05000338/FIN-2012003-02: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| identified by = NRC | | identified by = NRC | ||
| Inspection procedure = IP 71111.08 | | Inspection procedure = IP 71111.08 | ||
| Inspector = K Miller, D Mills, T Stephen, J Kusnick, M Modes, L Lake, S Ninh, G Mccoy, R Clagg, G Kolcuml, | | Inspector = K Miller, D Mills, T Stephen, J Kusnick, M Modes, L Lake, S Ninh, G Mccoy, R Clagg, G Kolcuml, Lakeg Mccoy, R Clagg, G Kolcum, M Levine | ||
| CCA = N/A for ROP | | CCA = N/A for ROP | ||
| INPO aspect = | | INPO aspect = | ||
| description = The licensee qualified the manual UT procedure in accordance with the EPRI Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI) process utilizing the PDI procedure IR- 2009-358, for site specific qualification. This process allows for qualification that utilizes a site specific mock-up in an open demonstration process. Although this qualification is used by the industry in meeting the requirements of Appendix VIII of Section XI, there are concerns with the inconsistency with respect to the application of robust, blind demonstration approaches versus less rigorous, and open qualifications. This issue was highlighted as a result of the missed indications at North Anna. The licensee requested that EPRI review (TJ) IR-2009-358 to reassess the current validity of the information provided within this document. With respect to the open demonstration process, EPRI has determined the stated position (of using an open demonstration process) in (TJ) IR- 2009-358 to continue to be acceptable, which is inconsistent with their approach to the use of Code Case N-770, where EPRI requires that a blind demonstration test be passed. This inconsistency needs to be further discussed and a path forward defined in order to develop guidance for application during either type of performance demonstration. In addition, the inspectors and members of the NRR staff conducted on-site evaluations of the site specific UT procedure and inspection technique. This evaluation was conducted on the site specific calibration blocks and with the same UT probes that the licensee used to qualify the UT procedure and the qualification of the NDE technicians. Subsequently, the NRC staff requested Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to evaluate the qualification of the manual UT procedure that was used to examine the safe-end weld. The results were presented in PNNL Report PNNL-21546, Evaluation of Manual Ultrasonic Examinations Applied to Detect Flaws in Primary System Dissimilar Metal Welds at North Anna Power Station, (ML12200A216). This report determined that the site specific approach for the manual UT technique does not meet the intent of the requirements of Appendix VIII of ASME Section XI. Also identified was that the probes used to conduct the site examinations did not meet the procedure requirements of licensee procedure ER-AA-NDE-180 for UT probe angles. This issue remains unresolved until questions associated with the qualification of the UT procedure, including that the probes that did not meet the procedural requirements for UT probe angles and the adequacy of the site specific mock-ups are resolved. This issue is identified as URI 05000338/2012003-02, Examination of SG safe-end weld with possible unqualified ultrasonic examination procedures. | | description = The licensee qualified the manual UT procedure in accordance with the EPRI Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI) process utilizing the PDI procedure IR- 2009-358, for site specific qualification. This process allows for qualification that utilizes a site specific mock-up in an open demonstration process. Although this qualification is used by the industry in meeting the requirements of Appendix VIII of Section XI, there are concerns with the inconsistency with respect to the application of robust, blind demonstration approaches versus less rigorous, and open qualifications. This issue was highlighted as a result of the missed indications at North Anna. The licensee requested that EPRI review (TJ) IR-2009-358 to reassess the current validity of the information provided within this document. With respect to the open demonstration process, EPRI has determined the stated position (of using an open demonstration process) in (TJ) IR- 2009-358 to continue to be acceptable, which is inconsistent with their approach to the use of Code Case N-770, where EPRI requires that a blind demonstration test be passed. This inconsistency needs to be further discussed and a path forward defined in order to develop guidance for application during either type of performance demonstration. In addition, the inspectors and members of the NRR staff conducted on-site evaluations of the site specific UT procedure and inspection technique. This evaluation was conducted on the site specific calibration blocks and with the same UT probes that the licensee used to qualify the UT procedure and the qualification of the NDE technicians. Subsequently, the NRC staff requested Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to evaluate the qualification of the manual UT procedure that was used to examine the safe-end weld. The results were presented in PNNL Report PNNL-21546, Evaluation of Manual Ultrasonic Examinations Applied to Detect Flaws in Primary System Dissimilar Metal Welds at North Anna Power Station, (ML12200A216). This report determined that the site specific approach for the manual UT technique does not meet the intent of the requirements of Appendix VIII of ASME Section XI. Also identified was that the probes used to conduct the site examinations did not meet the procedure requirements of licensee procedure ER-AA-NDE-180 for UT probe angles. This issue remains unresolved until questions associated with the qualification of the UT procedure, including that the probes that did not meet the procedural requirements for UT probe angles and the adequacy of the site specific mock-ups are resolved. This issue is identified as URI 05000338/2012003-02, Examination of SG safe-end weld with possible unqualified ultrasonic examination procedures. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 20:45, 20 February 2018
| Site: | North Anna  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000338/2012003 Section 1R08 |
| Date counted | Jun 30, 2012 (2012Q2) |
| Type: | URI: |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71111.08 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | K Miller D Mills T Stephen J Kusnick M Modes L Lake S Ninh G Mccoy R Clagg G Kolcuml Lakeg Mccoy R Clagg G Kolcum M Levine |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |