P7317 / 0662

3P7317 / 0951

104.3

97.0

86.0

97.3

108.0

103.7

94.0

98.3

102.7

10 3P7317 / 1061

3P7802 / 0171

103.0

109.7



F-MECH-93-950L-MECH-93-015

Page 4 of 10

Count

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

25

26

27

28

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Wire Heat / Flux Lot

3P7802 / 0281

3P8013 / 0281

3P8013 / 0871

CU3P8013 / 0281

4P6524 /0951

4P7656 / 0951

4P7656 / 1061

4P7869 / 0171

4P7869 / 0281

4P7869 / 0871

4P7869 / 1061

4P7927 / 0662

4P7927 / 1061

4P8632 / 0281

SP7388 / 0662

SP8866 / 0171

SP8866 / 1061

SP9028 / 0281

651A708 / 0281

651A708 / 0871

90071 / 0951

83637 / 0951

83646 / 1061

83653 / 1061

87005 / 1061

89408 / 0751

89476 / 1061

89827 / 0951

Initial USE ft-Ib

104.7

93.7

110.0

104.7

106.3

88.0

91.3

107.7

104.7

93.7

97.3

115.7

116.3

109.3

107.7

91.3i

107.7

96.7

94.0

96.3

112.7

116.7

106.0

106.7

90.3

'110.7

100.0

118.3

0 ~ 4, »e l

H 1

1t



F-MECH-93-950L-MECH-93-015

Page 5 of 10

Count

40

41

42

43

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

65

66

67

Wire Heat/ Flux Lot

89828 / 0281

89828 / 0951

89828 / 1061

89833 / 0871

89833 / 0951

89833 / 1061

90067 / 0951

90069 / 0951

90069 / 1061

90077 / 0951

90077 / 1061

90128 / 0951

90132 / 0951

90144 / 1061

90146 / 1061

90149 / 1061

90154 / 0951

90157 / 1061

90159 / 0951

90209 / 1061

90211 / 1061

91762 / 0662

91762 / 1061

E56906 / 0662

F69025 / 0171

69025 / 1061

LP2P8374 / 0597

LPSP9744 / 0281

Initial USE ft-lb

96.0

109.3

104.3

113.3

105.3

95.7

124.3

125.7

97.6

115.7

112.3

99.3

115.0

93.0

96.7

94.0,

102.3

98.0

112.7

100.7

82.7

88.0

100.3

89.3

91.0

88.6

98.3

109.0



F-MECH-93-950L-MECH-93-015

Page 6 of 10

Count

68

Wire Heat/ Flux Lot

PSP73Sg /0342$

Average USE:

Standard Deviation:

Initial USE ft-lb

97.7

102.3 (ft-Ib)

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 consumablepresented in Table 2 based upon input provided by FP8rL and repeated in Reference 2.The basis for the initialupper shelf energy for these welds was weld material certificationtests performed at the time of vessel manufacture (Ref 4).

Table 2: Beltline Weld Wire Consumable used in St. Lucie Unit 2

Seam No.

101-124 A,B,C

101-124 C (Repair)

101-142 A,B,C

101-171

101-171

Wire Heat No.

83642

83637

83637

83637

3P7317

Flux Type

Linde 0091

Linde 0091

Linde 0091

Linde 124

Linde 124

Flux Lot No.

3536

1122

1122

0951

0951

2.2 ~Sco e

Weld material certification test reports (WMCs) for the followingweld wire heat and fluxlots are provided: Wire heat 83642, Linde 0091 flux lot 3536; wire heat 83637, Linde0091 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/fluxcombinations will be determined if sufficient information is presented in the WMC.Where fully applicable information is not available, the degree of applicability willbeaddressed as per the project proposal (Ref 2) ~



F-MECH-93-950L-MECH-93-015

Page 7 of 10

2.3 Procedure

Weld material certifications (WMC) at the ABB Combustion Engineering facility inChattanooga, Tennessee were searched to obtain Charpy impact test data specific to theconsumable presented in Table 2. The WMCs were compiled and the initial USEdetermined, when possible, from the Charpy impact data in accordance with thedefinitions 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 percentshear fracture was not reported) the degree of applicability to the Unit 2 weld seam USEis addressed.

2.4 Results

Weld material certification (WMC) reports for the weld wire heat / flux lot numbercombinations presented in Table 2 were obtained from records in possession ofCombustion Engineering. The WMCs pertaining to the Linde 124 welds containedenough information to fully determine the initial upper shelf energy values for theconsumable used. The WMCs pertaining to the Linde 0091 welds did not containsufficient information; however, enough information was available to determine aconservative (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 wireheat / flux lot combination as follows:

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

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

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



F-MECH-93-950L-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 weldconsumables because no measurement of the fracture appearance (i.e., % shearfracture) is available. However, this value suggests very good fracture toughnesscharacteristics for the material at 10'F and, therefore, may be used as a lowerbound approximation to the initial USE.

2.4.4 Wire Heat 83637, Flux Type Linde 0091, Flux Lot No. 1122: The WMCpertaining to this combination of weld consumables contains limited Charpy testsat 10'F and fracture appearance is not recorded. [Anaverage Charpy energy wascalculated from three specimens to be 136.3 ft-lb.] This value does not representan official upper shelf energy for these weld consumables because nomeasurement of the fracture appearance (i.e., % shear failure) is available.However, this value suggests very good fracture toughness characteristics for thematerial at 10'F and, therefore, may be used as a lower bound approximation tothe initial USE.

3.0 CONCLUSIONS:

No information is available to determine the initial upper shelf energy specific to theweld 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 68welds fabricated with Linde 124 flux. The best estimate initial USE of these weldsfabricated with MII B4 wire and Linde 124 flux was calculated to be [102.3 ft-lb witha standard deviation of 9.4 ft-lb.] This best estimate value can be used as input forprojecting USE after irradiation.

Complete or partial information is available to determine the initial upper shelf energyspecific to the consumable used in the St. Lucie Unit 2 beltline welds. Weld materialcertification reports for these materials are provided in Appendix A. Weld wire heat3P7317 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 initialupper shelf energy value of [116.7 ft-lb.] Weld wire heat 83637 with Linde 0091 fluxlot 1122 has an average Charpy energy at 10'F of [136.3 ft-lb;] weld wire heat 83642with 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 boundapproximation of the initial upper shelf energy for the two Linde 0091 flux welds.



F-MECH-93-950I MECH-93-015

Page 9 of 10

Ifyou have any questions or concerns regarding this information, please feel free to contact meat (203) 285-3794 or Steve Byrne at (203) 285-3469.

Sincerely,

COMBUSTIONENGINEERING, INC

Davi J. WoodillaProject Engineer

Enclosure

VERlFlCATIONSTATUS: COMPLETE

atro Saloty8ctatod dostgnMormatton~ tnlhh dooratrtlt boa boonverifkd

to bo corral by moans or:DaogogooooogoggcocigslisL 'tOAMigLOgosssss Oosiogs- Coco asac coo.

Vsllgscilco To so os. Toss go sag Soo.~

Pwarc D. Srrrm~n,vIndopondont RoNtowon Narno/SignaturolOato



F-MECH-93-950L-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, DocketNo. 50-335, 50-389. Subject: St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 - Request for AdditionalInformation - 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.

5.

ABB/CE Letter No. MECH-93-1214, "Weld Material Certification Reports", S. T.Byrne, dated October 14, 1993.

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



F-MECH-93-050L-MECH-93-015Page A1 of A10

APPENDIX A

Certified Material Test ReportsPertinent to St. Lucie Unit 2




Contents of Appendix A

~Pa e

A4

A6

A8

A10

Title

Certified Material Test Report for Weld Wire HeatNo. 83637 Linde Flux Type 124, Flux Lot No. 0951

Certified Material Test Report for Wire HeatNo. 3P7317, Linde Flux Type 124, Flux Lot No. 0951

Certified Material Test Report for Weld Wire HeatNo. 83642, Linde Flux Type 0091, Flux Lot No. 3536

Certified Material Test Report for Weld Wire HeatNo. 83637, Linde Flux Type 0091, Flux Lot No. 1122.



F-MECH-93-050I MECH-93-015Page A3 of A10

Certified Material Test Re ort for Weld Wire Heat No. 83637 Linde Flux e 124 FluxLot No. 0951



F-MECH-93-050I MECH-93-015Page A4 of A10

"'„'~ PQQJFR SYSTEMS

To

J. McDowell

cc: R. E. Lorentz, Jr.S. R. LewisS. A. LewisB. Goins

Sub ject

Welding Material CertlficatlonTo Requirements of, ASME

Section IIIJob Number M-32255

Project Number 960009

'rom - Date

Metallurgical & MaterialsLaboratory

Chattanooga

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

hours and furnace cooled to 600 F.

IMPACT AND/OR F RACTUR E TESTS

TYPE TEMP OF VALUE TEMP. 0F VALUES NOT

CVN

-80-80

: -80'40-40-40

\

-108-1oi+60+60+60

~tJ bs ~her2126 S~52 3540. '055 35

6Fg 609 8094 70

105 80106 80 ~

108 80

ilsLatEx

2118174232

40~

72+787577

-70-60-50

+100+100+100+160+160+160

Dro We laht

1 F2 NF1 NF

112/

116'17

120113

100 84 ~100/ 8&

.100 90100 86100 86

-70 F

ALL'WELD METAL .505 TENSILE

LabC;ode .

i'P

Yie ld Streng thKS[

69.0

Ultimate TensileStrenath KS

84.3

Elongation2 41n/

Reduction ofArea %

69.2

JMA:gb



F-MECH-93-050L-MECH-93-015Page AS of A10

Certified Material Test Re ort for Wire HeatNo. 3P7317 Linde Flux T e 124 Flux Lot No. 0951



pj444 '««I~™t~".

==a PGQfEH SVS7tr.MS

F-MECH-93-050L-MECH-93-015Page A6 Of A10

To Subject From - Date

Metallurgical 6, MaterialLaboratory

Welding Material CertificationTo Requirements of ASME

Section IIIJob Number M-322SS

Prospect Number 960009

J. McDowell

cc: R. E. Lorentz, Jr.S. R. Lewis Chattanooga

Phos, Heat No. 3P7317, Flux Type 124, Lot No. 0951. (Test No. 1859)

S. A. LewisB. Goins

PROPRIETARY

The following test data s for 1/8" dia er bare wier ype Low Cu-

A weld deposit was made using the above heat of wire a lot of faux.Welding was done in accordance with SAA-SMA-104-0 The ciafpletdtf™weldment was given a post weld heat treatment of 1150'F + 50'F for 40 ~hours and furnace cooled to 600'F.

IMPACT AND/OR F RACTUR E TESTSTYPE TEMP oF VALUES TEMP. 0F VALUES NOT

CVN-80-80-80-40-40-40-20-20

,-20>+20+20+20+60+60+60

goths 'ea15 0~23 521 5

42 3040 3033/'051~ 3050 3052> 3O72 6075 . 6077 6097 100

102 10099 100

~111aLatEx1013122625

20'1

48S3~51667068

-90-80-70-60

+100+100+100+160+160+160

1 F1 NF 1 F2 NF1 NF

94'0093+~100+

100< 100>96 100

104 100108 100

6

6370687379

-80'LL

WELD METAL . 505 TENSILE

LabCode

Yield StrengtKS[

69.5

Ultimate TensiStreneth K.

p 85.5

Elongationin 2 "%

28.54-

"J ' 'A'mold(r

Reduction ofArea %

69.0

JMA:gb




Certified Material Test Re ort for Weld Wire HeatNo. 83642 Linde Flux e 0091 Flux Lot No. 3536

~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~

~ 4 ~'

~ 0 ~ ~ s o g ~ ~ o ~I s ~

~ I I

~~

~ o

~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ - ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~' I II ' ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ o

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

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

0 ' 0 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I

~ ~ - ~

~ ~

~ I ~ I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~




Certified Material Test Re ort for Weld Wire HeatNo. 83637 Linde Flux e 0091 Flux Lot No. 1122.


F-MECH-93-050

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

CONIHUSYIQM DIVISIIGM

Sub ect

E-fPROPRf

From - Date

Mr. P. C. Kiefer

:c: Mr. R. JayMr. S. A. LewisMr. S. R. LewisMr. R. E. Lorentz, jr.Mr. G. PorterMr. R. E. Smith

Welding Material Qualificationto Requirements of ASME

Section IIIJob Number D-32255

Project Number 960009

Metallurgical Research andDevelopment DepartmentChattanooga

February 8, 1973

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. Weldingwas 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 Ffor 40 hours and furnace cooled to 600'F .

IMPACT AND OR FRACTURE TESTSTYPE TEMP oF VALUES

~Ft. Lbs. Mils Lat.Exn.

TEMP. oF VALUES

Dro Wei hts

NOT

+10"+10+10

153131125

858177

-50-40

1F2 NF -50 F

ALLWELD METAL .505 TENSILE

Lab Yield StrengthCode KSI

Ultimate TensileStrength. KSI

Elongation in2"

Reduction ofArea /o

BC 77 ~ 2 29.$ 73.1

. Arnold

facil: st. lucie ii poujer light affiliation sager'. floridap.o. box 128, ft. pierce, fl...

Documents