ML20083N725
| ML20083N725 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1983 |
| From: | Maurin L LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| W3I83-0028, W3I83-28, NUDOCS 8302030095 | |
| Download: ML20083N725 (10) | |
Text
,
e LOUISIANA 142 OuAnONOc srnter POWER & L1GHT P O BOX 6008
- NEW ORLEANS. LOUISIANA 70174 * (504) 366-2345 s o rs Ps" =
u L V MAURIN Voce President Nuclear Operations W3I83-0028 January 27, 1983 Q-3-A29.20 Mr. Harold R. Denton Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
SUBJECT:
Waterford 3 SES Docket No. 50-382 Comparison of Reactor Vessel PSI with Regulatory Guide 1.150 Requirements ENCLOSURES:
(1) Comparison of LP&L Waterford 3 PSE RPV Exam to NRC Regulatory Guide 1.150 Requirements (2) Physical Limitations and Interferences (3) Near Surface Areas Electronically Gated Out (4) Acousite Similarity
Dear Mr. Denton,
During a preliminary meeting held August 26, 1981 to discuss LP&L's Preservice Inspection (PSI) Program, the NRC staff reviewer requested information comparing the Preservice Inspection actually conducted on the Waterford 3 Pressure Vessel to the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.150 since this inspection was conducted more than five years before the issuance of the Regulatory Guide. Please find the requested information enclosed.
It is hoped that this infornation will alleviate the staff's concern in this If you have any questions or require further information, please feel area.
free to contact either myself or R. W. Prados.
Very truly yours, k:
L. V. Maurin LVM/ DEB:keh Enclosures cc:
J. Wilson, W. M. Stevenson, E. L. Blake, M. Hum i
l l
8302030095 830127 PDR ADOCK 05000382 i
O PDR 1
N e.
ENCLOSUR3 I COMPARISON OF LP&L WATERFORD 3 PSE RPV EXAM TO NRC REGULATORY GUIDE 1.150 REQUIREMENTS The preservice aw-iaation of LP&L's Waterford 3 reactor pressure vessel (RPV) was perfomed in accordance with ASDE Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section II,1974 Edition, samner 1974 Addenda. This examination predated USNRC Regulatory Guide (R.G.) 1.150 by more than five (5) years.
Based upon an LP&L/Ebasco request, CE undertook a comparison of the Waterford RPV aw-ination results. The format of the comparison corresponds directly to Section I, " Regulatory Position" of Reg. Guide 1.150. Each numbered paragraph of Section C has been addressed here in a similarly numbered paragraph.
~
1.
Instrument Perfomance Checks 3
1.1 Frequency of checks.
R.G. 1.150 requires as a minimum that instnanent performance checks be verified within one day prior to and one day after the performance of the required examination.
3 Confomance to this requirement will be addressed in conjunction with each specific, check..
1.2 Screen height linearity. Thi!s check was perfomed in accordance with Section XI requirements and therefore meets R.G. 1.150 7
requirements. The frequency of checks exceeds the requirements
- )
of R.G.1.150 as these checks were performed at the be-iaaf ag of each day of avamination.
1.3 Amplitude control linearity. This check was perfomed in ace'ordance 3
with Section XI requirements and therefore meets R.G. 1.150 requirements. The frequency of checks exceeds the requirements of R.G.1.150 as these checks were perfomed at the be-f aning of each day of examination.
1.4 Frequency Amplitude Curve. The frequency amplitude curve was recorded as part of the manufacturers equipment certification.
A record of this certification was maintained as part of the examination record. The one day time requirement stated in Paragraph 1.1, however, was not met.
~
1.5 Pulse sEape. This check was not a Section XI requirement and therefoiei~was not perfomed.
2.
Calibration The general cslibration methods utilized the utilities'Section XI calibration block to establish the distance amplitude correction (DAC) curve and the sweep range for each examination. The calibration settings were verified on the calibration block daily, as a min 4==.
In addition, the calibration was checked on an electronic calibration simulator every 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of examination and at the complet'.on of each set of avaminations.
,-::. =- -=.::== _ = := : :. = =-
- __ _,.. -._ _=____::
l - _ _ _
~~ :
l-
~
~ ~ ~ ~
2.1 Calibration for Manual &=aning - Manual
=aning calibration was done statically and the flaws were marimized during the preservice examination. For sizing flaws, the sign =1= were maximized and static sizing techniques were used, so this feature is in compliance. For detection samaning, a dynamic DAC response is required by this guide, but had not been required by the ASME Code. This feature was not met.
2.2 Calibration for dhd
-naains.
These calibrations were performed using hand manipulation of the transducer sled on
~
the calibration block.
a.
Calibration speed was static, therefore, R.G. 1.150 requirements were not met.
b.
Main +=ining the scanning direction relative to the calibration direction has a number of considerations.
The ori-ia=1 intent of this paragraph, as stated in
~
)
meetings, was to correct for forward and backward scanning of the calibration block and test piece with the concern being' possible rocking of the ultrasonic test s3wi. With immersion sleds with syimnetric design, as use. on the Waterford vessel, this is not a concern.
Although not specifically,. addressed, there are a number of technical considerations raised by this paragraph.
The direction of the beam angle relative to the cladding 3
direction (parallel or perpendicular to the cladding) as well as the direction of the beam angle relative to the scanning direction may have effects on the ultrasonic response. The ASME calibration bl'ock design is insufficient to determine these effects so no corrections were included.
c.
During calibration the signals from the calibration 0
reflectors were==vi=12ed with the transducer perpendicular to the axis of the reflector; angulation of the transducsr to optimize the signal was not permitted.
d.
The alternate guidelines listed for establisMag the DAC curve cannot be completely met by the techniques utilized during the examinations.
(1) The DAC curve was established statically with hand manipulation techniques.
(2) Full scale mockups were not utilized or available.
(3) Models were not utilized or available.
(4) Detailed comparison between dynamic and static responses from indications was not performed. However, in general, it has been found that the static response is neither consistently higher nor consistently lower than the dynamic response.
2.3 Calibration checks. While an electronic simniator was used for intemodiate calibration checks, the calibration was also checked every 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> as a minimum on the calibration block.
Furthemore, a conventional calibration block was used rather than a universal calibration block. Therefore, this section is not of concem.
3.
Near Surface Examination and Surface Resolution shows the volume of material gated out during the examinations. The infomation required to be recorded by R.G.1.150 was recorded and accounted for in arriving at these figures. The start and stop of the gate was set at such points that the front.
surface signal did not alarm the recording device. The gate setting, therefore, incorporated the decay time of the clad-water interface reflection and the disturbance created by the clad-well-metal interface with parent metal at the front surface. The angle beam channels were electronically gated to include the far surface, the A
straight beam gate was set as close as possible to the far surface signal without continuously alaming the system.
4.
Beam Profile The vertical been profile infomation was obtained for each transducer used for the avamination in each thickness range in accordance with 3
the 1974 Edition of Section II Appendix I.
This exceeds R.G. 1.150 as it was perfomed as a natural course of the examination procedure requirements rather than only if recordable indications were detected.
co 5.
&=nning Weld-Metal Interface
' ~.
The examinations performed for LP&L used the Code required 0, 45, and 9
60 degree eraminations of the beltline region and all circumferential l
and longitudinal welds. In addition, perpendicular access was obtained for the nozzle-to-shell weld from the nozzle bores and the flange to upper shell from the flange mating surface. No alternative examinations were perfomed.
6.
Sizing Recording and sizing of indications including geometry were perfomed at the Section XI re pired 50% DAC levels. The R.G. 1.150 required recording and sizing of 20% DAC signals was not perfomed and cannot be extracted from the gathered data, nor were traveling indications segregated from the exam data except for evaluating planar reflectors above 50% DAC which was perfomed per Section XI.
7.
Reporting of Results l
No indications exceeding Code acceptable levels were detected and therefore not reported. The portion of the volume not examined has been identified in Attachment 2.
l l
l l
EhiCLOS.URE 2 PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS AND INTERFERENCES The outlet nozzle knuckle and the core stabil4*ing lugs are permanent physical limitations preventing access to some portion of the weld required volume (WRV). These areas are identified in the following table and figures. Other interferences, resulting in a lift-off situation, were caused by the vessel configuration or surface roughness.
These areas are also identified in the following table and figures.
Lift-off produces a spurious indication which is printed out on the paper.
D I
w S
e, I
7 l
g
.m.-m, i
I
- ~. -
~ ~
- -~~~ -
ENCI.0SURE 2 TABLE 1 PHYSICAL LI"ITATIONS AND INTERFERENCES WELD SCAN HOIST
' BOOM ROTATE LIMITATION OF INTERFERENCE DIRECTION COORDINATES COORDINATES 50l-l 01-008 L
335.5"-343.5" 0-Core Stabilimine Lug Core Stabili=4ae Lug 01-008 335.5"-343.5" 335.5"-343.5" 110l-130, Core Stabi14=4ne Lug 01-006 335.5"-343.5" 170
- 190, Core Stabilizing Lug 01-008 335 5"-343.5" 230,-250, Core Stabilizing Lug 01-008 350l-310, 290 Core Stabilixing Lug 335.5*-343.5"01-008
-360, Core Stabiliming Lug 01-008 335.5"-343.5".
217" 75 -105 Liftoff 01-012 s01-016 110"-124" 0 -20 Outlet Nozzle Knuckle 335,-360l Outlet Nozzle Knuckle 01-016 110"-124" 1
01-016 110"-126" 150,- 0 Outlet Nozzle Knuckle 01-016 132" o
Liftoff l
01-016 134" 71 -120 Liftoff 135" 128l-132, Surface Roughness 4
01-016 135" 135 -154o Surface Roughness01-016 01-016 135" 181 -186 Surface Roughness 213-217,l 199 -205 Surface Roughness 7
01-016 135" Surface Roughness01-016 135"01-016 135" 269,-275, Surface Roughness01-016 135" 313 -336 Surface Roughness 0
01-016 135" 343 -350, Surface Roughness01-016 135" 359 -360 Surface Roughness
'these coordinates are detemined from the position of the O transducer (center of the sled assembly) on the inside diameter of the RPV. Associated volume that is missed is dependent on transducer interrogation angle.
--,g
V S
t S h s/tt*t.
e
... =
l w
,lll g
l r
l Y }g g i
3 1.
kb=s&
- t., jl i
a 1
U d "h..___ _.,. _.,
4l:;
I j!
t 4
n -
3 i
i m
n.
- k %, 4 1-
-tg n-4
$t g.
3 *e t w e
9 4
4 v; t ow 1
f
$[5
- ~
{
. r-u_.3
.u.._i _-
.....Erf g.p'
}i ]}, ~q ::
-,/ d,i l
8
{ g -7.-
1 g-i-
I
.t:,w :.,!
il
-i
(
3
._...J.;.
14 ;:
it c
y 1
i
/
//
3 8 \\
7
{
f I
-l
^'
~
,i
.m I
S l
W I
j s*
e g
=
-,d a
8 6-
._1...
s p
g
-.q q 4s (iMI
._ q,,..
i, e
a ii 1:
.c-3 n.
l l
l a.
1
ENCLOSURE 3 NEAR SURFACE AREAS ELECTRONICALLY GATED OUT In order to prevent spurious sign =1s caused by surface and near surface interferences from obscurring true signals on the paper tapes, the near surface is gated out during the autcmated examinations. 0, 45,01-008,
pids through 01-019 were===ia=d from the shell course with and 60 parallel and perpendicular scans. Weld 01-020 was scanned from both the shell course and the flange surface. Welds01-021 through 01-026 were aw=4aad from the shell course and from the nozzle bore. Nozzle inner radius areas01-027 through 01-032 were examined with only a 70 scan.. The depth of the near surface area gated out for each of these scans is identified on the attached table.
Manual aw-inations were perfomed on the bottom head peel segment dome welds (01-001 through 01-007). A manual examination was also perfomed
~
on the bottom head to lower shell weld (01-008) in addition to the automated armaination noted in the table of Attachment 3.
Since these
')
examinations were perforised manually, there is no loss of examination coverage due to gating. However, there is a small volume missed on the outside surface, typically less than
.5",
due to the near field and ring down effect of the====1 type transducer. To identify more specifically the volume missed would require considgtrable research and experimentation.
3
.7 7
4
'O
_,Z.
I l
l l
l __
~ ~
~ ~ ~
e ENCLOSURE'3 TABLE 1 IDENTIFICATION OF NEAR SURFACE ELECTRONICALLY GATED OUT Number of Inches Gated Out Weld 0
45 60 0
8 19 5
20 70 Flange Flange Flange Nozzle Nozzle Inner Surface Surface Surface Bore Bore Radius01-008
.78
.78 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 01-009 1.68 1.68 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 01-010 1,68 1.68 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.14 01-011 1.68 1.68 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.14
~
01-012 1.68 1.68 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 st01-013 1.68 1.68 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 01-014 1,68 1.68 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 P01-015 1.68 1.60 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 d)1-016 2.0 1.68 2.0 1.12 2.0 1.12 01-017 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
~
f1-018-2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 01-019 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 01-020 2.0 NA 2.0 NA 2.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 01-021 2.0 NA 2.0 NA 2.0 NA 4.5 4.5
01-022 2.0 NA 2.0 NA 2.0 NA 4.5 4.5 7 1-023 2.0 NA 2.0 NA 2.0 NA 4.5 4.5 01-024 2.0 NA 2.0 NA 2.0 NA 4.5 4.5 01-025 2.0 NA 2.0 NA 2.0 NA 4.5 4.5 01-026 2.0 NA 2.0 NA 2.0 NA 4.5 4.5 01-027
.6 01-028
.6 01-029
.6 01-030
.6 01-031
.6 01-032
.6 i
: ~..-
~
~~
~ ~ '
- ^
ENCLOSURE 4 ACQUSTIC SIMILARITY TheamplitudeoftgeCDsurfacereflectionwasmonitoredperiodically by observing the O channel display for loss of back reflection. This information was not specifically recorded since only one display could be observed at a time. No significant loss of reflection was assumed i
to have occurred since it was not noted on the data.
j 9
M
- e.
6 7
l?
?
l3
- - - - - - -