Text

Provides Results of Unit 3 Reactor Pressure Vessel Shell Welds Augmented Exam & ISI Relief Request 3-ISI-17 for NRC Review & Approval
	ML18038B180
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	03/06/1995
From:	Salas P; TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:	; NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
	NUDOCS 9503130233
	Download: ML18038B180 (166)
	v • d • e

ENCLOSURE 1

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORXTY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN)

UNZT 3 REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL SHELL OLDS AUGUMENTED EXAMINATIONAND ZNSERVZCE XNSPECTXON RELXEF REQUEST 3-XSZ-17 INDEX PURPOSE

~

2 II.

BACKGROUND.

2 III.

EXAMINATION SCOPE AND COVERAGE 3

IV.

LIMITATIONS 4

V.

AUTOMATED EXAMINATION SYSTEM 6

VI.

EXAMINATIONRESULTS 7

VII.

STRUCTURAL FLAW EVALUATION TO IWB-3600 7

VIII.

SPIRIT OF ASME APPENDIX VIII PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION 7

IX.

EVALUATION AND RECORDING CRITERIA.

8 X.

REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION RADIOGRAPHS

~

9 XI.

SUMMARY

o

~

9 XII.

RELIEF REQUEST 3-ISI-17 (UNIT 3) 10

I'URPOSE This enclosure provides the results of the BFN Unit 3 reactor pressure vessel (RPV) augmented examination performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A).

In addition, this enclosure contains TVA's relief request 3-ISI-17 for NRC's review and approval.

Relief request 3-ISI-17 includes ten welds with geometric and design limitations where greater than 90 percent ultrasonic examination coverage was not achievable.

II'ACKGROUND 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) and 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)

(ii)(A)(2) require an augmented examination of RPV shell welds.

10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A)(2) defines essentially 100 percent as meaning more than 90 percent of the examination volume of each weld, where the reduction in coverage is due to interference by another component or part geometry.

The RPV shell welds augumented examination was performed during the Unit 3 Cycle 5 extended outage and completed in late 1993.

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A)(2), the extent of the examination for the RPV welds was determined from the 1989 Edition of ASME Section XI for examination category B-A, Item number B1.10.

The examination techniques and evaluation criteria complied with the 1986 Edition of ASME Section XI,,the Unit 3 code of record (1974 Edition, Summer 1975 Addenda) and Regulatory Guide 1.150.

TVA contracted General Electric (GE) to supply the examination device and personnel for the augmented examination.

The examination process consisted of three phases:

Phase 1, Inspectability Study Phase 2, Preparation of RPV Examination Plan Phase 3, Performance of RPV Examinations E1-2

Phase 1 consisted of physical measurements and clearance verifications, along with a review of the reactor internals configuration.

Phase 2 established the plan for vessel examinations and included a review of information pertaining to the reactor pressure vessel welds and fabrication history.

Phase 3 consisted of the performance demonstration, examination, and reporting of

'esults.

The augmented examination was conducted using the General Electric Remote Inspection System (GERIS) 2000 ultrasonic equipment.

This examination was complimented with a manual examination of selected areas from the outside of the RPV to maximize the percentage of weld volume examined.

Ultrasonic data was acquired from the vessel inside surface and resulted in the reporting of flaw indications that exceeded the allowable limits of ASME Section XI, Table IWB-3500.

The Unit 3 RPV examinations and performance demonstrations were witnessed and/or verified by the Authorized Inspection Agency (AIA), The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company.

Both the contractor written certification practice and nondestructive examination (NDE) personnel certification records for contractor employees were reviewed and approved prior to examination performance.

These records are maintained as permanent quality assurance records.

NDE equipment certification records are on file with the examination report at BFN.

EXAMINATION SCOPE AND COVERAGE The augmented RPV ultrasonic examination included five circumferential shell welds and 15 longitudinal shell welds.

The BFN Unit 3 examination summary sheets for the RPV welds are provided in Enclosure 2.

TVA's letter to NRC dated March 25, 1993, provided TVA's calculated examination coverage for the RPV welds.

The method of calculating the achieved shell weld coverage is contained in Enclosure 3.

The actual ultrasonic examination percentages for each RPV shell weld (Item number B1.10) are listed on page E1-4.

E1-3

Weld Weld Type Actual Calculated Exam Exam Coverage Coverage C-4-5 C-3-4 C-2-3 C-1-2 C-BH-1 V-1-A V-1-B V-1-C Circumferential Circumferential Circumferential Circumferential Circumferential Vertical Vertical Vertical 934'74 804 904 284 824 834 88%

934 924 634 934 184 954 82%

824 V-2-A V-2-B V-2-C V-3-A V-3-B V-3-C V-4-A V-4-B V-4-C V-5-A V-5-B V-5-C Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical 854 904 91%

994 99%

704 100%'3<

100%

994 100%

914 100%

100%

1004 94%

444 1004 1004 100%

100%'004 100<

Total Avera e-all welds

~88 87.35 Note:

Part IV provides a reason for the RPV welds with examination coverage of 90% or less.

LIMITATIONS ASME Section XI requires that each weld be examined along its entire length and the effective volume which must be examined is the weld and an area 1/2 the thickness on both sides of the weld.

ASME Section XI Code Case N-460 provides an interpretation of these requirements.

Code Case N-460 states that where a volume or area cannot be examined due to an interference, a reduction in examination coverage may be accepted provided the reduction for that weld is less than 10 percent.

The examination coverage was based on a review of the dimensions and configurations encountered during actual field examinations.

The welds listed on Page E1-5 did not obtain the required examination coverage.

E1-4

0

Weld Number Ezamination Coverage Reason for Ezam Limitation C-2-3 C-1-2 C-BH-1 804 904 284 Limited due to core spray downcomers and surveillance specimen brackets.

Limited due to core spray downcomers, surveillance specimen holders and jet pump diffuser configuration.

Weld could not be examined with GERIS 2000 System from the RPV inside surface due to the lower limit of the manipulator.

Examination limited to a manual exam within the N8 and N1 nozzle windows.

V-1-A V-1-B 82%

83%

Limited due to N2-A Nozzle at 30 degrees, surveillance specimen bracket and the lower limit of the GERIS 2000 manipulator.

Limited due to N2-E Nozzle at 150 degrees and the lower limit of the GERIS 2000 manipulator.

V-1-C 884 Limited due to N2-H Nozzle at 270 degrees and the lower limit of the GERIS 2000 manipulator.

V-2-A t

V-2-B 85%

90%

Limited due to N16-A Nozzle at 40 degrees and the jet pump brackets at 30 and 60 degrees.

Limited due to jet pump brackets at 160 degrees.

V-3-C 704 Limited due to the feedwater sparger and the core spray downcomer..

V-4-B 83%

Limited due to N11-A Nozzle at 40 degrees, surveillance specimen bracket and the lower limit of the GERIS 2000 manipulator.

e

Additional details regarding the specifics of examination limitations are contained in Enclosure 2 and Part XII of this enclosure.

AUTOMATED EXAMINATION8YSTEM The GE GERIS 2000 was used to perform ultrasonic examinations of the RPV shell welds from the inside surface by utilizing a specially designed manipulator.

The manipulator is the delivery system for the ultrasonic search units. It consists of a vertical mast and circumferential car which is guided by rings temporarily installed in the RPV.

The manipulator uses two separate ultrasonic search unit 'packages to perform examinations of the upper and lower portions of the RPV.

The manipulator is controlled by a digital control system which allows for positive location, and interfaces with the ultrasonic data acquisition system.

The ultrasonic search unit. packages used consisted of 14 transducers arranged to provide ASME Code required examination coverage in a single pass.

The data acquisition system digitizes the complete radio frequency (RF) waveform to provide high resolution imaging.

The front end electronics consists of independent multiplexers, receivers, and pulsers for each search unit.

The multiplexed ultrasonic signals were transmitt'ed to the acquisition system where the signals were processed by the analog to digital converter and the logarithmic amplifier.

The analog to digital converter was linked to UNIX-based computer work stations which serve to monitor the acquisition process and store the data on optical disks for future analysis.

The complete RF data allows for high resolution imaging capabilities during the analysis process utilizing A, B, and C-Scan presentations.

The A-Scans are digitally recreated RF signals, the B-Scans present a scaled cross sectional view of the exam volume, and the C-Scans are a plan view of the examination area.

Several channels may be viewed at the same time and the B

and C scans can be redrawn by adjusting the gating parameters within the recorded A-Scans.

Calibration blocks with attributes similar in material and configuration to the BFN RPV were used for calibration of the ultrasonic system.

The calibration blocks were supplied by TVA and the calibration blocks'ertification records are on file at the Soddy Daisy Training Center in Soddy Daisy, Tennessee.

E1-6

EZAMINAT10N RESULTS The ultrasonic examination results revealed that four RPV shell welds had a total of ten indications that exceeded the allowable standards of ASME Section XI, IWB-3500.

The indications were located in welds C-2-3, C-3-4, C 5, and V-4-B.

One indication was recorded in both welds V-4-B and C-3-4 due to their intersecting weld joint.

Examination summary sheets are contained in Enclosure 2.

The flaw evaluation results indicate that the flaws were subsurface.

These flaws were categorized as embedded volumetric anomalies resulting from the manufacturing or fabrication operations and were not previously detected with ultrasonic techniques employed at the time of fabrication.

Furthermore, this conclusion is supported by the subsurface nature of the flaws.

Numerous similar indications were present that were either of acceptable size or have no target motion (walking indication as identified in Regulatory Guide 1.150).

In addition to the four welds mention above, one weld (C-5-FLG, ASME Code Category B-A, Item No. B1.30) contained five indications which excee'ded IWB-3500 standards.

This weld is included for information but is not part of the augmented examination.

The indications in weld C-5-FLG were also determined to be the result of embedded subsurface volumetric anomalies from the manufacturing process.

VII'TRUCTURAL FLAW EVALUATION TO IWB-3600 TVA performed a structural flaw evaluation of the RPV weld flaws identified during the augmented inspection.

This evaluation is documented in TVA's calculation (MD-Q3001-940005) entitled Vessel Weld Flaw Evaluation For Browns Ferry Nuclear BFN Unit 3.

The evaluation was performed in accordance with ASME Section XI, IWB-3600 (1986 edition).

The flaws were determined to meet the IWB-3600 acceptance criteria.

TVA's evaluation concludes that the margin of safety, based on the maximum IWB-3600 allowable, is greater than 5:1.

Continued unit operation is justified up to 12 effective full power years.

TVA's structural flaw evaluation results are available, for NRC review, at our Rockville office.

VIII'PIRIT OF ASME APPENDIX VIII PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION To assure that examinations of the RPV were performed to the highest standards, TVA elected to administer a

"Spirit of Appendix VIII"performance demonstration to evaluate the adequacy of procedures, personnel, and equipment.

The performance demonstration was modeled

after the requirements in Appendix VIII, 1989 Edition of Section XI.

The results of the demonstration indicated that Supplement 4 (clad/base metal interface of the RPV) and Supplement 6 (subsurface) flaws were successfully detected within the guidelines of Appendix VIII. Sizing of Supplement 4 flaws did not meet all of the acceptance criteria.

However, the sizing methods produced results which oversized the flaws, and were therefore found to be conservative.

The Supplement 6 flaws were'ccurately sized and met the requirements for successful qualification in accordance with Appendix VIII.

As a

result, the ultrasonic examination procedures and techniques were enhanced based on the results of the performance demonstration.

In TVA's letter to NRC dated, September 27,

1991, TVA committed to perform automated examination of the Unit 3 RPV shell welds (ASME Section XI, 1989 Edition, Examination Category B-A, Item No. B1.10) prior to startup.

This letter also stated that TVA intends to take credit for these examinations as satisfying the ASME Section XI Appendix VIII requirements.

The detection and sizing techniques utilized to perform the performance demonstration were carried throughout the entire examination process.

The performance demonstration resulted in examination and evaluation techniques that surpassed the requirements of ASME Section XI and Regulatory Guide 1.150.

The subsurface flaws that exceeded table IWB-3500 were located in the same region as the Appe'ndix VIII, Supplement 6 flaws used during the demonstration.

Therefore, the sizing methodology used to determine flaw acceptance in the Unit 3

RPV was based on proven, acceptable, and qualified techniques.

IX.

EVALUATION AND RECORDING CRITERIA The recording threshold used during the examinations exceeded the minimum requirements of both Section XI and Regulatory Guide 1.150.

In essence, amplitude response and subsequent distance amplitude correction comparisons were not used for establishing recording levels for evaluation.

Indications were recorded regardless of amplitude and those exhibiting target motion were evaluated to determine their origin.

Non-geometric indications which displayed target motion were evaluated for acceptance.

The recording levels proved to be conservative compared to those in ASME Section XI and Regulatory Guide 1.150.

Of the 15 flaws (ten in item number B1.10 welds and five in weld C-5-FLG, item number B1.30) recorded using qualified methods, only 3 would have been recordable using conventional Section XI and E1-8

Regulatory Guide 1.150 criteria with Code examination techniques.

In addition, only 2 of the 3 flaws would not have met the IWB-3500 acceptance criteria, if the spirit of Appendix VIII performance demonstration had not been implemented at BFN.

Indications evaluated as flaws were sized in accordance with the qualified methods used during the "Spirit of Appendix VIII"qualification.

The optimum sizing methodology derived from the qualification was based on the application of tip diffraction techniques.

These methods were utilized when satellite tips were distinguishable, and amplitude based methods were used when tips could not be detected.

As proven during the qualification, the sizing methodology employed on flawed qualification specimens produced accurate results.

Overall, tip diffraction methods proved to be more accurate than amplitude methods, as specified in current ASME guidelines.

When amplitude based methods were used, ASME and Regulatory Guide 1.150 requirements were met or exceeded.

REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION RADIOGRAPHS TVA reviewed the original construction radiographs to ascertain if the ultrasonic flaws could be correlated with the radiographs.

Circumferential correlation for those flaws that were discernible was determined to be accurate to within plus or minus two inches.

The review indicated that less than 50 percent of the flaws were discernible in the radiographs.

Although the radiograph review did not confirm the presence of all flaws, it did prove that correlated ultrasonic flaws were fabrication related.

Due to the orientation and size (majority not Code recordable) of the reported flaws, it is reasonable to expect that not all 'fabrication flaws would be discernible in the radiographs.

SUMMARY

The results of the shell welds (B1.10) ultrasonic examination revealed that four RPV shell welds had a

total of ten indications that exceeded the allowable standards of ASME Section XI, IWB-3500.

Additionally, ten welds were identified with geometric and design limitations where greater than 90 percent coverage was not achieved.

A structural flaw evaluation was performed in accordance with ASME Code Section XI IWB-3600 (1986 edition).

The flaws were determined to meet the IWB-3600 analytical acceptance criteria.

Continued unit operation is recommended up to 12 effective full power years.

Ii

Relief request 3-ISI-17 (Part XII) is provided for NRC review and approval.

This relief request includes ten welds with geometric and design limitation where greater than 90 percent ultrasonic examination coverage was not achievable.

RELIEF REQUEST 3-ISZ-17 (UNIT 3) and longitudinal shell welds listed in Part IV.

Code Class:

1 Examination Cate or B-A Item Number:

Bl.10 Code Re irement:

10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) requires an augmented examination of RPV shell welds in accordance with the 1989 Edition of ASME Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-A, Item Number B1.10.

This item number requires a volumetric examination of essentially 100% of the weld length of all RPV circumferential and longitudinal shell welds.

10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A)(2) defines essentially 1004 as meaning more than 90% of the examination volume of each weld, where the reduction in coverage is due to interference by another component or part geometry.

Code Re irement From Which Relief Zs Re ested:

Relief is requested from the 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) augmented requirement of performing a volumetric examination of essentially 1004 of the weld length of the BFN Unit 3 shell welds listed in Part IV.

Basis For Relief:

Accessible RPV shell welds were ultrasonically examined from the vessel inside surface utilizing the General Electric reactor inspection GERIS 2000 automated scanning system;

and, from accessible areas on the vessel outside surface, using manual techniques in areas with limited or no accessibility from the inside surface.

Automated examinations from the vessel inside surface were limited due to components such as vessel nozzles, guide rods, and surveillance specimen brackets.

Examination of the lower head to vessel shell weld, C-BH-1, from the inside surface was not performed due to design limitations of the GERIS 2000 and the weld location (area of shroud support plate and jet pump diffusers).

The GERIS 2000 is not designed to examine a

E1-10

weld located at a distance of approximately 620 inches from the vessel flange.

Similar limitations were identified for the lower portion of welds V-1-A, V-1-B, and V-l-C.

Manual examinations conducted from the vessel outside surface were limited due to non-removable insulation panels as well as the biological shield wall.

Removable insulation panels located at RPV nozzles provided access to perform limited examinations of vessel shell welds.

Figures 1 through 6 and the GERIS 2000 examination summary sheets (Enclosure

2) provide additional information to identify locations of welds examined and examination limitations.

Alternate Examinations:

Accessible portions of RPV shell welds were ultrasonically examined from the vessel interior within the limitations of the GERIS 2000.

In

addition, welds accessible from the vessel outside surface were ultrasonically examined with manual techniques in areas with limited or no accessibility from the inside surface.

Since the accessible portions of the RPV shell welds were examined, there are no alternative examinations available to be performed.

Justification For The Grantin Of Relief:

TVA contracted with GE to perform the 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) augmented RPV shell weld examinations.

The accessible RPV welds were ultrasonically examined from the vessel inside surface utilizing GE's state of the art automated inspection device, the GERIS 2000.

Prior to performing the examinations, the GERIS 2000 examination personnel and procedures were qualified in the "Spirit of Appendix VIII"of ASME Section XI (both detection and sizing).

In

addition, TVA performed a manual ultrasonic examination of accessible portions of welds from the vessel outside surface.

The manual examination was conducted in areas with limited or no access from the inside surface.

Based on a construction permit date of July 31,

1968, and as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(1) and 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4),

BFN must meet the requirements of ASME Section XI.

The exception is design and access provisions, to the extent practical within the limitations of design,

geometry, and materials of construction of the components.

The BFN Unit 3 RPV was not designed to provide access for ASME Section XI examinations.

However, utilizing state of the art techniques, the RPV examinations conducted exceeded requirements of the ASME Section XI Code (1974 Edition, Summer 1975 Addenda),

which is applicable to Unit 3's first 10-year inspection interval as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(b).

This code was required to be used prior to the publication of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A),

which requires an augmented examination of RPV shell welds in accordance with Item B1.10 of the 1989 Edition of ASME Section XI.

The 1974 Edition, Summer 1975

Addenda, requires examination of 5 percent of the length of each circumferential shell weld and 10 percent of the length of each longitudinal shell weld, during each inspection interval.

Examination of beltline region welds are required to be increased to at least 50 percent of the length of each weld when exposed to neutron fluence in excess of a specified limit.

Examination of the RPV shell welds from the outside surface was limited to areas surrounding the RPV nozzles, where removable insulation panels exist..

The remainder of the RPV shell is covered by insulation panels not designed for removal.

In addition, the majority of the RPV shell and insulation panels are located behind the biological shield wall (see Figures 1 and 2).

Examination of RPV shell welds located behind the biological shield wall were limited to nozzle openings in the wall.

Spacing between the RPV and the insulation panels varies from approximately 0.25 inches to 1.25 inches.

Spacing between the RPV and biological shield wall is approximately 11.25 inches.

Examination of inaccessible portions of the RPV shell welds from the inside surface would require extensive modifications to the internal components such as jet pumps and guide rods.,

Modification of the GERIS 2000 to permit examination of weld C-BH-1 and the lower portions of welds V-1-A, V-l-B, and V-1-C would not improve the examination coverage due to additional limitations which would be encountered from jet pumps and the shroud support baffle plate.

Examination results revealed that four RPV shell welds had a total of ten recorded indications that exceeded the allowable standards of Paragraph IWB-3500 of ASME Section XI (C-2-3, C-3-4, C-4-5, and V-4-B) due to subsurface flaws.

Of these welds, two are a part ofthis request for relief (C-2-3 and V-4-B).

These two welds included a

total of three recorded indications exceeding the allowable standards of Paragraph IWB-3500.

A structural flaw evaluation was performed in accordance with Paragraph IWB-3600 for those welds which had indications exceeding the allowable standards of Paragraph IWB-3500.

All indications were determined to be subsurface in nature and determined to meet Paragraph IWB-3600 acceptance criteria.

The evaluation determined that continued operation is justified up to 12 effective full power years.

(Note:

BFN Unit 3 is in an extended outage and has not operated since the RPV examinations).

These indications were determined to be related to the manufacturing process and previously undetected with the examination methods employed at that time.

Additional information on recorded indications is included on the GERIS 2000 Examination Summary Sheets (Enclosure 2).

The beltline region of the Unit 3 RPV includes one circumferential and six longitudinal shell welds.

Examination results revealed no recorded indications in

.these seven welds that exceeded the allowable standards of Paragraph IWB-3500.

A total of sixteen circumferential and longitudinal RPV shell welds were examined with no recorded indications that exceeded the allowable standards of Paragraph IWB-3500.

TVA's examinations of the RPV shell welds provide reasonable assurance that no inservice flaws exist which are unacceptable for continued operation.

TVA performed examinations to the maximum extent practical using state of the art equipment and within the limitations of design and access of the RPV.

Thus, an acceptable level of quality and safety has been achieved and public health and safety will not be endangered based on the state of the art ultrasonic examinations performed on accessible portions of RPV shell welds.

Im lementation Schedule:

The RPV shell weld examinations were performed during the third period of the first inspection interval (cycle 5 refueling outage).

E1-13

FIGURE 1

0 REACTOR VESSEL WELD INSPECTION OUTSIDE INTERFERENCES FROM BIO-SHIELDWALL& INSULATION 3/1/S3 ef~MIELDW~

t1 25'3.5~

Note1: Due to access limitations Ultrasonic Examinations of the RPV seam welds from the outside surface is only possible around the Bi~hield Wall Nozzle Openings.

Note 2: Mirrorinsulation panels are apptoximately 3.5 inches thick and the spacing between the insulation and the RPV outside surface varies from 0.25 inches to 1.25 inches depending on the proximity of the insulation stabilizer rings.

1.25'oOM'.5'o ~

7.5'KETCH IS NOT TO SCALE I

%0 S

S 8

~ I I I

~ ~

~

I I

'C/iP/i I>r/>'MX Wir//i

~///AS//J.r4

//// r//J /r 'r.'/J

'rP///lr/lr'.//// /IA

~~

rrrr'JJ;f 4A tj' o~lOo Ni&JJJIJ. fuzrSIRWXJ/28 Ir.~b~FX9 r/JJ/JJ/J.'N'krÃi

///rr/O O

/'

8'>rIr'l~PZJSJJ'Yiillaiir//~Ai/Z

/N'/utÃri:./

Yg J

FEZ/.

P//XJJ/'.

Nri~~r J//IPXWA, KK~iNXYliir~5N PXÃX/r.

/r/Jr/J/JJ'rÃAPA

>rrrI t >~]r'>r>urrrrrrrrr>t>rr>r>>ri' trrrrrr>rrr>r>

t E

33 Ikg lk r//F>yg///Igr/r>pre////rPz>> ry> r/r//r///i///Jr. rrr$/f

)

/J/JJJ'.

fr<KFiWfiPFNX&i~rr/JNFiuVYillllrI/JN1 rira%

irrxurrrrrrrs~rrr>rire r.rrrr/turrrct>~~)5 I

Ctt ~

I

~t S~

~Ett ~

I o

/sk'.

i~'/r.

SPi/JA

'>rJ Yii

'r//Jr///r.'rJ//8 t

t I

r/

t/>

Yf/SiIÃf/Fi;/YA///>r>//J>>t. >'J>8 Ir///.>/Pi >r/i/>P/li r

WZa

>/.':.J,rye'SF//JJJJ/r'/Jr/J/JJWjZZVZZ/C/r;.I rrrrrr

.trt.ur>urr..rur>'>>>>rr> rrr>-turrrrrrtrt r I

~ t ~lear&I

>~st I

>t

<Jki&iaNCrr~iS//JJr///////Ji Yli FbX'iStrr4//J>

trr>>rrrr rnid>>rarest>rr.

rrrrr9 rwu>> t

~'rrrrrrr.s're>

~ '

14/AS< I,/

turrJ>>>t>>q~>>>>>srI>>r>r/rry yt >/ge

-<r'c'li illi i i

>o f!,'I~I I~I I>>l

"'i i

I

/it'J'rr

't' i>!

Sc uFXA

~ g I

~ ~ ) 8 I

ol

~ I

~

>> ~

~

I

~ I FitllifriF+riPJ'1/I/ri Qo.///</Oo Fi711/JIJJIIIX/NJZJZlJlJi Oo Oe

\\

~

>> I~'rrpr I

%Fka'// '/!th

~/a Y/i~

'//';//,'8

~z>>wr/4/

L

%FJlr/r /r aM

~ j ~

,e/i>>

~

>> w'rr 0 >

~W/C//

r'.r/

/r/r/

~ '

~

I 11%

g~

I li JI If I'i%

if) ijj I

I

>> I )>> ~ ~ ~

I I

>>I

////////r I

~

9

+~+r+g

.',1(ll i)~

Rl I

l

+r~~+rr~rr~

)

l1

)

~~+4L~~

~

~ '

gggg~M~~>'ZHMRHEZiZV'iK>l

~ggggHI35T!KERQQkQKIF8%KERKFllv%5

~~~K%~

am~~H~

~

l

~

I

ENCLOSURE 2

TENNE88EE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWN8 FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN)

UNIT 3 REACTOR PRESSURE 8HELL VESSEL WELDS EXAMINATIONSHEETS (See Attached)

Pages E2-2 through E2-25

Terms and Definitions for "GERIS 2000 Examination Summary Sheet Ind No.

Sequential number identification for the applicable indication

.Oriented Describes the orientation of the indication relative to the RPV (i.e. circ. is a indication oriented in the vessel circumferential direction)

Type Describes the type of indication (surface or subsurface) as determined by ASME Section XI, IWB-3500.

X Position The location of the flaw in the circumferential direction in inches from vessel 0'zimuth.

Y PositIon The location of the indication relative to RPV 0" (inside surface ofthe RPV Bottom Head) in inches.

Z Position The location ofthe flaw relative to the RPV deposited clad surface.

HSN The separation distance from the upper flaw extremity to the clad/base material interface as defined by ASME Section XI.

T-Wall The total through wall dimension of the indication. This value is also the 2A dimension referenced by ASME Section XI and the Flaw Analysis Handbook.

Length This dimension represents the total length of the flaw.

T Meas Represents the actual wall thickness of the RPV in the area of the indication minus the deposited clad.

a/I The value of the required ASME Section Xl, IWB-3500 calculation for flaw evaluation. This value is derived using the following formula [(Twali/2)/Length]

'/o a/t Calculated The value of the required ASME Section XI, IWB-3500 calculation for flaw evaluation. This value is derived using the following formula ((T wall/2)/T Meas]

'/o alt Allowed This value is the allowed a/t percentage as identified in ASME Section XI, Table IWB-3510-1 "Allowable Planar Fiaws". The value given is the linear interpolation of the percentage values for Table IWB-3510-1 as permissible and in accordance with IWA-3200.

NOTE: The final calculated values shown on the summary sheets have been rounded off in accordance with ASME Section XI, IWA-3200.

E2-2

0

e

~

~,

~

I I I

I I'

s I'

~ ~

~

I II.

~

I

~

4

~

~,

~

I I I

~

~,

~

~ II I II

~ II

~ II' Il~.

~

I I

~

I ~

~

~ -

~.

~

II

~

~ j

~

~ '

~

I I

~

I ~ I

~

~ ~

I

~

o

~

II I

~

~ ', ~

I I I

~ '

~

~,

~

I

~

~ I

~

I

~,

~',

~

~ '

~

~ ~,

~

RHWIRi55i85858M51llRil585l555555 K%2QREQEEEZ5KKENRXHRKHRKNKWRE&RKHK%%6%%K%

RRZRREREIRRERHRQKZQRKHNKXRESRKHRRNKRSRHRHRHR EERIERWEEESRKIKKRRRSRXSRHNRKNRRREXRKERUH KRRREHEENKHRKMKWRRRKRRKNRKHRHKHRRH%

KRZRKWEERSRKlRERQRRSKRRWSKENRXHKRRZHRKtR

~

I II I I

~

I

~

+

I II

~

I I I

~

I I

~

~ '

GERIS 2000 Examination Summary (Contfnuation)

Indication 20-012 was sized with the 70'RL channel 3 utilizing the PATT technique.

This Indication was also recorded with 45'hear wave channel 7 as 20424.

The GERIS 2000 also recorded indications with the 0'eld metal scans, 70'RL, 45'nd 60'hear wave scans that were evaluated and found to be acceptable per the referencing Code section.

Geometric indications from the flange radius were recorded with the 45'nd 60'hear wave scans.

The manual technique utilized O'ongitudinal, 45'nd 60 shear wave search units both parallel and perpendicular to the weld axis in two directions to effectively examine the weld and adjacent base materials.

No indications were recorded with the manual technique.

Fabrication records and previous examination results were reviewed prior to the completion of this examination summary.

E2-4

~ ~ ~

~ P'

~

4

~

~ I I

~ I' I I

~

~ ~

~

~ '

~

II

~

~ ~

I

~

I

~

t

~

~'

~

~ '

~

~'

~..

~

I

~

s

~

~ I

~

I

~

~ I

~

~ '

~,

~

~ I

~

~ I

~

~ I

~:

~

I I I

~

~ '

~

~ I I; ~

~

~ ~ '

I

~,

~

~ ~

~

~ I

~

~ '

~ ~

~ '

~

~ t '

~

~ ~ '

~

II II

~

~ ~

~

~ ~ I ~

I ~

~ m i ~

~.

~'

~ '

~

v I II:

~

s+

~

I

~

~ I ~:

~

I

~ I,

~ I 0

I

~ I I ~

~

I ~

~

~ '

~

~'

~ '

~

I ~

~

II I

~

~ '

~ ~: ~:

~:

o ~: I'.

~ 'I'

~

~.

~ :

~ i: ~

~

I

~

~ I

~

I

~

~ '

I

~

II:: ~

L ~,

~

~ P'

~ ~

~ '

~ 0 ~

~

RESRSEEE!5IRERRHRRKRKRRRRRRRKRRm ~

RRRERKEEERRRRlKH RRRmÃRREPMKRR R5555%EEERKRmRK'RmÃKIRRRSRRSRRRRRRRR RRRWRRRRQRSmmRNRWMRNmm%5%5 I

~

i I'

~ ~

~ '

I,:

~

I I

~ ~

~

\\ ~

~

~ '

~

~ '

~

I

~ 1

~

I ~

~ 14 ~

~

~:

~

'I

~

~'

~ ~

~

I ~

~

~ '

I I

~

GERIS 2000 Examination Summary (Continuation) indication 12-145 was sized wtth 70'L channel 4 utilizingthe PATT technique.

This indication was also recorded as12-131, 12-158,12-161, 12-162 and 12-'I63.

Indication 12-148 was sized with 70'L channel 5 utilizingthe PATT technique.

This Indication was also recorded as12-132 and 12-160.

The GERIS 2000 also recorded Indications withthe 0'weld metal scans, 70'L, 45'nd 60'hear wave scans that were evaluated and tound to be acceptable per the referencing Code section.

Geometric indications from the OD surface, Nozzles N11-A, N11-B and N4-F were recorded with the 45'nd 60'hear wave scans.

Selected areas were rescanned using 45'L search units.

The manual technique utilized 0'ongitudinal, 45'nd 60'hear wave search units both parallel and perpendicular to the weld axis ln two directions to effectively examine the weld and adjacent base material.

No indications were recorded with the manual technique.

Fabrication records and previous examination results were reviewed prior to the completion of this examination summary.

E2-7

0

0 N

~

~ ~ ~

~

~ ~

~ '

a

~.

~

0.

~

I ', I ~

I;

~

I I I

~

~'

(

~

~ '

~,

~

\\

~ ~

~

~ '

~

I I

~

o

~

I I I P ~ '

~

I I I

~

~ '

~

~ '

~

~ '

~

o

~

I

~

~ I

~

I

~

~ '

~

~ '

~

~,

~

t

~ '

QNRRIRiRN85888WKIIRl58%EHERHI II I

~

~;

I

~

+

I

~ il

~

II Io

~.; ~;,

~

I

~ '

~

I; I

~

I'

~

~ I

~,

~

~ '

~

II I ~I'

~

~ I

~

II I

~

~ '

~

~ I

~

t

~

~ a

~

~ ~

~

~ '

~

~ ~,

~

t

~

i&iO g

~

~ '

~

J

~

~ I I ~

~

~ ~ ~

~

I I I

~

I I ~

~ '

~

I I

I

~

~.

~

I I I

~

~ ~

~

~ '

~,

~

~.

~

I I

~

II

~

I

~

~l'.

II

~

~ I

~

~ ~

~

I I

~

~ I

~

I

~

I I

I ~,

~

~'

~

I

~

~ I

~

I

~

I

~,

~ '

I ~ I

~

I ~ '

~

+ I

~

~ ~

~

~ '

~

~ '

~

4

~

~',

~

~ I

~

~ ~

~ J.

o

~

I

~

~ k

~

t

~

0 ~

~

~.

~

I ~

P

~

~ '

N

~

~ P

~

~ ~

~

. ~

I

~

i

~

~ I

~

~"

~

~,

~

~ t '

~

1

~

e I

GE Nuclear Energy GER/S 2000 Examination Summary Sheet prOJeot TVA,Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 3 System Reactor Pressure Vessel Weld lD:

V-1-A Calibration Sheets:

c403, c-159, c-160 and c-161 AShfE Code Category:

B A SuppOrting Data:

Examination Data Sheets E<1~ thru EN1 03, Exam Patch Location Map, Exam Coverage Pcs, GERIS 2000 Setup Records and Manual Examination Data Sheet D-142, D-143, D-144 and D-145.

Examination Summa The ultrasonic examination of weld V-1-Aresulted in no recorded indications that exceed the allowable standards of IWB4%0, ASME Section XI, 1986 Edition, No Addenda.

The ASME Section XI required examination volume was examined with the GERIS 2000 System from the RPV Inside surface utilizing Procedure No. GE-UT-700, Rev. 2.

This examination was limited due to the N2-A Nozzle at 30', surveillance specimen brackets and the lower limitof the GERIS 2000 manipulator. Areas that could not be examined using the GERIS 2000 and accessible from the outside surface were examined by the manual technique utilizing Procedure No. GE-UT~, Rev. 6, FRR~. The total examination coverage was calculated to be 82%.

The GERIS 2000 utilizes an array of search units arranged to effectively examine the weld and adjacent base material parallel and perpendicular to the weld axis In two directions. The transducer package consisted of0'ongitudinal, 45'nd 60 shear wave, and 70'efracted longitudinal (RL) wave search units.

No indications were recorded with the GERIS 2000.

The manual technique utilized 0'ongitudinal, 45'nd 60'hear wave search units both parallel and perpendicular to the weld axis in two directions to effectively examine the weld and adjacent base material.

No indications were recorded with the manual technique.

Fabrication records and previous examination results were reviewed prior to the completion ofthis examination summary.

GERIS Analyst:

LEVEL: ~r DATE: /2 GE Reviewer:

LEVEL:

DATE: I8 j5 ~~

UTiLllYReview:

DATE:

/

ANIIReview:

EZ-11 DATE: ~/CP

~

~ I

~

II

~ I

~

I

~

I II I

~

~.

~

N..

I II

~

Ill e

e

~

~ l;.

~

~ '

~

~ '

~

I I

~

~ '

~

~,

~

It

~

I

~

~ e'

~

III.

~

It Ii I

~

~ '

~

~ ',

~

e

~

~ '

~,

~

I

~

~ el

~

I I ~

~

~ '

~

~,

~

e

~

~ I

~

~ I

~ ~

~

~ '

~

I

~

~ '

~

~ ~,

~

~ '

~

I GE Nuclear Energy GERIS 2000 Examination Summary Sheet PfojeCt:

TVA, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 3

$ySteffft Reactor Pressure Vessel Weld/D:

V-1-C QBIIQQgon $h66ts:

c403, c-139, c-140 and c-141 ASIHE Code Categogr.

B-A

$ttppo+ltfg DB~

Examination Data Sheets E 6-00 thru E~2, Indication Data Sheets 03401 thru 03404, Screen Prints, Exam Patch Location Map, Exam Coverage Plots, GERIS 2000 Setup Records and Manual Examination Data Sheet DM3, D494, D498 and D-102.

Examination Summa The ultrasonic examination ofweld V-1-C resulted in no recorded indications that exceed the allowable standards of IWB4500, ASME Section XI, 1986 Edmon, No Addenda.

The ASME Section XI required examination volume was examined with the GERIS 2000 System from the RPV inside surface utilizing Procedure No. GE-UT-700, Rev.2.

This examination was limited due to the N2-H Nozzle at 270', and the lower limitofthe GERIS 2000 manipulator. Areas that could not be examined using the GERIS 2000 and accessible from the outside surface were examined by the manual technique utilizing Procedure No. GE-UT~, Rev. 6, FRR~. The total examination coverage was calculated to be 88%.

The GERIS 2000 utilizes an array of search units ananged to effectively examine the weld and adjacent base material parallel and perpendicular to the weld axis in two directions. The transducer package consisted of 0'ongitudinal, 45'nd 60'hear wave, and 70'efracted longitudinal (RL) wave search units.

The GERIS 2000 system recorded indications with the 0'ase metal scans and the 45'hear wave scans that were evaluated and found to be acceptable per the referencing Code section.

The manual technique utilized 0'ongitudinal, 45'nd 60'hear wave search units both parallel and perpendicular to the weld axis in two directions to effectively examine the weld and adjacent base material.

No indications were recorded with the manual technique.

Fabrication records and previous examination results were reviewed prior to the completion of this examination summary.

GERIS Analyst:

I LEVEL:

UTILITYRevIew+

TITLE:

DATE:

/g/g/)2 DATE:

r.>E FY GE Reviewer. ~igbbQ LEVEL:

ANIIReview:

TITLE'2-13 QA.

DATE: IB IS-'93 DATE;

/H 5

0

A

~

~ ~ ~

~

~.

I I I I

I

~

~ '

~

~ ~

~

~.

~

s I I

~

~ I

~

II PI

~

I I ~

~

~ I

~

I

~

. P

~

~ '

~

0

~

~',

~ '

~

I

~

~ I

~

III

~

I

~

~ I

~,

~

~ I

~

~ '

~,

~

~ I

~

~ ~

~,

~ '

~

I

~ '

~

A

~

~ ~ ~

~

I'I I ~ I I

~

I't

~ I'I

~

. ~

~

III

~

~ '

~

. ~

~.

~

II

~

~ - ~l

~

II

~

III

~

~ I

~

~ L I tl

~

~ '

~

o

~

~ '

~

t

~

I

~

~ I

~

I

~

I I I

~

1

~

~ ~

~

t ~

~

I I I I

I

~

~..

I I

~

~.

~

~ ~,

~

a

. ~:

~

I ~~:

o

~

1

~

~:

~

~.

~

I ~

~

~ '

8 ~

~

I I

~

~ 1

~

I

~

I ~

~

~ '

~

~ ',,

~ J

~

. P'

~

I

~

~ I

~

I I I

~

~ ~

~

e'

~

~ '

~

I

~

~ '

~

I ~

~

J l~

~ ~

~

r

~

r

~

I ~ I

~

~ ~

~

II

~ 't

~

~ I

~

~ I

~

4 ~,

~

~ ~

~

~ ~ I

~'t

~

. r

~

~ ~

~ ~ I

~

II '

~

r.

~

~',

~

A ~

~

r>

~

~ '

~

r

~

I

~

~,

~

~ I

~ t '

~

I ~ ~

~

s

~ ~

~

~.

~

0 ', ',

~ '

~

~ ~

~ I

~

~ I

~ ~

~

~ '

~

~ '

~

1

~

~ '

~

4 r

~

~ ~ '

~

I f.r:

e

~

I I '

r.

~

I II I

~ ~ ~

~

. ~, ~,

~

III

~

r..

~

~. e.

~

IC

~ I

~ I '

~

n

~

~ ~

~ '

~,

~

e

~

~',

~

I ~

~

e ~

~

~ ~

~

t ~

~

n

~ ~

~

r.

II~

I ~ I e

~

e ~

~

e

~

~ ~

e'

~

er e

~

~ I

~

I ~

~ e' r

~

~ ~ ~

~

~ '

~

e'

~

I

~

~'

~

~ I

~

I

~

~ e' I I I

~

e

~

e

~

~ el

~

e

~

~,

~

~ ~ '

~

~ I

~

~ I

~ ~

~

e '

~

~,

~

~ '

~

e

~

r.

~

I

~ ~:

~

~ ~

~

I

~

n

~ ~

I

~

~.

~ I

~ '

~ ~ ~

~

~ ~

~

~ ~

~

~ I

~

~ I I I

~

~ I

~

~ 0

~ '

~

~',

~

t

~

~ I

~

~ ~ '

~

'V

~

V I ~ ~

~

r.

I ~

r..

~

~II:

~

~ '

~

~,

~ '

~

~ ~

~'t

~

Pi

~

I I

~

I ~~: ~,

r.

~

ht

~

~ ~;

I

~ II

~

~ I

~

~ '

~

~ '

~

I

~

~ il

~

~ '

~

I

~

~ '

~

~ II

~

~ t I

~

~ ~

~

~ '

w - ~ I

~

~ i ~

~ ~

~

~ '

'I I

~

P1

~

~ '

~

~ ~ ~

~,

~

~,

~

~ ' ',

~

t

~

~ '

~

~ J.

II.

~

I

~

Il:

~

~,

~

~,

~ '

~

I I I

~

t

~

o:

. i

. o

~.

~

l ~

~

~ '

~

I I

~

a I I

~

~,

~

~,

~

~ '

~

I

~

~ I

~

I

~

III

~

o

~

I

~

~ I

~

~,

~ '

~

~ '

I"

~

~ ~ ~

I'

~

I I I

~

II

~

I

~

~ K

~

I I

~

I I

~ ',

~

. ~:

s.

~

II

~

~ '

~

I I

~

~..

~ I

~

t I I

~ '

~

I

~

~ I

~

I

~

~ II

~

~,

~

~ '

~

~.

~

~ ~

~

It

~

~.

~t

~

~ 0 Ill.

+

~

~ '

~

~ '

~

~'

~

I

~

~ I

~

~,

~ '

~

+

~

~ ~ ~

~

o I

I

~

II

~

I

~

e

~

III

~

II II II I

~ ~

~

~ ',

~,

~

I I

~

~ '

~

II

~

II'.

~ '

~

~ t

~

+

~

I

~

~ I

~

I I I

~

W

~

~ I

~

~ '

~

~ ~ '

~

~,

~

1

~

~ '

~

A A

~

~ ~

~

II I

~

e

~

~ t.

I

~

I I I

~

I

~

I I

~ I I

~ I I ~

~

At

~ '

~,

~

t

~

+

~

I ~

~

~ '

~

II

~

~ ~

~

III.

~

~:

o

~

~ ~;

I I'

~

~ '

~

t '

+

~

~ '

~

I

~

~ I

~

I P '

~

I I I

~

~ ~

~

~~,

~

~',

~

t I

~ ~,

~

~ '

~

~ I

~

I

~

~ I

~ ~

~

~ '

~

~.

~

~ ~

~

~ '

~

~ ~,

~

0

~

~ '

~

A P

~

~ ~ ~

~

~,

I

~

I

~

~,

~

I I I

~

~ ',

~

~ '

~

~',

~

II

~

0

~

~ '

~

I

~

P1

~

~ '

~

~ ',

~

~ '

~

~ '

~

I

~

I

~

III

~

~ '

~

4 ~

~,

~

~ I

~',

~

A~

~

~ I

~,

~

~ '

~

~ '

~

~,

~ '

~

o

~

~,

~

GE Nuclear Energy GERIS 2000 Examination Summary Sheet prOJeCt TVA, Brovms Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 3 SyStem:

Reactor Pressure Vessel Weld /D V-54 ASME Code Cafegory:

B.A Calibration Sheets: ~ c - o o I

/-a c - p tr.

SuppOrtlffg Data:

Examination Data Sheets E-1940 thru E-1903, Indication Data Sheet 19401 th 1~,

IndicaUon EvaluaUon Sheets, Screen Prints, Exam Patch Location Map, Exam Coverage Plots, and GERIS 2000 Setup Records.

Examination Summa The ultrasonic examlnaUon ofweld V4-C resulted in no recorded indications that exceed the allowable standards of IWB4500, ASME SecUon XI, 1986 Edition, No Addenda.

The ASME Section XI required examination volume was examined with the GERIS 2000 System from the RPV inside surface utilizing Procedure No. GE-UT-700, Rev. 2. The total examination coverage was calculated to be 100%.

The GERIS 2000 utilizes an array of search units arranged to effectively examine the weld and adjacent base material parallel and perpendicular to the weld axis in two directions. The transducer package consisted of0'ongitudinal ~ 45'nd 60'hear wave, and 70'efracted longitudinal (RL) wave search units.

The GERIS 2000 recorded indications with the 70'L and 60'hear wave scans that were evaluated and found to be acceptable per the referencing Code section.

Geometric indications from the flange radius were recorded with the 45'nd 60'hear wave scans.

Fabrication records and previous examination results were reviewed prior to the completion ofthis examinaUon summary.

GERIS Analyst:

LEVEL:

DATE: 18-j I" f TITLE UTILITYReview:

DATE:

Te ~

GE Reviewer:

LEVEL~~~

ANIIReview:

TITLE:

E2-25 DATE: /Z,/rS/'P3 DATE: //

ENCLOSURE 3

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN)

UNIT 3 METHOD-OF CALCULATING REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL SHELL SELDS COVERAGE (See Attached)

Pages E3-2 through E3-9

METHOD OF CALCULATIONOF ACHIEVEDCOVERAGE'S WITH THE GERIS 2000 INVESSEL EXAMINATIONSYSTEM INTRODUCTION BROWNS FERRY UNIT3 ASME Section XI requires the examination of reactor assembly welds each inspection interval.

For many years it was not possible to examine some BWR's from the outside surfaces due to access limitations and the technology had not been developed to inspect them from the inside surfaces.

In 1992 General Electric developed the GERIS 2000 Invessel Examination System to examine BWR welds from the ID surfaces using advanced state of the art ultrasonics and automated scanning device.

The GERIS 2000 Invessel system was designed to examine the followingweld types; Shell Welds both Circumferential and Longitudinal, the Shell to Flange Weld and Base Material Repair Welds."

REFERENCES The requirements for the GERIS 2000's targeted examinations are specified by the following references.

ASME Section XI, Figures IWB-2500-1, 2500-2, 25004 define the examination volumes.

ASME Section XI, IWA-2232 "Ultrasonic Examination" defines the examination requirements.

ASME Section V, Article 4 defines the specific examination techniques.

ASME Section V, Article 4, Tel.3.2 "Scanning Requirements" defines the examination coverage requirements.

Other documents pertaining to RPV examinations are:

USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.150 requires reporting ofthe achieved coverage.

ASME Code Case N460 requires a minimum of90% coverage ofthe examination volume.

ASME Interpretation XI-1-89-32 clarifies Code Case N460.

COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS ASME Section XI,Figures IWB-2500-1, 2500-2, 25004 defines the examuiation volumes forthe GEMS 2000 targeted examinations.

Typically the examination volume is the weld and adjacent base material for a distance of1/2 T on either side ofthe weld.

ASME Section V, T441.3.2 "Scanning Requirements" provides for the examination of the examination volume with both straight beam and angle beam techniques.

The straight beam techniques required are scans to detect both planar and laminar refiectors within the defined examination volume.

Additionally a scan is required of the base material through which the angle beams must travel to detect conditions that may interfere with the interpretation of the angle beam results.

E3-2

The angle beam techniques required are generally two angle beams having nominal angles of45 and 60 degrees.

In addition, because the GERIS 2000 is being used to examine the vessel from the inside surface, a refracted longitudinal (RL) angle beam with a nominal angle of70 degrees is required to detect flaws located in the clad / base material region ofthe exam volume.

The examination volume is required to be scanned with the angle beam search units directed both at right angles to the weld axis and along the weld axis.

Wherever feasible each examination is required to be performed in two directions i.e., approaching the weld from opposite directions and parallel to the weld &om opposite directions.

This results in the following required scans:

1. Astraight beam scan ofthe base material volume for interference with angle beam examinations

2. A straight beam scan ofthe defined examination volume for the detection ofplanar reflectors.

3. A straight beam scan ofthe defined examination volume for the detection oflaminar reflectors

4. A total ofsix ( 6 ) angle beam scans directed perpendicular to the weld using 45, 60 and 70 degree search units in two directions.

5. A total of six ( 6 ) angle beam scans directed parallel to the weld using 45, 60 and 70 degree search units in two directions.

The straight beam scan ofthe base material for interference with the angle beam examinations is not a scan ofthe required examination volume. Accordingly it can be considered that a total of 14 scans are required for the examination ofan RPV weld from the inside surface.

COVERAGE VALUES Article 4 addresses three general examination types:

1. Straight beam scanning for planar and laminar reflectors. T441.3.2.3 (a) and (b).

2. Angle beam scanning for reflectors oriented parallel to the weld. T-441.3.2.6.

3. Angle beam scanning for reflectors oriented transverse to the weld. T-441.3.2.7.

Each of these general examination types can be assigned a value based on the number of scans required for that examination type divided by the number of total scans required to fully examine the weld.

This results in the followingexamination coverage values:

1. Straight beam scans for planar and laminar reflectors 2 / 14 or 14.2%

2. Angle beam scans for reflectors parallel to the weld 6/ 14 or 42.9%

3. Angle beam scans for reflectors transverse to the weld 6 / 14 or 42.9 %

For a total of 14 / 14 or 100 % ofthe required coverage for the examination volume.

E3-3

0

ACHIEVEDCOVERAGE ( PATCH )

Due to scanning characteristics the weld examinations performed by the GEMS 2000 Invessel system consists of a number of connecting rectangular scan areas or "patches".

The Data Analyst will determine the achieved coverage for each patch.

This is done by using a "to scale" Auto Cad cross sectional drawing of the weld and required examination volume.

The data analyst will plot the search unit positions at the scan start and end points for each examination type and determine the amount of achieved coverage for that scan.

To illustrate how the data analyst determines the achieved examination coverage for a given scan patch consider the followingexample.

EXAMPLE 1: Determine the percentage ofthe examination coverage for a given patch.

Step 1:

Step 2:

Step 3:

Step 4:

Determine the area ofthe required examination volume.

a.) Using the "to scale" AutoCad drawing measure the cross sectional area ( Al) ofthe examination volume.

Determine the straight beam coverage in percentage ofrequired coverage.

a.) Using the "as scanned" parameters plot the scan start and end positions ofthe 0 degree search units.

b.) Measure the cross sectional area ofthe examination volume scanned ( A2 ).

c.) Calculate the straight beam coverage ( SBC ) in percentage:

SBC = A2 / Al x 100 Determine the transverse angle beam coverage in percent ofrequired coverage a.) Using the "as scanned" parameters plot the scan start and end positions ofthe 45, 60 and 70 degree search units directed perpendicular to the weld axis.

b.) Using the rules ofArticle 4, T-441.3.2.6 determine the cross sectional area of the examination volume that has been eQectively scanned.

Note: Article 4, T-t4L3.2.6 has diQerent scanning requirements for the weld and the adjacent base material.

c.) Measure the cross sectional area ofthe examination volume eQ'ectively scanned ( A3 ).

d.) Calculate the transverse angle beam coverage ( TC ) in percentage:

TC = A3/Alx 100 Determine the parallel angle beam coverage in percent ofrequired coverage a.) Using the "as scanned" parameters plot the scan start and end positions ofthe 45, 60 and 70 degree search units directed parallel to the weld axis.

b.) Using the rules ofArticle 4, TML3.2.7 determine the cross sectional area ofthe examination volume that has been eQ'ectively scanned.

Note: Article4, Tel.3.2.7 requires scanning, as a minimum, by any combination of two angle beams from any direction or angle.

c.) Measure the cross sectional area ofthe examination volume effectively scanned ( A4 ).

E3-4 IVi%94

d.) Calculate the parallel angle beam ( PC ) coverage in percentage:

PC = A4/Alx 100 Because each ofthe three general examination areas can be assigned a value based on, the number of scans required for any given scan patch, the combined coverage of the scanned area can be calculate Combined coverage

( SBC x.142)+ (TC x.429)+ (PC x.429)

COMBININGPATCH COVERAGE'S In Example 1

we determined the achieved coverage for a single patch.

Due to scan characteristics, limitations and memory considerations most welds examined by the GERIS 2000,will require more than one scan patch.

To determine the achieved coverage for the complete weld we must combine the coverage's Som a number ofscan patches.

The Data Analyst willplot the scanner's position limitsfor each patch on-a "to scale" Auto Cad vessel map drawing.

This willallow the analyst to identify any areas that. have. been.

skipped inadvertently or areas where the scan patches have been overlapped.

To illustrate how the data analyst determines the achieved examination coverage for.a weld consider the followingexample.

EXAMPLE2: Determine the combined coverage for a weld.

Step 1:

Calculate the weld length ( L ).

Step 2:

Plot the patch scan limits on the "to scale" Auto Cad vessel map drawing.

a.) For each patch print the scanner parameters from the patch setup record.

b.) Using the as scanned parameters draw an outline ofeach scanned patch.

c.) Print the drawing and review the patch limits. Verifythat all limitations have been documentetL Verifythat there are no unjustified skip areas between patches.

Note any patch overlap areas.

Step 3:

Combine the patch coverage's.

a.) For each patch calculate the patch length ( PL ).

For circumferential welds: PL = XMax - XMin For longitudinal welds: PL= YMax-YMin b.) Calculate the combined coverage ( CC ).

'k CC=(PL 1/L)+(PL 2/L)+...

Where: PL 1isPatch 1,PL 2isPatch2,etc.

Because these patches do not overlap it is a relatively simple matter to combine the coverage's Qom multiple patches into a single coverage value for the weld.

This is the value that will be reported as the achieved coverage for the weld on the examination sutnmary sheet.

Note 1: For weld examinations that include overlapping patches the Data Analyst must determine the weld length that has been repeated and reduce the claimed coverage accordingly.

E3-5 INKS

Note 2:

For weld exIninations that include manual or automated supplemental examinations the Data Analyst must determine the amount of additional coverage and increase the claimed coverage accordingly.

Example 2 provides an illustration of how the combined coverage's can'be calculated manually.

Typically the scan patch limits and patch coverage values are entered into a spreadsheet and the overall coverage calculated automatically.

The Data Analyst is responsible for ensuring that all values have been entered correctly and that any overlapping scans or supplemental examinations have been considertxL E3-6

Cross sectional areo of the ASME exomiantion volume 55.07 sq. inches CW CCW nr nr Example 1 - Step 1

Cross sectional area ol straiqht beam coverage.

33.9 sq. inches CW CCW n ~

a@1 r~IA Example 1 Step 2

E3-7 12/tet94

Cross sectional area of transverse coverage 53.02 sq. inches CW CCW rWAOIIIAWEPV t:xarhpfe l - Step 3

Cross sectionol areo ot parallel coverage.

55.07 sq. inches CW CCW nr 1'~h Fxornpfe 1 - Step 4

E3-8 lVtfr94

4l

BROWNS FERRY UNIT-3 C-5-FLG C-4-5 C-3-4 Oe 90 0+

I 450 I

~ ~

~'

180'10 Qo 165' H

Qo Qo285'30 360'L. 745.

VESSEL FLANGE EL. 706 EL.

573'L.

524,5'-2-3 450 165 285'04'OP OF SHROUD EL.

391.5'L.

372 C-1-2 C-BH-1 0'0 Qo 140'80'60'ELTLINE REGION EL.

258.5'L.

204 EL. 1255'HROUD SUPPORT 360'L'21.5'AFFLE PLATE EL.

0,0'E NUCLEAR ENERGY BROWNS FERRY UNIT 3 VESSEL ROLLOUT II( AS SCANNED PATCH LOCATIONS BF-3-VMA REV 0

P,

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Unit 3 estart cavities I

PRfMTEO OH RECYCLED PAPER TVA / AC MEETING HRC NGION KI

-. ATLANTA'A APRIL 10) -1995 Enclosure 2

STANDING AGENDA 1.0 Introductions and Old Business Restart Open Items Lists R. Machon C. Crane 2.0 Schedules 2.1 Integrated Restart Schedule 2.2 Recovery Schedule 2.2.1 Commodities 2.2.2 Milestones 2.3 Licensing Schedule 2.4 Power Ascension Test Schedule R. Machon D. Stinson P. Salas R. G. Jones 3.0 Organization 3.1 Recovery 3.2 Multiple Operating Unit Site Organization 4.0 Unit 3 Operational Readiness. Reviews 4.1 Self Assessments 4.1

~ 1 Operational Readiness Windows 4.1.2 System Windows 4.1.3 Test Deficiency Resolution 4.2 Independent Assessments 4.2.1 Corporate Audits 4.2.2 Operational Readiness Program 4.2.3 lNPO Periodic Evaluation 4.2.4 NSRB Review 4.2.5 Senior Management Review Team C. Crane R. Machon / G. Preston r

T. Abney G. Preston G. Pierce J. Maciejewski T. Abney G. Preston R. Machon O. J. Zeringue /O. D. l(ingsley NOTE: Not Covered Tfsis Month

0 STANDlNG AGENDA(CONT.)

0 5.0 Quality Assurance Activities 6.0 Licensing Project Plan, 7.0 Unit 2 Lessons Learned 8.0 Emerging Issues 8.1 Rosemount Transmitters 8.2 Fuel Pool Debris 8.3 System Flushes and MIC 9.0 Fidelity issues 10.0 Backlog Summaries 10.1 Maintenance 10.2 Temporary Rlterations 10.3 PERs 10A Procedures J.Johnson P. Salas T. Abney P. Salas C. Crane C. Crane G. Pierce C. Crane 11.0 Summary / Action items R. Machon NOTE: Not Covered This Month

0

1.0 INTRODUCTION

S AND OLD BUSINESS MEETING OBJECTIVES 0

~

Update NRG Region ll Restart Review Board on the Progress Towards BFN Unit 3 Restart Activities Since the Last Monthly Meeting

~

Action items from Previous Meetings eetin Date February 40, 1995 February 10, 1995 Nlarch 21, 1995 Aetio te Simplified Turnover Flow Chart Scope of Corporate Assessment of Unit 3 Recovery QA Plan'estart Open Item Lists tat s

'Closed ln March 21, 1995 Meeting WillBe Discussed During This Meeting in Section 4.2.1, Corporate Audits WillBe Discussed During This INe'etlng Machon

1.0 INTRODUCTION

S AND OLD BUSINESS {CONT.}

RESTART OPEN ITEMS LISTS 0

~

Organizational I Programmatic Items Addressed by the Performance Goals Monitored by the Operational Readiness Windows Program

~

Hardware Items Affecting System Operability Are Tracked By the Site Master Punchlist (SMPL)

~

Snapshot of SMPL Vsed at Time of System Plant Acceptance Evaluation (SPAE) and System Pre-Operability Checklist (SPOC)

~

Contents of SMPL Described In Next Slide C. Crdne

I

~ I

~ 0

~

~ l

~

C

Ital rKQIRA'rKDo SCHKDDUILK 0

2/I/'95 3/I/'95

</I/95 5/I/95 6/I/95 7/I/95 8/I/95 9/I/'95 18/I/95 II/I/95 12/I/95 I/I/96 2/I/'96 3/I/96 4/I/96 5/I/96 6/I/96 R

R NRL V) 0 El I)

RRB)

NG RR HEE )

RRB HEETI

~num RRB NEET IQ

--+-

5/T4/V)

RRB.

HEETINg RRB HEETING RRB HEETING e/T)re RRB HEETING

+'

VD/&

RRB HEETING

--+-.

)i/?II%

Q)C COHHISSI HEST ING

)

<,J ENSING INSPECT I PLAN I ONS a CLOSE IN LE ORAT TIAL Fl EOUT CLOSE TER LETT OUT ER STATI BLACK APPENGIX R

SERVICE VATER UNIT 3 SELF EVA TIONS W040vs a sYBTEHS)

TVA K

SSENTI E'IE LLY A CORP AUOIT TORUS F)LL a GATE REMOVAL FIELO) WORK COMPLETE IQ%~--.

~

TVA C NN MAJ FIELO COMP UEL 5

WORK RE LETE MOVE F OOL OAT ll ggg$t-SHART KR FUEL LOAO

)LRT

-+0-RPV HYDR INITI CRIT I

'I U/3 45 CLh ORE SE KER ION ETE U2 0

CB SB OAY OUAL UNIT RUN 35 45 BAYS POKER ASCE S

STING COHPL U2 CLOSE BREAKER 0

SC HA OR HA NT SC PE IS B

UE FREEZE 0

SCOP OTG E

BLXSET YEO art; I REAOY'NIT 2

RFO 8 Hll R TECH S NOATI N C

UZCT

)LESSONS ARNE0)

/PH/SI/TI SCOPE TAFFING a SITE VORK RISK ASSE EV (B) SC)E SC)EO)LES TRAC'TS QKNT bULE

)

TG REAOY SC%0 T U3 RFO STAR OTG PREPS SAI.P SALP OPS PLNT SIS'T SALP ENGR a HAINT

~ to

~ ~

t REY A

2.0 SCHEDULES (CONT.}

2.2 RECOVERY SCHEDULE (CONT.}

~

Summary of Commodities I

Commodity DCNs Issued DCNs RTO'd ENGINEERING Complete 535 (92%) f90%]

48 675 (60%) [59%]

444 Remaining Drawings 21,127 (62%) [60%]

12,791 SPAEs 27 (44/o) [42%~]

35 CONSTRUCTION t

Commodity Large Hangers Small Hangers Conduit (ft.)

Conduit Supports Cable (ft.)

DCNs FWC Systems FWC Complete 1 >843 (97'Yo) [98%]

5,061 (96'Yo) [94%]

15@398 (92%) [93%]

13,973 (92'Yo) [IOYo]

622,713 (84%) [85'/o]

717 (86%) P9'Yo]

21 (31%),'f30o/o]

Remaining 65 187 13,501 1,180 121,660 120 46 90% Complete December 94 A January95 A February 95 A March 95 A May 95 F [April]

June 95 F August 95 F Complete July 95 F [May]

June 95 F [May]

July 95 F fJune]

July 95 F [June]

October 95 F October 95 F Data Through 4/09/95 - [Status as of 3/12/95]

~- Correction Yo Previous Months Data D. Stinson

2.0 SCHEDULES (CONT.)

2.2 RECOVERY SCHEDULE (CONT.)

~

Summary of Commodities (Cont.)

Commodity Work Items FWC DCNs FWC Malnt. Sys. FWC Comp. /RTS Test SPOC I SPOC II Complete 9 736 (43'Yo) f40%]

62 (23'Yo) f22%]

22 (23'Yo) f14%]

209 (16%) f1010]

8 (17%) f29%]

10 (16'Yo) f16%]

PLANT Remalnlng 111871 210 74 1,066 40 52 90'/o Complete November 96 F August 95 F August 95 F September 95 F August 95 F September 96 F Complete February 96 F September 96 F October 95 F November 95 F October 9S F November 95 F Data Through 4/09/95 - fStatus as of 3/12/9S]

D. Stinson

2.0 SCHEDULES {CONT.}

2.2 RECOVERY SCHEDULE {CONT.}

~

System Returh to Service Mqtrlx SYSTEM NUMBER 3146 SYSTEM DESCRIPTlON MAINSTEAM CONDENSATE FEEDWATER 5 FW CONTROL Nf BTRD 6 I 01 I 93 3 I05 I 93 5I 21 I 83 NE SPAE SPOC I SPOC t1 SYSTEM OPERABLE EXTRACTIONSTEAM 3 I 05 I 93 2 I 1? I 93 4 I 22 I 83 HEATER DRAINS 6 VENTS NIA 12I 12 I 83 NIA 7

TURBINE EXT DRAINS 8

TURB DRA{NS8 MISC PIPING NIA NIA 4 I 16 I 93 5 I 05 I 83 4I 16 I 93 5l 05 I 93 10 12 20 23 24 RPV VENTS 6 DRAINS AUXBOILER CENTRALLUBEOIL RHR SERVICE WATER RAW COOUNG WATER 2I 05 I83 NlA NIA 3!15 I 83 6 I 03 I 93 2 I 12 I 84 12 I 12 I83 1 I 29 I 84 5 I 31 I 94 NIA NIA 8 I 23 I 84 9 I 06 I 94 24A 25 2l AUXRAW COOUNG WATER RAWSERVICE WATER COND CIRC WATER NIA 3 I 26 I 83 5I 06 I82 8 I 2T I 92 NIA 4 I 09 I 93 4I 29 I 83 9 I 30 I93.

11 I15!83 9 I 21 I 92 10 I 13 I 83 3 I 29 I 94 11 I 01 I 94 D. StthSOn

2.0 SCHEDULES (CONT.)

2.2 RECOVERY SCHEDULE (CONT.)

~

System Return to Service Matrix (Cont.)

SYSTEM NUMBER 27C 30 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION COOUNG TWR 1, 5, 6 TURB/ DSL GEN BLDG HVAC NE BTRD NE SPAE 5 I 06 I 92 12 I 23 I 92 1 I14 I93 6 I 16 I94 SPOC I SPOC II 1 I 05 I 93 1 I 29 I93 7 I 28 I 94 8 I22/84 SYSTEM OPERABLE 6 I12 I84 2/07 I 85 32 33 35 CONTROLAIR SERVICEAIR VACUUMPRIMING GEN HYDI STATOR COOUNG NIA N/A NIA 3 I 13 I 85 11 I 17 I 93 5 I 10 I83 3 I13 I 85 NIA 2/25 I 84 2 I 25 I 84 37 39B 40 GLANDSEALWATER CO2 GENERATOR PURGE STATION DRAINAGE N/A NIA N/A 2 I 17 I 93 4/05 I 93 4I 12I 93 N/A N/A 4 I 12 I93 4 I 24 I 93 S I 05 I 8S 12/ 02/ 84 11 I 23 I 94 4I 24 I 93 43

'47 SAMPUNG 8 WATER QUALITY EHC 5/12 I 93 4 I 26 I 93 6 I09/94 9 I 15 I 94 53 DEMINBACKWASHAIR N/A 2 I17 I 93 NIA 2 I 29 I 93 2I 29 I 93 57-2 ANNUNCIATOR TEMPERATURE MONITORING 120V AC INST 8 CONT POWER N IA 11 I29 I 94 N/A 4 I 09 I 93 N/A D. Stinson

~.0 SCHED S (CONT.)

2.2 RECOVERY SCHEDULE (CONT.)

~

System Return to Service Matrix (Cont.)

SYSTEM NUMBER 57%

57-5 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 250V DC DISTRIBUTION 480V AC DISTRIBUTION 4KVDISTRIBUTION NE BTRD 4/13/93 6 I28 I 93 5/17/93 NE SPAE SPOCI SPOC II SYSTEM OPERABLE 57%

63 64A 64B 64D 67 68186 70 71 73 500KVI 161KV OFFSITE S MISC STANDBYLIQUIDCONTROL PRIMARYCONTAINMENT REACTICTMTVENT PCIS OFF GAS EECW REACTOR RECIRC 1 FLOW CTRL RWCU RBCCW RCIC HPCI 4/08/83 N/A 6 I03/83 3 I 02 I 95 3I29 I 95 4I 28 I 83 4 I14 I 83 3 I 14 I 85 4/22 I 93 4/26/93 9/26/S4 5 I 25 I 93 6/24 I 93 5I 12 I 93 3 I 29 I 93 6 I 14 I 93 6 I 16 I 93 D. Stinson 10

0 2.0 SCHEDULES (CONT.)

2.2 RECOVERY SCHEDULE (CONT.)

~

System Return to Service Matrix (Cont.)

SYSTEM NUMBER 74 75 76 77 78 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION CORE SPRAY CTMTINERTING RADWASTE FUEL POOL COOUNG NE BTRD 6 I15/83 4 I.16 I 93 4 I26/93 3 I 24 I 93 4 I29 I 93 NE SPAE SPOC I SPOC II SYSTEM OPERABLE 80 84 85 92 FUEL HANDUNG PRIMARYCTMTCOOUNG CTMTAIR DILUTION CONTROL ROD DRIVE RAD MONITORING NEUTRON MONITORING 6 I 07 I 93 N/A 5/12 I 83 5I 10 I 93 4 I29 I 93 4 I 29 I93 8/09/83 11 I07 I 94 N/A 94 TRANSVERSE INORE PROBE 2/22 I 93 REACTOR PROTECTION 100 1 101 l PENETRATIONS6 SLEEVES 260 4I 13 I 93 N/A N/A D. Stinson

2.0 SCHEDULES (CONT.)

2.2 RECOVERY SCHEDULE (CONT.)

I 0

~

System Return to Service Matrix (Cont.)

I SYSTEM NUMBER 247 261 303 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 240V UGHTING

.PLANTCOMPUTER BLDGS 8 STRUCTURES NE BTRD NlA NlA NlA NE SPAE SPOC I SPOC II SYSTEM OPERABLE D. Stinson 12

2.0 SCHEDULES (CONT.)

2.2 RECOVERY SCHEDULE (CONT.)

0 Major Completed or Upcoming Milestones First NSSS Phase I SPOC - System 63, Standby Liquid Control (March 29, 1995 A)

Torus Fill/ Fuel Pool Gate Removal / System Field Work Complete (May 1995)

Systems Ready for CRD Installation (June 5995)

Pull Condenser Vacuum (September 95)

Fuel Load (October 95)

D. Stinson 13

I i

I 2.0 SCHEDULES (CONT.)

2.3 LICENSING SCHEDULE

~

Commitments.and Closure of CATOs Have Been Loaded into Project Schedule I

~

Copies Available for NRC Information I

P. Salhs

4.0 UNIT 3 OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEWS 4.1 SELF ASSESSMENTS

~

Operational Readiness Windows Colors Vsed to Convey Rating 0

Green Signifies Significant Strength

%hite Signifies Satisfactory Performance Signifies Improvement Needed I

Red Signifies Significant Weakness Blue Signifies Insufficient Data T. Abney

BROWNS FERRY UNIT3 OPERATIONAL READINESS PROCESSES Recovery Organization and Administration OVERALL MANPOWER QUALITY KNOWLEDGE8 PERFORMANCE SCHEDULING CONTRACTOR CONTROL CONDUCT OF RECOVERY WORK CONTROL Engineering PROCEDURES AND DOCUMENTATION CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT

~ DCNs ISSUED ELECTRICAL ISSUES SPAE EQ PROGRAM SEISMIC MATERIAL INVENTORY STAFFING Construction PROCEDURES AND DOCUMENTATION DCNs IMPLEMENTED HOUSEKEEPING CONDUCT OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL MANAGEMENT STAFFING Maintenance PROCEDURES AND DOCUMENTATION PLANT MATERIEL CONDITION HOUSEKEEPING MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE STAFFING CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE Page 1 of 2 MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 3 OPERATIONAL READINESS PROCESSES Startup and Testing PROCEDURES AND DOCUMENTATION CONDUCT OF TESTING COMPONENT TESTING SPOC SYSTEM TESTING (PRE-OP)

TACFs SURVEILLANCE INSTRUCTIONS Operations PROCEDURES AND DOCUMENTATION LABELING i

STAFFING PLANT STATUS CONTROL Regulatory and Compliance TECH SPEC CHANGES QA EVALUATIONS ANDISSUES COMMITMENTSI CATDs NRC OPEN ITEMS ORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM ISSUES Overall Department Readiness, SITE ENGINEERING NA&L OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT SITE SUPPORT MAINTENANCE 8&WP Page 2 of2

t 4.0 UNIT 3 OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEWS (CONT.)

4.1 SELF ASSESSMENTS (CONT.)

~

Operational Readiness Wfndows Five Areas Needing Improvement Recovery Organization and Administration (Conduct of Recovery)

~

Violation of Clearance Procedure While Performing Work on CRD HCUs

~: Involved Supervisor Authorization to Hold Clearance Removed

~

Involved Personnel Instructed on Procedure Requirements by TVA Management

~

Training to be Strengthened and Site Bulletin Issued

~

Appears to Be an Isolated Incident Engineering (Material Inventory)

~

inventory of Spare Parts and Consumables Not Established for Two Unit Operation

~

Nuclear Stores Developing Needs

~

Not a Regulatory or Qua]ity Issue Construction (Conduct of Construction)

~

Work on Wrong EECW Dresser Coupling and PER on Pre-Plant Acceptance Deficiencies

~

Improvements in Performance Noted Based on QA Observations of Field Work I

T. Abney 18

4.0 UNIT 3 OPERATIONALREADINESS REVIEWS (CONT.}

4.1 SELF ASSESSMENTS (CONT.}

Operational Readiness Windows (Cont.)

Five Areas Needing Improvement (Cont)

Maintenance (Materials Management)

~

Problems With Materials Staging, Consumables Availability,Material Storage Requirements, and Parts Availability

~

Corrective Actions Have Been Initiated. Insufficient Data to Assess Effectiveness..

~

Productivity Issue Regulatory and Compliance (Tech. Spec. Changes)

~

Two Additional Tech. Spec. Changes Identified Scram AirHeader Pressure Switches Standby Coolant Supply Operability T. Abney

~ ~

4.0 UNIT 3 OPERATIONALREADINESS REVIEWS {CONT.)

4.1 SELF ASSESSMENTS {CONT.)

0

~

Other Changers Since February Report Recovery Organization and Administration (Overall Manpower)

/

Upgraded from Yellowto White

- c Revised Organizational Chart and Transition Plan Issued March 6, 1995 Responsibilities Understood and Organizations Performing Acceptably Maintenance (Procedures and Documentation)

Declining Performance Identified Because of Number of l&CProcedures Remaining to Be Issued Additional Resources Being Added to Complete Procedures Startup and Testing (Procedures and Documentation)

Upgraded from Yellowto White Plant Procedures Required for Testing Have Been Identified and Scheduled to Be Issued Prior to Test Activity T. Abney I

20

4.0 UNIT 3 OPERATIONALREADINESS REVIEWS (CONT.)!

4.1 SELF ASSESSMENTS (CONT.)

~

Other Changes From February Report (Cont.)

Operations (StaNng)

Upgraded From Yellowto White Additional Licensed Operator Added to Unit 3 Control Room on Day Shift 0

Unit 3 Senior Control Room SRO Positions Filled and Staffed for Day and Evening Shifts, Monday - Friday Regulatory and Compliance (Corrective Action Program Issues)

Upgraded from Yellowto White o

System Related PERs Require Closure Prior to Phase II SPOC Unless Justified on an Individual Basis 0

PERs Now Scheduled for Closure Before Required Milestones, Where Applicable T. Abney

4.0 UNIT3 OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEWS (CONT.)

4.1 SELF ASSESSMENTS (CONT.)

~

Other Changes Since February Report {Cont)

Regulatory and Compliance (NRC Open Items)

Upgraded from White to Whtte and Improving Concurrence Reached with NRC on Listof Restart Open Items Open items (e.g., IFls and URls) Have Been Loaded into Project Schedule Closure Performance Reported to Site Management T. Abney I

22

BFN UNIT3'SYSTEM STAT.US MARCH 1995 SAFETY NO DATA INSTRU-MENTATION NO DATA MWe NO DATA 6-EXT'N STEAM (SPOC I)

NO DATA ELECTRICAL (Reference U2)

=Thtrs sre no U3 specific Elsctrtcal Systems CHEM/ RAD 63 DEMIN BKWAIR (SPOC Ii)

WNTE~

SUPPORT 20 LUBE OIL (SPOC II)

WNTE~

69-RWCU WNTE~

24 RAW COOL'G WTR 70 RBCCW 26 RAWSERV WTR (SPOC II)

WNTEf 78-FUEL POOL CLG 27-COND CiRC WTR (SPOC I)

WNTE~

79-FUEL HANDLING (SPOC I)

WNTE~

30 NORMAL VENTILATION (SPOC II)

WNTE~

37 GLAND SEAL (SPOC Il)

YELLOW' 47 EHC (SPOC I)

WHITE~

IDP BAALEGEND'.~

LASTS MONTHS (OLDEST ON LEFI) 0:GREEN "W:WHITE Y:YELLOW R: RED

~ B: BLUEeIO DATA 8YSS NAME

~ SPOC INFO CURRENT COLOR-TREND FORMULATEDBY BFN TECHNICALSUPPORT

0 I

4.0 UNIT 3 OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEWS (CONT.)

4.1 SELF ASSESSMENTS (CONT.)

~

System Status Windows Two Areas Needing Improvement System 24, Raw Cooling Water System Continues to Have Corrosion and Fouling Problems

~

Plans Are Being Developed for System Flushing

~

Raw Water Chemical Treatment Being Considered System 37, Gland Seal Water lnsirvlce Evaluation of System Performance Not Performed Due to System Being in a Dry Layup Condition,

~

System WillBe Returned to Service When Plant Conditions Require Seal

- Water G. Preston 24

4.0 UNIT 3 OPERATIONALREADINESS REVIEWS (CONT.)

4.1 SELF ASSESSMENTS (CONT.)

~

Other Changes Since February Report System 25, Raw Service Water, Upgraded from Yellowto White No Operational Problems Specific To This Equipment Encountered o

Generic issues Associated With "Raw Water Systems" Being Addressed By Unit 0 System Health Report I

System 79, Fuel Handling, Upgraded from No Data to White Preparations Underway to Shuffle Fuel In the Spent Fuel Storage Pool Resulting Increase in Open Work Orders Noted, but Not Considered a Declining Condition G. Preston 25

0 4.0 UNIT3 OPERATIONALREADINESS REVIEWS (CONT.)

4.2 INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS

~

Corporate Attdits - Effectiveness of the Site NA&LUnit 3 Recovery QA Plan Phase I

Conduct a Broad-Based, Senior Management Level Review to VerifyThat the Site NA&LUnit 3 Recovery QA Plan Ensures That Programs, Procedures, and Controls Contain the Necessary Guidance for Safe, Reliable Dual Unit Operation Assess and VerifyThat the Major Elements of the Plan Have Been or Are Going to Be Adequately Assessed by One ofthe Planned Reviews Field Observations to Validate Results Phase Il Review Corrective Actions From Phase I

Review Corrective Actions From Other Operational Readiness Reviews I

J.-Maciejewski 26

4.0 UNIT 3 OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEWS {CONT.)

4.2 INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS (CONT.)

~

Corporate Audits (Cont.)

Schedule Phase I - May 1, 1995 Through May 12, 1995 Phase II - Prior to Fuel Load Members Team Manager John Maciejewski Team Leader Mike Fecht Team Members Terry Overlid Jim Briscoe BillGillen Dick Driscoll Lynn Poage Acting General Manager NA&L Corporate QA Manager Corporate IRA Manager Corporate PEP Manager Corporate PEP Sequoyah NA&LManager Sequoyah Site Quality Manager J. Maclejewskl

4.0 UNIT 3 OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEWS (CONT.)

4.2 INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS (CONT.)

0

~

Corporate Audits (Cont)

Results A Report willSe Sent to the OI'IlNILMaiieger hlthi'hch Iihiee thet Details Any Findings/Observations I

J. Maciejewski 28

0 4.0 UNIT 3 OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEWS (CONT.)'.2 INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS (CONT.)

OPERATIONAL READINESS PROGRAM SENIOR MANAGEMENTASSESSMENT OF RESTART TEAM(SMART) OVERVIEW INDEPENDENT REVIEWS l

~ Nuclear Safety Review Board o Quality Assurance (Site and Corporate)

~ Operational Readiness Review Team e Nuclear Insurers

~ Institute for Nuclear Power Operations SELF ASSESSMENTS FOR OPERATIONALREADINESS e OPERATIONALREADINESS PROGRAM o Implementation of the Special Programs o Evaluation of the Unique Aspects of Multi-unitOperation o Verification of Restart Prerequisltes T. Abney 29

4.0 UNIT 3 OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEWS (CONT.)

4.2 INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS (CONT.)

~

Self-Assessments for Operational Readiness

~

~ief4

?Ik t:3 Rtl aXdi)C"i~4. ".a', 'C

~.:i,. t P

~

Unit 3 Recovery "Windows Process" evaluates:

Recovery Processes and Programs Site Organizations I

Plant Systems Plant Systems Evaluated Monthly by System Engineer Evaluations of Processes, Programs, and Organizations Performed Monthly by Unit 3 Site Trend Analysis Committee Results Reviewed by Site Senior Managers on Unit 3 Trend Review Board T. Abney 30

4.0 UNIT 3 OPERATIONALREADINESS REVIEWS (CONT.)

4.2 INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS (CONT.)

Independent Reviews Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 0

Multi-UnitOperational Readiness to be Addressed in Scheduled Assist Visit (August)

Nuclear Mutual Limited (June) IAmerican Nuclear lnsurers (September)

I Quality Assurance Scheduled Site Audits and Assessments Routine Oversight Activities 0

Special Audits and Assessments of Specific Recovery Activities Review ofWatts Bar Construction issues for Appllcabllltgjto Unit 3 0

Corporate QA Auditof Unit 3 Recovery QA Plan Effectiveness T.. Abney 31

0 4.0 UNIT 3 OPERATIONALREADINESS REVIEWS (CONT.)

4.2 INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS (CONT.)

~

Independent Reviews I

Operational Readiness Review Team 0

Composed of Managers from Corporate and Other TVASites, Managers from other Utilities, and Contractors as Appropriate o

Objective to Evaluate Programs and Management Systems Directed Toward Multi-unitOperation, e.g.,

~

Orgariizational Structure, Interfaces and Authority I

~

Staffing Levels

~

Prioritization ofWork

~

Work Control (Effect on Other Unit)

~

Adequacy of System Pre-operational Checklist (SPOC)

T. Abney I

32

4.0 UNIT 3 OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEWS (CONT.),

4.2 INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS {CONT.}

~

Independent Reviews (Cont.)

Nuclear Safety Review Board (NSRB) 0 Objective of NSRB is to Provide Oversight of Safety Issues Important to Unit 3 Restart T. Abney 33

0 4.0 UNIT 3 OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEWS (CONT.)

4.2 INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS (CONT.)

0

~

Senior Management Assessment of Restart Team (SMART)

SMART Composed of TVANuclear Vice Presidents Objective of SMART Is to Ensure That Appropriate Standards of Excellence Achieved SMART Overview of Startup Preparations Includes a Combination of Reports from Responsible Management, Results of Independent Reviews, and Personal Observations T. Abriey 34

0

5.0 QUALITYASSURANCE ACTlVlTlES

~

Results/Status of Quality Assurance Activities Update on QC Inspector Performance issue Evaluation ofWatts Bar Construction Deficiencies Unit 3 Specific Assessments Plant Assessments I

~

No Programmatic Breakdowns or Safety Significant Issues Identified J.Johnson

0 4

I 5.0 QUALITYASSURANCE ACTIVITIES{CONT.}

UNIT 3 SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS {CONT.}

0

~

Update on QC Inspector Performance Issue I

Sample Inspection Performed for Other Raychem Installations Reviewed by Other Inspectors Five Deficiencies Identified.

1 I

~

One Required Rework

~

Others Were Administrative or on Non-50.49 Equipment Additional Inspections to Be Performed High Rejection Rate Identified For Cable Terminatlons/Splices for inspector of Record Sample of Other Inspectors In Progress Failures Appear to Be Isolated to Inspector of Record AtThis Time J.Johnson 36

6.0 QUALITYASSURANCE ACTIVITIES{CONT.)

EVALUATIONOF WATTS BAR CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCIES 0

~

Electrical Issues (Voltage Ratings, Crimping)

In Progress.

No Deficiencies Identified.

~

Bolt Thread Engagement Two of Fifteen Walworth Valves inspected Had Deficiencies.

PER Initiated.

Engineering Evaluation Resulted in "Accept As ls" Determination.

~

Ring Cut Issue No New Deficiencies Identified J. Johnson 37

0 6.0 QUALITYASSURANCE ACTIVITIES(CONT.)

UNlT 3 SPEClFlC ASSESSMENTS I

~

Implementation of General, Construction Specifications (G-Spec) Into Modification Addition Instructions (MAls)and Work Documents Reviewed Eight Changes to Determine IfChanges Incorporated I

'ne Change Not Fully Incorporated into MAls and Maintenance Procedures Evaluation of Extent of Condition in Progress

~

Pre-Plant Acceptance Installation Deficiencies Negative Trend Identified as a Result of PER Reviews Incident Investigation Performed to Identify Broken Barriers AllBut One Would Have Been Caught in Testing or Inspection Prior to Acceptance (Beta Tape)

Corrective Actions Being Developed J.Johnson 38

5.0 QUALITYASSURANCE ACTIVITIES{CONT.}

UNIT 3 SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS {CONT.}

Recovery Work Observations 78 Observations Performed.

Emphasis on Craft Knowledge, Supervisor and Work Instructions at the Location, QC Independence, and Job Performance 11 PERs Written (1 Level 8, 5 Level C, and 5 Level D)

Cable Supports Not Installed Per Gpec Documentation Errors Design and Installation Deficiencies Conclusions Work Performed In Accordance With Procedures and Had Adequate Oversight Foremen and Supervisors Were at the Work Location Work Documents Were at the Work Location QC Independence Maintained I

J.Johnson 39

0 0

5.0 QUALITYASSURANCE ACTIVITIES(CONT.)

UNIT 3 SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS (CONT.}

~

Maintenance and Technical Support Activities Programs, Personnel, and Procedures Support Two-UnitOperation Activities Performed in Accordance with Procedures and Good Practices

~

Appendix R Program Is Adequate and Plans to Complete Items (Such as Timed Walkdowns and Procedures) Are Acceptable Follow-Up Assessment to Be Performed in July 1996

~

Restart Test ITest Support ln Progress

~

Environmental Qualification In Progress I

J.Johnson 40

5.0 QUAI ITYASSURANCE ACTIVITIES{CONT.)

PLANTASSESSMENTS

~

Fire Protection Audit In Progress Radiological Control Performance Evaluation ln Progress J.Johnson

6.0 LICENSING PROJECT PLAN

~

Technical Specifications l

I TVAHas identified An Appendix R Related Technical Specification Amendment For Which TVAWillRequest Approval Prior to Unit 3 Restart LimitingConditions For Operation 3.6.C.3 Requires Standby Coolant Supply Connection Be Operable Valves Associated With Standby Coolant Supply Connection Using RHR Service Water Pumps Are Supplied With Power Through a Normally Open Breaker Standby Coolant and RHR Cross-Ties Provides Added Long-Term Redundancy to the Other Emergency and Containment Cooling Systems Breaker for Standby Coolant Supply Valves ls Normally Open For Appendix R Purposes I

Current Technical Specifications State RHR Cross-Ties Are Operable lf Capability Can Be Restored Within 6 Hours Similar Words To Be Added For Standby Coolant Supply System P,. Salas 42

0 6.0 LICENSING PROJECT PLAN (CONT.)

~

Multi-UnitPRA Submitted Three Unit Operation Identified As Most LimitingCase Resulting Core Damage Frequency for Unit 2 with AllThree BFN Units in Operation (2.8 X 10 I Is Approximately a Factor of 3.7 over the Current Single Unit Operation BFN PRA Estimate (7.6 x 10)

No Vulnerabilities Identified E

CA EG R

UL

-UN ILMMGQ E

GE aG CD E

CE A

Loss of Offsite Power Internal Floods Support System Failures Transients wl Reactor Not isolated Transients wl Reactor isolated Loss of Coolant Accidents Stuck Open Relief Valves Interfacing System LOCAs TOTALS 1.1 x 10+

6.1 x10~

5.8 x 104 2.3 x 10 2.0 x 10+

4.6 x10~

1.9 x10~

4~6x 0

2.8 x10 39 22 21 100 1.5 x 10+

1.1 x 10 1.7 x1o'.1 x10 1.9:x 10+

5.1 x10~

1.9 x1O'~6x 0

7.6 x 10+

20 15 28 25 100 P. Salas 43

8.0 EMERGING ISSUES

~

Rosemount Transmitters I

I Inoperability Due to Hydrogen Penetration Through Isolating Diaphragm on Certain Rosemount Model 1162, 1163 and 1 164 Pressure Transmitters Exposed to Process Fluids i.

5'%~,L~

all}'i"$} g$j}}jj}}gXwQ> a4'44lgjjNf~)g tlfekj'tkAI4l >l 10 CFR Part 21 NotiAcation Issued by Rosemount Nuclear Instruments Reported in Information Notice 96-20 o Research and Walkdowns for Reportedly Effected Model Numbers Indicates Susceptible Transmitters Not at BFN ~ Fuel Pool Debris ~ System Flushes and MIC I P.. Salas I C. Crane

10.0 BACKLOGSUMMARIES ~ TVA's Objective ls to Restart Unit 3 with a Minimal Backlog Comparable to the Status of an Operating Unit I ~ Overall Backlog For Unit 3 AtRestart WillBe Smaller Than Unit 2 When lt Restarted ~ Backlog of Other Items WillBe Reduced Similar to Status at Time of Unit 2 Restart Engineering (e.g., Update of Calculations, Procurement, Closure of Old ECNs I DCNs, TACFs, and Draw ng Updates) Operations (e.g., Procedures Updates, LitAnnunciators, Clearances, Operator Work Arounds, Reduced and Labels Installed) Maintenance (e.g., Work Orders, Work Requests, Furmanite, and Seal Leakages) Quality Issues (e.g., PERs) Other Regulatory Commitments (e.g., Hardened Wetwell Vent (Generic Letter 89-16) and NUREG-D737 (TMIAction Items) I.D.1, Control Room Design Review, and I.D.2, Safety Parameter Display System C. Crane

0 0 10.0 BACKLOGSU5IMAQIES (CONT,) UNIT 3 RECOVERY WORK SCOPE W PMT Bockb/T 1100 l4 760 1410 I/14/OI I/II/44 I/onO I/11/14 Inono ~R~ Wtl I/II/14 ~n/11 ~~PMT BOIMoy J 10$ WR Backlog PM'5 100 Ino/oo I/O/44 - I/II/44 Intno i&A a~Krg I %1 ~/I/oh MWDRMAlNT. TDCN'4 141 TO F 44 IIO 114 114 C. Crane I/O/IO I/II/44 Inono Inl/14 4/I/OI 2I2185 f~R<<0<</ooo TDCIISI4404) 46

10.0 BACKLOGSUMMARIES (CONT.) MAINTENANCE UNIT 3 SPOC'0 SYSTEM OPEN WO'S / WR'S 50 20 2/12/QS 2/1Q/Qd 2I25/QS 5/05/QS 5/12/Qd 5/1Q/Qd 5/25IQS 4/02IQS 2/12/95 2/19/95 2/26/95 3/05/95 3/12/95 3/19/95 3/26/95 4/02/95 Corrective IHafntenance Backlo 42 16 '2 43 17 48 21 50 22 52 23 47 42 ~ ~ ~ ~ 19 28 25 26 24 27 25 24 20 24 25 18 25 20'3 Totals 109 109 109 120 120 121 117 C. Crane

A

11.0

SUMMARY

I ACTION IT'EMS R. Machon 48

.}}

ML18038B180

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search