|
|
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
Line 14: |
Line 14: |
| | page count = 18 | | | page count = 18 |
| | project = CAC:ME4936, CAC:ME4937 | | | project = CAC:ME4936, CAC:ME4937 |
| | stage = | | | stage = Meeting |
| }} | | }} |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:STPAluminumBronzePublicMeetingStaffQuestionsonAMPJune21,201618 Introduction*Thispresentationsummarizescomments/questionsonAMPB2.1.37,"SelectiveLeachingofAluminumBronze."*Comments/questionsareorganizedinaccordancewiththeStandardReviewPlanforLicenseRenewal,AppendixA.1.2.3,"AgingManagementProgramElements."18 ScopeofProgramProgramstatesthatextrudedteeswithweldrepairswillbereplacedifitisdeterminedthat"therepairsizeissuchthatfailureoftherepairwouldaffectstructuralintegrityofthecomponent."*Duringtheaudit,theapplicantstatedthatweldrepairsizewasnotknownforalloftheaffectedtees.*Staffneedstounderstandhowthestructuraldeterminationwillbemadeintheabsenceofthisdetail.18 PreventiveActions*Documentwhichportionsoftheburiedessentialcoolingwatersystemarecoated.*Citethecoatingasapreventiveaction-orcitesoilasanapplicableenvironment.*Thestatementsonaluminumbronzecastingsandextrudedpipingteesneednotberepeatedinthisprogramelement.18 ParametersMonitoredorInspected*TheAMPshouldconsistentlycitethefollowingparameters:-Lossofmaterial(agingeffect)[sometimesreferredtoasselectiveleachinginAMP]-Cracking(agingeffect)-Phasedistribution(indirectmeasureofthepotentialforcontinuousdealloying)*4thparagraphstatesthatOEhasshownthatcertainweldsare"notsusceptibletocrackingcausedbyselectiveleaching."-OEonlydemonstratesthattherearenothroughwallindications18 DetectionofAgingEffectsBuriedpipeinspectionswhenpipeisexposed:*Whatisthemethodofinspection?*Istheinspectionconductedoninternal,external,orbothsurfaces?18 DetectionofAgingEffectscont.WeldwithNoBackingRings*Staffbelievesthatvolumetricinspectionsshoulddemonstratenocrackingaccompaniedbydealloying.*Volumetricinspections,onetimeinspectionof3%oftheweldswithamaximumof10welds.-AMPXI.M32,"OneTimeInspection,"recommends20%withamaximumof25.PriortoPEO.-QuantityisinconsistentwithGALLReportrecommendations.*Programstatesthat,"[i]frejectableweldflaws,"aredetected,inspectionswillbecomeperiodicinlieuofonetime.-Howmanyweldflawswillittaketotransitiontoperiodicinlieuofonetimeinspections?18 DetectionofAgingEffectscont.WeldwithBackingRings*Staffbelievesthatvolumetricinspectionsshoulddemonstratenocrackingaccompaniedbydealloying.*Periodicinspectionof20%oftheweldswithamaximumof25welds*Programstates,"ifnowelddefectsarefound"thenumberofinspectionswillbereducedto3%withamaximumof10welds.-Howmanyweldflawswillittaketonottransitiontothereducednumberofinspections?18 DetectionofAgingEffectscont.DestructiveExaminations*Staffbelievesthatexaminationsaretodemonstrate:-forweldswithoutbackingrings,nolossofmaterialduetouniformorpluglikedealloying,aphasedistributionthatsupportsthebasisdocument,andnocrackingaccompaniedwithdealloying-forweldswithbackingrings,nolossofmaterialduetouniformorpluglikedealloying,aphasedistributionthatsupportsthebasisdocument,andthefrequencyofoccurrenceofcrackingaccompaniedwithdealloying*Theprogramstatesthattwoweldswithbackingringswillbedestructivelyexamined.-AMPXI.M32recommends20%withamaximumof25.*Staffbelievesthatweldswithbackingringsandweldswithoutbackingringsaretwoseparatepopulations-Backingrings-creviceforselectiveleaching-Withoutbackingrings-lessdilutionandlongercoolingperiodinrootweld18 DetectionofAgingEffectscont.InspectionLocationsProgramstatesthatinspectionlocationswillberandomlyselected.*Staffbelievesthatinspectionlocationscanberandom.*Locationsshouldberepresentativeofrangeandquantityofweldsizes.InspectionTimingProgramisnotclearonwhetheronetimeinspectionsoccurpriortoPEO.*Periodicinspectionof20%oftheweldswithamaximumof25weldsif"rejectableweldflaws-."aredetected.-"Performedevery10yearsthereafter."18 MonitoringandTrending*Thestaffrecognizesthatquantitativeresultswillnotbeobtainedbytheplannedvolumetricanddestructiveinspections/examinations.*Withouttrending,inspectionresultswouldbe"buried"inthecorrectiveactionprogram.*Thestaffneedstounderstandwhytheresultsofthevolumetricanddestructiveinspectionswillnotbecompiled(trended)andthecompiledresultsevaluated.*Thestaffneedstounderstandwhytheresultsofthewalkdownswillnotbetrended.18 AcceptanceCriteriaTheAMPstatesthattheacceptancecriteriaforweldsisnodefects:*A/Cforvolumetricexaminationsis,nodefects.*Parametersmonitoredorinspectedprogramelementstates,"Ifrejectableweldflaws(welddefects)perASMESectionIX-."-Programisunclearinthatitaddressesflawsanddefects.-WhyisSectionIXcited?-CitingSectionIIIcouldleadtononconsequential(fordealloying)defects(e.g.,concavitywithweldsizeslightlyunderthickness(suckback),roundedindications>5/32",inadequatepenetration).-CitingSectionIIIcouldleadtoanalyticalresolutionthatadefectisclassifiedasaflaw.*Describethespecificcriteriafordeclaringthatanindicationinaweldisrejectable.18 AcceptanceCriteriacont.*Thereisnoacceptancecriteriaforthedestructiveexaminations.*Whyistherenoacceptancecriteriaforthedetectionofpluglikeoruniformdealloying?*Whyistherenoacceptancecriteriaforburiedpipecoatings?18 CorrectiveActionsExpansionofExaminations*AMPstatesthateachweldfoundtohavedefectswillresultinfiveadditionalvolumetricexaminationsuntilnoadditionalwelddefectsaredetected.*Willexpansionofinspectionsbeconductedifabovegroundleaksaredetected?-Leaksshouldnotbedetectedoncecastingsarereplaced,regardlessoftheuseofbackingrings.-Whattypeofexpandedinspectionwillbeconductedifleaksaredetected(e.g.,volumetric,destructive).*Whatcorrectiveactionswilloccurifdealloyingisdetectedinweldswithoutbackingrings?*Forweldswithbackingrings,whatcorrectiveactionswilloccurdependingonthefrequencyofoccurrenceofcrackingaccompaniedwithdealloying?18 CorrectiveActionscont.ExpansionofExaminations*AMPstatesthatifburiedpipeleakisdetected,"asectionofeachleakingpipeweldwillberemovedfordestructiveexamination."-Willanexpansionofinspectionsbeconducted?*Willexpansionofdestructiveexaminationsbeconductedifacceptancecriteriafordestructiveexaminationsisnotmet?*Correctiveactionsforthedetectionofpluglikeoruniformdealloying?*Correctiveactionsforburiedpipecoatingdefects?18 BasisDocument*Enclosure1,page54,Table12-Whyisthe30inch,dischargesidetee(withamarginof1.01ofallowablelengthtoleaklength)acceptableforserviceinthePEO?*Enclosure1,page53,Table11-Walkthroughhowthistablewasdeveloped.-Whywastheunintensifiedbendingstressused?*Enclosure1,Table1-ReviewinstancesofOEwhereindicationswere:*"nearandparalleltothebuttweld"page21*"alongalineontheflangenecknearthebuttweld"page22*"nearthebuttweld"page2318 EditorialComments*Theperiodicwalkdownofabovegroundweldlocationsshouldbecitedinthe"parametersmonitoredorinspected"programelement.*Theperiodicwalkdownofyardareastodetectburiedpipeleaksshouldbecitedinthe"parametersmonitoredorinspected"programelement.*Programstatesthattheenvironmentisrawwater;however,soilshouldalsobecited,unlesscoatingscredited.*Firstenhancementstatesthataluminumbronzecastingswillbereplaced;however,itisdoesnotstatethatthereplacementmaterialwillnotbesusceptibletoselectiveleaching.*Correctiveactionsprogramstates,"leakfromaburiedpipeweld."Itshouldbemadeclearthattheweldcouldbe:(a)tononsusceptiblepipe,(b)tosusceptiblecastcomponents,or(c)therepairweldinanextrudedtee.ThisshouldbemadeclearthroughouttheAMP.18 Summary/Wrapup18 | | {{#Wiki_filter:STP Aluminum Bronze Public Meeting Staff Questions on AMP June 21, 2016 18 |
| }} | | |
| | Introduction |
| | * This presentation summarizes comments/questions on AMP B2.1.37, Selective Leaching of Aluminum Bronze. |
| | * Comments/questions are organized in accordance with the Standard Review Plan for License Renewal, Appendix A.1.2.3, Aging Management Program Elements. |
| | 18 |
| | |
| | Scope of Program Program states that extruded tees with weld repairs will be replaced if it is determined that "the repair size is such that failure of the repair would affect structural integrity of the component." |
| | * During the audit, the applicant stated that weld repair size was not known for all of the affected tees. |
| | * Staff needs to understand how the structural determination will be made in the absence of this detail. |
| | 18 |
| | |
| | Preventive Actions |
| | * Document which portions of the buried essential cooling water system are coated. |
| | * Cite the coating as a preventive action - or cite soil as an applicable environment. |
| | * The statements on aluminum bronze castings and extruded piping tees need not be repeated in this program element. |
| | 18 |
| | |
| | Parameters Monitored or Inspected |
| | * The AMP should consistently cite the following parameters: |
| | - Loss of material (aging effect) [sometimes referred to as selective leaching in AMP] |
| | - Cracking (aging effect) |
| | - Phase distribution (indirect measure of the potential for continuous dealloying) |
| | * 4th paragraph states that OE has shown that certain welds are not susceptible to cracking caused by selective leaching. |
| | - OE only demonstrates that there are no throughwall indications 18 |
| | |
| | Detection of Aging Effects Buried pipe inspections when pipe is exposed: |
| | * What is the method of inspection? |
| | * Is the inspection conducted on internal, external, or both surfaces? |
| | 18 |
| | |
| | Detection of Aging Effects cont. |
| | Weld with No Backing Rings |
| | * Staff believes that volumetric inspections should demonstrate no cracking accompanied by dealloying. |
| | * Volumetric inspections, onetime inspection of 3% of the welds with a maximum of 10 welds. |
| | - AMP XI.M32, OneTime Inspection, recommends 20% with a maximum of 25. Prior to PEO. |
| | - Quantity is inconsistent with GALL Report recommendations. |
| | * Program states that, [i]f rejectable weld flaws, are detected, inspections will become periodic in lieu of onetime. |
| | - How many weld flaws will it take to transition to periodic in lieu of onetime inspections? |
| | 18 |
| | |
| | Detection of Aging Effects cont. |
| | Weld with Backing Rings |
| | * Staff believes that volumetric inspections should demonstrate no cracking accompanied by dealloying. |
| | * Periodic inspection of 20% of the welds with a maximum of 25 welds |
| | * Program states, if no weld defects are found the number of inspections will be reduced to 3% with a maximum of 10 welds. |
| | - How many weld flaws will it take to not transition to the reduced number of inspections? |
| | 18 |
| | |
| | Detection of Aging Effects cont. |
| | Destructive Examinations |
| | * Staff believes that examinations are to demonstrate: |
| | - for welds without backing rings, no loss of material due to uniform or pluglike dealloying, a phase distribution that supports the basis document, and no cracking accompanied with dealloying |
| | - for welds with backing rings, no loss of material due to uniform or plug like dealloying, a phase distribution that supports the basis document, and the frequency of occurrence of cracking accompanied with dealloying |
| | * The program states that two welds with backing rings will be destructively examined. |
| | - AMP XI.M32 recommends 20% with a maximum of 25. |
| | * Staff believes that welds with backing rings and welds without backing rings are two separate populations |
| | - Backing rings - crevice for selective leaching |
| | - Without backing rings - less dilution and longer cooling period in root weld 18 |
| | |
| | Detection of Aging Effects cont. |
| | Inspection Locations Program states that inspection locations will be randomly selected. |
| | * Staff believes that inspection locations can be random. |
| | * Locations should be representative of range and quantity of weld sizes. |
| | Inspection Timing Program is not clear on whether onetime inspections occur prior to PEO. |
| | * Periodic inspection of 20% of the welds with a maximum of 25 welds if rejectable weld flaws. are detected. |
| | - Performed every 10 years thereafter. |
| | 18 |
| | |
| | Monitoring and Trending |
| | * The staff recognizes that quantitative results will not be obtained by the planned volumetric and destructive inspections/examinations. |
| | * Without trending, inspection results would be buried in the corrective action program. |
| | * The staff needs to understand why the results of the volumetric and destructive inspections will not be compiled (trended) and the compiled results evaluated . |
| | * The staff needs to understand why the results of the walk downs will not be trended. |
| | 18 |
| | |
| | Acceptance Criteria The AMP states that the acceptance criteria for welds is no defects: |
| | * A/C for volumetric examinations is, no defects. |
| | * Parameters monitored or inspected program element states, If rejectable weld flaws (weld defects) per ASME Section IX. |
| | - Program is unclear in that it addresses flaws and defects. |
| | - Why is Section IX cited? |
| | - Citing Section III could lead to nonconsequential (for dealloying) defects (e.g., concavity with weld size slightly under thickness (suckback), rounded indications > 5/32, inadequate penetration). |
| | - Citing Section III could lead to analytical resolution that a defect is classified as a flaw. |
| | * Describe the specific criteria for declaring that an indication in a weld is rejectable. |
| | 18 |
| | |
| | Acceptance Criteria cont. |
| | * There is no acceptance criteria for the destructive examinations. |
| | * Why is there no acceptance criteria for the detection of pluglike or uniform dealloying? |
| | * Why is there no acceptance criteria for buried pipe coatings? |
| | 18 |
| | |
| | Corrective Actions Expansion of Examinations |
| | * AMP states that each weld found to have defects will result in five additional volumetric examinations until no additional weld defects are detected. |
| | * Will expansion of inspections be conducted if aboveground leaks are detected? |
| | - Leaks should not be detected once castings are replaced, regardless of the use of backing rings. |
| | - What type of expanded inspection will be conducted if leaks are detected (e.g., volumetric, destructive). |
| | * What corrective actions will occur if dealloying is detected in welds without backing rings? |
| | * For welds with backing rings, what corrective actions will occur depending on the frequency of occurrence of cracking accompanied with dealloying? |
| | 18 |
| | |
| | Corrective Actions cont. |
| | Expansion of Examinations |
| | * AMP states that if buried pipe leak is detected, a section of each leaking pipe weld will be removed for destructive examination. |
| | - Will an expansion of inspections be conducted? |
| | * Will expansion of destructive examinations be conducted if acceptance criteria for destructive examinations is not met? |
| | * Corrective actions for the detection of pluglike or uniform dealloying? |
| | * Corrective actions for buried pipe coating defects? |
| | 18 |
| | |
| | Basis Document |
| | * Enclosure 1, page 54, Table 12 |
| | - Why is the 30inch, discharge side tee (with a margin of 1.01 of allowable length to leak length) acceptable for service in the PEO? |
| | * Enclosure 1, page 53, Table 11 |
| | - Walk through how this table was developed. |
| | - Why was the unintensified bending stress used? |
| | * Enclosure 1, Table 1 |
| | - Review instances of OE where indications were: |
| | * near and parallel to the butt weld page 21 |
| | * along a line on the flange neck near the butt weld page 22 |
| | * near the butt weld page 23 18 |
| | |
| | Editorial Comments |
| | * The periodic walkdown of aboveground weld locations should be cited in the parameters monitored or inspected program element. |
| | * The periodic walkdown of yard areas to detect buried pipe leaks should be cited in the parameters monitored or inspected program element. |
| | * Program states that the environment is raw water; however, soil should also be cited, unless coatings credited. |
| | * First enhancement states that aluminum bronze castings will be replaced; however, it is does not state that the replacement material will not be susceptible to selective leaching. |
| | * Corrective actions program states, leak from a buried pipe weld. It should be made clear that the weld could be: (a) to non susceptible pipe, (b) to susceptible cast components, or (c) the repair weld in an extruded tee. This should be made clear throughout the AMP. |
| | 18 |
| | |
| | Summary/Wrapup 18}} |
Letter Sequence Meeting |
---|
|
|
MONTHYEARML16202A4872016-07-21021 July 2016 07/21/2016 Talking Points, Supplemental Information for South Texas Project and NRC Public Meeting Project stage: Request ML16172A0192016-07-25025 July 2016 STP Aluminum Bronze Selective Leaching Public Meeting - June 21, 2016 Project stage: Meeting ML16218A3672016-08-30030 August 2016 07/21/2016 Summary of Public Teleconference Meeting with STP Nuclear Operating Company Discussing Revisions to License Renewal Application Aluminum Bronze Selective Leaching Aging Management Program and Background Document Project stage: Meeting ML17017A1482017-01-24024 January 2017 Plan for the 2017 Selective Leaching of Aluminum Bronze Aging Management Program Regulatory Audit Regarding the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application Review(Cac Nos. ME4936 and ME4937) Project stage: Other NOC-AE-17003441, Revised Response Request for Additional Information for the Review of the South Texas Project License Renewal Application2017-02-0909 February 2017 Revised Response Request for Additional Information for the Review of the South Texas Project License Renewal Application Project stage: Request ML17068A2532017-03-23023 March 2017 Extend Timeframe for the 2017 Selective Leaching of Aluminum Bronze AMP Regulatory Audit Regarding the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application Review (CAC Nos. ME4936 and ME4937) Project stage: Other NOC-AE-17003454, Supplement to the License Renewal Application2017-03-30030 March 2017 Supplement to the License Renewal Application Project stage: Supplement NOC-AE-17003459, Supplement to the License Renewal Application Re Aging Management Programs2017-04-19019 April 2017 Supplement to the License Renewal Application Re Aging Management Programs Project stage: Supplement NOC-AE-17003475, Supplement to the License Renewal Application2017-05-0202 May 2017 Supplement to the License Renewal Application Project stage: Supplement ML17172A0142017-05-0404 May 2017 STP Response to ACRS Questions Project stage: Other ML17107A3192017-05-16016 May 2017 Aluminum Bronze Selective Leaching Aging Management Program Audit Report Regarding the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application (CAC Nos. ME4936 and ME4937) Project stage: Other 2017-03-23
[Table View] |
|
---|
Category:Meeting Briefing Package/Handouts
MONTHYEARML24080A1292024-03-25025 March 2024 March 25, 2024, Pre-Submittal Meeting for STP QA Plan Change ML22243A1312022-08-31031 August 2022 STP Nuclear Operating Company August 31, 2022 Presentation - Pre-Submittal Meeting for Updated Main Steam Line Break and Locked Rotor Dose Consequence Analysis to Address Extended Cooldown Timelines ML22214A0972022-08-0202 August 2022 Presentation by South Texas Project ML22153A2942022-06-17017 June 2022 richardsd-hv-th28 ML21203A2702021-07-26026 July 2021 Presentation - 7-26-21 Meeting with STPNOC Proposed South Texas Project Moderator Temperature Coefficient TS Change ML20125A3362020-05-0404 May 2020 STP Presubmittal Meeting Exigent Accumulator LAR 2020-05-05 Presentation L-2020-LRM-0039 ML19326A0072019-11-22022 November 2019 Pre-Application Public Meeting for Proposed License Amendment Request to Revise the STPEGS Emergency Plan - December 3, 2019 ML16356A0612016-12-21021 December 2016 12/21/2016 South Texas Project Aluminum Bronze Aging Management Request for Additional Information ML16264A3632016-09-20020 September 2016 Pre-Application Public Meeting for Proposed License Amendment Request to Revise the STPEGS Emergency Plan Staff Augmentation Times ML16210A0442016-07-28028 July 2016 STP Nuclear Operating Company Handouts for July 28, 2016 Public Meeting on GSI-191 ML16172A0192016-07-25025 July 2016 STP Aluminum Bronze Selective Leaching Public Meeting - June 21, 2016 ML16202A4872016-07-21021 July 2016 07/21/2016 Talking Points, Supplemental Information for South Texas Project and NRC Public Meeting ML16111A0272016-04-18018 April 2016 STP Nuclear Operating Company Slideshow for Public Meeting on April 21, 2016 for GSI-191 Resolution (CAC No. MF2400-01) ML16062A3042016-03-0202 March 2016 TS 5.3.2 LAR Pre-Submittal Meeting Presentation - March 2, 2016 ML16033A0042016-01-19019 January 2016 Applicant's Slides for STP Meeting on Aluminum Bronze Aging Management ML15274A5992015-10-0101 October 2015 10-01-15 Public Phone Call ML15271A3042015-09-28028 September 2015 Public Phone Call Meeting Description of Supplement 2 to STPNOC Risk-Informed Licensing Application to Address GSI-191 and Respond to GL-2004-02 ML15111A0582015-04-15015 April 2015 Licensee Handouts (2 of 2) for 4/22/2015 Public Meeting Possible Roverd Section on Fixed Filtration (TAC Nos. MF2400-MF2409) ML15111A0562015-04-15015 April 2015 Licensee Handouts (1 of 2) for 4/22/2015 Public Meeting Revised Roverd Section on Large Early Release Frequency Change for Large Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident(Tac Nos. MF2400-MF2409) ML15056A3862015-02-25025 February 2015 NRC Slides for February 25, 2015 Public Meeting with STPNOC Concerning GSI-191 ML15049A4882015-02-18018 February 2015 Slides for February 25, 2015 Public Meeting ML15034A1512015-02-0505 February 2015 Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) from 10 Years to 15 Years. NRC Public Meeting Slides - ILRT License Amendment ML15034A1142015-02-0404 February 2015 STP Risk- Informed Approach to GSI - 191 Roverd 2015 Meeting Blue 1 29 15 ML14192A9842014-08-0404 August 2014 Summary of Pre-Licensing Meeting with STP Nuclear Operating Company to Discuss Future License Amendment Request to Revise TS 6.9.1.6.b.9 to the Leading Edge Flow Meter Technology for Feedwater Flow Measurement ML14120A0112014-04-29029 April 2014 4/29/2014 - South Texas Project Regulatory Approach for Risk-Informed Pilot Submittal Presentation Relating to 10 CFR 50.46c ML13352A1422013-12-16016 December 2013 GSI-191 Licensing Submittal Comparison of Changes Between Rev 1 and Rev 2 ML13352A1242013-12-16016 December 2013 NRC Staff Slides South Texas Project Risk-Informed Generic Safety Issue - 191, December 16, 2013 ML13316B9052013-11-13013 November 2013 Albrz Testing Update for NRR Final ML13150A2162013-05-23023 May 2013 Licensee Slides for 5/23/13 Public Meeting Regarding GSI-191 ML13140A2562013-05-20020 May 2013 Licensee Slides for 5/23/13 Meeting - STP Pilot Submittal for Risk Informed Approach to Resolving GSI-191 ML13023A3342013-02-25025 February 2013 1/15/2013 Summary of Public Meetings Conducted to Discuss Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Related to Review of South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2, License Renewal Application ML13051A8552013-02-20020 February 2013 Licensee Slides for 3/5/13 Pre-Application Meeting for Proposed Licensing Action to Revise the Fire Protection Program at STP ML13029A4972013-01-15015 January 2013 Slides - Preliminary Site-Specific Results of the Environmental Review for South Texas Project License Renewal ML12297A3312012-11-27027 November 2012 Summary of Prelicensing Meeting with STP Nuclear Operating Company to Discuss Proposed Amendment for Approval of Revised Fire Protection Program Related to Alternate Shutdown Capability for South Texas, Units 1 and 2 ML12264A3202012-10-11011 October 2012 Meeting Handout for 10/11/12 Pre-licensing Meeting License Amendment Request to Revise the Fire Protection Program ML12145A4382012-05-18018 May 2012 Licensee Handout on Calibration and Benchmarking of Single and Two-Phase Jet Cfd Models ML1209004042012-03-30030 March 2012 3-27-2012 - STP Public Meeting Handout from Nuclear Innovation North America, LLC on Fukushima Lessons Learned for South Texas Project Units 3 and 4 ML1205405572012-02-22022 February 2012 Licensee Slides for 03/1/12 Meeting with STP Nuclear Operating Company Meeting to Discuss GSI-191 ML1205405702012-02-22022 February 2012 Uncertainty Modeling of LOCA Frequencies and Break Size Distributions for the STP GSI-191 Resolution ML1205407582012-02-22022 February 2012 STP Summary of January Meeting ML1204400652012-02-0909 February 2012 Licensee Slides for 2/9/12 Meeting Regarding GSI-191 ML1133505632011-12-0101 December 2011 Licensee Presentation from 12/1/11 Meeting Via Conference Call to Discuss Risk-Informed GSI-191,Assessment of Debris Accumulation on Pressurized Water Reactor Sump Performance ML1130506322011-10-26026 October 2011 Licensee Handouts from November 1, 2011 Meeting with STP Nuclear Operating Company on GSI-191 ML1127701762011-10-0303 October 2011 Licensee Handouts from 10/3/11 Meeting STP LOCA Frequency ML1127702032011-10-0303 October 2011 Licensee Slides from 10/3/11 Meeting LOCA Frequencies, Final Results ML1123508732011-08-22022 August 2011 Models and Methods Used for Casa Grande ML1123508832011-08-22022 August 2011 LOCA Initiating Event Frequencies and Uncertainties Status Report ML1120707072011-07-26026 July 2011 Meeting Notice with South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 - Licensee Slide Models and Methods Used for Casa Grande ML1120707292011-07-26026 July 2011 Meeting Notice with South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 - Licensee Slides Computational Fluid Dynamics Validation Plan ML1118903802011-07-0707 July 2011 Licensee Slides, LOCA Initiating Event Frequencies and Uncertainties(Draft) 2024-03-25
[Table view] Category:Slides and Viewgraphs
MONTHYEARML24080A1292024-03-25025 March 2024 March 25, 2024, Pre-Submittal Meeting for STP QA Plan Change ML22243A1312022-08-31031 August 2022 STP Nuclear Operating Company August 31, 2022 Presentation - Pre-Submittal Meeting for Updated Main Steam Line Break and Locked Rotor Dose Consequence Analysis to Address Extended Cooldown Timelines ML22214A0972022-08-0202 August 2022 Presentation by South Texas Project ML22153A2942022-06-17017 June 2022 richardsd-hv-th28 ML21203A2702021-07-26026 July 2021 Presentation - 7-26-21 Meeting with STPNOC Proposed South Texas Project Moderator Temperature Coefficient TS Change ML20248H5322020-09-0404 September 2020 STP Nuclear Operating Company September 14, 2020, Presentation - Pre-Submittal Meeting for Proposed South Texas Project Moderator Temperature Coefficient Surveillance Requirement Technical Specification Change ML20125A3362020-05-0404 May 2020 STP Presubmittal Meeting Exigent Accumulator LAR 2020-05-05 Presentation L-2020-LRM-0039 ML20034E8192020-02-0606 February 2020 Pre-Application Public Meeting for Proposed License Amendment Request to Revise the STPEGS Emergency Plan ML19095A6562019-04-0404 April 2019 NRR E-mail Capture - (External_Sender) Handout for 4/10/19 Meeting to Discuss a Proposed Request for South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Regarding Repair of Piping Using Carbon Fiber Repair Methods ML17004A0292017-01-0404 January 2017 Slides for January 4, 2017, Public Meeting on South Texas Project's Resposne to Aluminum Bronze Aging Management Request for Additional Information ML16356A0612016-12-21021 December 2016 12/21/2016 South Texas Project Aluminum Bronze Aging Management Request for Additional Information ML16350A3272016-11-17017 November 2016 Transcript of Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Plant License Renewal Subcommittee Meeting - November 17, 2016 ML16264A3632016-09-20020 September 2016 Pre-Application Public Meeting for Proposed License Amendment Request to Revise the STPEGS Emergency Plan Staff Augmentation Times ML16172A0192016-07-25025 July 2016 STP Aluminum Bronze Selective Leaching Public Meeting - June 21, 2016 ML16188A3682016-07-0606 July 2016 Audit Presentation - Westinghouse Methodology for South Texas Unit 1 LAR: Operation with 56 Control Rods ML16062A3042016-03-0202 March 2016 TS 5.3.2 LAR Pre-Submittal Meeting Presentation - March 2, 2016 ML16033A0042016-01-19019 January 2016 Applicant's Slides for STP Meeting on Aluminum Bronze Aging Management ML15334A3972015-11-30030 November 2015 TS 5 3 2 Emergency LAR Pre-Submittal Meeting Presentation ML15274A5992015-10-0101 October 2015 10-01-15 Public Phone Call ML15034A1512015-02-0505 February 2015 Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) from 10 Years to 15 Years. NRC Public Meeting Slides - ILRT License Amendment ML15034A1142015-02-0404 February 2015 STP Risk- Informed Approach to GSI - 191 Roverd 2015 Meeting Blue 1 29 15 ML14192A9842014-08-0404 August 2014 Summary of Pre-Licensing Meeting with STP Nuclear Operating Company to Discuss Future License Amendment Request to Revise TS 6.9.1.6.b.9 to the Leading Edge Flow Meter Technology for Feedwater Flow Measurement ML14149A0892014-05-21021 May 2014 NRR E-mail Capture - STP-GSI-191 Presentation ML14120A0112014-04-29029 April 2014 4/29/2014 - South Texas Project Regulatory Approach for Risk-Informed Pilot Submittal Presentation Relating to 10 CFR 50.46c ML13352A1422013-12-16016 December 2013 GSI-191 Licensing Submittal Comparison of Changes Between Rev 1 and Rev 2 ML13352A1242013-12-16016 December 2013 NRC Staff Slides South Texas Project Risk-Informed Generic Safety Issue - 191, December 16, 2013 ML13316B9052013-11-13013 November 2013 Albrz Testing Update for NRR Final ML13150A2162013-05-23023 May 2013 Licensee Slides for 5/23/13 Public Meeting Regarding GSI-191 ML13140A2562013-05-20020 May 2013 Licensee Slides for 5/23/13 Meeting - STP Pilot Submittal for Risk Informed Approach to Resolving GSI-191 ML13023A3342013-02-25025 February 2013 1/15/2013 Summary of Public Meetings Conducted to Discuss Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Related to Review of South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2, License Renewal Application ML13051A8552013-02-20020 February 2013 Licensee Slides for 3/5/13 Pre-Application Meeting for Proposed Licensing Action to Revise the Fire Protection Program at STP ML13029A4972013-01-15015 January 2013 Slides - Preliminary Site-Specific Results of the Environmental Review for South Texas Project License Renewal ML12297A3312012-11-27027 November 2012 Summary of Prelicensing Meeting with STP Nuclear Operating Company to Discuss Proposed Amendment for Approval of Revised Fire Protection Program Related to Alternate Shutdown Capability for South Texas, Units 1 and 2 ML12264A3202012-10-11011 October 2012 Meeting Handout for 10/11/12 Pre-licensing Meeting License Amendment Request to Revise the Fire Protection Program ML1209004042012-03-30030 March 2012 3-27-2012 - STP Public Meeting Handout from Nuclear Innovation North America, LLC on Fukushima Lessons Learned for South Texas Project Units 3 and 4 ML1204400652012-02-0909 February 2012 Licensee Slides for 2/9/12 Meeting Regarding GSI-191 ML1133505632011-12-0101 December 2011 Licensee Presentation from 12/1/11 Meeting Via Conference Call to Discuss Risk-Informed GSI-191,Assessment of Debris Accumulation on Pressurized Water Reactor Sump Performance ML1130506322011-10-26026 October 2011 Licensee Handouts from November 1, 2011 Meeting with STP Nuclear Operating Company on GSI-191 ML1127702032011-10-0303 October 2011 Licensee Slides from 10/3/11 Meeting LOCA Frequencies, Final Results ML1127701762011-10-0303 October 2011 Licensee Handouts from 10/3/11 Meeting STP LOCA Frequency ML1123508732011-08-22022 August 2011 Models and Methods Used for Casa Grande ML1123508832011-08-22022 August 2011 LOCA Initiating Event Frequencies and Uncertainties Status Report ML1120707072011-07-26026 July 2011 Meeting Notice with South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 - Licensee Slide Models and Methods Used for Casa Grande ML1120707292011-07-26026 July 2011 Meeting Notice with South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 - Licensee Slides Computational Fluid Dynamics Validation Plan ML1118903802011-07-0707 July 2011 Licensee Slides, LOCA Initiating Event Frequencies and Uncertainties(Draft) ML1118904202011-07-0606 July 2011 Licensee Slide from 7/7/11 Meeting with STP Nuclear ML11157A0102011-06-0202 June 2011 STP Nuclear Operating Company, Licensee Handouts, 6/2/2011 Meeting Risk-Informed GSI-191 Closure Plan for GSI-191 Resolution ML1114501952011-05-24024 May 2011 Summary of Meeting with South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 2010 Performance ML1105503952011-02-22022 February 2011 Licensee Slides from 2/22/11 Public Meeting with STP Nuclear Operating Company ML1103206432011-01-27027 January 2011 1/27/11 Presentation on Risk-Informed GSI-191 Project Overview 2024-03-25
[Table view] |
Text
STP Aluminum Bronze Public Meeting Staff Questions on AMP June 21, 2016 18
Introduction
- This presentation summarizes comments/questions on AMP B2.1.37, Selective Leaching of Aluminum Bronze.
18
Scope of Program Program states that extruded tees with weld repairs will be replaced if it is determined that "the repair size is such that failure of the repair would affect structural integrity of the component."
- During the audit, the applicant stated that weld repair size was not known for all of the affected tees.
- Staff needs to understand how the structural determination will be made in the absence of this detail.
18
Preventive Actions
- Document which portions of the buried essential cooling water system are coated.
- Cite the coating as a preventive action - or cite soil as an applicable environment.
- The statements on aluminum bronze castings and extruded piping tees need not be repeated in this program element.
18
Parameters Monitored or Inspected
- The AMP should consistently cite the following parameters:
- Loss of material (aging effect) [sometimes referred to as selective leaching in AMP]
- Cracking (aging effect)
- Phase distribution (indirect measure of the potential for continuous dealloying)
- 4th paragraph states that OE has shown that certain welds are not susceptible to cracking caused by selective leaching.
- OE only demonstrates that there are no throughwall indications 18
Detection of Aging Effects Buried pipe inspections when pipe is exposed:
- What is the method of inspection?
- Is the inspection conducted on internal, external, or both surfaces?
18
Detection of Aging Effects cont.
Weld with No Backing Rings
- Staff believes that volumetric inspections should demonstrate no cracking accompanied by dealloying.
- Volumetric inspections, onetime inspection of 3% of the welds with a maximum of 10 welds.
- AMP XI.M32, OneTime Inspection, recommends 20% with a maximum of 25. Prior to PEO.
- Quantity is inconsistent with GALL Report recommendations.
- Program states that, [i]f rejectable weld flaws, are detected, inspections will become periodic in lieu of onetime.
- How many weld flaws will it take to transition to periodic in lieu of onetime inspections?
18
Detection of Aging Effects cont.
Weld with Backing Rings
- Staff believes that volumetric inspections should demonstrate no cracking accompanied by dealloying.
- Periodic inspection of 20% of the welds with a maximum of 25 welds
- Program states, if no weld defects are found the number of inspections will be reduced to 3% with a maximum of 10 welds.
- How many weld flaws will it take to not transition to the reduced number of inspections?
18
Detection of Aging Effects cont.
Destructive Examinations
- Staff believes that examinations are to demonstrate:
- for welds without backing rings, no loss of material due to uniform or pluglike dealloying, a phase distribution that supports the basis document, and no cracking accompanied with dealloying
- for welds with backing rings, no loss of material due to uniform or plug like dealloying, a phase distribution that supports the basis document, and the frequency of occurrence of cracking accompanied with dealloying
- The program states that two welds with backing rings will be destructively examined.
- AMP XI.M32 recommends 20% with a maximum of 25.
- Staff believes that welds with backing rings and welds without backing rings are two separate populations
- Backing rings - crevice for selective leaching
- Without backing rings - less dilution and longer cooling period in root weld 18
Detection of Aging Effects cont.
Inspection Locations Program states that inspection locations will be randomly selected.
- Staff believes that inspection locations can be random.
- Locations should be representative of range and quantity of weld sizes.
Inspection Timing Program is not clear on whether onetime inspections occur prior to PEO.
- Periodic inspection of 20% of the welds with a maximum of 25 welds if rejectable weld flaws. are detected.
- Performed every 10 years thereafter.
18
Monitoring and Trending
- The staff recognizes that quantitative results will not be obtained by the planned volumetric and destructive inspections/examinations.
- Without trending, inspection results would be buried in the corrective action program.
- The staff needs to understand why the results of the volumetric and destructive inspections will not be compiled (trended) and the compiled results evaluated .
- The staff needs to understand why the results of the walk downs will not be trended.
18
Acceptance Criteria The AMP states that the acceptance criteria for welds is no defects:
- A/C for volumetric examinations is, no defects.
- Parameters monitored or inspected program element states, If rejectable weld flaws (weld defects) per ASME Section IX.
- Program is unclear in that it addresses flaws and defects.
- Why isSection IX cited?
- Citing Section III could lead to nonconsequential (for dealloying) defects (e.g., concavity with weld size slightly under thickness (suckback), rounded indications > 5/32, inadequate penetration).
- Citing Section III could lead to analytical resolution that a defect is classified as a flaw.
- Describe the specific criteria for declaring that an indication in a weld is rejectable.
18
Acceptance Criteria cont.
- There is no acceptance criteria for the destructive examinations.
- Why is there no acceptance criteria for the detection of pluglike or uniform dealloying?
- Why is there no acceptance criteria for buried pipe coatings?
18
Corrective Actions Expansion of Examinations
- AMP states that each weld found to have defects will result in five additional volumetric examinations until no additional weld defects are detected.
- Will expansion of inspections be conducted if aboveground leaks are detected?
- Leaks should not be detected once castings are replaced, regardless of the use of backing rings.
- What type of expanded inspection will be conducted if leaks are detected (e.g., volumetric, destructive).
- What corrective actions will occur if dealloying is detected in welds without backing rings?
- For welds with backing rings, what corrective actions will occur depending on the frequency of occurrence of cracking accompanied with dealloying?
18
Corrective Actions cont.
Expansion of Examinations
- AMP states that if buried pipe leak is detected, a section of each leaking pipe weld will be removed for destructive examination.
- Will an expansion of inspections be conducted?
- Will expansion of destructive examinations be conducted if acceptance criteria for destructive examinations is not met?
- Corrective actions for the detection of pluglike or uniform dealloying?
- Corrective actions for buried pipe coating defects?
18
Basis Document
- Enclosure 1, page 54, Table 12
- Why is the 30inch, discharge side tee (with a margin of 1.01 of allowable length to leak length) acceptable for service in the PEO?
- Enclosure 1, page 53, Table 11
- Walk through how this table was developed.
- Why was the unintensified bending stress used?
- Review instances of OE where indications were:
- near and parallel to the butt weld page 21
- along a line on the flange neck near the butt weld page 22
- near the butt weld page 23 18
Editorial Comments
- The periodic walkdown of aboveground weld locations should be cited in the parameters monitored or inspected program element.
- The periodic walkdown of yard areas to detect buried pipe leaks should be cited in the parameters monitored or inspected program element.
- Program states that the environment is raw water; however, soil should also be cited, unless coatings credited.
- First enhancement states that aluminum bronze castings will be replaced; however, it is does not state that the replacement material will not be susceptible to selective leaching.
- Corrective actions program states, leak from a buried pipe weld. It should be made clear that the weld could be: (a) to non susceptible pipe, (b) to susceptible cast components, or (c) the repair weld in an extruded tee. This should be made clear throughout the AMP.
18
Summary/Wrapup 18