ML20236L060

Forwards Sample Insp Rept.Provides First Cut at Basic Outline

ML20236L060
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades, Point Beach, Arkansas Nuclear, 07201007
Issue date:	03/23/1998
From:	Howe A NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Doctor S Battelle Memorial Institute, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATION
Shared Package
ML20236K829	List: IA-98-188, Informs That NMSS May Have Workable Solution Plan Re VSC-24 UT Insp.Will Keep People Informed of Schedule & Progress ML20236K827 ML20236K848 ML20236K869 ML20236K875 ML20236K893 ML20236K930 ML20236K953 ML20236L060 ML20236M140 ML20236M146 ML20236M155 ML20236M159 ML20236M171 ML20236M185 ML20236M192 ML20236N077 ML20236N213 ML20236N253 ML20236N276 ML20236N316 ML20236N344 ML20236N366 ML20236N375 ML20236N388 ML20236N420 ML20236N482 ML20236N503 ML20236N508 ML20236N521 ML20236N527 ML20236N548 ML20236N589 ML20236N600 ML20236N605 ML20236N612 NUREG/CR-5985, Provides Summary of NUREG/CR-5985,PNL-8919,Supplement 1, Review of P-scan Computer Based Ultrasonic ISI Sys
References
FOIA-98-188 NUDOCS 9807100198
Download: ML20236L060 (5)

Text

f w

7 From:

Allen Hcwef ##')M i

To:

Intemet:pnl. gov: steven: doctor, intemet:inel. gov:...

Date:

3/23/98 4:32pm c

Subject:

Inspection Report Format i

As promised attached is a sample inspectum report. There are some differences in the details but those won't affect you. Here is a first cut at a basic outline:

SNC UTinspection Outline Executive summary-A brief summary of the conclusions in each area of review. Prepared by the author of the applicable section.

1.

Inspection Objectives and Scope: To review SNC and the VSC-24 Owners Group (the VSCOG includes ANO, Pt. Beach, Palisades, and SNC) demonstration of ultrasonic testing of the structuraWid closure weld on the MSB mock-up. (Lead author: Allen) 2.

Inspection Results 2.1 P-Scan Capabilities and Limitations (Lead authors: Ken, Mike & Steve) l Discuss detailed review of the UT methodology employed to examine the structural lid closure weld. This includes actual demonstration of the UT equipment, operation, selection of i

the proper signals, data acquisiten, data analysis, and data interpretation.

Discuss review of tabulated data on UT scans to determine error band on UT method.

Data includes detection, sizing, type of flaw, location and orientation. Compare with adequacy of VSCOG error band. STEVE AND MIKE WE NEED TO TALK ASOUT WHAT YOUR ANALYSIS.

UTissues lasue 1 - UT *near field" effects. Measures taken to address UT examination in 4

the near-field regime to assure reliable and repeatable examination results.

lasue 2 - Transducer size, For flaw sizing, it is generally better to use transducers that produce the smallest practicable sound beam cross section at the flaw location. The transducer described by the VSCOG produces a sound beam cross sectional l

area much larger than most of the flaws that are being Pized. What measures is the VSCOG l

taking to ensure accurate flaw sizing with the transducer proposed for this UT examination technique? May provide a test block for examination by VSCOG.

2.2 UT Examination Procedure (Lead authors: Ken, Mike & Steve)

Review of UT examination procedures. Evaluate controls described in the procedures to ensure that personnel are qualified (to take data and/or interpret data), the essential variables are controlled, and that the procedure is sufficiently detailed to produce reliable and repeatable results. An examination strategy with a logic tree form is expected. Evaluate the various branches of the logic tree.

2.3 Mockup Demonstration (Lead author-Allen) l l

'9907100198 990630 T

PDR FOIA J

pg198 PDR j

~

b Evaluate method (s) to access MSB. Design of Jacking device, set-up, operation, travel limits, etc.

The UT technology was demonstrated, on a full diameter rnock-up, under simulated field conditions including restrictions on access to the weld volume, elevated temperatures, etc.

Evaluate differences between the mock-up and field conditions.

Miscellaneous issues:

contingencies for retrieval of lost parts, lanyards, etc.

QA/OC of demonstration 72.48 information Review flaw insertion documentation (Lead author-Ken)

Review mock up baseline UT data (Lead author-Ken) 2.4 ALARA (Lead author-Allen)

Review the ALARA planning and evaluation.

finger rings for setup / removal neutron and gamma surveys temporary shielding low dose waiting / observation areas significant ALARA planning should be evident wrt job sequence, practice runs, communication between ALARA and job coordinators Debbie you may provide any input you desire. Please call if you have any questions.

Allen I

[freauq\\

UNITED STATES g

,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

't WASHINGTON, D.C. enssa ms l

%*****l Mr. C. Randy Hutchinson Vice President Operations Arkansas Nuclear One Entergy Operations, Inc.

1448 SR 333 RusselMlle, Arkansas 72801-0967

SUBJECT:

NRC INSPECTION REPORT 72-0013/97 215

Dear Mr. Hutchinson:

A Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection was conducted November 4-6,1997, at your Arkansas Nuclear One independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. The enclosed report presents the scope and results of that inspection.

During this inspection the inspectors found that the examinations of the multi-assembly sealed baskets were well planned and implemented. Because some work was not complete at the close of the inspection, the following three inspection follow-up items were identified: (1) review of the detailed welding work package for reinstallation of the shield lid support rings, (2) review of the bottom plate minimum wall thickness calculation, and (3) resolution of the vendor welding procedure specification and procedure qualification record documentation issues.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Should you have any questions conceming this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

Sincerely, Susan Frant Shankman, Chief Transportation Safety and inspection Branch Spent Fuel Project Office Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Docket Nos.: 72 13,50-313,50-368 License Nos.: DPR-51, NPF-6

Enclosure:

NRC Inspection Renort 72-0013/97 215 cc w/ enclosure: See attached list 1

i

cc w/ enclosure:

Executive Vice President David D. Snellings, Jr., Director

& Chief Operating Officer DMsion of Radiation Control and Entergy Operations, Inc.

Emergency Management P.O. Box 31995 Arkansas Department of Health Jackson, MS 39286-1995 4815 West Markham Street, Mail Slot 30 l

Little Rock, AR 72205-3867 Vice President Operations Support Manager Entergy Operations, Inc.

Rockville Nuclear Licensing P.O. Box 31995 Framatome Technologies Jackson,MS 39286 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 Rockville, MD 20852 Senior Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 310 London, AR 72847 Manager, Washington Nuclear Operations' ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 Rockville,MD 20852 County Judge of Pope County Pope County Courthouse Russellville, AR 72801 1

Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005 3502 Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway P. O. Box 651 Jackson,MS 39205 Distribution: NRC Inspection Report 72-0013/97-215 Dockets l

NRC File Center PUBLIC DCD (IE01)

NMSS R/F SFPO R/F NMSS Dir Off R/F TKobetz EMerschoff, RIV DBSpitzberg, RIV JVEverett, RIV (w/lFS form)

ECollins, RIV CJHaughney FCSturz TJKobetz VLTharpe WReckley, NRR GHMarcus, NRR MIS System (w/lFS form)

RIV Files - 5th floor (Docket 72-13) (w/lFS form)

T. Frye (E Mail to TJF)

T. Hiltz (E Mail toTGH)

NRR Event Tracking System (E-Mail to IPAS)

Document Control Desk (E Mail to DOCDESK)

DOCUMENT NAME:(G:\\ANO\\ano11 17.rpt)

NRR:DE/EMCB RIV:DNMS NMSS:SFPO NMSS:SFPO NMSS:SFPO GPHomseth*

JVEverett*

AGHowe*

PLEng*

SFShankman 11/25/97 11/25/97 11/25/97 12/1/97 12/ /97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

'See prevQ:S concurrence

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SPENT FUEL PROJECT OFFICE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS l

)

l Docket Nos.:

72-013,50-313,50-368 License Nos.:

DPR 51, NPF-6 I

Inspection Report:

72-013/97-215 Licensee:

Entergy Operations, Inc.

Facility:

Arkansas Nuclear One,ISFSI Location:

Russellville, Arkansas Dates:

November 4-6,1997 Inspectors:

A. howe, Nuclear Engineer, SFPO G. Homseth, Materials Engineer, NRR J. Vincent Everett, Health Physics inspector, RIV W. Ward, Safety inspection Engineer, SFPO (Observer)

D. Rice, Health Physics inspector, RIV (Observer) l I

Approved by: Susan Frant Shankman, Chief Transportation Safety and Inspection Branch l

Spent Fuel Project Office Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards l

1 l

I Enclosure l

1

'1] li In u s'ib Il f' f

Inspection Report 97-215 Docket No. 72 013 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Arkansas Nuclear One ISFSI

)

NRC Inspection Report 72-013/97 215 The inspectors performed an announced inspection at the Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) power plant, to review the licensee's actions to examh. Or, and remove, undocumented welds on unloaded multi assembly sealed basket (MSB) shells. The MSBs are part of the Ventilated Storage Cask (VSC) dry spent fuel storage system, Model VSC-24.

On September 5,1997, NRC issued a supplement to Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) 97-7-002 documenting agreement by Entergy Operations, Inc. to confirm, under oath and affirmation.. '. hat all unloaded MSBs which are intended for use at ANO, meet the design and the terms and conditions of the Certificate of Compliance (CoC) and are in conformance with the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) and Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the VSC-24, including any referenced standards, criteria, or requirements contained therein.

As a part of its confirmation process, ANO removed the basket assemblies from four of its MSBs to perform detailed non-destructive examinations (NDE) of all the MSB shell surfaces to identify any undocumented welds. All undocumented welds were being removed by grinding. If grinding reduced the wall thickness below the design minimum, the examination procedure required repair of the affected area using an approved welding technique.

The team reviewed procedures, specifications, drawings, and other documents associated with ANO's MSB examination project, observed NDE and destructive examination results for two unloaded MSBs at ANO, and interviewed personnelinvolved. Of the two MSBs observed during this inspection, approximately 40 undocumented welds were found on each MSB. A!! welds examined were shallow (e.g. less than 0.1 inch).

MSB Examination Project The inspectors concluded that ANO was implementing an effective examination and repair process to ensure that unloaded MSBs, numbers 2,7,11, and 12, met applicable requirements.

The inspectors identified two inspection follow-up items to (1) review the detailed welding work package for the reinstallation of the shield-lid support rings and (2) review the calculation of the minimum wall thickness for the bottom plate.

Review of ANO We!dino Procedures Based upon the document review and discussions with the licensee staff, the inspStors found that the welding procedure specifications (WPSs) were appropriate and in compliance with ASME Code requirements. The Charpy impact test values in the procedure qualification records (PORs) conformed with the requirements of the CoC. The inspectors also found that the addition of preheat, as specified in the work package, was in agreement with the commitments of the CAL. Specification of temper bead welding on the repair welds furtherimproved weld impact toughness and was beyond the requirements of the ASME Code.

2

Inspection Report 97 215 Docket No.72-013 Review of Vendor Weldino Procedures in response to the CAL, ANO licensee' staff reviewed the WPSs and PQRs used by the MSB fabricator, March Metalfab, for initial MSB construction. The licensee identified incomplete documents, and was obtaining the missing documentation from the fabricator. As a result, the -

inspectors deferred review to allow the licensee staff to complete its review. Review of these procedures and ANO's resolution of the documentation problems is an inspection follow-up item.

Weld Crack on MSB No. 8 The inspectors found that the licensee's preliminary cause for the crack found on the base of MSB No. 8, localized stress due to grinding, appeared to be credible. Final resolution of this issue will be nececsary for confirmation, in accordance with supplement to CAL 97-7-002, that this MSB meets the design criteria.

i 1

l l

l l

l.

l l

3-

. _..-__-_________ _ -_ _ _a

~

Inspection Report 97-215 Docket No.72-013 REPORT DETAILS 1.

INSPECTION OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE The objective of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's inspection was to examine the licensee's plans and actions to identify and remove undocumented welds on selected, unloaded, Multi-assembly Sealed Basket (MSB) shells. The MSBs are part of the Ventilated Storage Cask (VSC) dry spent fuel storage system, Model VSC-24, manufactured under Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 72-1007. The inspectors performed the inspection at the Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) nuclear power plant in Russellville, Arkansas.

2.

BACKGROUND The ANO Independent Spent Fuel Storage installation (ISFSI) is located within the protected area of the ANO reactor facilities. Currently four MSBs, numbers 1,3,5 and 6, have been loaded with spent fuel elements and are being stored at the ISFSI. Ten unloaded MSBs are also at the ANO site.

On September 5,1997, NRC issued a supplement to Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) 97-7-002 documenting agreement by Entergy Operations, Inc. to confirm, under oath and affirmation, that all unloaded MSBs which are intended for use at ANO, meet the design and the terms and conditions of the Certificate of Compliance (CoC) and are in conformance with the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) and Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the VSC-24, including any referenced standards, criteria, or requirements contained therein.

As a part of its confirmation process, ANO removed the basket assemblies from four of its MSBs to perform detailed non-destructive exam! nations (NDE) of all the MSB shell surfaces to identify any undocumented welds. All undocumented welds were being removed by grinding. If grinding reduced the wall thickness below the design minimum, the examination procedure required repair of the affected area using an approved welding technique. Of the two MSBs observed during this inspection, approximately 40 undocumented welds were found on each MSB. All welds examined were shallow (e.g. less than 0.1 inch).

3.

INSPECTION RESULTS 3.1 MSB EXAMINATION PROJECT (60853)

a. Insoection Scooe The inspectors reviewed MSB examination project procedures, work procedures, and other documents to verify conformance with the SAR, the CoC, Quality Assurance requirements, and the ASME Code. The inspectors also observed work activities, met with licensee personnel, and verified selected qualification and training records.

b. Observations and Findinas 4

1 1

j i

Inspection Repori 97-215 Docket No.72-013 i

ANO partially disassembled four MSBs, numbers 2,7,11 and 12, for a 100% examination ci the MSB shell surfaces, in addition. ANO removed the shield lid support rings on the remaining six MSBs to support any future examinations. ANO procedure 1409.639, Revision 0, " Inspection of Multi-assembly Sealed Basket Components" provided overall control of work activities to partially disassemble, examine, and reassemble the MSBs and also controlled examination of the shield lid and structural lid surfaces. The work sequence for l

the MSB examination is summarized below.

remove the shield lid support ring and subsequent basket removal remove paint on all shell surfaces acid-etch all MSB shell surfaces to identify undocumented welds e

NDE to record as found conditions remove undocumented welds via grinding blend affected areas that are greater tha, Wrnwn wall repair, by welding, the affected areas that are tw.s than minimum wall NDE affected areas as required re-coat surfaces reinstall the basket assembly and reinstall the shield-lid support ring e

The inspectors found that procedure 1409.639 provided good control of the work, data collection, and quality assurance. The actions for removal of the undocumented welds, subsequent repair of the affected areas by welding, and post repair NDE were consistent with the Sierra Nuclear Corporation fabrication specification, AMSB-92 001 Revision 3,

" Fabrication Specification for the Multi-Assembly sealed Basket," and the ASME Code, Section lil, NC-2538.

The lispectors reviewed the following support procedures for procedure 1409.639. These procedures were general procedures, applicable to activities beyond the MSB examination project. No concems were noted.

1415.001, Revision 3, " Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement (Digital or Meter Display)"

1415.002, Revision 10, " Liquid Penetrant Examination" 1415.007, Revision 4, " Manual Ultrasonic Weld / Wall Thickness Profile" 5120.119, Revision 1 PC-1," Control of Plant Welding" 1

5120.120 Revision 1 " Weld Documentation Requirements and Controls"

' During this inspection, the licensee staff was in the process of developing the detailed welding work package for the reinstr.Ilation of the shield-lid support rings. The licensee advised the inspectors that a new procedure qualification record (PQR) for automatic flux core arc welding (FCAW) would be performed. Review of this package was deferred as an inspector follow up item (IFl 72-013/97 215-01).

The inspectors observed portions of the shield-lid support ring removal operation. The shield ring welds were removed via a machining tool that did not adversely affect shell base 3

material. Prior to removal, ANO performed dye penetrant testing (PT) on the welds and noted rejectable indications on several of the welds. The PT, required by ANO, was beyond the requirements of the vendor's fabrication specifications. During weld removal, ANO 5-5

l

~

Inspection Report 97 215 Docket No.72-013 observed on some of the welds, that the root pass did not completely fill the weld volume.

The PT results and incomplete weld conditions were recorded on condition reports. The quality of these welds were of low safety significance on the unloaded MSBs since the welds

)

were removed. However, they provide additional information to the licensee. ANO was in J

the process of evaluating the loaded MSBs regarding the need for this weld in the accident j

analysis, i

The inspectors observed portions of the work on the MSBs. ANO completed acid-etching, PT, and ultrasonic testing (UT) for wall thickness measurements on MSB No.11 during the inspection. A total of 40 undocumented welds,30 on the exterior and 10 on the interior, f

were found and recorded. Of those welds, four (1 interict,3 exterior) were found to have I

ASME Section Ill, Class 2 (NC) rejectable PT indications. The indications were characterized as clusters of porosity. This information was recorded on Condition Report CR-C 97 023. Grinding to remove weld material and heat-affected zones (HAZ) was also in progress. ANO collected data on initial wall thickness, depth of welds, and depth of the HAZ.

ANO completed acid-etching on the exterior of MSB No.12 and identified 36 undocumented welds on the shell walls and 6 on the bottom plate. Examinations of MSB Nos. 2 and 7 had not yet started.

The inspectors observed that the work conditions were excellent, that the workers were 1

knowledgeable, and that the procedures were followed and kept up-to-date. No discrepancies were found from the inspectors' review of the qualification records of one NDE examiner and one welder involved with the examinations. ANO supervisors provided j

considerable oversight during the process. A strong quality control presence was also j

evident for both hold point verification and general surveillance.

Because minimum wall thickness acceptance criteria were not specified in the procedure, the inspectors questioned ANO staff on the acceptance criteria and their bases. The shell minimum wall thickness was 0.9 inch (nominal 1 inch), based on Section 5.3.1 of the " Safety Evaluation Report for Pacific Sierra Nuclear Topical Report on the Ventilated Storage Cask System for Irradiated Fuel," Revision 1, March 29,1991. The inspectors independently confirmed this value by reviewing Sierra Nuclear Corporation MSB-24 Corrosion Calculation No. WEP-101.1101 (Proprietary), Revision 2, dated February 8,1991. ANO stopped removing undocumented welds on the bottom plate until a calculation for the minimum wall thickness of the bottom plate (nominal 0.75 inch) was completed. This bottom plate minimum wall thickness calculation was in progress at the close of the inspection and its review is an 1:.spection follow-up item (IFl 72 013/97-215-02).

c. Conclusions l

The inspectors concluded that ANO was implementing an effective examination and repair l

process to ensure that unloaded MSBs, numbers 2,7,11, and 12, met applicable i

requirements. The inspectors identified two inspection follow-up items to (1) revfew the detailed welding work package for the reinstallation of the shield-lid support rings and (2) review the calculation of the minimum wall thickness for the bottom plate.

.s.

l

I Inspection Report 97-215 Docket No.72-013 l

3.2 REVIEW OF ANO WELDING PROCEDURES (tl0853)

a. Inspection Scope ANO's welding procedure specifications (WPSs) and PQRs for all proposed repair welds, and shield lid and structural lid welds were reviewed for compliance with cask design criteria and requirements of the CoC. Two welding processes are permitted by the licensee for the various welds: shielded metal arc (SMAW) and FCAW. Additionally, the corrective actions proposed in ANO's August 11,1997, response to CAL 97 7-002 were compared, as appropriate, against the work plan for welding activities. The corrective actions included employing a 200' Fahrenheit (F) preheat.

l

b. Observations and Findinas The inspectors reviewed the following ANO WPSs and associated PQRs:

j SMAW WPS E P1 A A1 CVN-1, Revision 2, and supporting POR 398 FCAW WPS E PI F(S,M) A1-CVN, Revision 1, and supporting POR 399 SMAW WPS P1-A B-CVN, Revision 1, and supporting POR AS-028 FCAW WPS P1 F-B-M-CVN, Revision 1 and supporting POR AS-030 The above were general procedures that could be applied to either the repair weld effort or the lid welds. A review of the essential variables supported that such dual use was acceptable and in accordance with the ASME Code.

Since the WPSs were general application procedures, addition of the CAL commitments will be accomplished through additional instructions in the welding work package. One such l

package reviewed, by the inspectors, was Welding Request (WR) #97-0621. This WR employs a 200'F preheat for all welding on the cask, regardless of whether it is a repair weid i

l or the closure welds.

The Charpy impact test results reported by ANO on the reviewed PORs were all in l

compliance with the fabrication requirement for a minimum 15 foot-pounds absorbed energy I

at -50* F. This included the impact values for the weld metal, HAZ and base metal. The inspectors noted that the reported impact values for the weld metal and HAZ had a wide range, as could be expected for material in the as welded condition. To confirm the reasonableness of the reported impact values, the inspectors compared the reported impact values with the certified material test report impact values from the plate manufacturer (Lukens Steel) and typical reported values from the electrode supplier (Lincoln Electric). In all cases, the material supplier impact test values bounded the POR values, indicating that ths POR values were reasonable, and that the weld process was producing welds of the desired impact resistance.

To further enhance the impact properties of the repair welds, the licensee staff specified, in WR #97-0621, that a temper bead weld technique be employed. The inspectors noted the.

~

Inspection Report 97-215 Docket No. 72 013 temper bead technique was an acceptable method, beyond the ASME Code requirements, to enhance weld impact resistance.

c. Conclusion

Based upon the document review and discussions with the licensee staff, the inspectors found that the WPSs were appropriate and in compliance with ASME Code requirements. The Charpy impact test values in the PORs conformed with the requirements of the CoC. The inspectors also found that the addition of preheat, as specified in the work package, was in agreement with the commitments of the CAL. Specification of temper bead welding on the repair welds further improved weld impact toughness and was beyond the requirements of the ASME Code.

3J REVIEW OF VENDOR WELDING PROCEDURES (80853) l In response to the CAL, ANO licensee staff reviewed the WPSs and PORs used by the MSB fabricator, March Metalfab, for initial MSB construction. The licensee identified incomplete documents, and was obtaining the missing dc, cementation from the fabricator. As a result, the inspectors deferred review to allow the licensee staff to complete its review. Review of these procedures and ANO's resolution of the documentation problems is an inspection follow-up item (IFl 72 013/97-215-03).

3.4 WELD CRACK ON MSB No. 8 (80853)

a. Inspection Scope The inspectors reviewed documentation, interviewed ANO staff familiar with the issue, and l

observed the site on MSB No. 8 where a small crack had been identified and subsequently

- removed.

i l

b. Observations and Findinas During its extemal examination of the base on MSB No. 8, the licensee found a small crack

' at the location of an undocumented weld. The crack was approximately 0.25 inches long, 0.036 inches deep, and extended from the edge of the weld into the HAZ. The inspectors Reviewed Condition Report CR-C 97-0310 addressing the condition and photo-micrographs taken from a replica of the crack. The undocumented weld, the HAZ, and the crack had been removed by the licensee as a part of its determination of the crack's depth and extent.

The licensee's preliminary root cause for the crack was localized stress due to grinding to remove unneeded weld material from the undocumented weld. However, final evaluation of l

the root cause was not complete at the close of this inspection. The inspectors informed the licensee that resolution of this issue, in accordance with the supplement to CAL 97-7-002, would be necessary to confirm that the MSB meets the requirements and design criteria,

c. Conclusion

j l

1 ;

l i

Inspection Report 97-215 Docket No.72-013 The inspectors found that the licensee's preliminary cause for the crack found on the base of MSB No. 8, localized stress due to grinding, appeared to be credible. Final resolution of this issue will be necessary for confirmation, in accordance with supplement to CAL 97-7-002, that this MSB meets the design criteria.

4. Exit Meeting The inspectors presented the inspection results to members of licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on November 6,1997. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented and stated their interest in fully and quickly resolving the MSB welding issues.

l l

l l

l

.g.

l

Inspection Report 97-215 Docket No.72-013 PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Enterav. Arkansas Nuclear One Plant Randy Edington General Manager Jim McWilliams Manager Modifications Drew Binkley Modifications DarrellWilliams Design Engineering John Dosa Licensing Engineer Ray Kollar High Level Waste Project Manager Mike Hali Welding Engineer M. R. Eisenhower Lead Welder N. Finney NDE Levellli MBQ J. Melfi Acting Senior Resident inspector I

Inspection Report 97-215 Docket No.72-013 INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED 60853 On-site Fabrication of Components and Construction of an ISFSI 1

ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED l

QERDid Review of the D' tailed Welding Work Package for Reinstallation 72-013/07 215-01 IFl e

of the Shield Lid Support Rings 72-013/97-215-02 IFl Review of the Bottom Plate Mini:num Wall Thickness Calculation 72-013/97 215-03 IFl Resolution of the Vendor WPS and POR Documentation issues El919d none Discussed none LIST OF ACRONYMS USED ANO Arkansas Nuclear One CoC_

Certificate of Compliance F

Fahrenheit FCAW Flux Core Arc Welding -

l HAZ Heat Affected Zone IFl

' Inspection Follow-up item l

ISFSI Independent Spent Fuel Storage installation MSB Multi-assembly Soakd Basket NDE Nondestructive Examination NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission POR Procedure Qualification Record PT Dye Penetrant Testing SAR Safety Analysis Report SER Safety Evaluation Report SMAW Shielded Metal Arc Welding UT Ultrasonic Testing VSC Ventilated Storage Cask WPS Welding Procedure Specification WR Welding Request i

Mall Envelope info:

(3516D50A.A46 : 17 :42080) '

Subject:

Inspection Report Format Creation Date:

3/23/98 4:32pm From:

Allen Howe Created By:

WND1.WNP7:AGH1 Recipients Action Date & Time i

Post Office intemet mta2 Post Office Intemet l

doctor I

Post Office TWD2.TWP0 DAJ1 (Deborah Jackson) l Post Office WND1.WNP7 Delivered

~ 05/29/98 02:53pm AGH1 (Allen Howe)

I CKB1 (Charles (Ken) Battige)

Domain. Post Office Delivered Route Intemet Pending.

Intemet:Inol. gov

' intemet -

Pending intemet:pnl. gov: steven i

TWD2.TWP0 Pending TWD2.TWP0 l

WND1.WNP7 05/29/98 02:53pm WND1.WNP7 Files Size Date & Time ANO1197.RPT 64159 12/04/9710:15am MESSAGE 4023 03/23/98 04:32pm View 4109 03/23/9811:32am Options Auto Delete:

No Expiration Date:

None Notify Recipients:

No

' Priority:

Normal Reply Requested:

No l

Return Notification::

None Concealed

Subject:

No Security:

Normal To Be Delivered:

Immediate Status Tracking:

Allinformation l

i

l From:

Allen Howe, 4sm,g; J

D e:

1 98 5 d4pm

Subject:

72.48 at ANO John Dosa, on the licensing staff at ANO, told me today that per their 72.48 process, a dose i

exceeding 100 mrem for a dry cask storage application would constitute a 'significant increase in occupational exposure" and therefore require submittal of the issue to the NRC staff for review / approval.

l In the weld issues arena, this means that the current UT inspection approach with an estimated dose of -960 mrem, for each cask examined would constitute a significant increase in occupational exposure and therefore require submittal to the staff for review / approval. This is an interesting position for the licensee to take because it would place the NRC squarely in the j

process of accepting the increased dose incurred by the UT examination.

i 4

1 l

'V

I Mall Envelope info:

(35070F07.A46 : 17 : 42080)

Sub}ect:

72.48 at ANO Creation Date:

3/11/98 5:24pm From:

Allen Howe I

Created By:

WND1.WNP7:AGH1 l

Recipients Action Date & Time i

Post Office WND1.WNP7 l

EJL (Eric Leeds)

FCS (Frederick Sturz)

TJK1 (Timothy Kobetz)

Domain. Post Office Delivered Route WND1.WNP7 Pending WND1.WNP7 Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 753 03/11/98 05:24pm View 4109 03/11/9812:24pm Options Auto Delete:

No Expiration Date:

None Notify Recipients:

No Priority:

Normal Reply Requested:

No Return Notification::

None Concealed

Subject:

No Security:

Normal To Be Delivered:

Immediate l

Status Tracking:

Allinformation l

1

d y..

From:

Allen Howe #N #

To:

Intemet: steven. doctor O pnl. gov, intemet:inel. gov:...

Date:

W11/98 5:32pm

Subject:

UPDATE Inspection Plan Here's the latest:

Hotel info Hampton inn, Russellville, ARK-501-858-7199 Leave messages at hotel if there is a travel problem.

Our tentative schedule looks like this:

3/18 - Travel 3/17 - Meet for breakfast? and travel to site Room 105 in the Generation Support Bldg. (GSB) 9am entrance meeting followed by presentation of UT by VSCOG Procedure review, data review, tour of mock-up?, etc.

Team meeting to close day 3/18 - 7:30 am VSCOG brief Observation of DEMO Other inspection items as able Team meeting to close day 3/19 - 7:30 am VSCOG brief Follow-up close out of issues '

Team meeting to prep for exit

. W20 - Prep for exit and brief Charlie 9:30am ? exit travel l

l

~

1 SNC UT inspection PlanMarch 11,1998 PurposerScope: To review SNC and the VSC-24 Owners Group (the VSCOG includes ANO, Pt.

Beach, Palisades, and SNC) demonstration of ultrasonic testing of the structural-lid closure weld on l

the MSB mock up.

Dates: March 16 20,1998 Report No. 72 1007/98-202 Certificate Holder: Siena Nuclear Corporation l

Location: Arkansas Nuclear One Site, Russellville Arkansas l

Inspection Procedure (s): 60851 - Design Control of ISFI Components (Reference IP 57080, NDE/UT Review / Work Observation / Record Review)

Inspectors:

Allen Howe, SFPO (Lead)

C. Ken Battige, SFPO Mike Anderson,INEEL Steven Doctor, PNNL Debbie Jackson, RES (Observer) i VSCOG

Contact:

Ray Keller 501-858-4688 Pager 501-964-1678 John Dosa 501-858-4621 Pager: 501-964-3991 FAX 501858-4685 l

Key inspection areas:

Perform a detailed review of the UT methodology employed to examine the structurallid l

closure weld. This includes actual demonstration of the UT equipment, operation, selection of the proper signals, data acquisition, data analysis, and data interpretation. The UT technology will be demonstrated, on a full diameter mock-up, under simulated field conditions including restrictions on access to the weld volume, elevated temperatures, etc.

Evaluate differences between the mock up and field conditions.

Review tabulated data on UT scans to determine error band on UT method. Data includes detection, sizing, type of flaw, location and orientation. Has the VSCOG determined an error band? If so evaluate that adequacy of the error band. ?

Review UT examination procedures. Verify that there are adequate controls described in the procedures to ensure that personnel are quellfied (to take data and/or interpret data),

the essential variables are controlled, and that tha procedure is sufficiently detailed to produce reliable and repeatable results. An examination strategy with a logic tree format is expected. Evaluate the various branches of the logic tree.

Evaluate UTissues issue 1 - UT *near field" effects. What measures will be taken to address UT examination in the near field regime to assure reliable and repeatable examination L

results?

Issue 2 - Transducer size. For flaw sizing, it is generally better to use transducers that produce the smallest practicable sound beam cross section at the flaw location.

5-l The transducer described by the VSCOG produces a sound beam cross sectional area much larger than most of the flaws that are being sized. What measures is the l

VSCOG taking to ensure accurate flaw sizing with the transducer proposed for this UT examination technique? May provide a test block for examination by VSCOG.

Evaluate method (s) to access MSB. Design of Jacking device, set-up, operation, travel limits, etc.

Review the ALARA planning and evaluation.

finger rings for setup / removal neutron and gamma surveys temporary shielding low dose waitingobservation areas significant ALARA planning should be evident wrt job sequence, practice runs, communication between ALARA and job coordinators Review flaw insertion documentation Review mock-up baseline UT data Review 72.48 information to determine what 72.48 evaluations will be needed.

Miscellaneous issues:

contingencies for retrieval of lost parts, lanyards, etc.

CA/QC of demonstration

a 4

Mall Envelope info:

(35071109.A46 : 17 : 42080)

Subject:

UPDATE Inspection Plan Creation Date:

3/11/98 5:32pm From:

Allen Howe Created By:

WND1 WNP7:AGH1 Recipients Action Date & Time Post Office intemet mta2 Post Office intemet doctor l

Post Office TWD2.TWP0 DAJ1 (Deborah Jackson)

Post Office WND1.WNP7 AGH1 (Allen Howe) l CKB1 (Charles (Ken) Battige) i Domain. Post Office Delivered Route iniemet Pending intemet:Inol. gov Intemet Pending Intemet:pnl. gov: steven TWD2.TWP0 Pending TWD2.TWP0 i

WND1.WNP7 Pending WND1.WNP7 Files Size Date & Time SNC-PLAN.000 9042 03/11/9812:26pm MESSAGE 785 03/11/98 05:32pm View 4109 03/11/9812:32pm Options Auto Delete:

No Expiration Date:

None Notify Recipients:

No Priority:

Normal Reply Requested:

No Return Notification::

None Concealed

Subject:

No Security:

Normal i-To Be Delivered:

Immediate Status Tracking:

Allinformation

l i

0 l

From:

Allen Howe #W J j

To:

Intemet:pnl. gov:sr_. doctor, intemet:inel. gov:mta2...

Date:

3/10/9811:32am L

Suoject:

Inspection Plan Please take a look at the attached inspection plan. It may be useful to touch base at about 4pm EST tomorrow to discuss any last minute items and your comments on the plan. Please let me know if this time is acceptable. Steve and Mike, I think you have maps. Let me know if you don't.

Hotel info Ham; ton Inn, Russellville, ARK-501-858-7199 Our tentative schedule looks like this:

l l

3/16 - Travel 3/17 - Meet for breakfast? and travel to site 9am entrance meeting followed by presentation of UT by VSCOG Procedure review, data review, tour of mock-up?, etc.

' Team meeting to close day 3/18 - VSCOG brief Observation of DEMO Other inspection items as able Team meeting to close day 3/19 - VSCOG brief Follow-up close out of issues Team meeting to prep for exit 3/20- Prep for exit and brief Charlie 9:30am ? exit travel l

l l

8 m_.

4 SNC UTinspection PlanMarch 10,1996 Purpose / Scop 6:,o review SNC and the VSC-24 Owners Group (the VSCOG includes ANO, Pt.

Beach, Falisades, and SNC) demonstration of ultrasonic testing of the structural-lid closure weld on the MSB mock up.

Dates: March 16-20,1998 Report No. 72 1007/98 202 Certificate Holder: Sierra Nuclear Corporation Location: Arkansas Nuclear One Site, Russellville Arkansas inspection Procedute(a): 60851 - Design Control of ISFI Components (Reference IP - 57080, NDE/UT Review / Work Observation / Record Review)

Inapoctors:

Allen Howe, SFPO (Lead)

C. Ken Battige, SFPO Mike Anderson,INEEL Steven Doctor, PNNL Debbie Jackson, RES (Observer)

VSCOG

Contact:

Ray Keller 501-858-4688 Pager 501964-1678 John Dosa 501-858-4621 Pager: 501-964-3991 Keyinspection areas:

Perform a detailed examination of the UT methodology employed to examine the structural lid closure weld This includes actual demonstration of the UT setup, operation, selection of the proper signals, data acquisition, and data interpretation. The UT technology will be demonstrated, on a full diameter mock-up, under simulated field conditions including restrictions on access to the weld volume, elevated temperatures, etc. Evaluate differences between the mock up and field conditions.

I 3

Review tabulated data on UT scans to determine error band on UT method. Data includes detection, sizing, type of flaw, location and orientation. Has the VSCOG determined an error band? Are they comparable?

. Review UT examination procedures. Verify that there are adequate controls described in the procedures to ensure that personnel are qualified (to take data and/or interpret data),

the essential variables are controlled, and that the procedure is sufficiently detailed to produce reliable and repeatable results. An examination strategy with a logic tree format is i

expected. Evaluate the various branches of the logic tree.

Evaluate UTissues issue 1 - UT "near field' effects. What measures will be taken to address UT examination in the near field regime to assure reliable and repeatable examination results?

Issue 2 - Transducer size. For flaw sizing, it is generally better to use transducers l

i that produce the smallest practicable sound beam cross section at the flaw location.

The transducer oescribed by the VSCOG produces a sound beam cross sectional

\\

9' area much larger than most of the flaws that are being sized. What measures is the VSCOG taking to ensure accurate flaw sizing with the transducer proposed for this UT examination technique?

Evaluate method (s) to access MSB. Design of Jacking device, set-up, operation, travel limits, etc.

Review the ALARA planning and evaluation.

finger rings for setup /remova!

neutron and gamma surveys temporary shielding low dose waiting / observation areas significant ALARA planning should be evident wrt job sequence, practice runs, communication between ALARA and job coordinators Review flaw insertion documentation Review mock-up baseline UT data Review 72.48 information to determine what 72.48 evaluations will be needed.

Miscellaneous issues:

contingencies for retrieval of lost parts, lanyards, etc.

OA/QC of demonstration

f Mall Envelope is.fo:

(35056B1D.A48 : 17 : 42080)

Subject:

Inspection Plan Creation Date:

3/10/9811:32am From:

Allen Howe Created By:

WND1.WNP7:AGH1 Recipients Action Date & Time Post Office intemet mta2 Retract Requested Post Office Intemet sr_ doctor Retract Requested Post Office TWD2.TWP0 DAJ1 (Deborah Jackson)

Retract Requested Post Office WND1.WNP7 Delivered 05/29/98 02:53pm l

AGH1 (Allen Howe)

Retract Requested CKB1 (Charles (Ken) Battige)

Retract Requested Domain. Post Office Delivered Route Intemet Pending intemet:inel. gov intemet Pending Intemet:pnl. gov TWD2.TWP0 Pending TWD2.TWP0 WND1.WNP7 05/29/98 02:53pm WND1.WNP7 l

l Files Size Date & Time l

SNC-PLAN.000 9239 03/10/98 05:57am l

MESSAGE 928 03/10/9811:32am View 4109 03/10/98 06:32am Options Auto Delete:

No Expiration Date:

None Notify Recipients:

No l

Priority:

Normal l

Reply Requested:

No j

Return Notification::

None Concealed

Subject:

No Security:

Normal To Be Delivered:

Immediate Status Tracking:

AllInformation

O

.f From:

Allen Howe, Ah'"u To:

Intemet:pnl. gov:sr doctor,intemet:inel. gov:mta2...

{

Date:

3/9/98 4:09pm l

Subject:

VSC-24 UT INSPECTION 3/16/98 The VSC-24 Owners Group notified me tocsy (3/9/98) that they will demonstrate the P-scan UT examination method during th? currently scheduled week of 3/16/98. The NRC plans to inspect this demonstration. The inspection team consists of Allen Howe, SFPO, Ken Battige, SFPO, Mike Anderson, INEEL, and Steven Doctor, PNNL. An observer from the Office of Research may also join the team.

Over the weekend, the Owners Group reduced the estimated dose (per P-scan UT examination) from an additional 2 rem to about 960 mrem. They have several ongoing activities to seek ways to further reduce the estimated per cask exam dose.

Development of an attemative UT examination using time of flight methods also continues. The Owners Group may demonstrate this method in the future. This method would not require a partial lift of the MSB as the P-scan currently does.

CC:

TWD2.TWPO.DAJ1, TWD2.TWPO.EMH1, FCS, TJK1, EJL, CJ...

i

~

0

~

Mall Envelope info:

(35045A76.A46 : 17 : 42080)

Subject:

VSC-24 UTINSPECTION 3/16/98 Creation Date:

3/9/98 4:09pm From:

Allen Howe Created By:

WND1.WNP7:AGH1 Recipients Action Date & Time Post Office ARD1.ARP1 DBS CC (David Spitzberg)

JVE CC (J. Vincent Everett)

KMK CC (Kriss Kennedy)

Post Office intemet mia2 Post Office Intemet sr_ doctor Post Office TWD2.TWP0 DAJ1 CC (Deborah Jackson)

EMH1 CC (Edwin Hackett)

Post Office WND1.WNP7 Delivered 05/29/98 02:53pm AGH1 (Allen Howe)

CJH CC (Charles Haughney)

CKB1 (Charles (Ken) Battige)

EJL CC (Eric Leeds)

FCS CC (Frederick Sturz)

PLE CC (Patricia Eng)

SCO CC (Stephen O'Connor)

SFS CC (Susan Shankman)

TJK1 CC (Timothy Kobetz)

Domain. Post Office Delivered Route ARD1.ARP1 Pending ARD1.ARP1 intemet Pending intemet:inel. gov Intemet Pending intemet:pnl. gov TWD2.TWP0 Pending TWD2.TWP0 WND1.WNP7 05/29/98 02:53pm WND1.WNP7 Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 884 03/09/98 04:09pm

- View 4109 03/09/9811:09am Options Auto Delete:

No Expiration Date:

None Notify Recipients:

No Priority:

Normal Reply Requested:

No

f Return Notification::

None Concealed

Subject:

No Security:

Norrnal To Be Delivered:

Immediate Status Tracking:

Allinformation l

1 I

l l

Li____ _ ___ __ _

4 4

From:

Allen Howe MnJ.)

l j

To:

Intemet:pnl. gov:sr doctor,intemet:inel. gov:mta2...

Date:

3/6/9811:58am

Subject:

Latest on VSC-24 UT Yesterday,3/5/98, SFPO had two telephone calls with the VSC 24 Owners Group - VSCOG (ANO/ Palisades / Point Beach, SNC).

The following summarizes the phone calls:

In the first call, the VSCOG updated us on the status of the UT development process using the P-scan system. This method involves a partial (-5') lift of the MSB in the MTC to gain acceas to the MSB shell side. Examination performance was acceptable at temperatures ranging from room temperature up to about 175 F, however, accuracy was affected when scanning was done at 200 F. A Scan data is shown during data acquisition, but not saved. It is, however, possible to save A-scan data. The P-scan examination procedure is in a final draft format; the majority is generic, but certain parts are tailored to the P-Scan /ANO site-specific items. It discusses process, qualifications, and so-called essential variables.

The weld team described two issues to the VSCOG so they could address them during the inspection.

Issue 1 - UT "near field

• effects. What measures will be taken to address UT examination in the near field regime to assure reliable and repeatable examination results?

The VSCOG is aware of this situation. They do not consider it a significant issue as 20 scans have shown repeatable results, and many nuclear UT inspections are done in the near field.

They are prepared to discuss it further during the inspection.

' Issue 2 - Transducer size. For flaw sizing, it is generally better to use transducers that produce the smallest practicable sound beam cross section at the flaw location. The transducer described by the VSCOG produces a sound beam cross sectional area much larger than most of the flaws that are being sized. What measures is the VSCOG taking to ensure accurate flaw sizing with the transducer proposed for this UT examination technique?

l Similar to above, the VSCOG is aware of the situation, and will address it during inspection.

The technique they are using is approved through EPRl/PDI and they can get informatiori from signals ringing at the tip of the flaw.

The VSCOG Indicated their dose assessment for the P SCAN UY inspectlen method

)

resulted in an estimated dose increase of ~2 REM for each cask load (d. By comparison, the dose for the entire leading process of the last VSC 24 cask loaded at ANO was 500 millirem. NRC requested a second call to further discuss this issue. High gamma dose rates of

' 10.7 R/hr, unshielded, and -1.8 R'hr, shielded, were estimated on contact in the MSB/MTC -

L

' gap area. As stated above, access to the MSB shell from the side the requires the MSB to be lifted - 5 inches. The VSCOG was not satisfied with this increased dose burden and they are looking at alternaths. These dose estimates have given the VSCOG pause and as a result l

the March 16,1998 Inspection may be delayed.

One alternative yields an estimated per cask load dose increase of 200 MREM. This method WO'$d isq Q.-

i i involves UT examination from the top, without a MSB lift. THE VSCOG is considering use of the TestPro ultrasonic inspection system from Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. So far, initial examinations had been encouraging. The TestPro system uses the Time of Flight Diffraction (TOFD) techniques with two transducers mounted on the top of the weld (P-scan uses a side mounted transducer). This method results in very accurate sizing of flaws, but alone cannot locate the flaw precisely in the radial direction (distance from outside of shell towards center of cask). Additional scans, using another technique, could pinpoint the flaw (s). No high temperature tests have been done with TestPro. Scans are done from the top of the weld, and no crown grinding is necessary. TestPro records A-scans during acquisition for later analysis.

CC:

MD2.TWPO.DAJ1, MD2.TWPO.EMH1 l

t l

i

D t

Mall Envelope Info:

(35002B30.A46 : 17 : 42080)

Subject:

Latest on VSC-24 UT Creation Date:

3/6/9811:58am From:

Allen Howe Created By:

WND1.WNP7:AGH1 Recipients Action Date & Time Post Office internet mta2 Post Office Intemet sr_ doctor Post Office TWD2.TWPO DAJ1 CC (Deborah Jackson)

EMH1 CC (Edwin Hackett)

Post Office WND1.WNP7 AGH1 (Allen Howe)

CKB1 (Charles (Ken) Battige)

TJK1 (Timothy Kobetz)

Domain. Post Office Delivered Route intemet Pending intemet:inet. gov intemet Pending Intemet:pn!. gov TWD2.TWPO Pending TWD2.TWP0 WND1.WNP7 Pending WND1.WNP7 Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3793 03/06/9811:58am View 4109 03/06/98 06:58am Options Auto Delete:

No Expiration Date:

None Notify Recipients:

No Priority:

Normal Reply Requested:

No Return Notification::

None Concealed

Subject:

No Security:

Normal To Be Delivered:

Immediate Status Tracking:

AllInformation

1 f

i From:

Allen Howe / DJ.J To:

CJH, SFS, FCS, EJL d

, xjm r/

Date:,

3/6/9812:17pm

Subject:

Latest VSC-24 UT issues Yesterday, SFPO had two telephone calls with the VSC-24 Owners Group - VSCOG (ANO/

Palisades / Point Beach, SNC). In the calls, the VSCOG updated us on the status of the UT development process using the P-scan system. This method involves a partial (-5') lift of the MSB in the MTC to gain access to the MSB shell side. The weld tsam described two issues, (1)

UT *near field' effects and (2) accuracy of flaw sizing using the transducer selected, to the licensee so they could be prepared to address them during the inspection.

The VSCOG Indicated their dose assessment for the FSCAN UT inspection estimated a dose increase of -2 rem for each cask loaded. By comparison, the dose for the entire loading process of the last VSC-24 cask loaded at ANO was 500 mrem. High gamma dose rates of -10.7 rem /hr, unshielded, and -1.8 rem /hr, shielded, were estimated on contact in the MSB/MTC. As stated above, access to the MSB shell from the side the requires the MSB to be lifted - 5 inches. The VSCOG was not satisfied with this significant increase in dose and they are looking at attematives. These dose estimates have given the VSCOG pause and as a l

result the March 16,1998 Inspection may be delayed, l

One attemative yields an estimated per cask load dose increase of -200 mrem. This method

)

involves UT examination from the top, without a MSB lift, and without grinding the weld crown.

This method is the TestPro ultrasonic inspection system from StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc. So far, initial examinations had been encouraging. Testing at elevated temperatures is pending.

l I plan to call the VSCOG spokesperson at 3:30 pm 3/6/98 for an Update. I will advise you of the j

results.

i CC:

LEK, CKB1, SCO, ENK, RWP 1

l i

f DL 0 $h.1fl 0W

O k'

Mall Envelope info:

(35002F90.A46 : 17 : 42080)

Subject:

Latest VSC-24 UT issues Creation Date:

3/6/9812:17pm From:

Allen Howe Created By:

WND1.WNP7:AGH1 Recipients Action Date & Time Post Office WND1.WNP7 CJH (Charles Haughney)

CKB1 CC (Charles (Ken) Battige)

EJL (Eric Leeds)

ENK CC (Elaine Keegan)

FCS (Frederick Sturz)

LEK CC (Lawrence Ko'ajko)

RWP CC (Ronald Parkhill)

SCO CC (Stephen O'Connor)

SFS (Susan Shankman)

Domain. Post Office Delivered Route WND1 WNP7 Pending WND1.WNP7 Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1726 03/06/9812:17pm View 4109 03/06/98 07:17am Options Auto Delete:

No j

Expiration Date:

None

{

Notify Recipients:

No Priority:

Normal Reply Requested:

No Return Notification::

None Concealed

Subject:

No Security:

Normal j

1 To Be Delivered:

Immediate Status Tracking:

Aliinformation i

l

\\

j 1

l

l.

t-From:

Allen Howe.< MW To:

CKB1 k'

, s hw Date:

3/5/981:22pm

Subject:

Today's questions - FYi

Proposed questions: March 4,1998 UT "near field" effects The structural-lid weld examination technique, as currently described (a 10MHz,0.5 in. diameter transducer) would result in examination of the weld volume that was well within the near-field -

range. It is known in the UT industry that the characteristics of sound waves in the near field

_ range are not well-behaved and that it is more difficult to obtain reliable and repeatable results from near-field examinations. From ASNT NDT Handbook on UT Volume 7, page 831, Second

' Edition "Within the near field, the test information may not be reliable and the operator may want to avoid testing with that range." Examinations within this range will need a high level of -

l control on equipment and process to produce a reliable test.

l While UT examination in the near field is possible, it is not clear what measures have been taken to address UT examination in the near-field regime to assure reliable and repeatable examination results. The owners group should be prepared to address concems with the near field effects during the inspection.

Transducer size

(

The size of the transducer and the resultant sound beam cross sectiona'l area is much greater.

l than most of the flaws that are being sized. It is known that better accuracy in flaw sizing is l

obtained with UT equipment that produces a sound beam cross sectional area at the flaw l

- location that is the minimum practicable. The owners group should be prepared to address

- concems with the flaw sizing accuracy of the equipment selected for this UT examination technique.

l

. NOTE: Also, it might be a good idea for us to point out that any sizing errors (reported earlier to L

be minus 0.050, plus 0.100), for better or worse, may be an artifact of the near field effects, as l

well as the beam diameter problem (s). At any rate, they should probably give this some thought and be ready to respond to any questions we raise pertaining to these issues during our inspection.

l Examination Procedure -

Is the owners group adopting one examination method that will be uniformly implemented at the three sites or are licensee specific techniques planned? -

Schedule p~

ptKLOAfM %h

1 J

Is March 16 still a valid inspection date?

I i

\\

l l

i

=

Mall Envelope Info:

(34 FEED 82.A46 : 17 : 42080)

Subject:

Today's questions - FYi Creation Date:

3/5/981:22pm From:

Allen Howe l

l Created By:

WND1.WNP7:AGH1 Recipients Action Date & Time Post Office WND1.WNP7 l

CKB1 (Charles (Ken) Battige)

Domain. Post Office Delivered Route WND1.WNP7 Pending WND1.WrJ?7 Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2252 03/05/98 01:22pm l

View 4109 03/05/98 08:22am Options Auto Delete:

No Expiration Date:

None Notify Recipients:

No i

Priority:

Normal Reply Request 6d:

No l

Return Notification::

None Concealed

Subject:

No l

Security:

Normal To Be Delivered:

Immediate Status Tracking:

AllInformation l

l l

l l

l l

l

I L

Charles (80 W, Nm.cJKen) Battigeieu From:

aghi 4 To:

Date:

3/5/98 5:38pm

Subject:

Draft call summary Call Summary: 3/5/98,10:30 AM EST, SFPO/ANO/ Palisades / Point Beach l

l ANO described the latest developments in the use of the P-scan system. Although examination performance was acceptable at temperatures ranging from room temperature up to about 175 F, accuracy was affected when scanning was done at 200 F. A-Scan data'is shown during data

~

acquisition, but not currently saved. It is possible to save A scans, but it is not currently done.

l THE VSC OG is considering use of the TestPro ultrasonic inspection system from Structural l

Integrity Associates, Inc. So far, initial examinations had been encouraging. The TestPro system uses the Time of Flight Diffraction (TOFD) techniques with two transducers mounted on the top of the weld (P-scan uses a side mounted transducer). This method results in very accurate sizing of flaws, but alone cannot locate the flaw precisely in the radial directum (distance from outside of shell towards center of cask). Additional scans, using another technique, could pinpoint the flaw (s). No high temperature tests have been done with TestPro.

No cask lift is necessary with TestPro since scans are done from the top of the weld, and no a

crown grinding is necessary. TestPro records A-scans during acquisition for later analysis.

The UT procedure is in a final draft format; the majority is generic, but certain parts are tailored to the P Scan /ANO site-specific items. It discusses process, qualifications, and so called essential variables.

IMPORTANT POINT:

ANO indicated their dose assessment for the P SCAN UT inspection estimated a 2 REM dose to personnel. (By comparison, the dose for the entire loading process of the last VSC-24 cask loaded at ANO was 500 millirem..NRC was surprised by this value, and asked for a call at 3PM on 3/5/98 to discuss this point futther. The high dose rates, up to 10 R/hr, are a result of streaming when the MSB is lifted approximately 6 inches up from the MTC to allow access for inspection.

The following questions were brought up to the licensaa co they could be ready to respond during the inspection, currently planned for the week of March 16,1998:

1. UT 'near field" effects The structural-lid weld examination technique, as currently described (a 10MHz,0.5 in. diameter transducer) would result in examination of the weld volume that was well within the neaFfield range. It is known in the UT industry that the characteristics of sound waves in the neaofield range are not well-behaved and that it is more difficult to obtain reliable and repeatable results from near-field examinations. From ASNT NDT Handbook on UT Volume 7, page 831, Second Edition "Within the near field, the test information may not be reliable and the operator may want to avoid testing with that range." Examinations within this range will need a high level of control on equipment and process to produce a reliable test. While UT examination in the near field is possible, it is not clear what measures have been taken to address UT examination in the near field regime to assure reliable and repeatable examination results. The owners group should be prepared to address concerns with the near-field effects during the inspection.

h 9h bY j

d ANSWER: They are aware of this, and it does not present a problem as 20 scans have shown repeatable results, and many nuclear UT inspections are done in the near field. Will discuss l

during inspection.

i

2. Transducer size l

l The size of the transducer and the resultant sound beam cross sectional area is much greater l

than most of the flaws that are being sized. It is known that better accuracy in flaw sizing is obtained with UT equipment that produces a sound beam cross sectional area at the flaw location that is the minimum practicable. The owners group should be prepared to address concems with the flaw sizing accuracy of the equipment selected for this UT examination j

technique.

L l

Also, it might be a good idea for us to point out that any sizing errors (reported earlier to be minus 0.050, plus 0.100), for better or worse, may be an artifact of the near field effects, as well l

as the beam diameter problem (s). At any rate, they should probably give this some thought and be ready to respond to any questions we raise pertaining to these issues during our inspection.

ANSWER: Similar to above, aware of the situation, and will discuss response during inspection.

l The technique they are using is approved through EPRl/PDI and they can get information from signals ringing at the tip of the flaw.

j

3. Is the owners group adopting one examination method that will be uniformly implemented at the three sites or are licensee specific techniques planned? ANSWER: YES l-1 L

i l

l Mall Envelope info:

(34FF297F.A4B : 13 : 42160)

Subject:

Draft call summary Creation Date:

3/5/98 5:38pm From:

Charles (Ken) Battige Created By:

WND1.WNP7:CKB1 Recipients Post Office WND1.WNP7 aghi (Allen Howe)

Domain. Post Office Route WND1.WNP7 WND1.WNP7 Flies Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4708 03/05/98 05:38pm View 4109 03/05/9812:38pm l

Options l

Expiration Date:

None i

Priority:

Normal Reply Requested:

No s

Return Notification::

None i

Concealed

Subject:

No i

Security:

Normal l

l I

1

0 3

From:

" Doctor, Steven R' < steven.doctoropn!. gov >

To:

DAJ10 nrc. gov" <DAJ10 nrc. gov >, AGH10 nrc. gov....O me G.I Date:

3/4/98 3:20pm

Subject:

Near Field Effects I spent some time talking today with Jeny Posakony. Jerry began working in UT back in the mid 50s and one of his areas of expertise is ultrasonic transducer.

I asked him if there was something going on that I was missing. He agreed that l

working in the near field zone must be done with great care. He noted that at the location of the root of the weld the UT response will be about 1/2 of that at the near to far field transition (2.7'). But then he went on to qualify this by stating that this will be a function of the bandwidth of the transducer. The factor of 1/2 will pertain to transducers with a 50% bandwidth. If the Bandwidth of the transducer is 100% or larger then there will effectively be no j

L near field zone amplitude variations. So one of the things that will need to be known is what is the bandwidth of the transducers that are being used. We need to know this in the steel. Jerry is going to provide me with an ASTM standard that he has been working on to do this. What I am now thinking is that we will put a couple of side drilled holes in a piece of steel and take this to ANO.

l Then have them manually place their transducer on this and record the A scan L

that is produced for each side drilled hole. This information can be used to '

determine the bandwidth (it will be easier and more automatic if they can display the A scan in the frequency domain). I willlook into the P-scan info and see if this mode is available. If not I will request a printed copy of the A-scan display at that timo so that we can compute it by hand.

We discussed the performance that they were quoting on the sizing and he was in total agreement that they should be systematically oversizing by values more -

than what they were citing. He felt that they should be doing one thing for detection and then using highly focused transducers (focal spot size less than the smallest flaw of interest) at the location of the flaw to achieve the best sizing results. He cited his experience in using and observing the P-scan and that the sizing can be done repeatably with reference to calibration flaws that are the same (type and size). (Ws will need to see the data to better understand how they are achieving this performance.) We discussed the potential problem l

that they are using fairly nice thermal fatigue cracks for the demonstration,

. but actual fabrication flaws tend to be not so well behaved acoustically. The fabrication flaws tend to not just be in one plane, tend to be irregular, and they tend to have slag or porosity around them, in other words they are raore

. complex and this adds to the difficulty of sizing them accurately. I believe that we will need to examine this procedure very closely to assure ourselves that it will be robust when applied to real flaws.

j These are the latest thoughts.

Steven R. Doctor Pacific Northwest National Laboratory P. O. Box 999, MSIN K5-26 Richland, WA 99352

(

Phone: 509-375-2495 Fax: 509-375-6497 Email: steven. doctor @pnl. gov i

1

L*

Received: From [148.184.176.31) Igate.nrc. gov By smtp (GroupWise SMTP/ MIME daemon 4.11)

Wed, 4 Mar 9815:19:41 EST l

Received: from nrc. gov by smtp-gateway ESMTPE id PAA03684; Wed,4 Mar 199815:20:34 -0500 (EST)

Received: from pntmse1.pnl. gov by pnl. gov (PMDF V5.1-10 #21283) with ESMTP id <011U9039U93K82G2K6@pnl. gov >; Wed,4 Mar 199812:20:24 PST Received: by PNLMSE1.pnl. gov with Intemet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)

't id <FVG683TC>; Wed,04 Mar 199812:20:18 -0800 Content-retum: allowed Date: Wed,04 Mar 199812:20:18 -0800 From: ' Doctor, Steven R' < steven. doctor @ pnl. gov >

Subject:

Near Field Effects To: "DAJ1 @ nrc. gov" <DAJ1 @ nrc. gov >, "AGH1 @ nrc. gov" <AGH1 @ nrc. gov >,

"mta2 @ inel. gov" <mta20 inel. gov >, "CKB1 @ nre. gov" <CKB1 @ nrc. gov >

Message-id: <BB2DA91 C4152D11186D700A024E9EED55626CO @ pnimse10.pnl. gov >

MIME version: 1.0 X Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)

Content-type: text / plain i

l j

\\

l l

l l

1 I

i. a b'

Mall Envelope info:

(34FDB761.F10 : 21 : 16144) i

Subject:

Near Field Effects Creation Date:

3/4/98 3:20pm From:

" Doctor, Steven R' < steven.doctorOpnl. gov >

l l

Created By:

GATED.nresmtp:' steven. doctor O pnl. gov" Recipients Post Office TWD2.TWP0 DAJ1 (Deborah Jackson)

Post Office WND1.WNP7 CKB1 (Charles (Ken) Battige)

AGH1 (Allen Howe)

Post Office GATED.nresmtp "mta20inel. gov" Domain. Post Office Route TWD2.TWP0 TWD2.TWP0 l

WND1.WNP7 WND1.WNP7 GATED.nresmtp GATED.ntcsmtp Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2995 03/04/98 03:20pm Header 943 Options Expiration Date:

None Priority:

Normal Reply Requested:

No Return Notification::

None Concealed

Subject:

No Security:

Normal 4

a i

From:

Allen Howe / M To:

Intemet:pnl. gov:sr_ doctor, intemet:inel. gov:mta2...

Date:

3/4/98 4:36pm

Subject:

VSC-24 UT Procedure I have confirmed with Ray Keller, the VSC 24 Owners Group lead on the UT inspection, that the Owners Group intends to collectively develop and demonstrate a UT process that would be applicable to, and used, at all sites. Separately, Mike Holtzman, the Dry Cask Storage Project Manager at Point Beach, confirmed the same.

CC:

FCS, TJK1, EJL, TWD2.TWPO.DAJ1 9 $ V / f f () 9 'O r g y),

p

k' Mall Envelope info:

(34FDC942.A46 : 17 : 42080)

Subject:

VSC 24 UT Procedure Creation Date:

3/4/98 4:36pm From:

Allen Howe Created By:

WND1.WNP7:AGH1 Recipients Action Date & Time Post Office intemet mta2 Post Office Intemet sr_ doctor Post Office TWD2.TWP0 DAJ1 CC (Deborah Jackson)

Post Office WND1.WNP7 AGH1 (Allen Howe)

CJH (Charles Haughney)

CKB1 (Charles (Ken) Battige)

EJL CC (Eric Leeds)

FCS CC (Frederick Sturz)

TJK1 CC (Timothy Kobetz)

Domain. Post Office Delivered Route intemet Pending intemet:inel. gov intemet Pending Intemet:pnl. gov TWD2.TWP0 Pending TWD2.TWPO WND1.WNP7 Pending WND1.WNP7 Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 324 03/04/98 04:36pm View 4109 03/04/9811:36am i

Options Auto Delete:

No Expiration Date:

None Notify Recipients:

No Priority:

Normal Reply Requested:

No Return Notification::

None Concealed

Subject:

No Security:

Normal To Be Delivered:

Immediate Ststus Tracking:

A!!Information I

l l

..