ML20090L647
| ML20090L647 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1975 |
| From: | Mayer L NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| To: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20090L649 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9102120483 | |
| Download: ML20090L647 (4) | |
Text
i
, _QRC DIS RIRUTION FOR PART SO DOCKET f.mTERI AL (TEMPORARY FORM)
[
8 CONTROL NO:.N II__.
4 1
FILE:
I
'F ROM : Northern States Ivr Co DATE OF DOC DATE REC'D LTR TWX RPT OTHER
[
Minneapolis, Mn 6 24-75 7 7-75 ExXX
~
TO:
OTilG CC 0THER SE NT 1;RC POR _._ _.17._
~
Mr tieaann 3 signed SENT LOCAL PDR XI CLASS UNCLASS PROPINfO INPUT NO CYS REC'O DOCKET NO:
4 XXXX 1
50 263 DESCRIPYlON:
ENCLOSURES:
I Ltr re our 3 11-75 Itr...trans the Interim responses concerning recirculation foHowings bypass piping....(40 cys enc 1 rec'd)
~,.u,,,
G.v.ny.
4.,,_
PLANT N AME:
Monticello
~%.,.,.,
FOR ACTION /INFORMATION 7-7-75 eht DUT LER (t.)
SCHWE NCE R (L) 7.lEf
- ANN (L)
REG AN (E)
W/ Copies W/ Copics
/ W/ 'opies W/ Copies CL ARK (L)
STOLZ (L)
DICKER (F' LE AR (L) s W/ Copics W/ Copies W/ Copi,.
W/ Copies PAR R (L.)
V ASSALLO (L)
KNIGHTON (E) spits W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies t
KNIEL (L)
PURPLE (L)
YOUNGP.LOOD (E)
Lp;t
~
W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ToThes INTEltN AL DISTRl_DUTIOf_J fiTT~IIIT3 TECH REVIEW DEN'f0N
,11C ASST A/T IND C PDH rdijf0E D'EW-~
GRIMES
, R, OTocS (L)w/a8tr4dslMihTAN OGC, ROOM P 506A MACCARY GAMMILL H. GE ARIN (L)
SALTZP A N f
GOSSICK/ST AF F KNIGHT K ASTNE R F, GOULBOURNE (L)
ME LTZ f
l CASE PAWLICKl BALLARD P. KREUTZER (E) f GIAMOUSSO SHAO SPANGLER J. LEE (L)
.P.LA %
l BOYD STELLO M. r,Unn0%qL)
MCOONALD MOORE (L)
HOUSTON E N\\'I RO S. REED (E)
CHAPMAN DEYOUNG (L)
NOVAK
'ffuTMfi M. [F.RVICE (L)
DUBE (Ltr)
I SKOVHOLT (L)
ROSS DICKER S. SHEPPARD (L)
E. CDUPE GOLLE R (L) (Ltr)
IPPOLilO KNIGliTON M. SLATER (E)
PETERSON P. CO L LINS TEDESCO YOUNGDLOOD li. SMITH (L)
HARTFIELD (2)
DENISE J.00LL11 S REGAN S. TEETS (L)
KLECKER REG OPI't LAIN AS PROJECT LOR G. WIL LI AMS (E)
EISENHUT
/ FILL & REGION (2)
DENAROYA V. WILSON (L)
WlGGINTON HitC VOLLMER HARLL5s R. INGRAM (L)
H. DUl!C/.it(7J
. fk___v
. EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
/)
LOCAL PDR.hhe.ei/)(d 05< N 1
f - 1IC (ABE RN Al HY) (1 2)(10)- NATIONAL LABS 1 - PDR SAN /LA/NY l
,1 - NSIC (GUCHANAN) 1 - W, PENNINGTON, Rrn E 201 GT 1 - BROOKil AVEN NAT t.AB.
1 - G. ULRIKSON ORNL 1
ASL D 1 - CONSULTANTS 1 - Newton Anderson NEWM ARK /BLUME/AGB A0l AN l
M Te (, A. Aj y s ACRS HOLN"G/SENT 9102120403 750624 PDR ADOCK 05000263 r
P PDR l
i r.-.
_.__.-,,,,,,_,...,....-_.----.r.
NOHTHEHN
$TATES POWER COMPANY
-.. -... ~..........
1 n f G.)
/
June 24, 1975 c/
- lk %
((
9M
/
Mr. D. L. Ziemann, Chief
~
p\\,. q Voff pf 3
Operating Reactors Branch # 2
{
4 Division of Reactor Licensing
- g
[/
A U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comiss
,'n 3 (f 9
e kashington, DC 20555 06 s'3 h
vg k
s' su
Dear Mr. Ziemann:
.p/N
+
t MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PIANT
~
DOCKET NO. 50-263 LICENSE NO. DPR-22 Interim Ro synse to Ma rch 11. 1975 letter Your March 11,19751ctter recuested infomation in four areas associated with the Monticello recirculation bypass piping:
A.
Plant operating chemistry data B.
Teet procedures, standards and codes C.
Report of metallurgical examination of removed material D.
Info mation on initial piping f abrication Infomation requested on item A was included in our March 24, 1975 letter.
Items B and D are discussed in this letter and its attachments.
Item C will not be availabic in report fom for approximately another month.
It should be noted that wh' n Mr. John Weeks of the NRC task force on this matter visited the e
Argonne Laboratory where the metallurgical examination vas done, he had the opportunity to review photo micrographs, view specimens, and discuss the results with personnel who conducted the examination.
Attached are three Nucicar Services Corporation procedures for ultrasonic examination of pipe velds that were used during Monticello's 1975 inservice inspection and the inspection to comply with USNRC IE Bulletins 75-01 and 75-01A. General Elcetric Corporation perfomed the preservice inspection and Nuclear Services Corporation of Campbell, California has performed the inservice inspections to date.
Our policy has been to maintain the test proced' res and techniques current with the ASME Section XI Code requirements for each of the annual inservice inspections.
Therefore, in determining compliance of these procedures with the rules of the ASME Code,Section III, Section V, and Section XI, it reqdred a reconstruction of the evolution of them viith reistion to Code changes used for the investigation and evaluation requirements of ultrasonic indications. The following is a umary of these Code changes and the interrelationship of the respective Sec-tions of the ASME Code as they applied to the evolution of our procedures:
7.166
NOR ERN OTATEO POWER CC.
PANY r
M r. D. L. Zienann 2
June 2^,
1975 1.
Section XI (1971) required ultrasonic inservice an! preservice examination as per ASME Section III Appendix LX 3000.
This Appendix required the investi-gation and evaluation of all indications greater than 20%, but did not require reporting of such indications if evaluated as being acceptable.
2.
The 1971 Summer Addenda to Section XI reduced the requirunents for in-vestigation and evaluation of indications to those greater than 1007. of DAC.
3.
The Summer 1973 Addenda to Section XI provided procedures for the ultrasonic examination of vrought ferritic components over 1" in vall thickness (vessels),
but did not change the standards for piping examinations contained in Section III and its Summer 1971 Addenda.
4.
The 1974 edition of Section XI of the Code referred all ultrasonic examinations of nca-vessel material to Article 5 of Section V.
This article again required that all indications greater than 20% of the reference DAC be investigated nd evaluated in terms of the acceptance criteria of the referencing section of the Code, in this case,Section XI.
However, there is no requirement for reportt.ig an indication if evaluated as being acceptable.
Until paw, and until acceptance stariards for piping are adopted for Section XI, any indications must be evaluated in terms of the edition of Section Ill under which the plant was constructed.
In the case of the Monticello plant, there was no edition of Section 111 covering piping.
Guidance on the intent of the Section XI Committee in the interpretation of the word " evaluation" is provided by an ASME letter of April 12, 1973 on this subject The subject letter from Mr. W. J. Woollacott to Mr. R. Von Osenski, of Westinghouse, states it is the length of a discontinuity indication exceeding the reference level that is to be evaluated in terms of acceptance-rejection criteria.
With this interpretation in mind, all U. T. procedures were approved by NSp and the authorized inspector (Hartford Steam Doiler Inspection and Insurance Co.) as meeting the requirements of reference Section XI Editions.
However, the recording and evaluation levels used actually are limited only by the capability of the equipment.
The test system that has been used for the in-6ervice inspections consists of an ultrasonic digital analog tester and a two channel Brush trip chart recorder.
The two channel recorder automatically records at 8 to 107. of scale of the amplitude of the reflected signal and the sound metal path.
The strip chart recording not only provides a permanent record for future references, but also provides an opportunity for evaluation subsequent to that performed by the Level II Inspector who is performing the veld inspection and the initial evaluation from the ultraconic CRT scope.
All in-spection reports, which are prepared and signed by the Level 11 Inspector, con-sists of the data and evaluation sheet and the strip charts.
These reports are further evaluated by a Review Board vbich consists of NSp's Level 111 Inspector, the inspection contractor's level III Inspector and the Authorized Inspector.
This review is documented on each report.
l
NOf HERN OTATEC POWER C APANY s
Mr. D. L. Ziemann 3
June 24, 1975 l
I Although section 8.0 of the attached ultrasonic test procedure, NUT-NC-1A, requires the inspector to further evaluate indi.ations greater than 1007, of the reference 1cvel (DAC), in actuality, all indications greater than 8 to 10%
of scale (above noise level) are recorded and evaluated.
The DAC curve is used only as a reference and not as a accept-reject curve.
The minimum
.teceptance standards as described in paragraph 10.0 of the subject procedure
)
comply with ASME, Section 111 (1974) Code.
The indication's signal, response i
and travel are as important as the signal amplitude when evaluating indications.
The manufacturer of the original recirculation bypass piping was contacted concerning your request for information on the fabrication of that piping.
He informed us that in the years following the fabrication they have moved their factory and can no longer locate this information.
Yours very truly, l
l L. O. Mayer, PE Manager, Nucicar Support Services L(H/MHV/ deb cc J. G. Keppler G. Charnoff MPCA Attn:
J. W. Fe man Attachments:
NUT-NC-1A, Revision 4, Nuclear Ult.rasonic Testing Procedure, Ultrasonic In-spection of Welds, in the 1/4" to 2-1/2" Thickness Range NUT-NC-1E, Revision 4. Nuclear Ultrasonic Weld Examination Calibration Procedure NUT-NC-3, Revision 4, Precedure for Automatic Recording Of Ultrasonic Test Data
.. -,