ML20024F337
| ML20024F337 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1983 |
| From: | Tompkins B NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, ISSUANCES-OLA-2, NUDOCS 8309090287 | |
| Download: ML20024F337 (4) | |
Text
_
/
t.
^
DOCKETED
'JSNRC UNITED STATES OF AM
-7 P4 :26 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING g g Sg g }
BRANCH Administrative Judgec:
Thomas S.
Moore, Chairman September 7, 1983 Dr.
W.
Reed Johnson Dr. Reginald L.
Gotchy SERVED SEP 8 1983
)
In the Matter of
)
)
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-266 OLA-2
)
50-301 OLA (Point Beach Nuclear Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER on July 8, 1983, we issued an order in the Point Beach Unit 1 steam generator replacement case requesting that the NRC staff provide us with an evaluation of the eddy current j
testing procedures to be carried out at the transition I
region of the fully expanded tubes of the replacement generator.
We have now received the staff response to that l
request in the form of an affidavit of Herbert F.
Conrad.
That affidavit, however, leaves several questions unanswered.
In addition, we have issued today an opinion rejecting the appeal of Decade in the Point Beach Units 1 and 2 steam generator tube sleeving proceeding.
In that case also there i
L remain several questions regarding eddy current testing at l'
the location of the upper sleeve-tube joint.
See ALAB-739,
9 8309090287 830907 O'
' )$
PDR ADOCK 05000266 O
i
~
J Y
2 4
18 NRC __,
(slip opinion at n.
).
Because that joint is a region of uniform diametric change in the sleeve, it appears that standard eddy current testing techniques i
suffer from the same lack of sensitivity as those in the transition region of fully expanded tubes.
See Memorandum and Order (unpublished),- July 8, 1983, at 2-3.
We would like to obtain more information cn1 the procedures and staff requirements for eddy current testing for this portion of the sleeved tubes as well.
Therefore, we are addressing a series of questions to the staff that, once answered, should provide us with a more complete understanding of the efficacy of eddy current inspection at the transition region of fully expanded. tubes.
To the extent that these questions also pertain to eddy current testing in the upper joint region of sleeved tubes, t e answers s ould be expanded to address explicitly this h
h latter situation.
If eddy current testing in the vicinity of the upper joint of sleeved tubes is not carried out in a manner similar to that for testing the transition region of fully expanded tubes, the staff should discuss the program used to assure that the upper joint region of sleeved tubes
-is adequately inspected.
The level of detail the answers should contain may be ascertained from our questions relating to the transition region tests.
D
I r!
3 1.
In paragraph 3 of the Conrad Affidavit, it is stat.ed that the comparison of standard eddy current test data with a preoperational baseline " signature" has been successful in detecting the presence of tube flaws.
What is the minimum size flaw that is detectable using this technique, particularly in relation to the 40 percent degradation limit and " critical crack size"?
Actual in-service or test results should be quoted if available.
2.
Paragraph 3 goes on to point out that the baseline comparison method is limited with regard to determining the size of flaws, and that the staff expects the use of more sophisticated techniques to determine actu l flaw size.
a What are the exact circumstances where more sophisticated techniques are required?
Provide examples and results of the use of such techniques and describe the constraints with respect to time, cost, or personnel exposure that must be considered when requiring the use of the more sophisticated l
techniques.
How are these considerations balanced against the need for accurate flaw size information?
l l
3.
Explain what is meant by the last sentence in I
l paragraph 3 of the Conrad Affidavit.
In particular, how would the Technical Specifications for a plant having fully
(
expanded tubes, or sleeved tubes, differ from a plant without either of these characteristics?
l 1
I
4.-
4 4.
With regard to the last sentence of paragraph 4 of the Conrad Affidavit, explain what other methods the staff uses to prevent the consequences of tube degradation.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD f
i
__ =1&k$&gN.A Barbara A.
Tompkin Secretary to the Appeal Board I
l l
l l
t i'
t t
1 t
m
,.__,_r.,~
__