ULNRC-03741, Forwards Proprietary & non-proprietary Addl Info Which Supports License Amend Request,Proposing Installation of Electrosleeves in Callaway Plant Sgs.Proprietary Info Withheld,Per 10CFR2.790
| ML20203H987 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1998 |
| From: | Naslund C UNION ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317C914 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-M95204, ULNRC-03741, ULNRC-3741, NUDOCS 9803030391 | |
| Download: ML20203H987 (50) | |
Text
1 Unisa flutrie lD l%x MU s Cottoney hant l'ultim, MO UC,\
February 24, 1998 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTH: Document Control Desk Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 ULNRC-03741 MI/s TAC No. M95204 kggg Gentlemen:
UE CALLAWAY PLANT DOCKET NUMBER 50-483 REVISION TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 3/4.4 - REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM
References:
- 1) ULNRC-03644 dated September 10, 1997
- 2) K. M. Thomas letter to G. L.
Randolph dated December 18, 1997
- 3) B. C. Westreich letter to G. L.
Randolph dated January 9, 1998 Th a letter provides additional information in support of .he Callaway Plant amendment application that proposes the installation of electrosleeves in the /
Callaway Plant steam generators. The NRC staff in /
References 2 and 3 requested this information.
Framatome Technologies Inc. has determined 7)g j that information associated with the installation ' I process for electrosleeves is proprietary, and is thereby supported by an altidavit signed by Framatome, the owner of the information. The affidavit sets forth the basis on which the information may be withheld from public disclosure by the Commission and addresses with specificity the considerations listed in paragraph
, (b) (4 ) of 10CFR2.790. Accordingly, it=is respectfully requested that the information that is proprietary to Framatome be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10CFR2.790.
(Jy
, J\9 ,,r y hm i s enf. 1.1! ,If .Il . T.ill.ll.lil.ll
. o 9003030391 990224
4 If you have any questions concerning this information, please contact us.
Very truly yours, V
C, . !Jaslund Manager-11uclear Engineering WEK/
Enclosures:
- 1) Proprietary Information
- 2) 11on-Proprietary Information
.....q O
4 cci H. H. Fletcher Professional Nuclear Consulting, Inc.
19041 Raines Drive Derwood, MD 20855-2432 Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 Senior Resident Inspector callaway Resident Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8201 NRC Road Steedman, MO 65077 Barry C. Westreich (2)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 White Flint, North, Mail Stop 13E16 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20052-2738 Manager, Electric Department Missouri Public Service Commi.ssion P.O. Box 360 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Ron Kucera-Department of Natural-Resources P.O. Box 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Denny Buschbaum TU Electric P.O.-Box 1002 Glen Rose, TX -76043 Pat Nugent Pacific Gas & Electric Regulatory Services-
-P.O. Box 56 Avila Beach, CA 93424
. ._ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ - . ..~
t
- 1 f
AFHDAVIT OP IOSEPilllfiLLY 1
i A. My name is Joseph J. Kelly. I am Manager ofil&W Owners Group Services for Framatome Technologies, Inc. (FTI), and as such, I am authorized to execute this Affidavit.
I
- 11. I am familiar with the criteria applied by FTl to determine whether certain information of FTl is proprietary and I am familiar with the procedures established within FTl to ensure the ;
proper application of these criteria.
1 l
C. _In determining whether an FTl document is to be classined as proprietary information, an initial dete'.mination is made by the Unit Manager, who is responsible for originating the documerit, as to whether it falls within the criteria set forth in Faragraph D hereof. If the information falls within any one of these criteria, it is classined as proprietary by the originating Unit Manager. This initial determination is reviewed by the cognizant Section Manager, if the document is designated as proprietary,it is reviewed again by me to assure that the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR Section 2.700 are met.
D. The following information is provided to demonstrate that the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations have been considered: ,
-(i) The information has been held in con 0dence by FTI. Copies of the document are clearly identined as proprietary. 'In addition, whenever FTl transmits the information to a customer, customer's agent, potential customer or regulatory agency, the transmittal requests the recipient to hold the information as proprietary. - Also, in order to strictly limit any potential or actual customer's use i
of proprietary nformation, the substance of the following provision is included in--
all agre .nents entered into by FTI, and an equivalent version of the proprietary ,
provisioi i- .ncluded in all of FTI's proposals:
r t
err.,e-.-m. ,m .. . ,- , ..,...m._ _~_. . _ , , ,, -
.L
[ AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPil l KELLY (Cont'd.)
I i
l l
"Any proprietary information concerning Company's or its Supplier's products or manufacturing processes which is so designated by Company or its Suppliers and disclosed to Purchaser incident to the performance of such contract shall nain the property of Company or its Suppliers and is disclosed in c< .ence, and Purchaser shall not publish or otherwis:
' disclose it to othe. without the written approval of Coi pany, and no
- rights, implied or othenvise, are granted to produce or have produced any products or to practice or cause to be practiced any manufacturing processes covered thereby.
I
! )
- Notwithstanding the above, Purchaser may provide the NRC or any other I regulatory agency with any such proprietary information as the NRC or 1
such other agency may require; provided, however, that Purchaser shall i,
first give Company written notice of such proposed disclosure and Company shall have the right to amend such proprietary information so as to make it non proprietary. In the event that Company cannet amend such
- proprietary information, Purchaser shall prior to disclosing such information, use its best effons to obtain a commitment from NRC or such other agency to have such information withheld from public inspection.
Company shall- be given the right to participate in pursuit of such confidential treatment."
i e
4 2
l i .
AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPil J. KEl1Y (Cont'd.)
(ii) The following criteria are customarily applied by FTl in a rational decision process to determine whether the information should be classified as proprietary.
Information may be classified as proprietary if one r more of the following criteria are met:
- a. Information reveals cost or price information, commercial strategies, production capabilities, or budget levels of FTI, its customers or suppliers.
- b. The information reveals data or material concerning FTl research or development plans or programs of present or potential competitive advantage to FTI.
c The use of the information by a competitor would decrease his expenditures, in time or resources, in designing, producing or marketing a similar product.
- d. The information consists of test data or other similar data concerning a process, method or component, the application of which results in a competitive advantage to FTI.
9
- e. The information reveals special aspects of a process, method, component or tiie like, the exclusive use of which results in a competitive advantage to FTI.
- f. The infomtation contains ideas for which patent protection may be sought.
3
MFIDAVIT OF JOSEPil J KELIN (Cont'dj The document (s) listed on Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, has been evaluated in accordance with normal FTl procedures with respect to classification and has been found to contain information which falls within one or more of the criteria enumerated above. Exhibit "B", which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, specifically identifies the criteria applicable to the document (s) listed in Exhibit "A",
(iii) The document (s) listed in Exhibit "A", which has been made available to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission was made available in confidence with a request that the document (s) and the information contained therein be withheld from public disclosure.
(iv) The information is not available in the open literature and to the best of our knowledge is not known by ABB CE, EXXON, General Electric, Westinghouse or other current or potential domestic or foreign competitors of FTI.
(v) Specific information with regard to whether public disclosure of the information is likely to cause harm to the competitive position of FTI, taking into account the value of the information to FTl; the amount of effort or money expended by FTl developing the information; and the case or difliculty with which the iriformation could be properly duplicated by others is given in Exhibit "B" E. I have personally reviewed the document (s) listed on Exhibit "A" and have found that it is considered proprietary by FTl because it contains information which falls within one or more of the criteria enumerated in Paragraph D, and it is information which is customarily held in confidence and protected as 'roprietary information by FTI. This report comprises 4
m
AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH L KELLY (Citr,t'd.)
I !
Information utilized by FTl in its business which afford FTl an opportunity to obtain a !
]
competitive advantage over those who may wish to know or use the information contained
< in the document (s),
f \
f 94 Yr p
JOSEhH 'J.LLY !
f State of Virginia)
) SS. Lynchburg ;
l _
City of Lynchburg) ;
Joseph J. Kelly, being duly swom, on his oath deposes and says that ha is the person who subscribed l his name to the foregoing statement, and that the matters and facts set forth in the statement are tme.
4 f
h,4 / /
)(
iEPihj.k .LY O
Y Subscribed and swojn before me this Mday of 3tleuevl998.
/
t AsxMet b,
< Jew Notary Public.in and for the City - 1
- 1. < -of Lynchburg, State of Virginia.
t
' My Commission Expires dulv fl,/f M
/
5- ;
s
ULNRC-03741 ENCLOSURE 2 NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 1
t Request For Additional Information Regarding Review of License Amendment Request To Allow Framatome Electrosleeving of Steam Generator Tubes Callaway Plant, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-483 The staff has reviewed Union Electric Company's license amendment request to allow 'nstallation of Framatome Electrosleeves in the Callaway Plant, Unit I steam generators and has determined that the following additional information is needed to proceed with the review.
Ql. Attachment 3 of the September 10,1997, submittal contains a discussion of the lab grown ODSCC data sub set. Fourteen of the samples contained flaws that were essentially 100 percent t!. rough the parent tube. IIalf of these samples were undersized more than the proposed 12 mil NDE uncertainty value. The other halfwere not. During the December 9,1997 meeting, a technical basis was provided to the NRC staff for the UT sizing differences between the two subsets. Document the technical basis along whn all supporting data. De sure to include destmetive examination data for all fourteen samples such as flaw extents (e.g., axial or circumferential) and descriptive photographs of etched samples that suppon the technical basis.
RI. The fourteen flaws ofinterest are listed in Table Ql.l. The next to last column in Table Ql.1 identifies the seven sample sub set (with a e or **) with an unkr-call error exceeding the [ f uncertainty. Note that Table Ql.1 lists all sixteen of the laboratory samplu. The two samples with less than 100% TW tube defects,6B 2 and IB 3, are not considered in the remaining discussion (per Question 1).
The technical basis for differentiation of the flaws under called by UT versus the flaws UT called within the RMSE is a function of the size of the flaws. The qualitative and quantitative evaluation of size combines the length of the crack on the OD surface and the width of the crack along its route from OD to ID or from ID to OD, depending on the site ofinitiation.
The data for the technical basis is the source documentation used to prepare the January 15,1997 presenta:.0ii for sixteen (16) ODSCC flaws for UT sizing qualification (14 flaws are nominally 100% TW), and Table A3.1 of the September 10,1997 submittal. A description of these founeen laboratory samples was provided in Attachment 3 of the September 10,1997 submittal.
Crack depth, length, and width measurements depend on spacing of the DE cutting. Tne original DE documentation provided crack depth measurements based on mictascope measurements and I;mited snapshot rnetallographic photographs. For the information presented here, archived metallographic mounts were reviewed to provide the destructive Date: February 17,1998 Page1of27 FTl Non-Proprietary
l 1
examination (DE) flaw extents of the samples. This data is provided in Table Ql.2.
Additionally, sample photomicrographs are provided in Attachnwnt 1.
Table Ql.1 Summary of Laboratory Corrosion Test Data
(
l l
l je l Note: 1.[
]6
- 2. "*" and ".." identify the seven sample subset with the UT error greater than
[ ]6.
A review of the Flaw Depth columns in Table Ql.2 shows that the UT error can be divided into [ ]6 subsets. UT eccuracy (or error)is defined by comparison to the DE results (UT-DE). These subt.ets shown in Figure Q1.1 are:
[
]b
[
6 1
Date: February 17,1998 Page 2 of 27 FTI Non Proprietary
O I
j' Table Ql.2. [ J'UTl ]' Lab Samples I l' I
l 6
3 ..
I l'
I
}'
Date: Febmary 17,1998 Page 3 of 27 FTI Non-Proprietary
[
t
.I t
I g
[ ]'
[.
t
[
t
[ ]* UT error within RMSE).
[
..]A' The crack also
,, appears continuous along the tube wall thickness. This crack is most likely the flaw that " leaked" and stopped the corrosion test.
Additional DE data was utill s to define the size (length) and to characterize the flaws listed in Table Ql.2. [ t j'
' Due to the short zone ofidgh residual stress creat-d by the mecha".ical roll and Explansion 6 transitions, the length'of the flaws were small, as expected. Only two circumferential flaws were dei.oted as having large extent. This flaw length data from Table Ql.2 is plotted in Figure Ql.2.
[-
f Date: February 17,1998 Page 4 of 27 FTl Non-Proprietary
O Figure Ql.1 UT [ ]'-
l' l
b J ,c The data in Figure Ql.2 contains both axial and circumferential flaws. The [three....)'
circumferential flaws [ ]' support the UT accuracy improving as the flaw length increases. In addition, the trend is in agreement with the EDM notch qualification, namely larger flaws result in improved UT accuracy [
]*
The data for the axial flaws [. ]6 are extremely short with an avers.ae length of[ J' inch orless. [
]
i Date: Febmary 17,1998 Page 5 of 27 FTI Non-Proprietary -
Figure Ql.2 UT[ p .
I Summary As discussed in the December 9,1997 meeting, these flaws are smhll in extent. Figure Q.1.2 plots the flaw { ]* The circumferential flaws vary in -
length, and support a trend oflonger xtent verms improved depth accuracy. The axial
- flaws are all short [
b,d i
[
cd
- Date: February 17,1998 Page 6 of 27 FTI Non-Proprietary 1
._----.---__---__-._--_---.__-__---._-_-_-_---_._..____.---.____-._.____.,--_-.--._____-...-__._._.--._..--__-__.a
- .c
. Q2. :Two examples ofincorrect data being supplied to the NRC staff were recently identified.
The NRC staffidentified errors in Table 1.2 of the September 10,1997 submittal, in -
- addition, the licensee notified NRC staffin the September 10,1997 submittal that some i 4
- data pieviously submitted to NRC staff was incorrect. Discuss the quality assuranc:
. process (for both the licensee and the vendor), and how it meets 10 CFR50, Appendix B criterion. Discuss whether you have identified the cause of these errors. Submit a copy of-your corrective action program relative to these issues. What are the implications this has -
for other electrosleeve submittals or other parts of the program?
R2. The response to this question consists of four parts.
i 1. "NRC staffidentified errors in Table 1.2 of the September 10.1997 submittal"
- Two entries reported in Table 1.2 were questioned by NRC on December 5,1997. Based
- on a comparison of the data reported in Table 1.2, relative to the source documentation, we have concluded that the ODSCC data set from pulled tubes (without Electrosleeves 1 installed) was not transferred into the table correctly [ .
]' Previous presentations to NRC and a previous response
! (Reference 5) support this evaluation. The reason for the wrong data is a typographical error relative to the source information. The plots, histograms and analysis presented used the proper data. The revised table was faxed to NRC on December 8,1997 after a j detailed review. The corrected table, reflecting review of all the data is presented in Table Q2.1 of this response to complete the.6acumentation. [
]*
I
- 2. " licensee notified.NRC staffin the September 10.1997 submittal that some data i- gc,viously submitted to NRC staff was incorrect."
! The cror identined in Attachment 3, (September 10,1997 Submittal) was discovered [
n g
]'I
, 3. "_Discum,1h.guality assurance process (for both the licensee and the vendor). and U, how it meets 10 GlQO. Apnendix B criterion. Discuss whether you have identified the 4
- of these err 4Sybmit a ecpv of your corrective action program relative to these issues."
FTI's safety-related QA plan complies with the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix B.
b This QA plan requires the docmnentation of all technical information transmitted as part of a licensing response. Periodic QA audits are performed by the QA department to assure Date: February 17,1998 Page 7 of 27 FTI Non-Proprietary _
g ~, a . ..N - ,, .c ,-, , . ...,.---,,....c- , . , _.,,--n- +-,--- - . - -
. I l
compliance with the QA program. The QA department was informed that an error was found and a " Corrective Action Request"(CAR) was initiated which documents the problem, requests a corrective action plan and subsequent QA disposition review. This 3
QA review has been initiated and a copy is presented in Attachmmt 3.
Union Electric has initiated actions in our Quality Assurance Organir.ation to not only monitor the corrective actions taken by FTI in response to this identified issue but to
~
peiform a Supplier Quality audit covering this and other areas.
- 4. "What are the implications this has for other electrosleeve submittals or other parts of the program?"
2 I
t Date: February 17,1998 Page 8 of 27 FTI Non Proprietary
- _ . . ___ . _. _ = . . _ _ _ . .. _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ . -
e TABLE Q2.1: COMPLETE SCC DATA SET
! l l 1
1 1t 1
J 4
?
i p
Date: February 17,1998 ' Page 9 of 27 FTl Non-Proprietary
. . - _. - . . ~ . . .
.O TABLE Q2.1: COMPLETE SCC DATA SFT (CON'T.)
1 l'
NOTES: NDD - No Defect Detected N/A -Not Applicable Bold Entries Al through E3 correction to inches instead of " percent throughwall", December 5,1997.
Date: Februaiy 17,1998 Page 10 of 27 FTI Non-Proprietary
Q3. Section 4.3.2, " Structural hf argin for Circumferential Part TW Flaw," of Document 32-1264476-00 submitted on September 5,1997, discusses the approach utilized to determine the structurallimits for circumferentially-oriented flaws in electrosleeve repairs. The text cites two references as the source of an equation and associated empirical constants listed in the section. The staff has reviewed Reference 2.6 (Rar.ganath and hiehta. " Engineering
- hiethods for the Assessment of Ductile Fracture hiargin in Nuclear Power Plant Piping")
and Reference 2.9 (Kurihara et al, " Estimation of the Ductile Unstable Fracture of Pipe with a Circumferential Surface Crack Subjected to Bending") and concluded that the equation and associated empirical constants referenced in Section 4.3.2 do not come from the noted references. Clarify the source of the equation and constants listed in this section, or provide the associated technical basis for the part through - ell circumferential flaw limit.
R3. Reference 2.5 is a more suitable reference for information in Section 4.3.2 of Document 32-1264476-00. [
f Q4. FT! procedure 54 ISI-168, Rev. I states that angle beam scanning for reflectors shall be performed from two opposing beam directions, where practical, or from one direction as a minimum. FTl stated at the December L,1997, meeting that they did collect data from tube specimens used in their September 10,1997 submittal from two directions.
Ilowever, the submittal contained the examination results from only or.e direction examinations. The data from seven tubes with lab generated flaws exhibited a large number of flaw under calls. Experience in UT indicates that examinations conducted from two directions provide more accurate results than one sided examinations. Provide a table that contains comparisons between destructive examination depths and UT examination depths derived from analyzing the data from two directions for the seven tube-R4. This questio.i poses an issue associated with the basic design of the UT-Probe rather than evaluating the acceptability of the NDE qualification data. It is a well acknowledged practice to use transducers " aimed" in both directions when inspecting thick-walled piping which contains welds. These welds usually require extensive weld preparation and the associated angles create weld or heat affected zones which define a preferential flaw propagation. The experience in steam generator tubing failures indicates flaws are typically planer and perpendicular to the tubing axis or circumferential in nature. Thus additional transducers would have the possibility ofimproving the quality of the data but the orientation of the expected flaw relative to the transducer inspection angle would be !
similar rather than complementanj as in the case ofinspecting pipe welds. The additional '
transducers add significantly to the complexity of the signal electronics in steam generator
)
l Date: February 17,1998 Page11of27 FTl Non-Proprietary
I tubing and the increased data analysis would be a significant impact on the satisfactory 3 installation of an Electro.leeve.
Data from the [ )6 laboratory samples was collected in only one beam direction.
4-
[-
i
) ]*
The February 5,1997 submittal presented a two-directional evaluation of UT detection in i _ dent profiles. Additional two-directional evaluation (
]6 provides assurance that the general flaw pattern is compatible. Attachment 4 presents this information. [
d Y
! ]6 The readings are very similar.
Finally, note that the requirements for the ASME code exam are specified in ASME Code Case N-569. Specifically; Paragraph 3.0 (d )(1)(b) states;"The examination shall be conducted with single axial and circumferential beam directions, provided meaningful indications are obtained from standard defects in the reference specimen". Thus the examination qualification has been performed in accordance with this Code Case.
QS. In the September 10,1997 submittal, FTI discusses the use of corner trap signals for depth
- sizing flaws. The submittal also mentions using tip diffraction signals for discerning flaws.
Tip diffraction is considered an effective depth sizing technique. In the meeting on December 8,1997, FTI stated that they have been unsuccessful with tip diffraction fer depth sizing. Instead, for depth sizing, FTI relies on corner trap signals that walk up the
- flaw face. Provide an explanation with supporting physical data, if available, to explain the ineffectiveness of tip diffraction in sizing flaws in SG tubes. The explanations should
- . include what techniques au available or being developed for discerning multiple tip signals j (SCC) and low sound-to-noise ratios (tip vs corner trap).
RS. - UT inspection of thick walled tubing is widely accepted but steam generator tubing presents unique geometry problems due to the small tube OD and the relatively thin wall.
Cracks in steam generator tubing originate at either the ID or OD surface and propagate
. perpendicular to the opposite surface. Perpendicular axial and/or circumferential flaws are
- depicted in many photomicrographs of pulled tube exams. As noted by Krautkramer
.(Referenced below), "Provided the crack tip is approximately parallel to the surface.(i.e.
perpendicular to the surface)... and has an appreciable extension in this direction, it can be detected from a remote face by using the edge wave generated by the tip." The detection Date: February 17,1998 Page 12 of 27 FTI Non-Proprietary
-e
_i _ _, ..
3
e of the tip signal using the transmissics transducer depends on wavelength of the '
propagated wave frorit and the width of the crack being illuminated. The current shear -
wave transducers operate at a frequency of( _ _ ]*in
[ Inconel. When this wave front interacts with a planar reflector, the reflected wave front is composed of sound ' energy having essentially the same wavelength as the incident wave.
This fact is important to remember when applying the tip diffraction sizing method. Tip ,
diffraction methods, (Satellite Pulse Observation Technique (SPOT), Pulse Arrival Time '
Technique (PATT), etc.) rely on the analyst to properly detect and classify st least the tip signal and in the case of SPOT the corner trap as well. [
b,c j
]* Anincreasein
[
- frequency would decrease the wavelength and thus render smaller cracks and tips
- detectable up to a certain limit. Per Krautkramer (p.101), this limit is defined as "The sound pressure of the scattered wave ... is directly proportional to the third power of the reflector diameter and inversely to the square of the wavelength. Therefore very small l reflectors cannot in practice be detected with cenainty even by using more sensitivity and
! higher frequencies." This suggests that an increase in frequency does not have the potential ofimproving detection of the tip and in fact it could even reduce the overall l
detection capabilities due to reduced amplitude.
The surface finish imposes another limitation on the use of higher frequencies.
[
]'
Cracks in alloy 600 material appear to follow grain boundaries. This dictates the path and
, representative length as a function of the Inconel 600 grain size. The " zig zag" surface of the crack along the grain boundaries reduces the effective reflector surface in any one
- plane. A good analogy is presented in Krautkramer, page 93, using a crumpled aluminum
- foil object and a sharply defined search light beam.
- Refenace: Krautkramer, Josef and Herbert Knautkramer, UJgagonic Testing of -
4 Materials. 4th Fully Revised Edition, Springer-Verlag Publisher,1990.
i d
Date: Februsty 17,1998 Page 13 of 27 FTINon-Proprietary 9
, , .__ -____.en -_e _ -
FIGURE RS-1 1
6 1
FIGURE RS-2 1
6 1
FIGURE RS-3
[
]"
d Date: February 17,1998 Page 14 of 27 FTl Non-Proprietary
l 4
s FIGURE RS-4 I
l' FIGURE RS-5 I
l' FIGURE RS-6 I
l' i
1 I
Date: February 17,1998 Page 15 of 27 FTI Non-Proprietary
4 4
FIGURE RS-7 1
3 FIGURE RS-8 l
g6 Date: February 17,1998 Page 16 of 27 FTI Non-Proprietary
't ,
, Q6 s NRC has concluded that an electrosleeve tube pull program will be needed to provide confirmatory data to address potential degradation and NDE uv.ertainties. The tube pull program should be based both on length of" time-in service" and condition-based (i.e.
based on NDE indication of Electrosleeve degradation). Union Electric should propose a program for NRC staff review and commit to it through a TS change or license condition. ;
. i R6. The following is Union Elect:ic's proposed tube pull program. A tube pull would be required: :
- 1. if the results of the NDE examination indicates a sleeve has reached a degrade d condition as presented in ULNRC-035% (i.e. 20% through-wall flaw) Sin. here would be no identified degradation mechanism to account for that degradatio. 4 tube pull would be required to determine root cause. The destructive examination - .i would also allow NDE results to be verified. The above is in accoidance with the draft EPRI Report GC-107621, Rev. A," Steam Generator Integrity Assessment Guidelines". Tube pulls would occur for eacn unidentified mechanism. After root cause is determined no additional tube pulls would be required for that degradation i mode.
. 2. if primary to secondary leakage forces a plant shutdown in accordance with i
administrative procedures. If the affected arca of the tube were in an Electrosleeve, this tube would be pulled for destructive examination. This is in accordance with ;
Appendix K of EPRI Report TR-107569-V1R5 "PWR Steam Generator Examination Guidelines, Rev. 5. The NDE iesults would be verified during this examination.
Additionally Union Electric endorses an FTI inservice time-based program. That is, as 4t one of a group of plants which have Electrosleeved tubes, Union Electric will participate in a program to support tubes being pulled in a currently non-specified plant (which could be Callaway). The tube (s) would be pulled during the outage following completion of 5 EFPY ofinservice duty. If Electrosleeved tubes have been pulled based on degradation at any other US plants pilor to this time then this work will not be required.-
i Additional inservice time-based tube pull requirements would be based on the destructive examination results from this first group. .
Q7. Union Electric Company's proposed technical specifications currently reference Revision 1 1 - of the electrosleeving topical report. A substantial amount of additional work has been "
1 completed in support of the electrosleeving process since Revision I was issued in March 1996.' Update the topical report to reflect new data and any necessary changes to Revision 1. For example:
.=
- Date February'17,1998 Page 17 of 27 FTI Non-Proprietary
4
- Types of parent tube degradation electrosleeves are or are not qualified to repair (e.g., IGA, stress corrosion cracking, pittmg, etc.) and su;nmary of respective UT qualification data.
- Limitations on locations electrosleeves can be applied (e.g., no application to l UBends, dented intersections greater than a predetermined size [see Question 9 !
below), etc.).
- Additional discussion on flaw specific stmetural limits (i.e., the discussion ofissue 2 in the September 10,1997, submittal describes flaw specific stmetural limits which differ from the structural limits described in Table 8.5.1 of Revision 1 of the topical report).
- Any changes to the topical report regarding material properties required to support the flaw specific structural limits.
- Summaries of UT 4t.alification work (e.g., depth sizing qualification) updated since Revisior 1 of the topical rcport was written.
In addition, modify the technical specifications accordingly to reference the updated version of the topical report.
R7. Pending review of the issues identified in this RAI, the format ar.d scope of a revision is proposed as follows. Five significant technical responses are presented in the following table with a corresponding reference to the section in the Rev,1 Topical and the RAI question number. A resision of the topical would reference statements in the applicable section of the topical to an appendix containing the question and response as submitted to NRC, The specific responses would be reviewed for any conflicts or additional data review that supersedes previous information. The text of the topical would be reviewed and a detailed record of revisions provided to clearly note any changes for review purposes.
Applicabic Subject Questlom Topical Comments Number Section RAI(7/2/96) RAI Response (?/111/96) Presentation Material Electrosleeve Overview Ad
" thennal aging of Ni plating . "
.. 1 I l ]*
Ad
".. creep curves .. data scatter . " 2 I l Data Provided
".. photomicrographs .. fatigue 3 [ ".. phctos provided.. I Ad 6 creep-fatix cracki.." l 1
"..CANDU .. system parameters.. 4 [ ]Ad [" . . 6 Pickering .1/2" allov 400 " 1
" installation defects ..unbonds .
.. 5&6 [ ]Ad ]*
small pinholes .. NDE method . "
6
" assessment of the severe accident
.. 7 [ ]Ad [ 1 on electmsleeved tubes . "
Date: February 17,1998 Page 18 of 27 FTl Non-Proprietary
Applicable Subject @wstion Topical Comments Number Section RAI(7/23/96) RAI Response (9/24/96) F.scept UT of SCC tubes =ith sleeves.
" detection for SCC.. masking'
. 1 l 11.2l*d " pulled tube data" 6
".. ability to depth size?" 2 l l 1.2 ]* 1 1
".. Eddy Current.. Diverse inspection 3 [ l1.2 ]" "ASME Code Case N569" metids"
".. sleeve thickness measure?" 4 l 11.2 lu jb
"..unbond regions.. potential to 5 [ 6.3 ]" [ j*
cxpand . "
" cleaning / activation atep . "
.. 6 [6.3]* I l*
"..tl ird party rniewer?" 7 l 3.0 l Ad I l'
".. cleanliness.. current. acceptable 8 [ 6.3 ]* l ]"
parameters . "
" cHective commercial
.. 9 [10.1.4j" [
dedication.." lSd
" acceptable.. levels.. containments"
.. 10 [ 10.1.4l'd [ ld 6
" ongoing engineering evaluations"
.. 11 [ 6.01 d "ASME Section XI Review" RAI (7/25/96) RAI Response (2/5/97) UT ef SCC tubes with sleeves provided.
" cddy curr:nt testing?"
.. 1 I i1.2 l* "NDE donc tw UT"
". plugging criteria?" 2 [ ]1.2 ]M l lA'
".. tubes with SCC . " 3 I Il.21" l ]A'
" detect pits, nodules, defects?"
.. 4 i 11.2 ju data presented
".. future 1517" 5 l 11.2 I" "UT
" UT beam redirection"
.. 6 I 6.3 l6d [ lA' 6
" plugging criteria.. depth sizing"
.. 7 [ l1.2 ]" [ 1*
RAI (4/12/97) RAI Response (6/9/97)
".. cracks..will not propagate into I [9.1/11.2l" [ l6
Electrostenc7"
" crack size in %TW combined"
.. 2 [8.5 l* data , resented
" location of defects"
.. 3 [l1.2 l* data presented
"..EDM calibration standard" 4 [11.2 1* I ]*
6
" leak tests 11/16" tubes?"
.. 5 16.3 /11.2l* [ 1
".. number of EDM defects?" 6 I i1.21* l l' "2number of samples .. thickness?" 7 l 11.2 l" I l'
" axial ID.100%TW..to be detected" 8 l 11.21*'d [ j'
" foreign experience?"
.. 9 13.0l Ad " Canada 1994, DOEL pulled tubes"
".. flaw ..in parent tube ., propagated 10 [ l1.2 j* " Disposition of UT by flaw type" into sleevc" RAI (8/13/97) RAI Response (9/10/97)
" crack depth sizing?"
.. l l11.2]* [ ]* pulled tube, Electrosleeved, DE."
k
" structurallimits..revisedlimits"
, 2 1 8.5 l* l l'
".. basis for utiliting non-sleeved 3 [ l1.2 ]* " Velocities of.. sound" samples"
," structural significant slaws" 4 I 11.2 (" " Tube Pressure Boundary Regions" i
" data set .. expansion .. flaws"
.. $ 1 11.2 l" additional data provided
" peer review on NDE7"- 6 I 3.0 l" " chartei of peer review . "
l Date: February 27,1998 Page 19 of 27 FTl Non-Proprietary l
-r
e r ;
4
-Q8. The initial inspection scope, as described in Table 4.4 3 of the Technical Specifications,
,. for future ISI inspections of SG sleeves should consist of a minimum of 20 percent of each !
i las ofinstalled sleeve. Revise the proposed technical specifications to reflect this.
(
R8. Union Electric submitted a new TABLE 4.4-3 to technical specifications titled " STEAM GENERATOR REPAIRED TUBE INSPECTION". This table was submitted as part of ULNRC- 3430 dated September 5,1996. Table 4.4 3 requires a sample size of 20% and note I states that each repair method is considered a separate population. Therefore, Union Electric is already committed in Technical Specifications to the requested action.
Based on this, no further change to the proposed Technical Specificanons should be required.
l Q9. The February 5,1997, submittal discusses the ability to inspect dented intersections
! containing electrosleeves. It implies that there may be limits on the size of dents that can
! be reliably inspected. Please clarify if there are limits, what those limits are, and the size of dents which will be electrosleeved. Summarize the technical basis for these limits and how these limits were verified in the NDE qualification. Portions of previous submittals may be referenced if applicable. These limits and a summary of the technical basis should be documented in the next revision of the topical report (as discussed in Question #7 above).
R9. The limit is based on UT standoff and physicallimits of the Electrosleeving probe. The February 5,1997 submittal, page 24, identified a [ ] dent as the size threshold that affects the UT detection response using EDM flaws. Attachment 5 presents additional data on representative dents.
Q10. The response to Issue #1 in the September 10,1997, submittal indicates that six tubes from the Salem Unit 1 SG contained dents. Please describe the size of these dents and whether they are within the dent size limits as discum in response to Question #9 above.
R10. _ Attachment 5 presents the information for the Salem Unit 1 SG pulled tubes that were sleeved for NDE qualification. UT Profilometry data for several additional tubes was reviewed and provided. Please note, there is no univusal description of a dent but there are some physical parameters that define practical sleeve installation over a dent.
From Attachment 5, the dent size does not present a significant problem relative to the
[ ]A' value evaluated for the probe.
Qll. It is not clear whether the licensee intends to repair tubes containing IGA or in locations susceptible to subsequent IGA. Please clarify. If Electrosleeves will be applied to such tube locations, provide a summary of the inspection qualification data that supports this application. In addition, the revised topical report (discussed in Question #7) should state whether Electrosleeving will be applied to SG tubes with IGA or in locations susceptible 4
Date: February 17,1998 Page 20 of 27 FTI Non-Proprietary 1
.w-,c---- ,. , .
, - -- . ,_m, _ - , . ~ , _ , , , _ . , . - ~ - , .
to subsequent IGA. lfillectrosleeving is to be applied to such tube locations, the summary ofinspection quali0 cation data requested above should also be included in the evised topical repost. (Revised Question received 1/9/98.)
Ril. The structural repair is qualified for application which assumes the tube is completely degraded. Iloth the laboratory corrosion samples and the Salem Unit 1 SG pulled tubes contained a mix ofIGA and SCC. Thus the UT quali0 cation data previously submitted includes IGA, Tube pull data provides information that OD degradation initiates as IGA wEh subsequently connects grain boundary Onws into " cellular cracking" or SCC. Again this morphologv was included in the UT qualification Ql 2. Table 1.0 of the submittal dated February 5,1997, states that the sleeve structural limit for locked tubes in the peripheral tsp wedge regions is lower than that for unlocked tubes.
Clarify whether electrosleeving will be permitted in the peripheral tsp wedge regions where locking may be present. If electrosleeve repairs will be applied in these areas, discuss the basis for the structural limits for the Callaway plant. Otherwise, discuss how the currently proposed technical specifications exclude repairs fbr potentially locked tubes Per discussions held in the meeting on November 20,1997, the licensee indicated that the locking phenomenon did not apply to Westinghouse Model F steam generators. If this is the basis for not utilizing locked tube structural limits, provide the basis in writing for this assumption. Include in the response a discussion on the potential for secondary side corrosive degradation that could lead to tube support plate locking. Also discuss the results of secondary side steam generator inspections completed in these areas to verify these assumptions R 12. The structural limits defined in the RSG lilectronleeve Topical Report and RAI responses assume all the tubes to be " locked" The wedge block locations reported to have a limit of
[ ]* % through wall are the areas of concern. The wedge blocks are the interface between the support plates and the tube bundle wrapper. They are at 90-degree intervals around the bundle for the Model F steam generators The affected tubes are mostly the periphery row of the bundle at these locations Therefore, only about 100 tubes are excluded from the candidate list to be lilectrosleeved While Union lilectric does not consider the quatrefoil stainless steel support plates susceptible to the additianal postulated " locked tube" loads, Union !!!ectric will commit to not install an F.lectrosleeve in these periphery tubes near wedge supports, The locations of these airected peripheral tubes in the steam generator are not as susceptible to the currently identined degradation in the Callaway steam generators as the interior tubes, so i this is a mino impact on long term steam generator viability for the Callaway plant.
DackswuntomererenccJnformationfor_0ther1JanLDesigns. The history of TSP indications and consequently tube locking at a TSP has been associated with carbon s'ect TSPs with drill holes and secondary side chemistries that allowed corrosion buildup in the ,
tube-to TSP crevice. The design ofinstalled steam generators after 1982 addressed these Date: February 17,1998 Page 21 of 27 FTl Non l'roprietary l
- -. - - .- - - - . . _ - - - - - ~ _ _ - _ . . --
TSP problems. The carbon steel TSPs were changed to stainless steel, the drilled TSP holes were changed to broached TSP holes, and additional secondary side chemistry- ,
,- controls were implemented. The TSP design for the Model F steam generators at . ,
Callaway and the Series 44F and 51F replacement steam generators have these changes incorporated. A review of the operating history of these steam generator types from p'blished information (e.g., EPRI web page) shows that these steam generators continue functioning with none of the probleins associated with previous steam generator TSP designs.
The structural limits defined in the RSG Electrosleeve Topical Report and in the February 5,1997 transmittal are the result of a conservative calculation methodology. [- .
j6 The plugging criteria evaluation methodology discussed in the Electrosleeve Topical Report applies decreased limits on the allowed defect depth for postulated circumferential defects for affected tubes at the wedge locations. The interior or periphery tubes at wedge locations have the same axial crack plugging criteria, i.e., no decreased limits. However conservative and restrictive, the original structural limits rmain in effect for the Electrosleeve. [
}b.c,d Q13. ' At the meeting on December 9,1997, it was stated that additional work was being performed as a result of feedback from the peer review of the UT process and qualification. Provide the results of the additional work (e.g., additional pit ad samples, etc.).
R13. Additional pit and disbond samples were fabricated for Appendix J qualification statistical requirements. Some pits that approach through-wall were produced to evaluate a full range of depth sizing. Preliminary results support previously reported capability to depth
- size pits with UT. The results of this work will be piovided when completely documented.
- Ql4. 'In recent years, UT techniques have made large improvements in detecting and sizing
. flaws. FTI selected a basic 45 shear UT technique with computer assisted flaw aralysis.
This UT technique, however, exhibited limited effectiveness in sizing deep lab grown -
flaws. Explain FTI's evaluation / review (in more de: ail than FTI's February 5,1997
~ submittal) of other UT techniques (divergent transducers, convergent transducers with JDate! February 17,1998 . Page 22 of 27 FTI Non-Proprietary
- -- .- -- .- - . . - - _ - - - . ~ - - . . . . -. .
1
. narrow band frequencies, computer focusing, surface waves with the detail on surface -
roughness dir,eussed at the December 9,1997 meeting), higher frequencies, and different transducer angles. Where test results supporting the above discussion are known, they should be summarized and referenced in the submittal. Note: the staff has no questions on !
the technique used for depth smng with the'0 degree transducer -
Rl4. Ultrasonic inspection probes and software similar to those applied to the Electrosleeve
- NDE qualification have evolved over a period of several years starting in 1985. Steam i generator UT inspections conducted by FTI have provided supplemental information and the results typically are reviewed i
- conjunction with a tube pull. The technology has F
continuously been improved and the abihty to detect axial and circumferential cracks
- provide an experience base to decrease minimum detectable flaw size while maintaining or increasing a stable POD The current design of the UT probe is based on earlier designs
- with changes focused on adapting the probe to the reduction in ID diameter due to the
- installation of an Electrosleeve , while retaining the known inspection capability, and
[ reducing the effects of surface roughness. Initial examination provided assurance that the probe would meet the detection requirements imposed. No other techniques have been formally considered or evaluated. As a background review:
4
- 1. FTI is not aware of data that demonstrates that UT techniques have made large improvements in detecting and sizing flaws in small extruded tubing applications.
i This first statement (in Qi4) may be true in large structure or thick pipe /vesse! .
examinations. However, small tube (< 1 inch diameter, thin wall) ultrasonics is a vastly different inspection, in terms of techniques and equipment.
- 2. The 45 degree shear was chosen for crack detection / disposition based on the following rationale.
- a. It was presumed that the majority of crack-like flaws would propagate perpendicular to the originating surface (supported by DE photomicrographs).
- b. For crack-like flaws the face is perpendicular to the tube surface, detection
. capabilities would degrade as the angle beam is directed shallower than 45 degrees (angles closer to perpendicular). This is intuitive as one can visualize the energy striking the reflector at more of a glancing blow and the re: ult is less reflected energy. The limit of this can be realized since 0 degree waves
- (totally perpendicular) are completely blind to tight crack like flaws.1While it is
. widely accepted that steeper angles result in poorer detection capabilities of crack-like flaws, some theories suggest depth sizing actually improves. This e improvement occurs because the time of flight between the tip signal and the corner trap increases. This would seem to indicate that a suitable solution might be to use a 45 degree angle beam to detect and a steeper angle beam to characterize. Unfortunately, for the types of flaws encountered in small tubing, not enough useful energy is returned using the steeper angles to perform a
' detailed characterization. ~
Date: February 17,- 1998 Page 23 of 27 FTI Non-Proprietary
-~ . ,.
g-
- c. - As the angio beam is directed at angles greater than 45 der;ees (closer to the
- tube's axis) , the signal path becomes significantly jonger and this effect has two detrimental results. First, the capability to separate cloQ spaced flaws becomes degraded. Second, changes in tubinneometry (i.e. roll expansions, 4 ' dents, etc.) would increase the distortion of a steeper inspection angle. In
- addition, steeper angle beams would be practically useless in the Electrosleeve transition regions.
. d. The 45 degree angle was chosen as the best angle for detection and sizing of crack-like flaws that propagate perpendicular to the originating surface.' Shear
, wave mode was chosen because it has better reflecting characteristic to crack-
~
like flaws compared to longitudinal waves and the smaller wavelength inherent with shear vcaves.
The mean surface roughness of a [ ] thick Electrosleeve is [ ]' as compared to an alloy 600 tube being [ )"#. The UT inspection with this i surface can be performed with complete "backwall" definition of the tube OD.
Contingency plans do permit the use of a hone to improve the surface finish and thus the UT transmissibility into the sleeved tube.
i
! Q15. The procedure 54-ISI-168 Rev 1, dated January 28,1997, was in the process of being epdated with the findings from the peer review, Provide the NRC staff with a copy of the i updated procedure and the report containing the peer review findings and/or t
recommendations.
I RIS. Procedure 54-ISI-168 Rev 1, dated January 28,1997 is acknowledged as needing revision based on the neer review and lessons learned. The procedures " loaned" on December 5,1997 repesent the procedures in place for the UT qualification data presented in previous submittals. [=
1 r
i
] bad
- i Datei February 17,1990 Page 24 of 27 - FTI Non-Proprietary ;
- - - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ^%_
t I~
f yc.4 s
w l
Date: February 17,1993 PSge 25 of 27 FTINon-Proprietary
~ -- - - _ - _ _ _
REFERENCES:
1
- 1. Letter to NRC Document Control Desk from C.D. Naslund, (Union Electric Company),
dated September 10,1997, Callaway Plant Docket Number 50-483, Revision to Technical Specification 1/4.4 Reactor Coolant System,(ULNRC-3644)(TAC No.
M95204). "Information requested by NRC in a meeting on August 13, 1997."
- 2. Topical Report, BAW-10219P, Rev.1,"Electrosleeving Qualification for PWR Recircu'.ating Steam Generator Tube Repair", March 1996.
- 3. "RSG Electrosleeve" Burst Pressure Margins", FTI Document 32-1264444, July 24, 1997. " Document provides margins to bursting for the Electrosleevem with respect to depth and length of an axial crack."
- 4. " Estimated 100% TW Limits for a Circumferential Flaw", FTI Document 32-1264476, September 8,1997.
- 5. Letter to Kristine Thomas, RAI response February 5,1997. "7 questions,7 attachments".
- 6. Letter to NRC Document Control Desk from A.C. Passwater, (Union Electric Company),
dated June 9,1997, Callaway Plant Docket Number 50-483, Revision to Technical Specification 1/4.4-Reactor Coolant System, (ULNRC-03596)(TAC No M95204).
"Information requested by NRC in a meeting on August 13, 1997."
Date: February 17,1998 Page 26 of 27 FTI Non-Proprietary -
o Attachments:
SUMMARY
DOCUMENT", FTI DOCUMENT 51-1264524-00, FEBRUARY,1998. (This document presents photomicrographs of the flaws used in the qualification.)
- 2. - " LABORATORY GROWN SCC UT AND DE ANALYSIS OF 12/1996 RESULTS", FTI DOCUMENT 51-1264532-00, FEBRUARY,1998. [
t
- " LABORATORY OROWN SCC UT AND DE RE-ANALYSIS OF 1/1998 RESULTS", FTI DOCUMENT 51-1264522-01, FEBRUARY 12, 1998. [
Y
- 3. FTI CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUEST,98-02. (This information is the FTI internal QA procedure for identifying cause and corrective action for information not complying with QA procedures)
- 4. UT C-Scans for Transducer Orientation Evaluation,7 pages.
- 5. " STUDY OF SALEM TUBE DENT PROFILES", FTI DOCUMENT 51-1264527-00, FEBRUARY 4,1998. (This document presents a summary of measured dent profile geometry.)
Date: February 17,1998 Page 27 of 27 FTI Non-Proprietary-l
FTI Non-Proprietary ATTACHMENT 1 l l
The following document provides technical information ;
needed to evaluate the qualification of UT examination of an Electrosleeve .
LABORATORY GROWN SCC DE RESULTS
SUMMARY
DOCUMENT", FTI DOCUMENT 51-1264524-00, FEBRUARY, 1998. (This document presents photomicrographs of the flaws used in the qualification.)
REFERENCE:
TOPICAL BAW-10219P, "ELECTROSLEEVING QUALIFICATION FOR PWR RECIRCULATING STEAM GENERATOR TUBE REPAIR" February ,1998 FRAMATOME TECHNOLOGIES P.O. BOX 10935 LYNCHBURG, VA 24506-0935
. FTl NON-PROPRIETARY ni .. oie.,
- e F R AM ATO M E TECHNO4OO13S ENGINEERING INFORMATION RECORD Document Identifier 51- 1264524-00 (NON-PROPRIETARY) l Title Laboratorv Grown SCC DE Results Summary Document PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY:
Name P.M. MASTILOVIC Name G.M. Pon Signature
- Date 2 M $S ignature MNb r Da t e
- AM -
Technical 1
Manager-Initials:
[ NON PROPRIETARY
- Reviewer is Independent.
Remarks:
.1, 0 INTRODUCTION This document-summarizes the destructive examination results of the laboratory grown flaws in Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) and FTI
- __ samples as analyzed by Ontario Hydro Technologies (OHT) during the Summer of 1997 and used in the NDE qualification of the Electrosleeve".
l 1
Page- 1 _of 2 4
, -.. .n- -, - - - - < . - - -
Tile BALANCE OF Tills DOCUMENT PAGES 2 IS PROPRIETARY TO FRAMATOME TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
b
[ J ,c.d 51-1264524-00 FTI NON-PROPRIETARY Page 2 of 2
FTI Non-Proprietary ATTACHMENT 2 The following documents provide technical information needed to evaluate the qualification of UT examination of an Electrosleeve ,
., FEBRUARY,1998. [
)b
- 1/1998 RESULTS", FTI DOCUMENT 51-1264522-01, FEBRUARY
, 12,1998. [
jb REFER 5NCE : TOPICAL B AW-10219P, "ELECTROSLEEVING QUALIFICATION FOR PWR RECIRCULATING STEAM GENERATOR TUBE REPAIR" February ,1998 FRAMATOME TECIINOLOGIES P.O. BOX 10935 LYNCHBURG, VA 24506-0935
FTl NON PROPRIETARY n. - ,. n .
4 .
MFN A M AT O M E.
18( HNOLO488$
E!JG111EERIllG i!1FORl4ATIO!J RECORD Docuthent Identifier '21- 126b22-00 (11011- PROPH I ETARY ) ,
Title Laboratorv Grown SCC UT and DE Analysis of 12/1996 Results PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY:
llarne _f.li 1V,STj LOVIC - !Jame G .14 . Poo 6 dignaturo__ '
> ate Signature M M h Date YIhM Technical '
Manager IniH alD1 __ b. NON PROPHIEIARY Reviewer in Independent. -
Itemarks:
1.0 I!JTRODUCTIO!J This document in intended to clarify and explore in greater detail the data originally sresent ed in FTI document 51-1264428 (reference 7.1).
This document presenta-the results of the non estructive re-examination in the form of ult raconic tenting (UT) and dentruct Ive examinations IDE) of t.welve samples of laboratory grown strens corrosion cracks (SCC). The samp3en were UT examined, elect.ropl at ed, examined by UT and then sont to Ontario liydro
. Technologies (011T) for DE. The data analysia was performed by one FTI UT analyst in December 1996. Of t.he twelve samples only eight
, developed flawn and a total of twelve flaw regions were-identified for all the samples.
The original analysis of-this data is presented in FTI document 51-1264/28 (reference 1.1) and -a detailed t.reatment of the DE resulta.is>in FTI document 51-1264524 frofetence 7.2). The-coupona-from which the DE data-is derived have been archived and can be re-examined, Page 1 ot ,_2__-
- - . - - _ - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - -----w.-- - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - -
I i Tilt! 13ALANCE OF Tills IXX'UMENT PAGES 2-29 IS PROPRIETARY TO FRAMATOME TECilNOLOGIES, INC.
s b
[ J .c.d a
i I
4 i
^
l
.a t
i !
4 1
1 I i .
4 i l 4 :
l 1
i 4
E i
I i
j-i s i^
't 3
1 1264532 '
FTI tion-PROPRIETARY. :Page 2-ofE2
)
, , , . .-,-.6...,. . . _ - . . . _ . , . - - .- - , . , . _ . . . < . , . m.... .. . _ . - - . , - . , . - - - , ,
FTl NON-PROPRIETARY nir - . m .
i I
F R AM ATOM E !
tecnuotoesss l E!)GI! JEERING I!JFORMATION RECORD l-i l i
i Dccument Identifier 51- 1264522-01 Title Laboratory Grown SCC UT and DE Re-Analysis of 01/1998 Results j
. PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY:
P.M. MASTILOVIC G.M. POD l Name Name Signature-ate b Signature A.E N [{l__ Date
- i
! I Technical i
Manager Initialn: NON PROPHIETARY
, y ~
Reviewer in Independent.
i
- Remarks
- ,
! 1.0 I!JTRODUCTIO!1 ,
This document presents the results of the re-evaluation of ti.e i ultrasonic testing (UT) and destructive examinations (DE) of ,
twelve laboratory grown stress corrosion crack (SCC) samples. The :
, samples were UT examined, electroplated, re-examined by UT and l then sent to Ontario Ilydro Technologies (OHT) for DE. The UT data analyses contained in this document were performed by two FTI UT
, analysts in January 1998. The original analysis of this data was l l performed by a single UT analyst in December 1996. Of the twelve
-samples only eight developed flaws and a total of twelve flaw regions were identified for all the samples in this document. '
Sixteen defects were identified in the initially identified in the criginal data analysis. The difference results from analyzing the i data as individual defects as in the initial analysis and ,
analyzing it as defect regions as performed in this analysis.
The original analysis of this data is presented in PTI document 1 51-1264428_(reference-7.1). However, a more comprehensive and detailed of the original data analysis is presented in FTI
! document 51-1264532 (reference 7.la). A detailed treatment of the g DE results la presented in FTI document 51-1264524 (reference !
7,2). The coupons from which_the DE data is-derived _have been archived and-can be re-examined.
Page 1 of 2 :
_ . . , . - . - , . . _ - - . . - . . _ . _ . - . . - . - . . ~ . _ . _ _ .. _ - - - _ _ . . , _ . , _ . _ - - - . _ , _ . . . - . - . . . , . - _ _ _ . _ - _ ,
i l
i Till! 13ALANCl! OF Tills DOCUMisNT PAGliS 2 26 IS PROPRilITARY TO FRAMATOMli TliClINOLOGiliS,INC. l
( Jb ,td F
i L
51-1264522-01 FTI-NON-PROPRIETARY Page 2 of 2 P
m+.ew-w--r-se,-,s-ee *= ,,..nm,w .,ww.. . - . . , . . . . , _
4 FTI Non-Proprietary ATTACHMENT 3 The following documents provide technical information needed to evaluate the qualification of UT examination of an Electrosleeve .
FTI CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUEST,98-02, (QA review oflicensing transmittals),12 pages I
February ,1998 FRAMATOME TECIINOLOGIES P.O. BOX 10935 LYNCilBURG, VA ?4506-0935
FTl Non-Proprietary Tile BALANCE OF Tills INTERNAL DOCUMENTATION (12 PAGES)
IS PROPRIETARY TO ,
FRAMATOME TECHNOLOGIES l
( Y
3 .
FTl Non-Proprietary ATTACIIMENT 4 The following document provides technical information needed to evaluate the qualification of UT examination of an Electrosleeve .
UT C-SCANS FOR TRANSDUCER ORIENTATION EVALUATION,9 pages.
i
REFERENCE:
TOPICAL BAW-10219P, "ELECTROSLEEVING QUALIFICATION FOR PWR RECIRCULATING STEAM GENERATOR TUBE REPAIR" 3
Februanj ,1998
< FRAMATOME TECIINOLOGIES P.O. BOX 10935 LYNCHBURG, VA 24506-0935 I. . . . _____ ___ _ _ _ _ _
j
l FTl Non Proprietary Tile BALANCE OF Tills DOCUMENT l
l (9 PAGES)
IS PROPRIETARY TO FRAMATOME TECliNOLOGIES i
I f 1
1
., ~ b
FTl Non Proprietary ATTACIIMENT 5 The following document provides technical information l l
needed to evaluate the qualification of UT examination of an Electrosleeve .
" STUDY OF SALEM TUBE DENT PROFILES", Fil DOCUMENT 51-1264527-00, FEBRUARY 4,1998. (This document presents a summary of mcasured dent profile geometry.)
i l
REFERENCE : TOPICAL BAW-10219P, "ELECTROSLEEVINO QUALIFICATION FOR PWR RECIRCULATING STEAM GENERATOR TUBE REPAIR" February ,1998 FRAMATOME TECHNOLOGIES P.O. BOX 10935
'XNCIIBURG, VA 24506 0935
]
. FTl NON PROPRIETARY :cao 7 02%
f a cNNoDak ENGINEERING INFORMATION RECORD Document Identifier 51- 1264527.00 _
Title STUDY OF SALEM TUBE DENT PROFILES .
PREPARED BYt REVIEWED BY:
Ncme MARK LOWRY Name JOE WYATT Signature 7 M %. b v DateN2e/f8 Signature _ M V. b j Date 7/ap/ti
% 0,st, 4/yf
/
Technical Manager Statement: Initials f Reviewer is Independent. HON ~ PROPRIETARY Remarks Page 1 of 2
_ -_- __ _ __- _ -_________ -__-__ - _______ _____________ __- _ __ ]
THE BALANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT PAGES 2-8 (PLUS ATTACHMENTS)
IS PROPRIETARY TO FRAMATOME TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
[ )b,c,d This document consists of 8 pages. With attachments following Figures 1-7 (7 PAGES)
Attachment 1 - A-E (5 PAGE3)
Attachment 2 - A-E (5 PAGES)
D l':L di m.
.UTE-42 PAGE 2 OF 2 STUDY OF SALEM TUBE DENT PROFILES DATE: 2/03/98 REV.: 00 DOC: 51-1264527
_-_- _ - - - _ _ - _ - _ - - _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ b