ML080280044: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML080280044
| number = ML080280044
| issue date = 01/25/2008
| issue date = 01/25/2008
| title = Davis-Besse Special Inspection Evaluation, Basis for Investigatory Response Decision for a Significant Operational Power Reactor Event
| title = Special Inspection Evaluation, Basis for Investigatory Response Decision for a Significant Operational Power Reactor Event
| author name = Hills D E
| author name = Hills D
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-III/DRS/EB1
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-III/DRS/EB1
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 15: Line 15:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Attachment 1 BASIS FOR INVESTIGATORY RESPONSE DECISION FOR A SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL POWER REACTOR EVENT PLANT - Davis Besse EVENT DATE -
{{#Wiki_filter:Attachment 1 BASIS FOR INVESTIGATORY RESPONSE DECISION FOR A SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL POWER REACTOR EVENT PLANT - EVENT DATE - 1/04/08               EVALUATION DATE - 1/04/08 Davis Besse BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL POWER REACTOR EVENT During a planned pre-emptive weld overlay on the Decay Heat Suction nozzle to elbow weld during the outage, indication of a through wall flaw was noted by a blow out on the first overlay pass and RCS leakage. The characterization of the flaw was unknown at that time. The weld process was stopped and the leak is characterized as weeping. The RV Head was on the Vessel and all the fuel still in the vessel. Subsequently the crack was found to be axially oriented and short by ultrasonic examination. This crack geometry was bounded by the analysis of the structural weld overlay. The licensee proceeded to repair the crack by finishing the planned weld overlay.
1/04/08 EVALUATION DATE -
Y/N                                        DETERMINISTIC CRITERIA
1/04/08 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL POWER REACTOR EVENT During a planned pre-emptive weld overlay on the Decay Heat Suction nozzle to elbow weld during  
: a. Involved operations that exceeded, or were not included in, the design bases of N      the facility.
: b. Involved a major deficiency in design, construction, or operation having potential N
generic safety implications.
: c. Led to a significant loss of integrity of the fuel, the primary coolant pressure N
boundary, or the primary containment boundary of a nuclear reactor. (Significant loss applies to each boundary)
Based on Ultrasonic testing results the flaw has been characterized as an axial crack in the weld and butter. The leakage was characterized as weepage or very slight throughout the period it was being monitored. These types of flaws have been found to be arrested in the weld material and do not progress into the carbon steel base material, therefore resulting in a short crack. The axial orientation of the flaw prevents catastrophic failure of the pressure boundary and resulting leakage will be readily detected such that it will remain within the make up capability until the plant can be shutdown and the flaw repaired or the plant defueled. Based on this characterization and analysis of this flaw, this is not considered a significant loss of integrity of the primary coolant pressure boundary
: d. Led to the loss of a safety function or multiple failures in systems used to N
mitigate an actual event. (An event has occurred and a safety-function or mitigation system has actually failed) The Decay Heat System was declared inoperable but available for use.


the outage, indication of a through wall flaw was noted by a blow out on the first overlay pass and
Attachment 1 Y     e. Involved possible adverse generic implications.
 
Remarks: Axial flaws in welds of these materials and geometry have been previously identified and analyzed on numerous occasions in the nuclear industry, therefore the presence of this flaw was not unexpected. The weld overlays were being conducted at Davis Besse due to this industry experience and recommendations. However. this is apparently the first occurrence in a PWR plant where the structural weld overlay process caused the flaw to progress through wall, resulting in a leak. This condition has been noted before in BWR overlay applications.
RCS leakage. The characterization of the flaw was unknown at that time. The weld process was
In this case there are two possible adverse generic implications 1- A deep axial flaw, likely around 90% through wall, existed while the plant was in operations. At this location, a through wall leak during operation would have resulted in an unisolable reactor coolant pressure boundary leak, a small break LOCA. However, due to axial orientation of the flaw, this instance is not considered a significant loss of the primary coolant pressure boundary. See section c.
 
2- In this case, the leak occurred while the Decay Heat system was required to support safe operation of the plant, irradiated fuel was still in the vessel. The through wall leakage rendered the system inoperable but available. A more significant flaw may have challenged the availability of the system. The possible generic adverse implication is performing weld overlays which create a through wall leak on systems required to be operational, thus increasing risk..
stopped and the leak is characterized as weeping. The RV Head was on the Vessel and all the fuel
Both conditions have possible adverse generic implications.
 
The NRC is monitoring the industry inspection and mitigation program for theses welds.
still in the vessel. Subsequently the crack was f ound to be axially oriented and short by ultrasonic examination. This crack geometry was bounded by the analysis of the structural weld overlay. The
MRP-139, through recently issued TI-172.
 
Aspects associated with risk assessment while planning to perform weld overlays on systems required to operate are being inspected by the resident inspectors.
licensee proceeded to repair the crack by finishing the planned weld overlay.
This incident has been shared with the industry operating experience programs and input into the NRC operating experience program N     f. Involved significant unexpected system interactions.
Y/N DETERMINISTIC CRITERIA N a. Involved operations that exceeded, or were not included in, the design bases of the facility
: g. Involved repetitive failures or events involving safety-related equipment or N
. N b. Involved a major deficiency in design, construction, or operation having potential generic safety implications.
deficiencies in operations.
N c. Led to a significant loss of integrity of the fuel, the primary coolant pressure boundary, or the primary containment boundary of a nuclear reactor. (Significant loss applies to each boundary) Based on Ultrasonic testing results the flaw has been characterized as an axial crack in the weld and butter. The leakage was characterized as weepage or very slight throughout the
N     h. Involved questions or concerns pertaining to licensee operational performance.
 
CONDITIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT RISK ANALYSIS BY: David Passehl                                         DATE - January 23, 2008 Not Applicable 1 - Background - Specific facts related to the event or degraded condition:
period it was being monitored. These types of flaws have been found to be arrested in the
 
weld material and do not progress into the carbon steel base material, therefore resulting
 
in a short crack. The axial orientation of the flaw prevents catastrophic failure of the
 
pressure boundary and resulting leakage will be readily detected such that it will remain
 
within the make up capability until the plant can be shutdown and the flaw repaired or the plant defueled. Based on this characterization and analysis of this flaw, this is not considered a significant loss of integrity of the primary coolant pressure boundary N d. Led to the loss of a safety function or multiple failures in systems used to mitigate an actual event.  (An event has occurred and a safety-function or mitigation system has actually failed
) The Decay Heat System was declared inoperable but available for use.
 
Y e. Involved possible adverse generic implications.
Remarks: Axial flaws in welds of thes e materials and geometry have been previously identified and analyzed on numerous occasions in the nuclear industry, therefore the presence of this flaw was not unexpected. The weld overlays were being conducted at  
 
Davis Besse due to this industry experience and recommendations. However. this is  
 
apparently the first occurrence in a PWR plant where the structural weld overlay process  
 
caused the flaw to progress through wall, resulting in a leak. This condition has been  
 
noted before in BWR overlay applications.  
 
In this case there are two possible adverse generic implications  
 
1- A deep axial flaw, likely around 90% through wall, existed while the plant was in  
 
operations. At this location, a through wall leak during operation would have resulted in an  
 
unisolable reactor coolant pressure boundary leak, a small break LOCA. However, due to  
 
axial orientation of the flaw, this instance is not considered a significant loss of the primary  
 
coolant pressure boundary. See section c.
2- In this case, the leak occurred while the Decay Heat system was required to support safe operation of the plant, irradiated fuel was still in the vessel. The through wall leakage  
 
rendered the system inoperable but available. A more significant flaw may have  
 
challenged the availability of the system.
The possible generic adverse implication is performing weld overlays which create a through wall leak on systems required to be  
 
operational, thus increasing risk..  
 
Both conditions have possible adverse generic implications.  
 
The NRC is monitoring the industry inspection and mitigation program for theses welds.  
 
MRP-139, through recently issued TI-172.  
 
Aspects associated with risk assessment while planning to perform weld overlays on  
 
systems required to operate are being inspected by the resident inspectors.  
 
This incident has been shared with the industry operating experience programs and input  
 
into the NRC operating experience program N f. Involved significant unexpected system interactions.
N g. Involved repetitive failures or events involving safety-related equipment or deficiencies in operations.
N h. Involved questions or concerns pertaining to licensee operational performance.
CONDITIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT RISK ANALYSIS BY:
David Passehl                                 DATE - January 23, 2008
 
Not Applicable 1 - Background
- Specific facts related to the event or degraded condition:
See Description of Event above.
See Description of Event above.
2 - Safety Impact - The safety impact and any risk insights related to the event or condition, plus the estimated conditional core damage probability
2 - Safety Impact - The safety impact and any risk insights related to the event or condition, plus the estimated conditional core damage probability:
The estimated leakage was about 2 drops per minute. The through-wall hole and leakage did not  
The estimated leakage was about 2 drops per minute. The through-wall hole and leakage did not adversely affect functionality of the shutdown cooling or makeup systems. During operation, however, a through wall leak would have resulted in an unisolable reactor coolant pressure boundary leak. While the risk significance of this "event" did not rise to the level of a formal special inspection with the plant already shutdown, inspector followup was performed. The risk significance of any performance deficiency resulting from the inspector followup will be evaluated in accordance with the SDP process.
 
adversely affect functionality of the shutdown cooling or makeup systems. During operation, however, a through wall leak would have resulted in an unisolable reactor coolant pressure boundary  
 
leak. While the risk significance of this "event" did not rise to the level of a formal special inspection  
 
with the plant already shutdown, inspector followup was performed. The risk significance of any  
 
performance deficiency resulting from the inspector followup will be evaluated in accordance with the  
 
SDP process.
3 - Risk Analysis/Considerations
- Assumptions used in the analysis:
As stated in the deterministic analysis, based on characterization and analysis of this flaw, this was
 
not considered a significant loss of integrity of the primary coolant pressure boundary. The resulting
 
leakage would be readily detected such that it would remain within the make up capability of the


plant. 4 - Calculations
Attachment 1 3 - Risk Analysis/Considerations - Assumptions used in the analysis:
- Analytical methods used and detailed supporting hand calculations, plus an evaluation of the licensee's analysis and/or their assumptions:
As stated in the deterministic analysis, based on characterization and analysis of this flaw, this was not considered a significant loss of integrity of the primary coolant pressure boundary. The resulting leakage would be readily detected such that it would remain within the make up capability of the plant.
 
4 - Calculations - Analytical methods used and detailed supporting hand calculations, plus an evaluation of the licensee's analysis and/or their assumptions:
No calculations were performed. Analytical methods used were based on conversation/notes from  
No calculations were performed. Analytical methods used were based on conversation/notes from NRC inspectors and licensee staff.
 
NRC inspectors and licensee staff.
5 - Conclusions/Recommendations - A recommendation regarding the need for additional inspection:
5 - Conclusions/Recommendations - A recommendation regarding the need for additional inspection:
No additional inspection based on risk is recommended.
No additional inspection based on risk is recommended.
6 - References
6 - References - Any references used in the analysis:
- Any references used in the analysis:
 
Notes/Communications with NRC Region III engineering inspectors and licensee personnel.
Notes/Communications with NRC Region III engineering inspectors and licensee personnel.
7 - Peer Review
7 - Peer Review - Reviewer Name - Laura Kozak The evaluation will be peer reviewed by a certified SRA or area expert, and this review will be documented and any comments resolved:
- Reviewer Name -
8 - DRS Management Concurrence Name - ______________________                     Date - ___________
Laura Kozak The evaluation will be peer reviewed by a certified SRA or area expert, and this review will be documented and any comments resolved:
DECISION AND BASIS Routine Followup Using Baseline Inspection Program                                         Y Special Inspection Team                                                                   N Augmented Inspection Team                                                                 N
8 - DRS Management Concurrence Name - ______________________                   Date - ___________
DECISION AND BASIS Routine Followup Using Baseline Inspection Program Y Special Inspection Team N Augmented Inspection Team N
Basis For Decision:  The risk analysis determined this incident did not meet the threshold for a special inspection.
The flaw was not leaking at operating pressure of over 2000 psig and after progressing through wall during the overlay process, the leakage was never characterized as more than weepage (no measurable active leakage). Ultrasonic examination conducted determined the flaw was an axial crack characteristic of primary water stress corrosion cracking in the weld and buttering. This is a condition that has considerable industry experience and is the focus of an industry inspection and mitigation plan contained in MRP-139. Based on this determination , the flaw was not considered a significant loss of primary coolant pressure boundary integrity. Generic implications are related to the apparent depth of the flaw while the plant is operating and the performance of the weld overlay process resulting in a through wall crack on a system required to be operational.
Deep axial flaws are rare but not unexpected and are addressed through implementation of
 
the MRP-139 inspection and mitigation program. The NRC is inspecting this program through recently issued TI-172. 


Attachment 1 Basis For Decision:
The risk analysis determined this incident did not meet the threshold for a special inspection.
The flaw was not leaking at operating pressure of over 2000 psig and after progressing through wall during the overlay process, the leakage was never characterized as more than weepage (no measurable active leakage). Ultrasonic examination conducted determined the flaw was an axial crack characteristic of primary water stress corrosion cracking in the weld and buttering. This is a condition that has considerable industry experience and is the focus of an industry inspection and mitigation plan contained in MRP-139. Based on this determination , the flaw was not considered a significant loss of primary coolant pressure boundary integrity.
Generic implications are related to the apparent depth of the flaw while the plant is operating and the performance of the weld overlay process resulting in a through wall crack on a system required to be operational.
Deep axial flaws are rare but not unexpected and are addressed through implementation of the MRP-139 inspection and mitigation program. The NRC is inspecting this program through recently issued TI-172.
The resident inspector is continuing to look at the risk assessment aspects related to performance of the overlay on the operating Decay Heat system.
The resident inspector is continuing to look at the risk assessment aspects related to performance of the overlay on the operating Decay Heat system.
Therefore, routine baseline followup inspection is recommended through these two  
Therefore, routine baseline followup inspection is recommended through these two programs.
 
BRANCH CHIEF RECOMMENDATION: /RA/
programs. BRANCH CHIEF RECOMMENDATION: /RA/ David E. Hills DATE: 1/24/08 DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: /RA/  
David E. Hills                                                           DATE: 1/24/08 DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: /RA/
 
Anne Boland                                                             DATE: 1/25/08 LICENSEE NOTIFIED OF RESPONSE DECISION AND BASIS: /RA/
Anne Boland
John Jandovich                                                           DATE: 1/24/08}}
 
DATE: 1/25/08 LICENSEE NOTIFIED OF RESPON SE DECISION AND BASIS: /RA/ John Jandovich DATE: 1/24/08}}

Latest revision as of 21:10, 14 November 2019

Special Inspection Evaluation, Basis for Investigatory Response Decision for a Significant Operational Power Reactor Event
ML080280044
Person / Time
Site: Davis Besse Cleveland Electric icon.png
Issue date: 01/25/2008
From: Dave Hills
NRC/RGN-III/DRS/EB1
To:
References
Download: ML080280044 (4)


Text

Attachment 1 BASIS FOR INVESTIGATORY RESPONSE DECISION FOR A SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL POWER REACTOR EVENT PLANT - EVENT DATE - 1/04/08 EVALUATION DATE - 1/04/08 Davis Besse BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL POWER REACTOR EVENT During a planned pre-emptive weld overlay on the Decay Heat Suction nozzle to elbow weld during the outage, indication of a through wall flaw was noted by a blow out on the first overlay pass and RCS leakage. The characterization of the flaw was unknown at that time. The weld process was stopped and the leak is characterized as weeping. The RV Head was on the Vessel and all the fuel still in the vessel. Subsequently the crack was found to be axially oriented and short by ultrasonic examination. This crack geometry was bounded by the analysis of the structural weld overlay. The licensee proceeded to repair the crack by finishing the planned weld overlay.

Y/N DETERMINISTIC CRITERIA

a. Involved operations that exceeded, or were not included in, the design bases of N the facility.
b. Involved a major deficiency in design, construction, or operation having potential N

generic safety implications.

c. Led to a significant loss of integrity of the fuel, the primary coolant pressure N

boundary, or the primary containment boundary of a nuclear reactor. (Significant loss applies to each boundary)

Based on Ultrasonic testing results the flaw has been characterized as an axial crack in the weld and butter. The leakage was characterized as weepage or very slight throughout the period it was being monitored. These types of flaws have been found to be arrested in the weld material and do not progress into the carbon steel base material, therefore resulting in a short crack. The axial orientation of the flaw prevents catastrophic failure of the pressure boundary and resulting leakage will be readily detected such that it will remain within the make up capability until the plant can be shutdown and the flaw repaired or the plant defueled. Based on this characterization and analysis of this flaw, this is not considered a significant loss of integrity of the primary coolant pressure boundary

d. Led to the loss of a safety function or multiple failures in systems used to N

mitigate an actual event. (An event has occurred and a safety-function or mitigation system has actually failed) The Decay Heat System was declared inoperable but available for use.

Attachment 1 Y e. Involved possible adverse generic implications.

Remarks: Axial flaws in welds of these materials and geometry have been previously identified and analyzed on numerous occasions in the nuclear industry, therefore the presence of this flaw was not unexpected. The weld overlays were being conducted at Davis Besse due to this industry experience and recommendations. However. this is apparently the first occurrence in a PWR plant where the structural weld overlay process caused the flaw to progress through wall, resulting in a leak. This condition has been noted before in BWR overlay applications.

In this case there are two possible adverse generic implications 1- A deep axial flaw, likely around 90% through wall, existed while the plant was in operations. At this location, a through wall leak during operation would have resulted in an unisolable reactor coolant pressure boundary leak, a small break LOCA. However, due to axial orientation of the flaw, this instance is not considered a significant loss of the primary coolant pressure boundary. See section c.

2- In this case, the leak occurred while the Decay Heat system was required to support safe operation of the plant, irradiated fuel was still in the vessel. The through wall leakage rendered the system inoperable but available. A more significant flaw may have challenged the availability of the system. The possible generic adverse implication is performing weld overlays which create a through wall leak on systems required to be operational, thus increasing risk..

Both conditions have possible adverse generic implications.

The NRC is monitoring the industry inspection and mitigation program for theses welds.

MRP-139, through recently issued TI-172.

Aspects associated with risk assessment while planning to perform weld overlays on systems required to operate are being inspected by the resident inspectors.

This incident has been shared with the industry operating experience programs and input into the NRC operating experience program N f. Involved significant unexpected system interactions.

g. Involved repetitive failures or events involving safety-related equipment or N

deficiencies in operations.

N h. Involved questions or concerns pertaining to licensee operational performance.

CONDITIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT RISK ANALYSIS BY: David Passehl DATE - January 23, 2008 Not Applicable 1 - Background - Specific facts related to the event or degraded condition:

See Description of Event above.

2 - Safety Impact - The safety impact and any risk insights related to the event or condition, plus the estimated conditional core damage probability:

The estimated leakage was about 2 drops per minute. The through-wall hole and leakage did not adversely affect functionality of the shutdown cooling or makeup systems. During operation, however, a through wall leak would have resulted in an unisolable reactor coolant pressure boundary leak. While the risk significance of this "event" did not rise to the level of a formal special inspection with the plant already shutdown, inspector followup was performed. The risk significance of any performance deficiency resulting from the inspector followup will be evaluated in accordance with the SDP process.

Attachment 1 3 - Risk Analysis/Considerations - Assumptions used in the analysis:

As stated in the deterministic analysis, based on characterization and analysis of this flaw, this was not considered a significant loss of integrity of the primary coolant pressure boundary. The resulting leakage would be readily detected such that it would remain within the make up capability of the plant.

4 - Calculations - Analytical methods used and detailed supporting hand calculations, plus an evaluation of the licensee's analysis and/or their assumptions:

No calculations were performed. Analytical methods used were based on conversation/notes from NRC inspectors and licensee staff.

5 - Conclusions/Recommendations - A recommendation regarding the need for additional inspection:

No additional inspection based on risk is recommended.

6 - References - Any references used in the analysis:

Notes/Communications with NRC Region III engineering inspectors and licensee personnel.

7 - Peer Review - Reviewer Name - Laura Kozak The evaluation will be peer reviewed by a certified SRA or area expert, and this review will be documented and any comments resolved:

8 - DRS Management Concurrence Name - ______________________ Date - ___________

DECISION AND BASIS Routine Followup Using Baseline Inspection Program Y Special Inspection Team N Augmented Inspection Team N

Attachment 1 Basis For Decision:

The risk analysis determined this incident did not meet the threshold for a special inspection.

The flaw was not leaking at operating pressure of over 2000 psig and after progressing through wall during the overlay process, the leakage was never characterized as more than weepage (no measurable active leakage). Ultrasonic examination conducted determined the flaw was an axial crack characteristic of primary water stress corrosion cracking in the weld and buttering. This is a condition that has considerable industry experience and is the focus of an industry inspection and mitigation plan contained in MRP-139. Based on this determination , the flaw was not considered a significant loss of primary coolant pressure boundary integrity.

Generic implications are related to the apparent depth of the flaw while the plant is operating and the performance of the weld overlay process resulting in a through wall crack on a system required to be operational.

Deep axial flaws are rare but not unexpected and are addressed through implementation of the MRP-139 inspection and mitigation program. The NRC is inspecting this program through recently issued TI-172.

The resident inspector is continuing to look at the risk assessment aspects related to performance of the overlay on the operating Decay Heat system.

Therefore, routine baseline followup inspection is recommended through these two programs.

BRANCH CHIEF RECOMMENDATION: /RA/

David E. Hills DATE: 1/24/08 DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: /RA/

Anne Boland DATE: 1/25/08 LICENSEE NOTIFIED OF RESPONSE DECISION AND BASIS: /RA/

John Jandovich DATE: 1/24/08