ML17342A357
| ML17342A357 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1985 |
| From: | SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (FORMERLY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17342A355 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-83-096, CON-NRC-3-83-96 186-028-18-ADD, 186-028-18-ADD-A, 186-28-18-ADD, 186-28-18-ADD-A, NUDOCS 8601090556 | |
| Download: ML17342A357 (20) | |
Text
Addendum A to SAI Report lb. 186-028-18 ADDENDUM A FIRST INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PRO(RAM
,TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4 Submitted to U.
S. thclear Regulator y Commission Contract No.
QC-03-83-096 Submi tted by Science Applications International Corporation Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 S605090556 85i22h PDR ADOCK 05000250 PDR Septeober 1985
CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.
Relief Request 10, Reactor Vessel Lower Head Ring to Disc Meld and Lower Shell Course to Lower Head Ring, Category B-B, Item Bl. 2 Relief Requests 10, 14, and 15, Reactor Vessel-to-Flange and Head-to-Flange Circumferential
- Welds, Category B-C, Item 81.3 Relief Requests 10 and 15, Reactor Vessel Primary Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds and Nozzle Inside Radiused
- Sections, Category B-D, Item 81.4 Relief Request 13, Reactor Coolant and Auxiliary Cooling System
- Welds, Category B-J, Items 84.5 and 84.6 Relief Request 5A, Integrally Welded Supports for Reactor Coolant
- Pumps, Category B-K-1, Item 85.4....
~
~
~
~
2
~
~
~
~
5
~
~
~
~
7
~
~
~
~
9
~
~
~
~
1 1 REFERENCES.........................
13
ADDENDUM A TO FIRST INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PRO(RAM TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT Turke Point, Units 3 and 4 INTRODUCTION Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) submitted a
Technical Evaluation Report (TER) on the Inservice Inspection
( ISI) program for Units 3 and 4 of Turkey Point to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on September 10, 1982.1 On November 18, 1982, Flor ida Power and Light submitted two new requests for relief,2 which the NC granted on February 14, 1983.3 On April 26, 1983, the NC issued its formal Safety Evaluation Report,4 which included as an attachment SAIC's TER.l For Turkey Point Unit 3, the ISI program and relief requests evaluated in these reports covered the last 40 months of the first inspection interval, from August 14, 1979, to December 14, 1982.
For Unit 4, they covered the last 80 months of the interval, from January 7, 1977, to September 7, 1983.
On March 26, 1984, the licensee, Florida Power and Light Co.'(FPL) submitted its ISI program and relief requests for the second inspection interval.5 In response to an informal request for additional information from the NRC, dated May 4, 1984,6 the licensee submitted revised relief requests.
A second request (this time formal ) for additional information from the NC dated August 17, 1984,7 resulted in Florida Power and Light submitting a second revised package of relief requests on Novenber 20, 1984.8 This time, pursuant to the terms of 10 CFR 50.55a (g)(5)(iv),
Florida Power and Light submitted five requests not previously submitted for relief from the 1974 Edition of Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (the Code) with Addenda through the Summer of 1975, which was applicable to the first inspection interval.
These new relief requests are evhluated in this addendum to the originally issued Technical Evaluation Report.
Relief Re uest 10, Reactor Vessel Lower Head Rin to Disc Meld and Lower Shell Course to Lower Head Rin, Cate ory B-B, Item B1.2 (Unit 3 only)
Code Re uirement The longitudinal and circumferential welds in the vessel shell and meridional and circumferential welds in vessel heads shall be volu-metrically examined.
This examination includes weld metal and base metal one plate thickness beyond the edge of weld.
The examinations performed during each inspection interval shall cover at least 10% of the length of each longitudinal shell weld and meridional head weld and 5X of the length of each circumferential shell weld and head weld.
For welds on the reactor
- vessel, examinations may be per formed at or near the end of the inspection in ter val.
Code Relief Request Relief is requested from the Code volume not achieved during mechanized ultrasonic examination of welds 3-WR-9 and 3 MR-31.
Proposed Alternative Examination None other than the required periodic system leakage tests per category B-P, Table IWB-2500 and inservice hydrostatic test per category B-P, Table IMB-2500.
Licen see '
Basis for Reques tin Relief 3-WR-9.
Limitations encountered during the examination of the weld were attributable to physical 1imitations imposed by the incore instrumentation tubes.
This condition was most prominent when performing examinations to detect reflectors oriented parallel to the weld with the search unit positioned on the disc side.
Due to the height restrictions and number of tubes in this area, attempts to perform examinations from the disc side were abandoned.
Examinations performed for the purpose of detecting reflectors oriented parallel to the examination surface were accomplished utilizing a 0 degree search unit applied to the weld and base material for a distance of 1/2 t.
A portion of the weld and 1/2 t of the base material on the disc side was not examined for the reasons just detailed.
Examinations performed for the purpose of detecting reflectors oriented transverse to the weld were restricted in a portion of the base material on
'he disc side of the weld due to the incore instrumentation tube.
Tube interference was encountered in four locations around the weld.
These limi'tations were only encountered during scans 8 and 9 of examination-no.
2 and scans 7, 8, and 9 of examination no. 3, and were limited only to a small portion of the base material on the disc side.
3-MR-31.
Examinatioo of the welds was limited in the areas containing the cooke carrel antirotation lugs at azimuth locations of 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees.
These limitations posed physical device limitations when performing examinations from the shell side for the purpose of detecting reflectors oriented parallel to the weld.
Limitations were encountered on the lower shell course side when performing 45 and 60 degree examinations.
Since these limitations were affected by the sear ch unit module offsets, examination coverage varies.
The percentages of weld volume not examined are Search Unit Angl e Inches of Weld Length TOTAL WELD COVERAGE LIMITATIONS EXAMINATION NO.
5 Percentage of Weld Length 45 60
- 29. 4
- 29. 4 143. 84 143. 84 Total Meld Length:
488.51 in.
From the lower shell ring side, the examination area receives coverage with at least one search unit angle and in some cases, two search angles.
Evaluation The 1974 Edition with Addenda through Summer 1975
( I-2310) requires that the nominal beam angles for evaluating reflectors and obtaining characterization data shall be 0o, 45o, and 60o with respect to perpen-dicular to the examination surface.
Thus, even though the licensee was able to examine most of the welds with at least one angle, they have not been able to comply with the version of the Code in effect for the first interval.
The 1980 Edition wi th Addenda through Minter 1981
- Code, which is in effect for the second inspection interval, requires examination of the accessible length of the welds using only one beam angle.
A beam angle of 45 degrees in the material shall be generally used.
Other angles may be used for evaluating an indication or where wall thickness or geometric configuration impedes effective use of the 45 degree angle beam.
The licensee has complied with the 'later edition of the Code and has also performed periodical system leakage tests and the inservice hydrostatic test per Code, which would provide initial evidence of seepage from a thr ough-wall perforation.
Thus, relief is appropriate.
Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that for the welds discussed
- above, the Code requirements are impractical.
It is further concluded that the alternative examinations discussed above provide the necessary added assurance of structural reliability.
Therefore, the
<<11 owing are recommended:
(a) Relief should be granted from the Code volume not achieved during mechanized ultrasonic examination of welds 3-WR-9 and 3-WR-31 for this interval.
(b) The licensee should continue to perform the best-effort examination of the accessible portions of the welds, which would result in the examination of most of the welds with at least one
- beam, during the second interval.
References Reference 8.
~
~
Relief Requests 10, 14, and 15, Reactor Vessel-to-Flan e and Head-to-Flan e
Circumferential
- Welds, Cate or B-C, Item B1.3 Code Re uirement Volumetric examination shall cumulatively cover 100'X of each vessel-to-flange and head-to-flange circumferential weld during each inspection interval.
Code Relief Re uest Relief is requested from the Code volume not achieved during ultrasonic.
examination of Melds 3-MR-18, 4-MR-18, 3-WH-12, and 4-WH-12.
Proposed Al ternative Examination None other than required periodic system leakage tests per category B-P, Table IWB-2500 and inservice hydrostatic test per category B-P, Table IWB-2500.
Licensee's Basis for Re uestin Relief 3-MR-18 and 4-WR-18.
Some areas received no coverage during the exam>nat>on per orme rom the upper shell side.
Some areas did not receive 0 degree, 45 degree transverse, or 60 degree tr ansverse weld coverage due to the geometric configuration of the flange radius located just above the weld.
The percentages of coverage limitation are Search Unit An le Limits of weld 0
60 45t 60t 60
'25 20 60 60 Total weld length
= 488.51 inches Examinations performed from the shell side of the weld essentially provided 100'5 coverage of the weld and 1/2 t of base material on the shell side.
The extent of examination volume achieved ultrasonically and the alternative system pressure tests provide assurance of an acceptable level of quality and safety.
3-MH-12 and 4-WH-12.:. Configuration and permanent attachments prohibit 100%
u trasonsc exam>nation coverage of the required Code examination volume.
A welded arrow located above stud hole No.
1 limits 7 inches of circumferential scanning of the closur'e head weld.
No examination was achieved from the flange surface due to the configuration.
Each of three welded lugs located 120 degrees
- apart, between stud holes 10/ll, 29/30, and 48/49 limits 3 inches of circumferential scanning of the closure head.
Therefore, a combined length of 16 inches of weld cannot be examined.
The extent of examination volume achieved ultrasonically and the alternative system pressure tests provide assurance of an acceptable level of quality and safety.
Evaluation The licensee has examined most of the weld and heat affected ar ea.
This appears to be the best examination possible using current ultrasonic methods.
The licensee has not been able to examine the entire 1/2 t area of the base material on the shell side for wel ds 3-MR-18 and 4-MR-18.
For wel ds 3-MH-12 and 4-MH-12, accessibility is physically 1 imited by a welded arrow, welded lugs, and weld confi guration.
The total area that could not be examined is small, however.
The extent of the ultrasonic examination plus the required system pressure tests (which would provide initial evi-dence of seepage from a through-wall perforation) should adequately indicate the welds'ntegrity.
Concl usions and Recommendations Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that for the welds discussed
- above, the Code requirements are impractical.
It is further concluded that the alternative examinations discussed above provide the necessary added assurance of structural rel iability.
Therefore, the following are recommended:
(a) Relief should be granted from the Code volume not achieved during ul trasonic examination of wel ds 3-WR-18, 4-WR-18, 3-MH-12, and 4-WH-12 for this interval.
(b) The licensee should continue to perform the best-effort examination of the welds.
References Reference 8.
Relief Requests 10 and 15, Reactor Vessel Primar Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds and thzzle Inside Radiused
- Sections, Cate ory B-D, Item Bl.4 Code Re uirement Each nozzle-to-vessel weld and adjacent areas shall be volumetrically examined over 100% of the volume shown in Figure IWB-2500D.
All nozzles shall be examined during each inspection interval.
Code Relief Re uest Relief is requested from the Code volume not acnieved during mechanized ultrasonic examination of welds 3-DO-A, -B, and
-C and 4-DO-A, -B, and -C.
Proposed Alternative Examination None other than required periodic system leakage tests per category B-P, Table IWB-2500 and inservice hydrostatic test per category B-P, Table IWB-2500.
Licensee's Basis for Re uestin Relief When performing computerized ultrasonic examinations of the nozzle to shell welds from the vessel wall, several areas were described as having limited examination scans.
These limitations were restr icted to the last several scans of the nozzle to shell examination and were due to the physical limitations imposed by the adjacent nozzles.
The limitations all occurred in the vicinity of the 90 or 180 degree nozzle azimth relative to nozzle orientation.
The percentages of weld volume not examined are Examination Area Outlet nozzle wel ds Outlet nozzle welds Examina tion T pe Parallel scans Transverse scans Limits
'X of Weld 12 42 The extent of examination volume achieved ul trasonically and the alternative system pressure tests provide assurance of an acceptable level of quality and safety.
.Eval ua tion The physical limitations imposed by the adjacent nozzles precluded
.completing the full volume of the Code-required examination.
The licensee
- has, however, completed a best-effort ultrasonic examination on these nozzles.
The ultrasonic examination plus the required system pressure
tests (which would provide initial evidence of seepage from a through-wall perforation) should provide adequate information on the structural integrity of the nozzles; Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that for the welds discussed
- above, the Code requirements are impractical.
It is further concluded that the alternative examinations discussed above will provide the necessary added assurance of structural reliability.
Therefore, the following are recommended:
( a ) Relief should be granted from the Code volume not achieved during ultrasonic examination of welds 3-00-A, -B, and
-C and 4-DO-A,
-8,'nd
-C for this interval.
(b)
The licensee should continue to per form the best-effort examination of the welds.
References Reference 8.
Relief Request 13, Reactor Coolant and Auxiliar Cooling S stem Melds, Cate or B-J, Items 84.5 and 84.6 Code Re uirement During each inspection interval, 25'X of the circumferential and longitudinal pipe welds and 25% of the pipe branch connection welds exceeding 6 inches in diameter shall be volumetrically examined.
The areas shall include longitudinal and circumferential welds and the base metal for one wall thickness beyond the edge of the weld.
Longitudinal welds shall be examined for at least 1 foot from the intersection with the edge of the circumferential weld selected for examination.
For pipe branch connections, the areas shall include the weld metal, the base metal for one pipe wall thickness beyond the edge of the weld on the main pipe run, and at least 2 inches of the base metal along the branch run.
Code Relief Re uest Relief is requested from Code volume not achieved during manual ultrasonic examinations.
The affected areas are 6 inches of circum-ferential weld 12"-RC-3, 5 inches of circumferential weld 14"-AC-.4, and a 4 x 3 inch area of branch connection weld 12"/10"-RC.
Proposed Alternative Examination None other than required periodic system leakage tests per category B-P, Table INB-2500 and inservice hydrostatic test per category B-P, Table IWB-2500.
Licensee's Basis for Re uestin Relief Configuration, permanent attachments, and/or structural interferences prohibit 100K ultrasonic examination coverage of the Code-required examination volume.
For weld 12"-RC-3, examination is limited by a welded plate at 180 degrees.
For, weld 14"-AC-4, examination is limited by the proximity of adjacent pipe run at 270 degrees.
For weld 12" /10"-RC, examination is limited by the location of a thermocouple at 100 degrees.
The extent of examination volume achieved ultrasonically and the alternative system pressure tests piovide assurance of an acceptable level of quality and safety.
ll
Eval ua tion Physical impediments preclude the 100% examination of por tions of these three welds but the areas are limited.
The extent of examination volume achieved plus the required system pressure tests (which would provide initial evidence of seepage from a through-wall perforation) should adequately ensure integrity.
Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that for the welds discussed
- above, the Code requirements are impractical.
It is further concluded that the alternative examinations discussed above provide the necessary added assurance of structural reliability.
Therefore, the following are recommended:
(a )
Relief should be granted from the Code volume not achieved during ultrasonic examination of welds 12"-RC-3 (6"), 14"-AC-4 (5"), and 12"/10"-RC (a 4 x 3" area) for this interval.
(b)
The licensee should continue to perform the best-effort examination of the welds.
References Reference 8.
10
Relief Request 5A, Integrally Melded Su orts for Reactor Coolant Pumps, Category BC-1, Item 85.4 Code Re uirement The volumetric examinations performed during each inspection interval shall cover 25% of the integrally welded external support attachments.
The area includes the welds to the pressure-retaining boundary and the base metal beneath the weld zone and along the support attachment meter for a distance of two support thicknesses.
Code Relief Request Relief is requested from alternate surface examination of inaccessible weld and adjacent areas of the pump support members not achieved during the inspection interval.
(Relief from volumetric examination was gr anted on April 26, 1983.)
The affected welds are 3-RCP-A-L1, 2 & 3 3-RCP-B-Ll, 2
& 3 3-RCP-C-Ll, 2
& 3 4-RCP-A-L1, 2
& 3 4-RCP-B-L1, 2
& 3 4-RCP-C-Ll, 2
& 3 Proposed Alternative Examination Perform surface examinations per the ISI schedule.
Upon disassembly of a
pump from the pad, conduct a surface examination on the inaccessible area.
Licensee's Basis for Re uestin Relief Configuration of the integrally welded supports as welded to the pump body and structural interfaces prohibit 100% surface examination coverage due to inaccessibility of portions of the weld.
The a3 ternate examinations and tests provide assurance of an acceptable level of quality and safety.
Eval ua tion A surface examination was granted by the NC in its Safety Evaluation Report as a substitute for the required volumetric examination.
After attempting the examination, however, the licensee is unable to perform the required 100'X surface examination without removing the pump from the pad.
The proposed alternative of performing the surface examination on the inaccessible area when the pump is disassembled from the pad should adequately indicate weld integrity, as long as the examination performed shows no weld deterioration.
But if indications of weld flaw are found when the accessible areas are examined, then the pump should be removed from the pad and a full surface examination performed.
11.
Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that foi the welds discussed
- above, the Code requirements are impractical.
It is further concluded that the alternative examinations discussed above provide the necessary added assurance of structural reliability.
Therefore, the following are recommended:
( a)
Relief should be granted from the Code volume not achieved during surface examination of welds 3 RCP-A-Ll, 2 S 3; 4 RCP-A-L1, 2 5 3; 3-RCP-S-Ll, 2 h 3; 4-RCP-B-L1, 2 5 3; 3 RCP-C-Ll, 2 5 3; and 4-RCP-C-L1, 2 5.3.
(b)
If flaw indications were found during examination of the accessible surface
- area, the pump should be removed from its pad and an 100 surface examination performed.
(c ) If no indications were found, the licensee should conduct a surface examination on the inaccessible areas when the pump is disassembled from the pad, as proposed.
References Reference 8.
12
REFERENCES Science Applications, Inc.
Turke Point Nuclear Generatin
- Stations, Units 3 and 4, Inservice Ins ection, echnica va uation e ort, eport o.
eptem er R.
E. Uhrig
( FPL) to D.
G. Eisenhut
( NRC), L-82-514, Inservice Inspection Relief Request, RR 6/7 on Reactor Coolant Pumps, November 18, 1982.
3.
S.
A. Varga (NRC) to R.
E. Uhrig (FPL), February 14, 1983.
(Grants relief to RR 6/7).
4.
S.
A. Varga (NRC) to R.
E. Uhrig (FPL), April 26, 1983.
(Transmits SER).
5.
Florida Power and Light, Inservice Inspection Second Ten-Year Summary Program for Turkey Point Plants Unit 3/4, Document No. CIS-84-001 (Rev. 0), t1arch 26, 1984.
6.
Informal request for additional information from NRC to FPL, Nay 4, 1984.
7.
Request for additional information of August 17, 1984.
8.
J.
M. Milliams, Jr.
( FPL) to S.
A. Varga
( NRC), L-84-341, Inservice Inspection Second Ten Year Summary Program, November 20, 1984.
(Response to RAI).
13
~
W