ML021210076
| ML021210076 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 04/18/2002 |
| From: | Barron H Duke Power Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 01-007 | |
| Download: ML021210076 (177) | |
Text
Duke Power Company A Duke Energy Company Wr Power.
A Dukr EeW Compan McGuireNuclear Station MG01VP 12700 Hagers Ferry Rd.
Huntersville, NC 28078-9340 H. B. Barron Vice President,McGuire (704)875-4800 OFFICE Nuclear Generation Department (704)875-4809 FAX April 18, 2002 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Subject:
McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-369 Relief Request 01-007 Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(g)(5)(iii), Duke Energy Corporation requests relief from certain ASME Section XI Code requirements as described in the attached Relief Request No.01-007.
This relief request addresses cases of limited examination coverage from inspections performed during the end of fuel cycle (EOC) 14 for Unit 1. This request is applicable to the Second 10-year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan. The 1989 Edition of the ASME Section XI Code contains the applicable requirements.
The enclosed relief request describes for each specified case that the ASME Code requirement is impractical. Each specific instance is described in detail, including a basis for why a reasonable assurance of structural integrity exists.
Although, submittal of Relief Request No. 0 1-007 satisfies a previous identified commitment, 1 there are no additional commitments associated with this relief request.
Please direct any questions regarding this request to Norman T Simms of Regulatory Compliance at (704) 875-4685.
Sincerely, H. B. Barron Enclosure 7AOL 7 1Letter, H. B. Barron to NRC, Dated July 11, 2001, Inservice Inspection Report
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 18, 2002 Page 2 of 2 xc w/enclosure:
Mr. L. A Reyes US Nuclear Regulatory Commision, Region II Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. R. E. Martin, Project Manager (addressee only)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North, Mail Stop 08G9 Washington, D.C. 20555 S. M. Shaeffer Senior NRC Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear Station
bxc w/o encl: R.K. Rhyne R. Branch G.J. Underwood D.E. Caldwell G.D. Scarboro R.D. Klein (MGO1MM)
N.T. Simms bxc w/ encl: RCG Files Master File # 1.3.2.13 NRIA File/ELL
ENCLOSURE RELIEF REQUEST NO.01-007
Serial No.01-007 Page 1 of 59 Duke Energy Corporation McGuire Nuclear Station - Unit 1 SECOND 10-YEAR INTERVAL REQUEST FOR RELIEF NO.01-007 Duke Energy Corporation has determined that conformance with certain ASME Section XI Code requirements is impractical. Therefore, pursuant to 10CFR50.55a (g) (5) (iii), Duke Energy requests relief from applicable portions of the code.
Included in this request are sixteen welds: one Examination Category B-D weld, two Examination Category B-F Welds, one Examination Category B-H weld, seven Examination Category B-J welds, one Examination C-B weld and four Examination Category C-F-I welds.
The McGuire Unit-i Inservice Inspection Plan was written to the requirements of the 1989 Edition of ASME Section XI, no addenda.
The items in this Request for Relief were performed during refueling outage EOC-14.
Code Case N-460 applies to the examinations performed during this outage.
I. System / Component(s) for Which Relief is Requested:
Examination Category B-D:
Pressurizer Nozzle-to-Vessel Weld for Safety Nozzle to Upper Head.
ID Number Item Number IPZR-14 B03.110.004 II. Code Requirement:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition Table IWB-2500-1, lists the following requirements for the Examination Category as shown below:
Serial No.01-007 Page 2 of 59 Figure IWB-2500-7(b). ASME Section V, Article 4, T 424.1, Examination Coverage, 1989 Edition with no Addenda. "The volume shall be examined by moving the search unit over the examination surface so as to scan the entire examination volume." Due to part geometry and actual physical barriers, obtaining 100%
coverage of the required volume is not possible with the existing limitations.
III. Code Requirement from Which Relief Is Requested:
Relief is sought from the requirement to scan 100% of the examination volume.
IV. Basis for Relief:
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 100%
of the required examination volume could not be achieved. As shown in Attachment 1, (Pages 1-9) due to single sided access, the examination coverage was limited to 69.07%. In order to achieve more coverage the weld would have to be re-designed to allow scanning from both sides.
V. Alternate Examinations or Testing:
No additional examinations are planned during the current interval for this weld. Because of the configuration, Radiography would not provide any additional coverage.
Duke Energy Corporation will use the most effective ultrasonic techniques available to obtain maximum coverage for future examinations of this weld.
Serial No.01-007 Page 3 of 59 VI. Justification for the Granting of Relief:
Examination Category B-D:
Although the examination volume as defined in ASME Section XI 1989 Edition with no addenda, Figure IWB 2500-7(b) could not be covered, the amount of coverage obtained for this examination provides an acceptable level of quality and integrity. This weld was examined using procedures, personnel and equipment qualified through the Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI). In addition, this weld was examined during installation using volumetric and surface NDE methods.
Ultrasonic examination of this weld was conducted using personnel, equipment and procedures qualified through the PDI Program for ferritic pressure vessel welds. The qualifications were conducted on samples with access to both sides of the weld. Therefore, Duke Energy Corporation does not claim credit for a single sided examination.
This weld is located on the NC system line from the pressurizer upper head to one of the NC relief valves. This weld is not exposed to significant neutron fluence and is not prone to negative material property changes (i.e., embrittlement) associated with neutron bombardment. If a leak were to occur at the weld in question, there are methods by which the leak could be identified for prompt Engineering evaluation. A leak at this weld would result in the following:
a) Increased containment humidity. This parameter is indicated in the control room and is monitored periodically by Operations and also the Containment Ventilation System Engineer.
b) Increased Pressurizer enclosure temperature. This parameter is continuously monitored by the Operations via an OAC alarm, and is periodically monitored by the System Engineer.
c) Increased input into the Ventilation Unit Condensate Drain Tank (VUCDT). This parameter is monitored continuously by Operations via an OAC alarm and also periodically by the Liquid Radwaste System Engineer and Reactor Coolant System Engineer.
Serial No.01-007 Page 4 of 59 d) Increase in unidentified reactor coolant leakage.
This parameter would be exhibited during performance of the reactor coolant leakage calculation, which is required by Technical Specifications to be performed every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> (McGuire normally performs this calculation every 24 Hrs). The unidentified leakage specification in Technical Specification 3.4.13.1 is 1 gpm.
e) Other indicators such as containment radiation monitors EMF-38, 39, and 40, the containment floor and equipment sump levels.
Note: The above parameters would be used to identify a leak in the pressurizer enclosure or containment, but could not specifically identify this weld as the source of leakage. A containment entry would be required to identify the exact source of the leakage.
Also, a containment walkdown is performed when the unit reaches Mode 3 (full temperature / pressure) during the unit shutdown and startup for each refueling outage. This walkdown should identify any leak at the weld in question.
VII. Implementation Schedule:
Duke Energy Corporation will continue to use ultrasonic examination procedures to obtain maximum coverage to the extent practical of the item number referenced in Section I of this Request for Relief.
No additional ultrasonic examination is planned during the current interval for this weld.
VIII. References Attachment 1. Information for Examination Category B-D affected weld: Pages 1-9 cover this weld.
B03.110.004
Serial No.01-007 Page 5 of 59 I. System / Component(s) for Which Relief is Requested:
Examination Category B-F:
iC Steam Generator NPS 4" or Larger Nozzle-to-Safe End Butt Weld.
ID Number Item Number lSGC-Inlet-W5SE B05.070.005 II. Code Requirement:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition Table IWB-2500-1, lists the following requirements for the Examination Category as shown below:
Figure IWB-2500-8 (c). ASME Section XI, Appendix III, Paragraph 111-4420, 1989 Edition with no addenda. "The examination shall be performed using a sufficiently long examination beam path to provide coverage of the required examination volume in two beam path directions. The examination shall be performed from two sides of the weld where practicable, or from one side of the weld, as a minimum."
III. Code Requirement from Which Relief Is Requested:
Relief is sought from the requirement to cover the required examination volume from two beam-path directions.
IV. Basis for Relief:
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 100%
of the required examination volume could not be achieved. As shown in Attachment 2, (Pages 1-4) due to single sided access, the examination coverage was limited to 75.00%. In order to achieve more coverage the weld would have to be re-designed to allow scanning from both sides.
Serial No.01-007 Page 6 of 59 V. Alternate Examinations or Testing:
No additional examinations are planned during the current interval for this weld. Because of the configuration, Radiography would not provide any additional coverage.
Duke Energy Corporation will use the most effective NDE methods available to obtain maximum coverage for future examinations of this weld.
VI. Justification for the Granting of Relief:
Although the examination volume as defined in ASME Section XI 1989 Edition with no addenda, Figure IWB 2500-8(c) could not be covered, the amount of coverage obtained for this examination provides an acceptable level of quality and integrity. This weld was examined during installation using volumetric and surface NDE methods.
The most effective ultrasonic technique for the examination of dissimilar metal welds uses refracted longitudinal waves. The longitudinal wave is preferred as the austenitic weld metal and buttering create highly attenuative barriers to shear wave ultrasound. The longitudinal wave is less affected by these difficulties. However, the longitudinal wave is affected by mode conversion when it strikes the inside surface of the safe end or pipe at any angle other than a right angle to the surface.
The calculations below shows that a 450 refracted longitudinal wave striking the inside surface of a pipe will produce a 22.90 refracted shear wave in addition to the normally expected 450 reflected longitudinal wave.
Sin' = (sin 450 x Vs) + VL
= (0.707 x 0.123) + 0.223 Where: sin-' is the shear wave angle V, is the shear wave velocity of the stainless steel safe end/pipe material in inches/gsec.
Serial No.01-007 Page 7 of 59 VL is the longitudinal wave velocity of the stainless steel safe/pipe end material in inches/Jlsec.
As shown in the graph below, the mode conversion process creates two sound beams of differing intensities reflecting off of the inside surface.' At incident angles greater than 300 the shear wave will predominate. However, the shear wave is attenuated and scattered by the austenitic weld metal and the layer of buttering. The examination sensitivity is degraded to such an extent that any examination using the second sound path leg is meaningless. Therefore, the two-beam path direction coverage requirement is impractical.
In order to obtain the required two-beam path direction coverage, welds would have to be re-designed to allow scanning from both sides.
Reflected Sound Beam Energy In Steel on A Free Face 0.9700 ........ / -- -------...
o0 60o--..----- --. .. ...---- - --- ---
,,, - - L-wa yveEnergy aa, S0 .50 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -_-_
. . . ..-- S h e ar wave Energy W
0 .3 00 -- - - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - ---- --
0 .10 0 -- - - - - - -
0.000 0.00° 15.20* 30.00' 50.00, 60.00. 70.00' 80.00' 89.20* 90.00° L-Wave Incident Angle The examination of Category B-F dissimilar metal welds was conducted in accordance with the requirements of ASME Section XI, Appendix III to the maximum extent practical. Refracted longitudinal wave search units 1 Firestone, F. A. : Tricks with the Supersonic Reflectoscope, J. Soc. Nondestructive Testing, vol. 7, no. 2 Fall 1948.
Serial No.01-007 Page 8 of 59 were used in accordance with NRC Information Notice No. 90-30: Ultrasonic Inspection Techniques for Dissimilar Metal Welds, May 1, 1990.
This weld is located on the safe end inlet (Hot Leg) nozzle on the 1C Steam Generator. The weld is not exposed to significant neutron fluence and is not prone to negative material property changes (i.e.,
embrittlement) associated with neutron bombardment.
If a leak were to occur at the weld in question, there are methods by which the leak could be identified for prompt Engineering evaluation. A leak at this weld would result in the following:
a) Increased containment humidity. This parameter is indicated in the control room and is monitored periodically by Operations and also the Containment Ventilation System Engineer.
b) Increased Steam Generator enclosure temperature.
This parameter is continuously monitored by the Operations via an OAC alarm, and is periodically monitored by the System Engineer.
c) Increased input into the VUCDT. This parameter is monitored continuously by Operations via an OAC alarm and also periodically by the Liquid Radwaste System Engineer and Reactor Coolant System Engineer.
d) Increase in unidentified reactor coolant leakage.
This parameter would be exhibited during performance of the reactor coolant leakage calculation, which is required by Technical Specifications to be performed every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> (McGuire normally performs this calculation every 24 Hrs). The unidentified leakage specification in Technical Specification 3.4.13.1 is 1 gpm.
e) Other indicators such as containment radiation monitors EMF-38, 39, and 40, the containment floor and equipment sump levels.
Note: The above parameters would be used to identify a leak in the Steam Generator enclosure or containment, but could not specifically identify this weld as the source of leakage. A containment entry would be required to identify the exact source of the leakage.
Serial No.01-007 Page 9 of 59 Also, a containment walkdown is performed when the unit reaches Mode 3 (full temperature / pressure) during the unit shutdown and startup for each refueling outage. This walkdown should identify any leak at the weld in question.
VII. Implementation Schedule:
Duke Energy Corporation will continue to use ultrasonic examination procedures to obtain maximum coverage to the extent practical of the item number referenced in Section I of this Request for Relief.
No additional ultrasonic examination is planned during the current interval for this weld.
VIII.
References:
Attachment 2. Information for Examination Category B-F affected welds: Pages 1-4 cover this weld.
B05.070.005
Serial No.01-007 Page 10 of 59 I. System / Component(s) for Which Relief is Requested:
Examination Category B-F:
IC Steam Generator NPS 4" or Larger Nozzle-to-Safe End Butt Weld.
ID Number Item Number lSGC-Outlet-W6SE B05.070.006 Ii. Code Requirement:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition Table IWB-2500-1, lists the following requirements for the Examination Category as shown below:
Figure IWB-2500-8(c). ASME Section XI, Appendix III, Paragraph 111-4420, 1989 Edition with no addenda.
"The examination shall be performed using a sufficiently long examination beam path to provide coverage of the required examination volume in two beam path directions. The examination shall be performed from two sides of the weld where practicable, or from one side of the weld, as a minimum."
III. Code Requirement from Which Relief Is Requested:
Relief is sought from the requirement to cover the required examination volume from two beam-path directions.
IV. Basis for Relief:
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 100%
of the required examination volume could not be achieved. As shown in Attachment 2 (Pages 5-8) due to single sided access, the examination coverage was limited to 75.00%. In order to achieve more coverage the weld would have to be re-designed to allow scanning from both sides.
Serial No.01-007 Page 11 of 59 V. Alternate Examinations or Testing:
No additional examinations are planned during the current interval for this weld. Because of the configuration, Radiography would not provide any additional coverage.
Duke Energy Corporation will use the most effective NDE methods available to obtain maximum coverage for future examinations of this weld.
VI. Justification for the Granting of Relief:
Although the examination volume as defined in ASME Section XI 1989 Edition with no addenda, Figure IWB 2500-8(c) could not be covered, the amount of coverage obtained for this examination provides an acceptable level of quality and integrity. This weld was examined during installation using volumetric and surface NDE methods.
The most effective ultrasonic technique for the examination of dissimilar metal welds uses refracted longitudinal waves. The longitudinal wave is preferred as the austenitic weld metal and buttering create highly attenuative barriers to shear wave ultrasound. The longitudinal wave is less affected by these difficulties. However, the longitudinal wave is affected by mode conversion when it strikes the inside surface of the safe end or pipe at any angle other than a right angle to the surface.
The calculations below shows that a 450 refracted longitudinal wave striking the inside surface of a pipe will produce a 22.90 refracted shear wave in addition to the normally expected 450 reflected longitudinal wave.
Sin-1 = (sin 450 x Vs) + VL
= (0.707 x 0.123) + 0.223 Where: sin-' is the shear wave angle Vs is the shear wave velocity of the stainless steel safe end/pipe material in inches/gsec.
Serial No.01-007 Page 12 of 59 VL is the longitudinal wave velocity of the stainless steel safe/pipe end material in inches/ptsec.
As shown in the graph below, the mode conversion process creates two sound beams of differing intensities reflecting off of the inside surface. 2 At incident angles greater than 300 the shear wave will predominate. However, the shear wave is attenuated and scattered by the austenitic weld metal and the layer of buttering. The examination sensitivity is degraded to such an extent that any examination using the second sound path leg is meaningless. Therefore, the two beam path direction coverage requirement is impractical.
In order to obtain the required two-beam path direction coverage, welds would have to be re-designed to allow scanning from both sides.
Reflected Sound Beam Energy In Steel on A Free Face 0)
LU L-wave Energy
--N--Shear wave Energy n-c 0.00' 15.20' 30.00' 50.00' 60.00' 70.00' 80.00' 89.20' 90.00' L-Wave Incident Angle The examination of Category B-F dissimilar metal welds was conducted in accordance with the requirements of 2 Firestone, F. A. :Tricks with the Supersonic Reflectoscope, J. Soc. Nondestructive Testing, vol. 7, no. 2 Fall 194.
Serial No.01-007 Page 13 of 59 ASME Section XI, Appendix III to the maximum extent practical. Refracted longitudinal wave search units were used in accordance with NRC Information Notice No. 90-30: Ultrasonic Inspection Techniques for Dissimilar Metal Welds, May 1, 1990.
This weld is located on the safe end outlet (Cold Leg) nozzle on the IC Steam Generator. The weld is not exposed to significant neutron fluence and is not prone to negative material property changes (i.e.,
embrittlement) associated with neutron bombardment.
If a leak were to occur at the weld in question, there are methods by which the leak could be identified for prompt Engineering evaluation. A leak at this weld would result in the following:
a) Increased containment humidity. This parameter is indicated in the control room and is monitored periodically by Operations and also the Containment Ventilation System Engineer.
b) Increased Steam Generator enclosure temperature.
This parameter is continuously monitored by the Operations via an OAC alarm, and is periodically monitored by the System Engineer.
c) Increased input into the VUCDT. This parameter is monitored continuously by Operations via an OAC alarm and also periodically by the Liquid Radwaste System Engineer and Reactor Coolant System Engineer.
d) Increase in unidentified reactor coolant leakage.
This parameter would be exhibited during performance of the reactor coolant leakage calculation, which is required by Technical Specifications to be performed every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> (McGuire normally performs this calculation every 24 Hrs). The unidentified leakage specification in Technical Specification 3.4.13.1 is 1 gpm.
e) Other indicators such as containment radiation monitors EMF-38, 39, and 40, the containment floor and equipment sump levels.
Note: The above parameters would be used to identify a leak in the Steam Generator enclosure or containment, but could not specifically identify this weld as the source of leakage. A containment entry
Serial No.01-007 Page 14 of 59 would be required to identify the exact source of the leakage.
Also, a containment walkdown is performed when the unit reaches Mode 3 (full temperature / pressure) during the unit shutdown and startup for each refueling outage.
This walkdown should identify any leak at the weld in question.
VII. Implementation Schedule:
Duke Energy Corporation will continue to use ultrasonic examination procedures to obtain maximum coverage to the extent practical of the item number referenced in Section I of this Request for Relief.
No additional ultrasonic examination is planned during the current interval for this weld.
VIII.
References:
Attachment 2. Information for Examination Category B-F affected welds: Pages 5-8 cover this weld.
B05.070.006
Serial No.01-007 Page 15 of 59 I. System / Component(s) for Which Relief is Requested:
Examination Category B-H:
Pressurizer Integrally Welded Attachment for Support Skirt to Lower Head.
ID Number Item Number lPZR-SKIRT B08.020.001A II. Code Requirement:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition Table IWB-2500-1, lists the following requirements for the Examination Category as shown below:
Figure IWB-2500-13. This weld was examined using the ultrasonic method. See Relief for Alternative 00 001, and NRC Safety Evaluation Report dated 08/23/01 in Attachment 7 (Pages 1-13) for a full explanation of the weld configuration issue.
III. Code Requirement from Which Relief Is Requested:
This weld was examined to the maximum extent practical per the requirements of Request for Alternative 00-001.
IV. Basis for Relief:
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 100%
of the required examination volume could not be achieved. As shown in Attachment 3 (Pages 1-10) the examination coverage was limited to 75.16%. The entire examination volume was covered 100% from at least one direction.
Serial No.01-007 Page 16 of 59 V. Alternate Examinations or Testing:
No additional examinations are planned during the current interval for this weld. Because of the configuration, Radiography would not provide any additional coverage.
Duke Energy Corporation will use the most effective ultrasonic techniques available to obtain maximum coverage for future examinations of this weld.
VI. Justification for the Granting of Relief:
Although the examination volume as defined in ASME Section XI 1989 Edition with no addenda, Figure IWB 2500-13 could not be covered, the amount of coverage obtained for this examination provides an acceptable level of quality and integrity. This weld was examined during installation using surface NDE methods.
There is inadequate accessibility of the inside surface (surface C-D) of the Pressurizer Support Skirt Weld to perform the required surface examination. Therefore, an ultrasonic examination will be used to inspect the inner examination surface from the skirt's exterior surface. The ultrasonic procedure and the basic calibration block will conform to the requirements of ASME Section XI, Appendix I, 1989 Edition, and ASME Section V, Article 5, 1989 Edition.
This is the weld joining the pressurizer support skirt to the pressurizer lower head. This weld is not exposed to significant neutron fluence and is not prone to negative material property changes (i.e.,
embrittlement) associated with neutron bombardment.
This weld joins the pressurizer support skirt, a non pressure boundary component, to the lower pressurizer head. Therefore, the weld serves no pressure boundary function. However, if a leak were to occur at the weld in question, there are methods by which the leak could be identified for prompt Engineering evaluation. A leak at this weld would result in the following:
Serial No.01-007 Page 17 of 59 a) Increased containment humidity. This parameter is indicated in the control room and is monitored periodically by Operations and also the Containment Ventilation System Engineer.
b) Increased Pressurizer enclosure temperature. This parameter is continuously monitored by the Operations via an OAC alarm, and is periodically monitored by the System Engineer.
c) Increased input into the VUCDT. This parameter is monitored continuously by Operations via an OAC alarm and also periodically by the Liquid Radwaste System Engineer and Reactor Coolant System Engineer.
d) Increase in unidentified reactor coolant leakage.
This parameter would be exhibited during performance of the reactor coolant leakage calculation, which is required by Technical Specifications to be performed every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> (McGuire normally performs this calculation every 24 Hrs). The unidentified leakage specification in Technical Specification 3.4.13.1 is 1 gpm.
e) Other indicators such as containment radiation monitors EMF-38, 39, and 40, the containment floor and equipment sump levels.
Note: The above parameters would be used to identify a leak in the pressurizer enclosure or containment, but could not specifically identify this weld as the source of leakage. A containment entry would be required to identify the exact source of the leakage.
Also, a containment walkdown is performed when the unit reaches Mode 3 (full temperature / pressure) during the unit shutdown and startup for each refueling outage.
This walkdown should identify any leak at the weld in question.
VII. Implementation Schedule:
Duke Energy Corporation will continue to use ultrasonic examination procedures to obtain maximum coverage to the extent practical of the item number referenced in Section I of this Request for Relief.
No additional ultrasonic examination is planned during the current interval for this weld.
Serial No.01-007 Page 18 of 59 VIII.
References:
Attachments 3 & 7 Information for Examination Category B-H affected welds: Pages 1-10 & 1-13, respectively, cover this weld.
B08.020.001A
Serial No.01-007 Page 19 of 59 I. System / Component(s) for Which Relief is Requested:
Examination Category B-J:
NPS 4" or Larger Piping Circumferential Weld for Reactor Coolant System.
ID Number Item Number 1NCIF-1-7 B09.011.007 II. Code Requirement:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition Table IWB-2500-1, lists the following requirements for the Examination Category as shown below:
ASME Section XI, Figure IWB-2500-8 (c),
Examination Volume C-D-E-F.
For welds joining cast austenitic materials:
ASME Section XI, Appendix III, Paragraph 111-4420, 1989 Edition with no addenda. "The examination shall be performed using a sufficiently long examination beam path to provide coverage of the required examination volume in two-beam path directions. The examination shall be performed from two sides of the weld where practicable, or from one side of the weld, as a minimum."
III. Code Requirement from Which Relief Is Requested:
Relief is sought from the requirement to examine 100% of volume C-D-E-F of cast stainless steel welds from two beam path directions.
Serial No.01-007 Page 20 of 59 IV. Basis for Relief:
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 100%
of the required examination volume could not be achieved. As shown in Attachment 4, (Pages 1-4) due to single sided access, and weld crown taper the examination coverage was limited to 33.20%.
In the case of the above listed pipe to pump weld, austenitic weld metal characteristics and single sided access caused by the component geometry prevents two sided coverage of the examination volume. The welded component configuration would have to be re-designed to allow scanning from both sides of the weld over the required examination volume.
V. Alternate Examinations or Testing:
No additional examinations are planned during the current interval for this weld. Because of the configuration, Radiography would not provide any additional coverage.
Duke Energy Corporation will use the most effective ultrasonic techniques available to obtain maximum coverage for future examinations of this weld.
VI. Justification for the Granting of Relief:
Although the examination volume as defined in ASME Section XI 1989 Edition with no addenda, Figure IWB 2500-8 (c) could not be covered, the amount of coverage obtained for this examination provides an acceptable level of quality and integrity. This weld was examined during installation using volumetric and surface NDE methods.
This is a weld on the "A" cold leg of the reactor coolant system to the "A" Reactor Coolant Pump Outlet Nozzle. This weld is not exposed to significant neutron fluence and is not prone to negative material property changes (i.e., embrittlement) associated with neutron bombardment. If a leak were to occur at the weld in question, there are methods by which the leak could be identified for prompt Engineering
Serial No.01-007 Page 21 of 59 evaluation. A leak at this weld would result in the following:
a) Increased containment humidity. This parameter is indicated in the control room and is monitored periodically by Operations and also the Containment Ventilation System Engineer.
b) Increased input into the VUCDT. This parameter is monitored continuously by Operations via an OAC alarm and also periodically by the Liquid Radwaste System Engineer and Reactor Coolant System Engineer.
c) Increase in unidentified reactor coolant leakage.
This parameter would be exhibited during performance of the reactor coolant leakage calculation, which is required by Technical Specifications to be performed every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> (McGuire normally performs this calculation every 24 Hrs). The unidentified leakage specification in Technical Specification 3.4.13.1 is 1 gpm.
d) Other indicators such as containment radiation monitors EMF-38, 39, and 40, the containment floor and equipment sump levels.
Note: The above parameters would be used to identify a leak in containment, but could not specifically identify this weld as the source of leakage. A containment entry would be required to identify the exact source of the leakage.
Also, a containment walkdown is performed when the unit reaches Mode 3 (full temperature / pressure) during the unit shutdown and startup for each refueling outage. This walkdown should identify any leak at the weld in question.
VII. Implementation Schedule:
Duke Energy Corporation will continue to use ultrasonic examination procedures to obtain maximum coverage to the extent practical of the item number referenced in Section I of this Request for Relief.
No additional ultrasonic examination is planned during the current interval for this weld.
Serial No.01-007 Page 22 of 59 VIII.
References:
Attachment 4. Information for Examination Category B-J affected welds: Pages 1-4 cover this weld.
B09.011.007
Serial No.01-007 Page 23 of 59 I. System / Component(s) for Which Relief is Requested:
Examination Category B-J:
NPS 4" or Larger Piping Circumferential Weld for Reactor Coolant System.
ID Number Item Number 1NC-3087-WI B09.011.008 II. Code Requirement:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition Table IWB-2500-1, lists the following requirements for the Examination Category as shown below:
ASME Section XI, Figure IWB-2500-8(c),
Examination Volume C-D-E-F.
For welds joining cast austenitic materials:
ASME Section XI, Appendix III, Paragraph 111-4420, 1989 Edition with no addenda. "The examination shall be performed using a sufficiently long examination beam path to provide coverage of the required examination volume in two-beam path directions. The examination shall be performed from two sides of the weld where practicable, or from one side of the weld, as a minimum."
III. Code Requirement from Which Relief Is Requested:
Relief is sought from the requirement to examine 100% of volume C-D-E-F of cast stainless steel welds from two beam path directions.
Serial No.01-007 Page 24 of 59 IV. Basis for Relief:
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 100%
of the required examination volume could not be achieved. As shown in Attachment 4 (Pages 5-8), due to the proximity of a pipe restraint, the examination coverage was limited to 85.50%.
In the case of the above listed piping weld, austenitic weld metal characteristics and single sided access caused by the pipe restraint prevents two sided coverage of the examination volume. The welded component configuration would have to be re designed to allow scanning from both sides of the weld over the required examination volume.
V. Alternate Examinations or Testing:
No additional examinations are planned during the current interval for this weld. Because of the configuration, Radiography would not provide any additional coverage.
Duke Energy Corporation will use the most effective ultrasonic techniques available to obtain maximum coverage for future examinations of this weld.
VI. Justification for the Granting of Relief:
Although the examination volume as defined in ASME Section XI 1989 Edition with no addenda, Figure IWB 2500-8(c) could not be covered, the amount of coverage obtained for this examination provides an acceptable level of quality and integrity. This weld was examined during installation using volumetric and surface NDE methods.
This weld is located on the "A" cold leg of the reactor coolant system near the reactor vessel nozzle. If a leak were to occur at the weld in question, there are methods by which the leak could be identified for prompt Engineering evaluation. A leak at this weld would result in the following:
a) Increased containment humidity. This parameter is indicated in the control room and is monitored
Serial No.01-007 Page 25 of 59 periodically by Operations and also the Containment Ventilation System Engineer.
b) Increased input into the VUCDT. This parameter is monitored continuously by Operations via an OAC alarm and also periodically by the Liquid Radwaste System Engineer and Reactor Coolant System Engineer.
c) Increase in unidentified reactor coolant leakage.
This parameter would be exhibited during performance of the reactor coolant leakage calculation, which is required by Technical Specifications to be performed every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> (McGuire normally performs this calculation every 24 Hrs). The unidentified leakage specification in Technical Specification 3.4.13.1 is 1 gpm.
d) Other indicators such as containment radiation monitors EMF-38, 39, and 40, the containment floor and equipment sump levels.
Note: The above parameters would be used to identify a leak in containment, but could not specifically identify this weld as the source of leakage. A containment entry would be required to identify the exact source of the leakage.
Also, a containment walkdown is performed when the unit reaches Mode 3 (full temperature / pressure) during the unit shutdown and startup for each refueling outage.
This walkdown should identify any leak at the weld in question.
VII. Implementation Schedule:
Duke Energy Corporation will continue to use ultrasonic examination procedures to obtain maximum coverage to the extent practical of the item number referenced in Section I of this Request for Relief.
No additional ultrasonic examination is planned during the current interval for this weld.
Serial No.01-007 Page 26 of 59 VIII.
References:
Attachment 4. Information for Examination Category B-J affected welds: Pages 5-8 cover this weld.
B09.011.008
Serial No.01-007 Page 27 of 59 I. System / Component(s) for Which Relief is Requested:
Examination Category B-J:
NPS 4" or Larger Piping Circumferential Weld for Reactor Coolant System.
ID Number Item Number INClF-107 B09.011.061 II. Code Requirement:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition Table IWB-2500-1, lists the following requirements for the Examination Category as shown below:
ASME Section XI, Figure IWB-2500-8(c),
Examination Volume C-D-E-F.
For welds joining cast austenitic materials:
ASME Section XI, Appendix III, Paragraph 111-4420, 1989 Edition with no addenda. "The examination shall be performed using a sufficiently long examination beam path to provide coverage of the required examination volume in two-beam path directions. The examination shall be performed from two sides of the weld where practicable, or from one side of the weld, as a minimum."
III. Code Requirement from Which Relief Is Requested:
Relief is sought from the requirement to examine 100%
of volume C-D-E-F.
IV. Basis for Relief:
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 100%
of the required examination volume could not be achieved. As shown in Attachment 4, (Page 9-15) the examination coverage was limited to 60.85%. This is an elbow to nozzle weld where access is limited to the pipe side only.
In the case of the above listed elbow to nozzle weld, austenitic weld metal characteristics and single
Serial No.01-007 Page 28 of 59 sided access caused by the component geometry prevents two sided coverage of the examination volume. The welded component configuration would have to be re-designed to allow scanning from both sides of the weld over the required examination volume.
V. Alternate Examinations or Testing:
No additional examinations are planned during the current interval for this weld. Because of the configuration, Radiography would not provide any additional coverage.
Duke Energy Corporation will use the most effective ultrasonic techniques available to obtain maximum coverage for future examinations of this weld.
VI. Justification for the Granting of Relief:
Although the examination volume as defined in ASME Section XI 1989 Edition with no addenda, Figure IWB 2500-8(c) could not be covered, the amount of coverage obtained for this examination provides an acceptable level of quality and integrity. This weld was examined during installation using volumetric and surface NDE methods.
Current ultrasonic technology is not capable of consistently detecting and sizing flaws on the far side of an austenitic weld for configurations common to U.S. nuclear applications. To demonstrate that the best available technology was applied, PDI provides a best effort qualification instead of a complete single side demonstration. PDI Performance Demonstration Qualification Summary (PDQS) for austenitic piping shows that single sided examination is performed as a best effort. Therefore, the far side of the austenitic weld, which can only be accessed from one side, will be listed as an area of no coverage.
This weld is located on the "A" cold leg of the reactor coolant system at the nozzle from the NI system, downstream of INI-60. This weld is not exposed to significant neutron fluence and is not prone to negative material property changes (i.e.,
embrittlement) associated with neutron bombardment.
If a leak were to occur at the weld in question,
Serial No.01-007 Page 29 of 59 there are methods by which the leak could be identified for prompt Engineering evaluation. A leak at this weld would result in the following:
a) Increased containment humidity. This parameter is indicated in the control room and is monitored periodically by Operations and also the Containment Ventilation System Engineer.
b) Increased input into the VUCDT. This parameter is monitored continuously by Operations via an OAC alarm and also periodically by the Liquid Radwaste System Engineer and Reactor Coolant System Engineer.
c) Increase in unidentified reactor coolant leakage.
This parameter would be exhibited during performance of the reactor coolant leakage calculation, which is required by Technical Specifications to be performed every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> (McGuire normally performs this calculation every 24 Hrs). The unidentified leakage specification in Technical Specification 3.4.13.1 is 1 gpm.
d) Other indicators such as containment radiation monitors EMF-38, 39, and 40, the containment floor and equipment sump levels.
Note: The above parameters would be used to identify a leak in containment, but could not specifically identify this weld as the source of leakage. A containment entry would be required to identify the exact source of the leakage.
Also, a containment walkdown is performed when the unit reaches Mode 3 (full temperature / pressure) during the unit shutdown and startup for each refueling outage.
This walkdown should identify any leak at the weld in question.
Serial No.01-007 Page 30 of 59 VII. Implementation Schedule:
Duke Energy Corporation will continue to use ultrasonic examination procedures to obtain maximum coverage to the extent practical of the item number referenced in Section I of this Request for Relief.
No additional ultrasonic examination is planned during the current interval for this weld.
VIII.
References:
Attachment 4. Information for Examination Category B-J affected welds: Pages 9-15 cover this weld.
B09.011.061
Serial No.01-007 Page 31 of 59 I. System / Component(s) for Which Relief is Requested:
Examination Category B-J:
NPS 4" or Larger Piping Circumferential Welds for Reactor Coolant System.
ID Number Item Number INClF-3613-3092 B09.011.069 II. Code Requirement:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition Table IWB-2500-1, lists the following requirements for the Examination Category as shown below:
ASME Section XI, Figure IWB-2500-8 (c),
Examination Volume C-D-E-F.
III. Code Requirement from Which Relief Is Requested:
Relief is sought from the requirement to examine 100%
of volume C-D-E-F.
IV. Basis for Relief:
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 100%
of the required examination volume could not be achieved. As shown in Attachment 4, (Pages 16-22) the examination coverage was limited to 60.11%. This is a pipe to nozzle weld where access is limited to the pipe side of the weld only.
In the case of the above listed nozzle to pipe weld, austenitic weld metal characteristics and single sided access caused by the component geometry prevents two sided coverage of the examination volume. The welded component configuration would have to be re-designed to allow scanning from both sides of the weld over the required examination volume.
Serial No.01-007 Page 32 of 59 V. Alternate Examinations or Testing:
No additional examinations are planned during the current interval for this weld. Because of the configuration, Radiography would not provide any additional coverage.
Duke Energy Corporation will use the most effective ultrasonic techniques available to obtain maximum coverage for future examinations of this weld.
VI. Justification for the Granting of Relief:
Although the examination volume as defined in ASME Section XI 1989 Edition with no addenda, Figure IWB 2500-8(c) could not be covered, the amount of coverage obtained for this examination provides an acceptable level of quality and integrity. This weld was examined using procedures, personnel and equipment qualified through the Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI). In addition, this weld was examined during installation using volumetric and surface NDE methods.
Current ultrasonic technology is not capable of consistently detecting and sizing flaws on the far side of an austenitic weld for configurations common to U.S. nuclear applications. To demonstrate that the best available technology was applied, PDI provides a best effort qualification instead of a complete single side demonstration. PDI Performance Demonstration Qualification Summary (PDQS) for austenitic piping shows that single sided examination is performed as a best effort. Therefore, the far side of the austenitic weld, which can only be accessed from one side, will be listed as an area of no coverage.
This weld is located at the nozzle from the pressurizer surge line to the "B" loop reactor coolant hot leg. This weld is not exposed to significant neutron fluence and is not prone to negative material property changes (i.e.,
embrittlement) associated with neutron bombardment.
If a leak were to occur at the weld in question, there are methods by which the leak could be identified for prompt Engineering evaluation. A leak at this weld would result in the following:
Serial No.01-007 Page 33 of 59 a) Increased containment humidity. This parameter is indicated in the control room and is monitored periodically by Operations and also the Containment Ventilation System Engineer.
b) Increased input into the VUCDT. This parameter is monitored continuously by Operations via an OAC alarm and also periodically by the Liquid Radwaste System Engineer and Reactor Coolant System Engineer.
c) Increase in unidentified reactor coolant leakage.
This parameter would be exhibited during performance of the reactor coolant leakage calculation, which is required by Technical Specifications to be performed every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> (McGuire normally performs this calculation every 24 Hrs). The unidentified leakage specification in Technical Specification 3.4.13.1 is 1 gpm.
d) Other indicators such as containment radiation monitors EMF-38, 39, and 40, the containment floor and equipment sump levels.
Note: The above parameters would be used to identify a leak in containment, but could not specifically identify this weld as the source of leakage. A containment entry would be required to identify the exact source of the leakage.
Also, a containment walkdown is performed when the unit reaches Mode 3 (full temperature / pressure) during the unit shutdown and startup for each refueling outage.
This walkdown should identify any leak at the weld in question.
VII. Implementation Schedule:
Duke Energy Corporation will continue to use ultrasonic examination procedures to obtain maximum coverage to the extent practical of the item number referenced in Section I of this Request for Relief.
No additional ultrasonic examination is planned during the current interval for this weld.
Serial No.01-007 Page 34 of 59 VIII.
References:
Attachment 4. Information for Examination Category B-J affected welds: Pages 16-22 cover this weld.
B09.011.069
Serial No.01-007 Page 35 of 59 I. System / Component(s) for Which Relief is Requested:
Examination Category B-J:
NPS 4" or Larger Piping Circumferential Weld for Safety Injection System.
ID Number Item Number INIIF-643 B09.011.207 II. Code Requirement:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition Table IWB-2500-1, lists the following requirements for the Examination Category as shown below:
ASME Section XI, Figure IWB-2500-8(c),
Examination Volume C-D-E-F.
III. Code Requirement from Which Relief Is Requested:
Relief is requested from the requirement to examine 100% of volume C-D-E-F.
IV. Basis for Relief:
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 100%
of the required examination volume as could not be achieved. As shown in Attachment 4, (Pages 23-26) the examination coverage was limited to 60.34%. This is a pipe to valve weld where access is limited to the pipe side of the weld only.
In the case of the above listed pipe to valve weld, austenitic weld metal characteristics and single sided access caused by the component geometry prevents two sided coverage of the examination volume. The welded component configuration would have to be re-designed to allow scanning from both sides of the weld over the required examination volume.
Serial No.01-007 Page 36 of 59 V. Alternate Examinations or Testing:
No additional examinations are planned during the current interval for this weld. Because of the configuration, Radiography would not provide any additional coverage.
Duke Energy Corporation will use the most effective ultrasonic techniques available to obtain maximum coverage for future examinations of this weld.
VI. Justification for the Granting of Relief:
Although the examination volume as defined in ASME Section XI 1989 Edition with no addenda, Figure IWB 2500-8(c) could not be covered, the amount of coverage obtained for this examination provides an acceptable level of quality and integrity. This weld was examined using procedures, personnel and equipment qualified through the Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI). In addition, this weld was examined during installation using volumetric and surface NDE methods.
Current ultrasonic technology is not capable of consistently detecting and sizing flaws on the far side of an austenitic weld for configurations common to U.S. nuclear applications. To demonstrate that the best available technology was applied, PDI provides a best effort qualification instead of a complete single side demonstration. PDI Performance Demonstration Qualification Summary (PDQS) for austenitic piping shows that single sided examination is performed as a best effort. Therefore, the far side of the austenitic weld, which can only be accessed from one side, will be listed as an area of no coverage.
This is a pipe to valve (1N170) weld located on the outlet side of the valve on the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Cold Leg Injection line. This weld is not exposed to significant neutron fluence and is not prone to embrittlement associated with neutron bombardment. If a leak were to occur at the weld in question, there are methods by which the leak could be identified for prompt Engineering evaluation. A leak at this weld would result in one or more of the following:
Serial No.01-007 Page 37 of 59 a) Increase in outleakage from the associated Cold Leg Accumulator (CLA) tanks. Level in these tanks is continuously monitored and alarmed in the control room and is maintained within limits established in Technical Specification 3.5.1.2. The fill frequency for these tanks is also trended by the Safety Injection System Engineer.
b) Increased Steam Generator enclosure temperature.
This parameter is continuously monitored by the Operations via an 0AC alarm, and is periodically monitored by the System Engineer.
Note: The above parameters would be used to identify a leak in the containment, but could not specifically identify this weld as the source of leakage. A containment entry would be required to identify the exact source of the leakage.
Also, a containment walkdown is performed when the unit reaches Mode 3 (full temperature / pressure) during the unit shutdown and startup for each refueling outage.
This walkdown should identify any leak at the weld in question.
VII. Implementation Schedule:
Duke Energy Corporation will continue to use ultrasonic examination procedures to obtain maximum coverage to the extent practical of the item number referenced in Section I of this Request for Relief.
No additional ultrasonic examination is planned during the current interval for this weld.
VIII.
References:
Attachment 4. Information for Examination Category B-J affected welds: Pages 23-26 cover this weld.
B09.011.207
Serial No.01-007 Page 38 of 59 I. System / Component(s) for Which Relief is Requested:
Examination Category B-J:
NPS 4" or Larger Piping Circumferential Weld for Safety Injection System.
ID Number Item Number 1NIIF-645 B09.011.219 II. Code Requirement:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition Table IWB-2500-l, lists the following requirements for the Examination Category as shown below:
ASME Section XI, Figure IWB-2500-8 (c),
Examination Volume C-D-E-F.
IlI. Code Requirement from Which Relief Is Requested:
Relief is requested from the requirement to examine 100% of volume C-D-E-F.
IV. Basis for Relief:
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 100%
of the required examination volume could not be achieved. As shown in Attachment 4, (Pages 27-30) the examination coverage was limited to 60.34%. This is a pipe to valve weld where access is limited to the pipe side of the weld only.
In the case of the above listed pipe to valve weld, austenitic weld metal characteristics and single sided access caused by the component geometry prevents two sided coverage of the examination volume. The welded component configuration would have to be re-designed to allow scanning from both sides of the weld over the required examination volume.
Serial No.01-007 Page 39 of 59 V. Alternate Examinations or Testing:
No additional examinations are planned during the current interval for this weld. Because of the configuration, Radiography would not provide any additional coverage.
Duke Energy Corporation will use the most effective ultrasonic techniques available to obtain maximum coverage for future examinations of this weld.
VI. Justification for the Granting of Relief:
Although the examination volume as defined in ASME Section XI 1989 Edition with no addenda, Figure IWB 2500-8(c) could not be covered, the amount of coverage obtained for this examination provides an acceptable level of quality and integrity. This weld was examined using procedures, personnel and equipment qualified through the Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI). In addition, this weld was examined during installation using volumetric and surface NDE methods.
Current ultrasonic technology is not capable of consistently detecting and sizing flaws on the far side of an austenitic weld for configurations common to U.S. nuclear applications. To demonstrate that the best available technology was applied, PDI provides a best effort qualification instead of a complete single side demonstration. PDI Performance Demonstration Qualification Summary (PDQS) for austenitic piping shows that single sided examination is performed as a best effort. Therefore, the far side of the austenitic weld, which can only be accessed from one side, will be listed as an area of no coverage.
This is a pipe to valve (1N170) weld located on the inlet side of the valve on the ECCS Cold Leg Injection line. This weld is not exposed to significant neutron fluence and is not prone to embrittlement associated with neutron bombardment.
If a leak were to occur at the weld in question, there are methods by which the leak could be identified for prompt Engineering evaluation. A leak at this weld would result in one or more of the following:
Serial No.01-007 Page 40 of 59 a) Increase in outleakage from the associated CLA tanks. Level in these tanks is continuously monitored and alarmed in the control room and is maintained within limits established in Technical Specification 3.5.1.2. The fill frequency for these tanks is also trended by the Safety Injection System Engineer.
b) Increased inputs to the containment floor and equipment sumps.
Note: The above parameters would be used to identify a leak in the containment, but could not specifically identify this weld as the source of leakage. A containment entry would be required to identify the exact source of the leakage.
Also, a containment walkdown is performed when the unit reaches Mode 3 (full temperature / pressure) during the unit shutdown and startup for each refueling outage.
This walkdown should identify any leak at the weld in question.
VII. Implementation Schedule:
Duke Energy Corporation will continue to use ultrasonic examination procedures to obtain maximum coverage to the extent practical of the item number referenced in Section I of this Request for Relief.
No additional ultrasonic examination is planned during the current interval for this weld.
VIII.
References:
Attachment 4. Information for Examination Category B-J affected welds: Pages 27-30 cover this weld.
B09.011.219
Serial No.01-007 Page 41 of 59 I. System / Component(s) for Which Relief is Requested:
Examination Category B-J:
NPS 4" or Larger Piping Circumferential Weld for Safety Injection System.
ID Number Item Number INIlF-280 B09.011.228 II. Code Requirement:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition Table IWB-2500-1, lists the following requirements for the Examination Category as shown below:
ASME Section XI, Figure IWB-2500-8(c),
Examination Volume C-D-E-F.
III. Code Requirement from Which Relief Is Requested:
Relief is requested from the requirement to examine 100% of volume C-D-E-F.
IV. Basis for Relief:
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 100%
of the required examination volume could not be achieved. As shown in Attachment 4, (Pages 31-38) the examination coverage was limited to 60.50%. This is a pipe to valve weld where access is limited to the pipe side of the weld only.
In the case of the above listed pipe to valve weld, austenitic weld metal characteristics and single sided access caused by the component geometry prevents two sided coverage of the examination volume. The welded component configuration would have to be re-designed to allow scanning from both sides of the weld over the required examination volume.
Serial No.01-007 Page 42 of 59 V. Alternate Examinations or Testing:
No additional examinations are planned during the current interval for this weld. Because of the configuration, Radiography would not provide any additional coverage.
Duke Energy Corporation will use the most effective ultrasonic techniques available to obtain maximum coverage for future examinations of this weld.
VI. Justification for the Granting of Relief:
Although the examination volume as defined in ASME Section XI 1989 Edition with no addenda, Figure IWB 2500-8(c) could not be covered, the amount of coverage obtained for this examination provides an acceptable level of quality and integrity. This weld was examined using procedures, personnel and equipment qualified through the Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI). In addition, this weld was examined during installation using volumetric and surface NDE methods.
Current ultrasonic technology is not capable of consistently detecting and sizing flaws on the far side of an austenitic weld for configurations common to U.S. nuclear applications. To demonstrate that the best available technology was applied, PDI provides a best effort qualification instead of a complete single side demonstration. PDI Performance Demonstration Qualification Summary (PDQS) for austenitic piping shows that single sided examination is performed as a best effort. Therefore, the far side of the austenitic weld, which can only be accessed from one side, will be listed as an area of no coverage.
This is a pipe to valve (INI88B) weld located on the outlet side of the valve located on a 10" line connected to the "ID" Safety Injection Accumulator Tank on the ECCS Cold Leg Injection line. This weld is not exposed to significant neutron fluence and is not prone to embrittlement associated with neutron bombardment. If a leak were to occur at the weld in question, there are methods by which the leak could be identified for prompt Engineering evaluation. A leak at this weld would result in the following:
Serial No.01-007 Page 43 of 59 a) Increase in outleakage from the associated CLA tanks. Level in these tanks is continuously monitored and alarmed in the control room and is maintained within limits established in Technical Specification 3.5.1.2. The fill frequency for these tanks is also trended by the Safety Injection System Engineer.
b) Increased inputs to the containment floor and equipment sumps.
Note: The above parameters would be used to identify a leak in the containment, but could not specifically identify this weld as the source of leakage. A containment entry would be required to identify the exact source of the leakage.
Also, a containment walkdown is performed when the unit reaches Mode 3 (full temperature / pressure) during the unit shutdown and startup for each refueling outage.
This walkdown should identify any leak at the weld in question.
VII. Implementation Schedule:
Duke Energy Corporation will continue to use ultrasonic examination procedures to obtain maximum coverage to the extent practical of the item number referenced in Section I of this Request for Relief.
No additional ultrasonic examination is planned during the current interval for this weld.
VIII.
References:
Attachment 4. Information for Examination Category B-J affected welds: Pages 31-38 cover this weld.
B09.011.228
Serial No.01-007 Page 44 of 59 I. System / Component(s) for Which Relief is Requested:
Examination Category C-B:
Nozzle-to-Shell (or Head) Weld for ID Steam Generator Auxilliary Feedwater Nozzle to Steam Drum.
ID Number Item Number ISGD-W259 C02.021.008 II. Code Requirement:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition Table IWC-2500-1, lists the following requirements for the Examination Category as shown below:
Figure IWC-2500-4 (a). ASME Section V, Article 4, Paragraph T-424.1 states: "The volume shall be examined by moving the search unit over the examination surface so as to scan the entire examination volume."
III. Code Requirement from Which Relief Is Requested:
Relief is being sought from the requirement to scan the entire examination volume.
IV. Basis for Relief:
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 100%
of the required examination volume could not be achieved. As shown in Attachment 5, (Pages 1-4) the examination coverage was limited to 75.00%. This is a ferritic nozzle to shell weld where access is limited to the vessel shell side only. In order to achieve more coverage the welded component configuration would have to be re-designed to allow scanning from both sides.
V. Alternate Examinations or Testing:
Duke Energy Corporation will continue to use ultrasonic examination procedures to obtain maximum coverage to the extent practical of the item number
Serial No.01-007 Page 45 of 59 referenced in Section I of this Request for Relief.
No additional ultrasonic examination is planned during the current interval for this weld.
VI. Justification for the Granting of Relief:
Although the examination volume as defined in ASME Section XI 1989 Edition with no addenda, Figure IWC 2500-4(a) could not be covered, the amount of coverage obtained for this examination provides an acceptable level of quality and integrity. This weld was examined using procedures, personnel and equipment qualified through the Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI). The qualifications were conducted on samples with access to both sides of the weld. Therefore Duke Energy Corporation does not claim credit for the full volume when a single sided examination is performed. In addition, this weld was examined during installation using volumetric and surface NDE methods.
This weld is located on the Auxiliary Feedwater nozzle on the 1D Steam Generator. This weld is not exposed to significant neutron fluence and is not prone to embrittlement associated with neutron bombardment. If a leak were to occur at the weld in question [Steam Generator (CA) Nozzle], there are methods by which the leak could be identified for prompt Engineering evaluation. A leak at a CA nozzle would result in the following:
a) Increased containment humidity. This parameter is indicated in the control room and is monitored periodically by Operations and also the Containment Ventilation System Engineer.
b) Increased S/G enclosure temperature. This parameter is continuously monitored by the Operations via an OAC alarm, and is periodically monitored by the System Engineer.
c) Increased input into the VUCDT. This parameter is monitored continuously by Operations via an OAC alarm and also periodically by the Liquid Radwaste System Engineer and Reactor Coolant System Engineer.
Note: The above parameters would be used to identify a leak in the steam generator enclosure, but could not specifically identify the CA nozzle as the source
Serial No.01-007 Page 46 of 59 of leakage. A containment entry would be required to identify the exact source of the leakage.
Also, a containment walkdown is performed when the unit reaches Mode 3 (full temperature / pressure) during the unit shutdown and startup for each refueling outage.
This walkdown should identify any leak at the weld in question.
Concerning the consequences of a leak at the CA nozzle (affects on CA system operation): Any leakage would result in a portion of the CA flow bypassing the steam generator, and therefore being unavailable to maintain steam generator levels. Very small leaks
(< 1 gpm) would have no discernible effect on CA system operation. Leaks that approach 5 gpm would need to be evaluated for system operability effects.
McGuire has specific Safety Analysis for accidents where minor and major main feedwater system pipe breaks are postulated. These Safety Analyses demonstrate compliance with requirements of 10CFR50.
Replacement or re-design of any of these Class 1 or Class 2 nozzles is not a viable alternative. Duke Energy believes the amount of coverage obtained for these examinations provides reasonable assurance of the continued structural integrity of the subject welds.
Also the CA nozzles are equipped with thermal sleeves to limit thermal shock due to auxiliary feedwater injections. McGuire operates the CA nozzles consistent with the stress and fatigue qualifications provided by the Manufacturer (BWI).
VII. Implementation Schedule:
Duke Energy Corporation will continue to use ultrasonic examination procedures to obtain maximum coverage to the extent practical of the item number referenced in Section I of this Request for Relief.
No additional ultrasonic examination is planned during the current interval for this weld.
Serial No.01-007 Page 47 of 59 VIII.
References:
Attachment 5. Information for Examination Category C-B affected weld: Pages 1-4 cover this weld.
C02.021.008
Serial No.01-007 Page 48 of 59 I. System / Component(s) for Which Relief is Requested:
Examination Category C-F-i:
Piping Circumferential Welds for Safety Injection System.
ID Number Item Number 1NIIF-167 C05.011.113 II. Code Requirement:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition Table IWC-2500-I, lists the following requirements for the Examination Category as shown below:
Figure IWC-2500-7 (a) requires 100% of examination volume.
III. Code Requirement from Which Relief Is Requested:
Relief is requested from the requirement to examine 100% of volume C-D-E-F.
IV. Basis for Relief:
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 100%
of the required examination volume could not be achieved. As shown in Attachment 6, (Pages 1-6) the examination coverage was limited to 59.82%. This is a stainless steel penetration to elbow weld where access is limited to the elbow side of the weld only.
In order to achieve more coverage the weld would have to be re-designed to allow scanning from both sides.
V. Alternate Examinations or Testing:
No additional examinations are planned during the current interval for this weld. Because of the configuration, Radiography would not provide any additional coverage.
Serial No.01-007 Page 49 of 59 Duke Energy Corporation will use the most effective ultrasonic techniques available to obtain maximum coverage for future examinations of this weld.
VI. Justification for the Granting of Relief:
Examination Category C-F-I:
Although the examination volume as defined in ASME Section XI 1989 Edition with no addenda, Figure IWC 2500-7(a) could not be covered, the amount of coverage obtained for this examination provides an acceptable level of quality and integrity. This weld was examined using procedures, personnel and equipment qualified through the Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI). In addition, this weld was examined during installation using volumetric and surface NDE methods.
Current ultrasonic technology is not capable of consistently detecting and sizing flaws on the far side of an austenitic weld for configurations common to U.S. nuclear applications. To demonstrate that the best available technology was applied, PDI provides a best effort qualification instead of a complete single side demonstration. PDI Performance Demonstration Qualification Summary (PDQS) for austenitic piping shows that single sided examination is performed as a best effort. Therefore, the far side of the austenitic weld, which can only be accessed from one side, will be listed as an area of no coverage.
This weld is located on the "A" Train ECCS Cold Leg Injection supply from the ND system. This weld is not exposed to significant neutron fluence and is not prone to embrittlement associated with neutron bombardment. If a leak were to occur at the weld in question, the leak could be identified for prompt Engineering evaluation. A leak at this weld would result in external leakage from this weld and would be exhibited on the floor of the Aux. Building pipe chase. Operations perform surveillance in this area monthly for ECCS venting and would notice any leakage exhibited from this weld.
Also, a walkdown is performed when the unit reaches Mode 3 (full temperature / pressure) during the unit shutdown and startup for each refueling outage. The
Serial No.01-007 Page 50 of 59 following additional walkdowns are performed on this piping each refueling outage:
a) An inservice inspection walkdown is performed which verifies that no external leakage exists on the piping including this weld.
b) A leakage walkdown is performed on ND system piping outside containment.
These walkdowns should identify any leak at the weld in question.
VII. Implementation Schedule:
Duke Energy Corporation will continue to use ultrasonic examination procedures to obtain maximum coverage to the extent practical of the item number referenced in Section I of this Request for Relief.
No additional ultrasonic examination is planned during the current interval for this weld.
VIII.
References:
Attachment 6. Information for Examination Category C-F-I affected welds: Pages 1-6 cover this weld.
C05.011.113
Serial No.01-007 Page 51 of 59 I. System / Component(s) for Which Relief is Requested:
Examination Category C-F-I:
Piping Circumferential Weld for Safety Injection System.
ID Number Item Number INIlF-293 C05.011.120 II. Code Requirement:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition Table IWC-2500-1, lists the following requirements for the Examination Category as shown below:
Figure IWC-2500-7 (a) requires 100% of examination volume.
III. Code Requirement from Which Relief Is Requested:
Relief is requested from the requirement to examine 100% of volume C-D-E-F.
IV. Basis for Relief:
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 100%
of the required examination volume could not be achieved. As shown in Attachment 6, (Pages 7-16) the examination coverage was limited to 61.30%. This is a stainless steel pipe to valve weld where access is limited to the pipe side of the weld only. In order to achieve more coverage the weld would have to be re-designed to allow scanning from both sides.
V. Alternate Examinations or Testing:
No additional examinations are planned during the current interval for this weld. Because of the configuration, Radiography would not provide any additional coverage.
Serial No.01-007 Page 52 of 59 Duke Energy Corporation will use the most effective ultrasonic techniques available to obtain maximum coverage for future examinations of this weld.
VI. Justification for the Granting of Relief:
Examination Category C-F-l:
Although the examination volume as defined in ASME Section XI 1989 Edition with no addenda, Figure IWC 2500-7(a) could not be covered, the amount of coverage obtained for this examination provides an acceptable level of quality and integrity. This weld was examined using procedures, personnel and equipment qualified through the Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI). In addition, this weld was examined during installation using volumetric and surface NDE methods.
Current ultrasonic technology is not capable of consistently detecting and sizing flaws on the far side of an austenitic weld for configurations common to U.S. nuclear applications. To demonstrate that the best available technology was applied, PDI provides a best effort qualification instead of a complete single side demonstration. PDI Performance Demonstration Qualification Summary (PDQS) for austenitic piping shows that single sided examination is performed as a best effort. Therefore, the far side of the austenitic weld, which can only be accessed from one side, will be listed as an area of no coverage.
This weld is located on the "A" Train ECCS Cold Leg Injection supply from the ND system. This weld is not exposed to significant neutron fluence and is not prone to embrittlement associated with neutron bombardment. If a leak were to occur at the weld in question, the leak could be identified for prompt Engineering evaluation. A leak at this weld would result in increased inputs to the containment floor and equipment sumps. The inputs to this sump are also trended by the WL system engineer and an upward trend or significant influent increase would prompt Operations and Engineering evaluation.
Note: The above parameter would be used to identify a leak in the containment, but could not specifically identify this weld as the source of leakage. A
Serial No.01-007 Page 53 of 59 containment entry would be required to identify the exact source of the leakage.
Also, a containment walkdown is performed when the unit reaches Mode 3 (full temperature / pressure) during the unit shutdown and startup for each refueling outage.
This walkdown should identify any leak at the weld in question.
a) An inservice inspection walkdown is performed which verifies that no external leakage exists on the piping including this weld.
VII. Implementation Schedule:
Duke Energy Corporation will continue to use ultrasonic examination procedures to obtain maximum coverage to the extent practical of the item number referenced in Section I of this Request for Relief.
No additional ultrasonic examination is planned during the current interval for this weld.
VIII.
References:
Attachment 6. Information for Examination Category C-F-I affected welds: Pages 7-16 cover this weld.
C05.011.120
Serial No.01-007 Page 54 of 59 I. System / Component(s) for Which Relief is Requested:
Examination Category C-F-I:
Piping Circumferential Weld for Safety Injection System.
ID Number Item Number 1NI169-4 C05.011.129 II. Code Requirement:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition Table IWC-2500-1, lists the following requirements for the Examination Category as shown below:
Figure IWC-2500-7 (a) requires 100% of examination volume.
III. Code Requirement from Which Relief Is Requested:
Relief is requested from the requirement to examine 100% of volume C-D-E-F.
IV. Basis for Relief:
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 100%
of the required examination volume could not be achieved. As shown in Attachment 6, (Pages 17-22) the examination coverage was limited to 88.50%. This is a stainless steel pipe to elbow weld where access is limited due to the proximity of a nameplate.
V. Alternate Examinations or Testing:
No additional examinations are planned during the current interval for this weld. Because of the configuration, Radiography would not provide any additional coverage.
Duke Energy Corporation will use the most effective ultrasonic techniques available to obtain maximum coverage for future examinations of this weld.
Serial No.01-007 Page 55 of 59 VI. Justification for the Granting of Relief:
Although the examination volume as defined in ASME Section XI 1989 Edition with no addenda, Figure IWC 2500-7(a) could not be covered, the amount of coverage obtained for this examination provides an acceptable level of quality and integrity. This weld was examined using procedures, personnel and equipment qualified through the Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI). In addition, this weld was examined during installation using volumetric and surface NDE methods.
Current ultrasonic technology is not capable of consistently detecting and sizing flaws on the far side of an austenitic weld for configurations common to U.S. nuclear applications. To demonstrate that the best available technology was applied, PDI provides a best effort qualification instead of a complete single side demonstration. PDI Performance Demonstration Qualification Summary (PDQS) for austenitic piping shows that single sided examination is performed as a best effort. Therefore, the far side of the austenitic weld, which can only be accessed from one side, will be listed as an area of no coverage.
This weld is located on the "B" Train ECCS Cold Leg Injection supply from the ND system. This weld is not exposed to significant neutron fluence and is not prone to embrittlement associated with neutron bombardment. If a leak were to occur at the weld in question, the leak could be identified for prompt Engineering evaluation. A leak at this weld would result in increased inputs to the containment floor and equipment sumps. The inputs to this sump are also trended by the WL system engineer and an upward trend or significant influent increase would prompt Operations and Engineering evaluation.
Note: The above parameter would be used to identify a leak in the containment, but could not specifically identify this weld as the source of leakage. A containment entry would be required to identify the exact source of the leakage.
Also, a containment walkdown is performed when the unit reaches Mode 3 (full temperature / pressure) during the unit shutdown and startup for each refueling outage.
Serial No.01-007 Page 56 of 59 This walkdown should identify any leak at the weld in question.
a) An inservice inspection walkdown is performed which verifies that no external leakage exists on the piping including this weld.
VII. Implementation Schedule:
Duke Energy Corporation will continue to use ultrasonic examination procedures to obtain maximum coverage to the extent practical of the item number referenced in Section I of this Request for Relief.
No additional ultrasonic examination is planned during the current interval for this weld.
VIII.
References:
Attachment 6. Information for Examination Category C-F-I affected welds: Pages 17-22 cover this weld.
C05.011.129
Serial No.01-007 Page 57 of 59 I. System / Component(s) for Which Relief is Requested:
Examination Category C-F-i:
Piping Circumferential Weld for Chemical and Volume Control System.
ID Number Item Number 1NVIFW175-29 C05.021.085 II. Code Requirement:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition Table IWC-2500-1, lists the following requirements for the Examination Category as shown below:
Figure IWC-2500-7 (a) requires 100% of examination volume.
III. Code Requirement from Which Relief Is Requested:
Relief is requested from the requirement to examine 100% of volume C-D-E-F.
IV. Basis for Relief:
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 100%
of the required examination volume could not be achieved. As shown in Attachment 6, (Pages 23-32) the examination coverage was limited to 85.61%. This is a stainless steel pipe to tee weld where access is limited to one side of the weld only.
V. Alternate Examinations or Testing:
No additional examinations are planned during the current interval for this weld. Because of the configuration, Radiography would not provide any additional coverage.
Duke Energy Corporation will use the most effective ultrasonic techniques available to obtain maximum coverage for future examinations of this weld.
Serial No.01-007 Page 58 of 59 VI. Justification for the Granting of Relief:
Although the examination volume as defined in ASME Section XI 1989 Edition with no addenda, Figure IWC 2500-7(a) could not be covered, the amount of coverage obtained for this examination provides an acceptable level of quality and integrity. This weld was examined using procedures, personnel and equipment qualified through the Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI). In addition, this weld was examined during installation using volumetric and surface NDE methods.
Current ultrasonic technology is not capable of consistently detecting and sizing flaws on the far side of an austenitic weld for configurations common to U.S. nuclear applications. To demonstrate that the best available technology was applied, PDI provides a best effort qualification instead of a complete single side demonstration. PDI Performance Demonstration Qualification Summary (PDQS) for austenitic piping shows that single sided examination is performed as a best effort. Therefore, the far side of the austenitic weld, which can only be accessed from one side, will be listed as an area of no coverage.
This is a weld on the inlet tee that branches to the Seal Injection Filter inlet isolation valves (INV-491 and INV-493). This weld is not exposed to significant neutron fluence and is not prone to embrittlement associated with neutron bombardment.
Operators survey the area around this weld once per shift (twice per day) during rounds to obtain differential pressure across the filter in service.
They would notice any leakage exhibited from this weld. Also, if a leak were to occur at this weld there would be an increase in unidentified reactor coolant leakage. This parameter would be exhibited during performance of the reactor coolant leakage calculation, which is required by Technical Specifications to be performed every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. The unidentified leakage specification in Technical Specification 3.4.13.1 is 1 gpm.
Serial No.01-007 Page 59 of 59 VII. Implementation Schedule:
Duke Energy Corporation will continue to use ultrasonic examination procedures to obtain maximum coverage to the extent practical of the item number referenced in Section I of this Request for Relief.
No additional ultrasonic examination is planned during the current interval for this weld.
VIII.
References:
Attachment 6. Information for Examination Category C-F-I affected welds: Pages 23-32 cover this weld.
C05.021.085 The following individuals were involved in the development of this request for relief. Edward Hyland, Bob Kirk, Bryan Meyer, Larry Kunka, and Phil Roberson(McGuire Primary Systems Engineering), and Terry Penderson (McGuire Balance of Plant Engineering) provided input to the engineering justification (Section VI) for granting relief. Jim McArdle (NDE Level III) provided Sections II, III, IV, V and VI. Gary Underwood (McGuire ISI Plan Manager) compiled and completed the request.
Sponsored By: ___________ Date Approved By: ate +ALZ>L
geQA.*se.sA 'o(Z V(WF 61-607 PFRQS ý- 9 Form ND£-620 A1TAC.t- k Revision 0 DUKE POWER COMPANY ULTRASONIC DATA SHEET FOR PLANAR REFLECTORS IN FERRITIC PRESSURE VESSELS
'Station: _u I a Unit I _ Component/Weld ID:. - ) ] Date: 3. Z 9.0f Weld Length (in.): S . " ondition
- L , ,3 Exam Starti 695"8 Exam Finish: /0 Z Procedure No: Scans Configuration Calibration Sheet Not 70o528___dB Zone I 600 7 7 5_..dB Zone II Surface Temp. 6.7 0 r 60' t.< dB Zone III Axial Pyrometer s/n: 9f2A'N. ,-776/o / (i/0 V7/
Revision: 8' Scan Surface: OD 600 "77.-dB Zone III Circ. Cal. Due Date: S -2 6- 6I FC 00-07 Indication su BEA SCAN
- Z MPm4, % FSH L,,11 WmAx LOCATION DIRECTION
/V/? &OWL 7_ Z71
/V e/ . o'z z I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 9 0% Coverage obtained: yes E- no [Z (scc NDE-UT-4) Limitation report is required -,
ItemnNo-: ~ 1 / 005 Examiner: Level: 4" Date:J:,9-0/ Examiner: a-ruo , x Level: a- Date://0.,
Rcviwcd by: Level: Date: Authorized Inspector: L Date:
V/
Page t of q
RR 6\- 60-1 AtT I.
FORM NDE-UT-4 DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Revision 1 Component/Weld ID: 1PZR-14 Item No: B03.110.004 Remarks:
SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION DUE TO NOZZLE CONFIGURATION 0] NO SCAN 102 0 1 20 cw ccw LIMITESCAN FROM L N/A to L N/A INCHES FROM WO _.1.4" _- to BEYOND ANGLE: 00] 45 0 60 0l Other 700 FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0] NO SCAN O]LIMITED SLMIE 13SCAN A 0 1 0El 2 11 11 11 202
[] ~ 1:1 o ccw cw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 01 0 03 45 0l 60 03 Other FROM DEG to DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0] NO SCAN 0 2 0 10 2 cw ccw LIMITEDSCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO ....... to ANGLE: 0 0 01 45 03 60 01 Other FROM DEGto DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0] NO SCAN 11 11 1:1 20 2 13 cw 1:1C ccw O]LIMITED SA 11LMIE SCAN 0 1 011 2 O FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO .... ... to ANGLE: 00] 45 03 60 0 Other FROM.---FROM DEGto Prepared By: _,Level: Sketch(s) attached IDate:3,/'.i 0] yes 0 no Sheet -Z of
.ýýLL Reviewed By: Date: 3 Authorized Inspector: Date: 41-df
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-91-1 Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination Volume/Area Defined e) 0 Base Metal 12 Weld 01 Near Surface 1 Boltina 0 Inner Radius Area Calculation Volume Calculation ZONE 2 & 3 9.7 SQ. IN. x 50.3 (CIRC.) = 487.91 CU. IN.
2.1 / 2 x (4.8 + 4.4) = 9.7 SQ. IN.
I-.
40 LL Coverage Calculations Area Length Volume Volume Beam Examined Examined Examined Required Percent Coverage Scan # Angle Direction (sq.in.) (in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.)
1 600 Si 9.7 50.3 487.91 487.91 100.00 2 600 S2 .7 50.3 35.21 487.94 7.22 3 600 Cw 6.9 50.3 347.07 487.91 71.13 4 600 CCw 6.9 50.3 347.07 487.94 71.13 1217.26 1951.64 62.37
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-91-1 Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination Volume/Area Defined d
0 Base Metal 0 Weld 0l Near Surface 0 Boltina 0 Inner Radius Area Calculation Volume Calculation ZONE 1 = 1.0/2 x (5.0 + 4.8) = 4.9 SQ. IN. 4.9 x 50.3" (CIRC.) = 246.47 CU. IN.
0
,0
!.- Coverage Calculations Area Length Volume Volume Beam Examined Examined Examined Required Percent Coverage Scan # Angle Direction (sq.in.) (in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.)
S1 4.7 50.3 236.41 24.47 1 70' 50.3 128.27 52.04 2 70° S2 2.55 246.47 50.3 191.14 77.55 3 700 Cw 3.8 246.47 50.3 191.14 77.55 4 70' CCw 3.8 246.47 746.96 985.88 75.77
(
Q 2Ar L\,.6C
NDE-91-1 DUKE POWER COMPANY Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination Volume/Area Defined 0 Base Metal 0 Weld 0D Near Surface 0 Boltini D Inner Radius Area Calculation Volume Calculation 10 0
Coverage Calculations CL- Volume Volume Area Length Beam Examined Examined Examined Required Percent Coverage Scan # Angle Direction (sq.in.) (in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.)
ZONE 1 75.77 ZONE 2 & 3 62.37 138.14/2 = 69.07 (AGGREGATE COVERAGE)
3 6A1E o -ou/-RAce - A )I 4L -SOA/J cL*9w C~~~r&'o-6) - ~k7332 0, .
52 -*Si4)b6 13 p
P -
-Z r-:
k6 -7~
fzEF 6 t- 6>07 AM PMcE 7
2ý
~~'o~~~i~0 6V&PX4~L_
(2 oLV~C A
L AI) ~ A i-u fi '
I, WFP,1-00 A71PAG~E
- r. 39VA I -ILV. LIQ9 -NýJ-AIA
.)I s e8 + 45 ý ) 0.1 '0-ý 9 U Pý j Q2 5ý2Z-Zýy ;-, 7
-Y -- / an 5
AM T FOrc Rtl*f 6 I-O67 ATTACR4REM"1 2 PNQý,C-5 DUKE POWER COMPANY Exam Start: 0956 Form NDE-UT-2A ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION DATA SHEET FOR PLANAR REFLECTORS Exam Finish: 1010 Revision 4 McGuire Unit: 1 Component/Weld ID: 1SGC-INLET-W5SE Date: 3/30/01 Station:
119.4" Surface Condition: AS MFG. Lo: 9.2.3 Surface Temp~erature: 81 ° F Weld Length (in.):
II Scans: Pyrometer S/N: MCNDE 27010 Examiner: Larry Mauldin . Level:
Cal Due: 8/20/01 Examiner: James L. Panel 2 Level: II 45 El 73.5 dB 70 ___dB -
A Configuration: CIRO. WELD Procedure: NDE-930 Rev: 1 FC: 45T ED 73.5 dB 70T [ dB S2 Flow Si N/A 60 El dB SE to NOZZLE ..
Scan Surface: OD Calibration Sheet No: 60T 1: ___d13SaBufc:O Applies to NDE-680 only Other: 330 - 63.S dB Skew Angle: N/A 0101051, 0101052 Max Mp W L Beam Exam Scan Damps ND # ,* % Max Max Max Li L2 Wl Mpl W2 Mp2 Dir. Surf.
Ref 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac NOT WRITI HMA HMA HMA HMA HMA Do DO NOT WMITE HMA IN THIS SPACE 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac IN THIS SPACE:
100%dac 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac NRI 330 NRI 450 C,
FORM NDE-UT-4 "DUKEPOWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Revision 1 Component/Weld ID: 1SGC-INLET-W5SE Item No: B05.070.005 Remarks:
SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION DUE TO NOZZLE CONFIGURATION 0 NO SCAN 01 0 2 D 1 0 2 01 cw 13 ccw LIMITEDSCAN FROM L - N/A to L __N/A INCHES FROM WO - .-2.0" to BEYOND ANGLE: 07 0 1 45 0l 60 0 Other 330 FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0 NO SCAN 0 2 01 1 0 2 01 cw E3 ccw SLIMITEDSCAN01 FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to 0 0 0 45 0l 60 03 Other FROM DEG to DEG ANGLE:
SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0 NO SCAN E] cw 13 ccw LIIE SA 1 [] 2 11 1 13 2 0] LIMITED SCAN C 20 0 0 of o FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO .. to ANGLE: E] 0 0 45 03 60 01 Other FROM DEGto DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0 NO SCAN 13 cw [] ccw LIIEDSAN1 1 C1 2 11 1 0] 2 0] LIMITED SCAN C 20 1 2 w o FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 0 0 0 45 03 60 01 Other , FROM .... DEGto...
Prepared By: LeveIL, Date: Sketch(s) attached 0 yes 0 no Sheetof C Reviewe Reviewed By: -
By: Date: .Authorized Inspector: Date:
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-91-1 Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination Volume/Area Defined 0 Base Metal 0D Weld 0 Near Surface 01 Boltinq 0l Inner Radius Area Calculation Volume Calculation 1.17 IN. x 2.55 IN. = 2.98 SQ. IN. 2.98 SQ. IN. x 119.4 IN. = 355.81 CU. IN.
0 40 Coverage Calculations Area Length Volume Volume Beam Examined Examined Examined Required Percent Coverage Scan # Angle Direction (sq.in.) (in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.)
1 330 1 2.98 119.4 355.81 355.81 0 119.4 0 355.81 0.00 2 450 2 450 2.98 119.4 355.81 355.81 100.00 3 Cw 450 2.98 119.4 355.81 355.81 100.00 4 CCw A LcL<%-T_. *--- t, _; 1067.43 1423.24 75.00 U
ym<eI 3 D-i L\
Rev. File No. Sheet L4 Of L Station Unit subject S . _f/VA 7 _ _
_. . . By Date.. 83.2o'o Checked by Date ID-oI Prob No. _*_5* 070_.'9O'5* -
" :,- .. . .. I . . , . . .. S]I
! .. 1:!I-Y
-l "A '- ;
I i
i
! !
- i I
- I ,I i ' t 7 ..l....J A
Ij
\ iI I
_..!.. ...L .. .
-4 I I I
? f I -I II
--iL -Ii S. .. j I
-I- i A 1
-I 15 ii 1 I I I
6t-o0T AThACHMET2 PI5 -8 DUKE POWER COMPANY Exam Start: 1015 Form NDE-UT-2A ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION DATA SHEET FOR PLANAR REFLECTORS Exam Finish: 1036 Revision 4 Station: McGuire Unit: 1 Component/Weld ID: 1SGC-OUTLET-W6SE Date: 3/30/01 119.4" Surface Condition: AS MFG. Lo: 9.2.3 Surface Temr~erature: 81 ° F Weld Length (in.):
II Scans:Pyrometer S/N: MNDE 27010 Examiner: Larry MauldinLevel: Cal Due: 8/20/01 Examiner: James L. Panel . Z ,evel: II 45 0] 73.5 dB 70 [] dB SConfiguration: CIRC. WELD Procedure: NDE-930 Rev: 1 FC: 45T 0E 73.5 dB 70T 13 dB S2 Flow S1 N/A 60~N/__ 013d3SE dB SE__ to to NOZZLE
_NZZL Scan Surface: OD 60T 1] dB Applies to NDE-680 only Calibration Sheet No:
0101051, 0101052ApletoNE60ny 330 - 63.5 dB Skew Angle: N/A Other:
Max Mp W L Beam Exam Max Max Li L2 Wi Mpl W2 Mp2 Dir. Surf. Scan Damps IND # e4- % Max Ref 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac D NOT WRIT DO NOT WIIITE HMA HMA HMA HMA HMA HMA 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac IN THIS SPACI IN TI-1iS SP,,CE 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac NRI 330 NRI 450 Remarks:
90% or greater coverage obtained: yes no ED Sheet-u Off Limitations: (see NDE-YT-4) []
Authorized Inspector: I-Reviewed By: Level: Date: CXLt::l* Lr;I M II " ak./
B05.070.006
FORM NDE-UT-4 COMPANY DUKE POWER Revision 1 ISI LIMITATION REPORT Item No: B05.070.006 Remarks:
Component/Weld ID: 1SGC-OUTLET-W6SE SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION DUE TO NOZZLE CONFIGURATION E3 NO SCAN 01 0 2 0 1 3 2 El cw [ ccw 0 LIMITEDSCAN FROM L - N/A to L ___N/A INCHES FROM WO -- 2.0"11 to BEYOND 29 45 El 60 0] Other 330 FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG ANGLE: 01 0 SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION El NO SCAN E 2 0 i1 2 ow cow El LIMITED SCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO .. ... to 03 0 03 45 0 60 03 Other ... FROM DEG to DEG ANGLE:
SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0] NO SCAN El2 11 1 El 00 2 cw 1l ccw
[ LIMITEDSCAN El FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to 0 45 El 60 03 Other ._.._FROM DEGto DEG ANGLE: El 0 SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION El NO SCAN El2 0l 1 03 2 01 cw 13 ccw El LIMITED1SCAN El FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 0] 0 E0 45 El 60 03 Other FROM DEGto Prepared By: Levelj]- 2 Date: ,Tj / Sketch(s) attached 0 yes Elno Sheet 2. of 'J Date: q oz1, Authorized Inspector: - Date: 't.. Z I Reviewed By:
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-91-1 L Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination Volume/Area Defined 0D Base Metal 0 Weld El Near Surface El Boltinq El Inner Radi s Area Calculation Volume Calculation 1.17 IN. x 2.55 IN. = 2.98 SQ. IN. 2.98 SQ. IN. x 119.4 IN. = 355.81 CU. IN.
Coverage Calculations Area Length Volume Volume
- Beam Examined Examined Examined Required
. Scan # Angle Direction (sq.in.) (in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.) Percent Coverage 1 330 2 2.98 119.4 355.81 355.8 1 0.00 2 450 1 0 119.4 0 355.81 100.00 3 450 CW 2.98 119.4 355.81 355.81 450 CCW 355.81 100.00 4 2.98 119.4 355.81 1423.24 75.00
-,_jZXa._.ý 1067.43
Station U5--k\
Unit -3/4 Rev. File No. Sheet .. .* f Subject ..... * .
SB By Date _3 ._._
_* t_.. v / 7__ S u~nec~ea oy ....
I_. '
- II I
--
- I I I I I-00 10 I t I I I
' 'I I .....
I I I'
I. . t. . ..
I; I.-
I i I I
c '\bsTVQLlf-W~-667 AT1PýQWN\K9 3 '-'Q Exam Start: 0850 NDE-UT-3A DUKE POWER COMPANY ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION DATA SHEET FOR LAMINAR REFLECTORS Exam Finish: 0915 Revision 2 Station: McGuire Unit: 1 Component/Weld ID: 1PZR-SKIRT Date: 4/1/01 Nominal Material Thickness (in): 1.5 Weld Length (in.): 274" Surface Temperature: 810 Deg F Measured Makerial Thickness (in):
- 1.49-5.8 Lo: 9.2.1 Pyrometer S/N: MCNDE 27205 Calibration Sheet No: Cal Due: 7/18/01 Surface Condition: AS GROUND Examiner: LarryMauldini Level: 111 0101060 Configuration: CIRC. WELD
)%-, Level: 1 S2 Flow S1 Examiner: Gary J. Moss ,/f'/ /
Procedure: NDE-640 6v: 1 FC: SKIRT to LOWER HEAD Ampl Li W1 Mpl W2 Mp2 L2 W1 Mpi W2 Mp2 IND rem rem Žrem arem Ž rem rem Ž rem >rem arem rem trem Exam Damps NO. 4 BW BW BW BW BW BW BW BW BW BW BW LOB Surf.
LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB NRI 00 Remarks: *FC 95-18 & 95-19 Limitations: see NDE-UT-4 El None: 0 Sheet of 2.
Insp Date: Item No:
Reviewed By: Level: Date:
I Authorized f'- ý, - D: B08.020.001A
RF6R 1-6o7 RAT3 PRG6E Z DUKE POWER COMPANY Exam Start: 0850 Form NDE-UT-2A ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION DATA SHEET FOR PLANAR REFLECTORS Exam Finish: 0938 Revision 4 McGuire Unit: 1 Component/Weld ID: IPZR-SKIRT Date: 4/1/01 Station:
274" Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo: 9.2.1 Surface Temperature: 81 F Weld Length (in.):
Scans: Pyrometer S/N: MCNDE 27205 Examiner: Larry Mauldin,,__ U . Level: III Cal Due: 7/18/01 Examiner: arJ. Moss A,,, Level: II 45 _ _ dB 70 E _ dB SConfiguration: CIRC. WELD Procedure: NDE-952 Akv: 0 FC: 30° El 45T dB 70T El dB S2 Flow S1 N/A I 64 dB SKIRT to LOWER HEAD ClbainheNo dScan Surface: OD Calibration Sheet No: 60T 0] dB Applies to NDE-680 only 0101061,0101062 Other: 00-30 dB Skew Angle: N/A Max Mp W L Beam Exam IND# 2 % Max Max Max LI L2 W1 Mpl W2 Mp2 Dir. Surf. Scan Damps Ref .......
20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 0 NOT WRIT DO NOT WIZITE HMA HMA HMA HMA HMA HMA 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac IN THIS SPACE IN T -IIS SP*,CE I100%dac 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac NRI 0 400 2.38 Taper-9" 0.0 3600 INT. IND. 2 1 AX NO 30 Remarks:
Limitations: (see NDE-UT-4) E] 90% or greater coverage obtained: yes E3 no Sheet . ofj__.
Reviewed By: Level: Date: Authorized Inspector: Date: Item No:
3Zr r B08.020.OOlA
YTR c1-7 3 VZt-R 6 1- 607 ATT--5 ?R(,,t I 3 Exam Start: 0856 Form NDE-UT-2A DUKE POWER COMPANY m S a t Ex I_______________________________________
ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION DATA SHEET FOR PLANAR REFLECTORS Exam Finish: 0929 Revision 4 I Component/Weld ID: 1PZR-SKIRT Date: 4/1/01 Station: McGuire Unit:
AS GROUND Lo: 9.2.1 Surface Temperature: 81 F Weld Length (in.): 274" Surface Condition:
Pyrometer S/N: MCNDE 27205 t evel: II Scans:
Examiner: David Zimmerman/) Cal Due: 7/18/01 Level: 45 0l 52.5 dB 70 El dB Examiner: E Configuration: CIRC.WELD Procedure: NDE-952 Rev: 0 FC: 45T 0 52.5 dB 70T C1 dB S2 Flow S1 N/A 60 ___dB SKIRT to LOWER HEAD Scan Surface: OD 60TE dB Applies to NDE-680 only Calibration Sheet No: _ _
0101063 Other: dB Skew Angle:
L Beam Exam Max Mp W Mp2 Dir. Surf. Scan Damps
% Max Max Max LI L2 W1 Mpl W2 IND#
Ref 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac D NOT WRIT HMA HMA HMA HMA HMA HMA DO NOT WRITE 50%dac IN THIS SPAC 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac IN THI1S SP,*,CE 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac I00%dac NRI 45' Remarks:
90% or greater coverage obtained: yes C no 02 Sheet 3 of 10 Limitations: (see NDE-UT-4), 0 Level: Date: Authorized Inspector: Date: Item No:
Reviewed By:
lIE A~z~ 1 Ct-2 '~'~ B08.020.OO1A
V2ITri-O67 T1A P1E'4 DUKE POWER COMPANY Form NDE-UT-8 Revision 1 ULTRASONIC INDICATION RESOLUTION SHEET Acceptance Standard:
THE RADIUS OF THE I.D. WELD CAP. INDICATION INDICATION #1 WAS DETERMINED TO BE A GEOMETRIC REFLECTOR DUE TO THE DETERMINATION.
WOULD NOT HOLD UP TO SKEWING. PLOTTING OF THE INDICATION SUPPORTS Item No: B08.020.001A Acceptable Indications: #1 Rejectable Indications:
These indications have been compared with previous ultrasonic data C Yes El No previous data available Level: Date: Sheet
- ofJC Examiner:
Larry Mauldin III 4/1/01 Level: Date: Authorized Inspector: Date:
Reviewer: ,
pL/Zf 5 zceppokf (1*
RFR OV667 ATTh3 MýE-VIP c/ /15 /
- .5" 1,
i 13 C -D - -5 X
\\ /,75"F F C7 3DE C r-r x 2.7 s-x 111,5 6 ?59 6. 76 11v.
0' OL' x 12,5 o-Th-IA PREP
.5 4- (o. 7 z Iv.
'D. i ? :7 -r
'Pa.1 0_____
(k T,,1,Fm 'o -Zo ?.c)pt),o01)4 RRF bl-b07 AITB ~ 7 1. D.__4t__2
~~~~~ __ __ q.__ 2~1~
__j .*10-ai
--- 4
\% //
- 12) .xXI'D _s__
Alcr c3OrAA~dt 0.o /--
/. -, .4/
KGThC fle 1wv~n 5.12 s _
'p D- PQe- &(
Ii N
?A~CQ W0 7oýIC
- k/or
?1r -IF z ýsLpp el" , / 11 (C~c)
.o -C..0 Ir R 01O- 067 ATw 3 TV 4*5o0 A~i 1
/00*
fISP6fOL fieTo l7
- -L.: Trox 2 .17:75 5 3 2./N
/53.
//
/ /80 -- F 6 )
XkO 3 5OINv.
K I, 2 IL 2.?(15- X (2,7,S- /, 7ýý);-2.2ý5 ý ýý2. <9 sog uzý LD6F - -5 " /Y )o - , ý- -S19 , ýLAI fiPtl ho -r,ý o.jolmeo -- <?. 8 -k .,5' = -ý, 3 -s 5). 1A1, 7~ ~~.3 -s.m _ _nJ-M- Act:A
PQg-s-,:7 Lp p-tz- r--f- JuPP GP-ý ll,ýa m I Ic R'FR 6ý-607 AIT-3 ?RU )
jo.
2 5
A --A sc p mýj E- t, oc) 4- 1 .2 8 -s /,k,,
/,V- ýe e-A & r Lý 0 A m Ai e s q6f (ýCnkk(csl) 7A ýý- Lý o 1ý-I
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-91-1 Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination Volume/Area Defined 0 Base Metal 0 Weld 01 Near Surface 03 Bolting 0 Inner Radius Area Calculation Volume Calculation DRWG. 6.7 IN. 6.7 IN. X274 SSEE IN.= 1835.8 CU.IN.
rn Coverage Calculations Area Length Volume Volume Sca Beam Examined Examined Examined Required Scan Angle Direction (sq.in.) (in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.) Percent Coverage 1 0 N/A 5.12 274 1402.88 1835.8 2 45 1 3.4 274 931.6 1835.8 3 30 2 6.42 274 1759.08 1835.8 4 45 CW 5.12 274 1402.88 1835.8 5 45 CCW 5.12 274 1402.88 1835.8 TOTAL AGGREGATE COVERAGE 6899.32 9179 75.16 Item No: B08.020.001A Prepared By: f-6t;"
'- -Ž " Level:' Date: OL((O o(
By:
repared By:.4
[Reviewed Level: 1 Date: /
rp
?ANI to olt
Y24M4AT FM? Y?I J A-tt7 fJ1TA(UA4FAJT 4 PIIGES X-'A DUKE POWER COMPANY Exam Start: 1005 Form NDE-UT-2A ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION DATA SHEET FOR PLANAR REFLECTORS Exam Finish: 1020 Revision 4 Station: McGuire Unit: 1 Component/Weld ID: 1NC1 F-1-7 Date: 3/28/01 86.4" Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo: 9.1.1.1 Surface Temperature: 80 ° F Weld Length (in.):
11 -CalScans: Pyrometer S/N: 7/18/01 MCNDE 27205 Examiner: David Zimmerman - Level: Due:
dB 70 El dB Calfiue: CI1C0W Level: II 45 El 68.0 Examiner: Gary J. Moss Configuration: CIRO. WELD Procedure: NDE-610 kv: 4 FC: 45T 0 76.5 dB 70T 13 dB S2 Flow SI
?ump RCPIA to PIPE 60 ___dB Scan Surface: OD dB a nto OD Calibration Sheet No: 60T _ _
to NDE-680 only 010105,011046Applies N/A Other: dB Skew Angle:
Max Mp W L Beam Exam IND# 2 % Max Max Max Li L2 Wl Mpl W2 Mp2 Dir. Surf. Scan Damps Ref ....
20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac D NOT WRIT DO OT WRITE HMA HMA HMA HMA HMA HMA 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac 100%dac IN THIS SPACE IN T-IlS SPAkCE 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac NRI 450 Remarks:
- 97-01, 98-20 I - , It Limitations: (see NDE-UT-4) 0 Ireater coverage obtained: yes 0 no 12 Sheet I of '-i evel: Date: Date: I Item No:
Reviewed By:
(
FORM NDE-UT-4 COMPANY DUKE POWER ISI LIMITATION REPORT Revision 1 Item No: B09.011.007 Remarks:
ComponentlWeld ID: 1NC1F-1-7 SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION NOTE: BOTH NO SCAN & LIMITED 01 NO SCAN SCAN ARE DUE TO WELD CROWN 0 2 0111 2 cw0 ccw AND PUMP CONFIGURATION.
LIMITESCAN 01 FROM L - - - - - to L - - - INCHES FROM WO CL to BEYOND 0 0 0l 45 01 60 07 Other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG ANGLE:
SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION SEE NOTE ABOVE 0] NO SCAN 0 2 11 1 El 2 E cw El ccw
) LIMITEDSCAN FROM L - - to L INCHES FROM WO _CL_ to _ .5" ANGLE: 0 0 0l 45 01 60 0l Other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0] NO SCAN 0102 01E2O cw ccw OLIMITED SCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to 010 0145 01 60 01Other FROM DEG to DEG ANGLE:
SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0] NO SCAN 0 1 03 2 11 1 El 2 13 cw 11 ccw 0 LIMITED SCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to 0 0 0] 45 03 60 01 Other FROM DEGto ANGLE:
.9 - - -
i
PFR 6 1-60 7 AV.I PA 6 F-,3 NDE-UT-5 DUKE POWER COMPANY UT PROFILE/PLOT SHEET Revision I EXAMINATION SURFACE 1 EXAMINATION SURFACE 2 WELD 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 I
I II I1i1 I
IIII !1IIII II[ III 4
IIII II
.5
.*_ AKE 117.t' ---
1.5 2.
3 -nq LAa_____or___
3ii i i 'i Component ID/Weld No. *lI( i*,,'l )-"
SRemarks: pg-(5 CA cULA7-loos toZ eJP( ,,* -* r1i4-L 270 a: L90 ItemNo:
Eyminer /J4b' '- Level: i Date: 2.3/&/o, Reviewed By: LevelI Date: 180 Sheeto3 0f_.'1 Date: qj-jj,-
41,oj
ýAuthorized lns~ectorý&Dt:
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-91-1 Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination Volume/Area Defined 0 Base Metal 0 Weld 0 Near Surface 01 Boltinq 0 Inner Radius Area Calculation Volume Calculation
, AREA = 1.5 IN. x .73 IN. = 1.1 SQ. IN. VOLUME = 86.4 IN. x 1.1 SQ. IN. = 95.0 CU. IN.
Coverage Calculations Area Length Volume Volume Beam Examined Examined Examined Required Percent Coverage Scan # Angle Direction (sq.in.) (in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.)
450 S2 1.1 86.4 95 95 100.00 1
S1 0 0 0 95 0.00 2 450 3 450 Cw 0.18 86.4 15.6 95 16.42 450 CCw 0.18 86.4 15.6 95 16.42 4
0.00 TOTAL AGGREGATE COVERAGE = 132.8/4 = 33.2 ii
'ZUM PtI4VM.AIY7 C1AWWT PT DUKE POWER COMPANY Exam Start: 0347 Form NDE-UT-2A ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION DATA SHEET FOR PLANAR REFLECTORS Exam Finish: 0418 Revision 4 Station: McGuire Unit: 1 Component/Weld ID: 1NC-3087-W1 Date: 3/13/01 Weld Length (in.): 101.0' Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo: 9.1.1.1 Surface Temperature: 119 F Level: II Scans: Pyrometer SIN: MCNDE 27205 Examiner: James L. Panel Cal Due: 7/18/01 Examiner: Gayle E. Hous r Level: 1 45 C 59.5 dB 70 -] dB Configuration: PC.P1 TO PC.A Procedure: NDE-610 Rev: 4 FC: 45T 75 dB 70T El dB S2 Flow S1 60 [_ dB ELBOW to PIPE Scan Surface: OD 60T dB Applies to NDE-680 only Calibration Sheet No: _ _
0101017, 0101018ApletoNE60ny dB Skew Angle: N/A Other: _
Max Mp W L Beam Exam IND # .4 % Max Max Max Li L2 W1 Mpl W2 Mp2 Dir. Surf. Scan Damps Ref ..
20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac 20%dac D NOT WRIT DO NOT WRITE HMA HMA HMA HMA HMA HMA 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac 50%dac IN THIS SPAC.
IN T-IIS SP CE 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac 100%dac NRI 45°A NRI 450C Remarks:
- 97-01, 98-20 Limitations: (see NDE-UT-4) [0 90% or greater coverage obtained: yes 1l no 0 Sheet _ of 14 Reviewed By: Level: Date: Authorized Inspector: Date: Item No:
a70f B09.011.008
SW V - S --
FORM NTE-UT-4 FORMeviio.
DUKE POWER COMPANY Revision I ISI LIMITATION REPORT Item No: B09.011,008 Remarks:
Component/Weld ID: 1NC-3087-W1 BEAM DIRECTION DUE TO 8.0" PIPE RESTRAINT El NO SCAN SURFACE Eli 022l 1 2 El cw [] ccw El LIMITED1SCAN 16.25" to L 34.25" INCHES FROM WO 2.75" to BEYOND FROM L El 45 El 60 El Other . FROM N/A DEGto N/A DEG ANGLE: El 0 SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION DUE TO 8.0" PIPE RESTRAINT El NO SCAN El 02 El 1El2Elcw lccw 11 LIMITED SCAN 44.5" to L 56.5" INCHES FROM WO __ 2.75"'-. to BEYOND FROM L El 45 El 60 El Other FROM. N/A DEG to _.N/A DEG ANGLE: El 0 SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION DUE TO 12.0" PIPE RESTRAINT 0l NO SCAN Eli 2 12 1 El 2 El cw 1l ccw El LIMITED1SCAN 69.75" to L 81.75" INCHES FROM WO _ 2.75"__ to BEYOND FROM L.
ED 45 El 60 El Other FROM N/A DEG to N/A DEG ANGLE: El 0 SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION DUE TO 8.0" PIPE RESTRAINT IQ NO SCAN Eli 2 E] 1i1 2 El cw [l ccw El LIMITED1SCAN 98.0" to L 3,01 INCHES FROM WO 2.75" to BEYOND FROM L El 0 ED45 El 60 El Other FROM N/A DEGLe-el:-
to N/A Aae
_ F._______ I ,67 ANGLE:
7/ , . . . . .. ... -*, A,_ . r%^,*^
- .. h 7 of /.
- Level: III Date: 3/l13,l i i*e.lts, a* lt. Vl,* YU,0 f
- Date5),.&cf Da te : IJ7 ý11 C)I Authorized Inspector: *., Date5.r).l,.-/
Date: Authorized Inspector: jQAZ..
V
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-91-1 Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination VolumelArea Defined 0 Base Metal 0 Weld El Near Surface El Bolting 11 Inner Radius "AreaCalculation Volume Calculation i 4.5 IN. X .73 IN. 3.29 SQ.IN. 3.29 SQ.IN. X 101 IN. = 332.29 CU.IN.
) Coverage Calculations Area Length Volume Volume Beam Examined Examined Examined Required
- Scan # Angle Direction (sq.in.) (in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.) Percent Coverage 1 45 2 3.29 101 332.29 332.29 2 45 1 3.29 47 154.63 154.63 2 45 1 .82 54 44.28 177.66 3 45 CW 3.29 47 154.63 154.63 3 45 CW 2.74 54 147.96 177.66 4 45 CCW 3.29 47 154.63 154.63 4 45 CCW 2.74 54 147.96 177.66 45 L AGGREGATE COVERAGE 1136.38 1329.16 85.50 Item No. B09.011.008 Prepared By: Larry Mauldin Level: III Date: 3/15/01 Reviewed By: - Level: Date: ý4. 0 UI
-M~LJ? Q Koo LC~
U1c5ýj cý -
kýc5p rFYZ 01-607 LI
.73',
Kyiq L e --
A iL -4,s11X, - 1t ?1 -6ý .z9ý /
G cIJfLACt IAJ
"ý/ 1(02A)mr ýpt-AE rn3 2-(L~ -a l/19J.&,6: I/v ?(;-:ý s -,-*eA/P r ý tzaý cQW!-rn C- wýcr.1W n (2I
-i73~ / ý ": . 7ý-5 ý- - -- .1q
/ /8.o' 1V!-36(87- V yaO ThA**i
Rý 6 ki5T< 69, 9 I ThV 6 7 KV k~\a)k cAýVesk- 41 PAGES 5-L5 DUKE POWER COMPANY FORM NDE-UT-4 ISI LIMITATION REPORT Revision 1 Comporsnt/Weld ID: 1NC1F-107 Item No: B09.011.061 Remarks:
SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION NOZZLE CONGIFURATION
[] NO SCAN LIMITED SCAN ] 02 1 1i0 2 0 cw EO ccw O
FROM L to L - - - - INCHES FROM WO - 1.4" to BEYOND ANGLE: 0 0 0] 45 0D 60 0 Other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION El NO SCAN 01 02 0 1E 20 cw1 cow 0l LIMITED SCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 00] 45 0l 60 0 Other FROM DEG to DEG 0] NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0 1 01 2 11 1 1: 2O cw ccw 0LIMITED SCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 01 0 0 45 01 60 0] Other FROM DEG to DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0l NO SCAN 11 1 11 2 0 1 0 2 0 cw 03 ccw 01 LIMITED SCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: C3 0 03 45 0 60 0 Other FROM DEG to 0
yes no Sheet f of Date: I
FORM NDE-UT-10 DUKE POWER COMPANY ULTRASONIC INDICATION RECORD FOR PIPING Revision 0 Station: McGuire Unit: 1 Component/Weld ID: 1NC1 F-107 Date: 3/23/01 Surface Condition: AS GROUND Item No: B09.011.061 Examiner: Gary J. Moss ,,Level- II Procedure: NDE-600 Rev: 13 FC: N/A 0-4^
Examiner: James L. Panel ,/! __,evel: II Lo: 9.1.1.3 Configuration: CIRO.
0101030 S2-NOZZLE to Si-ELBOW Scan Surface: OD Calibration Sheet No:
Remarks
?,F?F A- 66i VT'l 1-k ?Kýý lk NDE-UT-5 JDUKE POWER COMPANY UT PROFILE/PLOT SHEET Revision I EXAMINATION SURFACE 1 EXAMINATION SURFACE 2 WELD 4 3 2 1 I1 2 3 4 BL~L
.5 III 111111 m-li I1 'II 11111111 Illmill I
I 1 1 S.
z" I
1.
III 1H 1-/
I" iiiI
. . III1 IJI IIIIII A/^ .. .
I.5 11_ _ ___ ___ __
2 2.5S______
u/
Component ID/Weld No..I NC- /107 Remarks:
270 90 Item No: yoq 0/.o lExaminer. ,21/j1-.Ievel: ~? Date: 3.2S-.
FRe-viewed By L1evel: Date:3t 180 Sheet.__3 of 7
-%%n Da t e : t Lc-C.)I IAuthorized Inspector:
Authorized Inspector Date: 1 _* ' u../
DUKE POWER COMPANY Form NDE-UT-8 ULTRASONIC INDICATION RESOLUTION SHEET Revision 1 Acceptance Standard:
INDICATIONS #1 & #2 ARE BOTH SHEAR WAVES REDIRECTING OFF WELD INTERFACE INTO WELD ROOT. INDICATION DID NOT HOLD UP TO SKEWING OF TRANSDUCERS. 700 ANGLE LESS THAN HALF OF 600. WSY-70 SHOWED NO SIGNAL.
Item No: B09.011.061 Acceptable Indications: IND. 1 & 2 Rejectable Indications: NONE These indications have been compared with previous ultrasonic data 0 Yes El No previous data available Examiner: .
- Leve',: Date: Sheet j.Of" Gary J. MOSS II 3/23/(1 Reviewer:* /\l ' Level:" 3,z-/.,Authorized Inspector:
Date: *__ .**".Date: /
RRcA-6cfl fW'- \QZ \3 DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-UT-5 UT PROFILE/PLOT SHEET Revision 1 EXAMINATION SURFACE 1 WELD EXAMINATION SURFACE 2 4 3 2 Ill1 q- IIn1 2 3 4 II I II IIII Ivr4rrtFbT 4AI'1ll 111111.1I IIIll tI Illl1 IIIlll II.Iil IIII3 44L co1v(
Iil7
.5 eA N 1 13-F' -.- (o 3'+r*.3 7-c 7-;4
,/;,z_o.. 3 , _ -os *
- 2. 0.30(
o .S 3 ;,,____
2.5 3
Component ID/Weld -No. U.
,0 -7/
Remarks: L 270 90 Item No:- 01 .~,
Examiner. / , ,Ž Level: 7:j I Date: s3 )?ý1o, Reviewed B~ _I Level: ýrf IDate: -,.229oi 180 Sheet.5.of.0fL-IAuthorized InsP'ector.0 Date: %,*
Authorized Inspector: 6) Date: q4 '-cq
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-91-1 Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination VolumelArea Defined 0 Base Metal 0l Weld l Near Surface 1 Bolting 0 Inner Radius Area Calculation Volume Calculation
,* AREAB/2(H +H2) VOLUME = AREA x LENGTH p,- = 15"12(0.33" + 0.37") = 0.53 SQ. IN. x 33.8 IN.
=.75"(0.7") = 17.9 CU. IN.
=0.53 SQ. IN.
0 Coverage Calculations
<4 Area Length Volume Volume 0- Beam Examined Examined Examined Required V- Scan # Angle Direction (sq.in.) (in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.) Percent Coverage
. 1 62 1 60' S2 0.0 33.8 0 II.9 S1 0.23 33.8 7.77 17.9 2 600 450 CW 0.53 33.8 17.9 17.9 3
450 0.53 33.8 17.9 17.9 4 CCw COVERAGE 43.57 71.6 60.85 SHEAR WAVE AGGREGATE 33.8 10.14 17.9 56.65 2 60°RL S1 0.30 SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE 56.65% OF 25% (1 SCAN) = 14.16% OF TOTAL WELD TAýý G Of-
A75 PPC_ %\5 Ztý\-0C> -~T7i J$Z&-F McGuire Unit #1 EOC14 Item # 5c& 0ocY7 Weld #
No Data Recorded. Reference Calibration Sheet #'s (D\o\ - L4~
()o*0 5DL- *)t 77c<_
-PA oI8 7 4f,6ý
f*EctJ. h'l *,XE'*.6-F61 00 k\.- -( 4 K - ' -ZZ PG_.'
DUKE POWER COMPANY FORM NDE-UT-10 ULTRASONIC INDICATION RECORD FOR PIPING Revision 0 Station: - McGuire Unit: 1 Component/Weld ID: 1NC1 F-3613-3092 Date: 3/25/01 Surface Condition: ASq ROUND Item No: B09.011.069 Examiner: Jay A.Eaton ("A ý -evel: II Procedure: NDE-600 Rev: 13 FC: N/A Examiner: Gayle E. Houser Level: II Lo: 9.1.1.1 Configuration: CIRC.
Calibration Sheet No: 0101037 Si-PIPE to S2-NOZZLE Scan Surface: OD
% Mp W L Li 12 Beam Exam IND # FSH Max Max Max 20 % FSH 20 % FSH Dir. Surf. Scan Damps Remarks 1 600 70 2.25 2.0 0+11" 3600 INT. S2 S1 AXIAL NO NRI 450 Reviewed By:**Level: Date: Authorized Inspector:
- Date: of SSheet 1 of 7
r.? v-v N I - Ai\ -7 14 Tr. I/ RAA / 7 NDE-UT-5 DUKE POWER COMPANY Revision I UT PROFILE/PLOT SHEET Th?6 WEE \LDThl - EXAMINATION SURFACE 2 EXAMINATION SURFACE I -
3 I 4 4 3 2 1 li11 111ii i tIllIl...LL_ LLL LLL LLL__*
_L lJ.44 N
.5 2
2.5 3 ,,
0 Component ID/Weld No. I QC- I ll;ý - I--lS - 301ýz
- Remarks:
270
" (,/*X'I *_ "It~em No: -6C , 01\.
C)ýk D Examiner. Level:
- Date: -3jVS1 Reviewed By Level: 17 Date:
Authorized Inspector 0 Date: -- -
V
- FR 0 1-t607 ArT. / PI 6" 18 Form NDE-UT-8 DUKE POWER COMPANY Revision 1 ULTRASONIC INDICATION RESOLUTION SHEET Acceptance Standard:
THIS REFLECTOR WAS NOT SEEN WITH IND. #1 - 600 IS A GEOMETRIC REFLECTOR FROM THE WELD ROOT CONFIGURATION.
81-MODAL TRANSDUCER.
A 700 SHEAR WAVE ON THE 600 CALIBRATION, A 600 L WAVE, OR A WSY-70 Item No: B09.011.069
- 1 - 600 Acceptable Indications: IND.
Rejectable Indications:
0 Yes 11 No previous data available These indications have been comnlared with previous ultrasonic data Examiner: Level: Date: Sheet "f of 7 Jay A. Eaton &1 3/25/01 Level: Authorized Inspector: Date:
Reviewer:
777 7.2q- (,
L.' . -
F 0 k- o07 A7TT'-I P Gf_ 0 FORM NDE-UT-4 DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Revision 1 Component/Weld ID: 1 NC1 F-3613-3092 Item No: B09.011.069 Remarks:
SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION NOZZLE CONFIGURATION 0] NO SCAN NOSCN 1 [] 2 [] 1 E] 2 13 cw 13 ccw O LIMITED SCAN
+ 0" to L + 44" INCHES FROM WO _ CL + 1' to BEYOND FROM L 0 0 0 45 02 60 01 Other FROM DEGto DEG ANGLE:
SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION SHEAR WAVE LIMITED DUE TO SS O3 NO SCAN WELD METAL 0 2 0 10 20 cwO ccw 02 LIMITED SCAN FROM L + 0"_ to L + 44" INCHES FROM WO _CL'- 0.7--. to WELD CL E0 0 C] 45 0 60 01 Other FROM DEGto DEG ANGLE:
SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0 NO SCAN 2 11 2OcwOccw OLIMITED SCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to 0 0 0 45 03 60 01 Other FROM DEGto DEG ANGLE:
SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 03 NO SCAN
[3 02 01 020 cw cw 03 LIMITED SCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO . . to ANGLE: 0 0 03 45 03 60 Other FROM .--- DEGto Prepared By: Level: Date: *-) Sketch(s) attached 0 yes 03 no Sheet /of 7 4Atc Reviewed By: Date: J.,2 (J/ Authorized Inspector: Date.3 f n..o
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-91-1 Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination Volume/Area Defined 0 Base Metal 0 Weld D Near Surface 01 Bolting 0 Inner Radius Area Calculation Volume Calculation 2.0" x 0.47" = 0.94 SQ. IN. 0.94 SQ. IN. x 44" = 41.36 CU. IN.
Coverage Calculations "Area Length Volume Volume Beam Examined Examined Examined Required
" Scan # Angle Direction (sq.in.) (in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.) Percent Coverage
-I SJ.4 A n 21 1 450 CW 0.94 44 41.36 41.36 CCW 0.94 44 41.36 41.36 100.00 2 450 44 16.72 40.43 3 600 S2 0.38 41.36 0 44 0 41.36 0.00 4 600 S1 COVERAGE 99.44 165.44 60.11 SHEAR WAVE AGG.
44 25.96 41.36 62.77 3 60'L S2 0.59 RL WAVE COVERAGE 62.77% x 25% (1 SCAN) = 15.69%
item No: B09.01 1.069 Prepared By: Level: Date: 3f Z-71 \
Reviewed By: Level: Date: J-,2*.C/
7L*Su
M 0 1-667 0-1 FhGf McGuire Unit #1 EOC14 Item # ____. __ o 0 (r.
Weld # 1*
ý4iV -3(o I - 3oqz No Data Recorded. Reference Calibration Sheet #'s ol\ o -' 4oL.
RLxMsT FR RL\U cVco7 'AtThC\AWZV '4 Ffl65 23-2(o FOR NDE-UT-4 DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Revision 1 ComponentiNeld ID: 1NIl F-643 Item No: B09.011.207 Remarks:
SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION VALVE CONFIGURATION 0* NO SCAN 0 1 0 2 0 1 0] 20 cw O ccw O LIMITED SCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO CL + 0.5" to BEYOND ANGLE: C 0 0 45 0D 60 Cl Other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0] NO SCAN 1 1 2 0 1 0 2 0 cw 13 ccw 0 LIMITEOSCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 03 0 0 45 0l 60 0 Other FRFROM DEG to DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 01 NO SCAN 0
SLIMITEDSCAN 1 1C22 cw 1 ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: Cl 0 0l 45 03 60 03 Other FROM DEG to DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 17 NO SCAN 0 1 0 2 C 1O 2 0 cw 0 ccw 03 LIMITED SCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: Co0 E] 45 0] 60 DEGto Prepared By: Date: 31311 o k I Sketch(s) attached 0 yes O1no Sheet I of Reviewed By: Authorized Inspector: Date: II
-/
RFf/ 6)607 AT. 1/ P16E 2q DUKE POWER COMPANY UT PROFILE/PLOT SHEET EXAMINATION SURFACE I1 - ?C ....
4 3 2
- 3. 4
.5 I II1*111111111111I1 0 .* Is ,..lz-.
111. I II IIII IIII II11 (Li 4(Jc ) Y .'34 1 270 90 180 SheetL.of._o 41(
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-91-1 Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination Volume/Area Defined 0 Base Metal 0 Weld 0 Near Surface 0 Boltinq 0 Inner Radius Area Calculation Volume Calculation 1.7 IN. x 0.34 IN. = 0.58 SQ. IN. 0.58 SQ. IN. x 34 IN. = 19.72 CU. IN.
Coverage Calculations Area Length Volume Volume Beam Examined Examined Examined Required "Scan # Angle Direction (sq.in.) (in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.) Percent Coverage 1 450 CW 0.58 34 19.72 19.72 100.00 2 450 CCW 0.58 34 19.72 19.72 100.00 3 600 S2 0.24 34 8.16 19.72 41.38 4 600 S1 0 34 0 19.72 0.00 SHEAR WAVE AGGREGATE COVERAGE 47.6 78.88 60.34 S2 0.34 34 11.56 19.72 58.62 3 60°L RL WAVE COVERAGE 58.62 x 25% (1 SCAN) = 14.66%
Item No: B09.01 1.207 Prepared By: Level: Date:
Reviewed By: AI/ Level: J7TZ Date: O Al 0
£1
I*R M\- 667 - 7T.q PAGE 2b McGuire Unit #1 EOC14 Item # -&l. OU1QLTh Weld # I KAi: IT=
No Data Recorded. Reference Calibration Sheet #'s o\ý01S o -O OOl-PAA 4
-F.5"[F1Y, PiLIiF 6-*o 7 AkEL J1 PRGF-5 27--36 FORM NDE-T-4 DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Revision 1 Component/Weld ID: 1NIlF-645 Item No: B09.011.219 Remarks:
0] NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION VALVE CONFIGURATION 0 LIMITED1SCAN 0 02 0 10 2 0 cw O3 cow FROM L to L -_- - - INCHES FROM WO- CL+0.5"- to BEYOND ANGLE: 0l 0 03 45 0D 60 0l Other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG 0] NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 01 cow 03 LIMITED SCAN 0 1 0 2 0 1iO 2 03 cw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 0] 0 0] 45 0] 60 01 Other FROM DEG to DEG 0] NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0 LIMITED SCAN C 1 03 2 03 1 0l 2 0 cw 03 cow FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 0 El 45 03 60 0 Other FROM DEG to DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0 NO SCAN 0 1 03 2 01 1 11 2 13 cw 11 cow 0 LIMITED SCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 03 0 01 45 03 FROM DEG to I Authorized Inspector: Date:
1
RFRO-1-667 ATJ DUKE POWER CO MPANYI NDE-UJT-5 MPANY UT PROFILE/PLOT SHEET Revisio~n 1 EXAVINAT~IONP SU~RFACE 1 YA&IJrt WELD PE-- EXAMINATION SURFACE 2 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4
.5 liii III! liii LI III II II II - I LI I IIII I 'I 1 I 1~ ~ J -'7 & O 1.5 ý00 L~~L 4t2Z S WZ e-A 2_
2.5 Z~~\ -A$-4 __ _ _ __ _ _c 3
omponent ID/Weld No. V.
Remarks:
270 ltemNo:
II Exa miner. jo Authodzed Inspeftor 0
~~utnonzeaate inpco~C L~
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-91-1 Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination Volume/Area Defined 0 Base Metal 0 Weld 01 Near Surface 01 Boltina 0 Inner Radius Area Calculation Volume Calculation fl 1.7IN. x 0.34 IN. = 0.58 SQ. IN. 0.58 SQ. IN. x 34 IN. = 19.72 CU. IN.
- 1
.0 I0 Coverage Calculations Area Length Volume Volume Beam Examined Examined Examined Required Percent Coverage Scan # Angle Direction (sq.in.) (in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.)
1 450 CW 0.58 34 19.72 19.72 IUU.UU 19.72 100.00 2 450 CCW 0.58 34 19.72 8.16 41.38 3 600 S1 0.24 34 19.72 0 19.72 0.00 4 600 S2 0 34 47.6 78.88 60.34 SHEAR WAVE AGGREGATE COVERAGE 11.56 19.72 58.62 3 60 0 L S1 0.34 34 RL WAVE COVERAGE 58.62 x 25% (1 SCAN) = 14.66%
Item No: B09.011.219 Prepared By: Level: Z Date:
CA 0b 0/
Reviewed By: Level: Date: ý./
RFR 61-o07 ATI, PN6&F- 319 McGuire Unit #1 EOC14 Item # t00ý . 1*t. Z \ q Weld # ij,-r I~u - - (,4 No Data Recorded. Reference Calibration Sheet #'s Ck otýo 01 o°L cD\o OSOL -
FA LA or- 4
R Ek T F6R ¶RLAF 61- I's7 XA("~tT Q4 313 DUKE POWER COMPANY Exam Start: 0940 NDE-UT-3A ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION DATA SHEET FOR LAMINAR REFLECTORS Exam Finish: 0947 Revision 2 Station: McGuire Unit: 1 Component/Weld ID: 1NI1F-280 Date: 3/25/01 Nominal Material Thickness (in): 1.05" Weld Length (in.): 34" Surface Temperature: 710 Deg F Measurea Material Thickness (in): , 1.00" Lo: 9.1.1.1 Pyrometer S/N: MCNDE 27010 Surface Condition: AS GR UND Calibration Sheet No: Cal Due: 8/20/01 Examiner: Jay A. Eaton Level: II 0101035 Configuration: PIPE TO VALVE Examiner: Gayle E. Houser Level: II S1 Flow S2 Procedure: NDE-640 Rev: 1 FC:
- PIPE to VALVE Ampl LI W1 Mpl W2 Mp2 L2 Wl Mpl W2 Mp2 ND ?-
rem rem rrem erem rem erem rem arem ; rem arem 2rem Exam Damps NO. BW BW BW BW BW BW BW BW BW BW BW Surf.
LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB NRI 00 Remarks: *FC 95-18 & 95-19 Limitations: see NDE-UT-4 C None: 0 Sheet j of
- Reviewed By: Level: Date: Authorized Ins to: Date: Item No:
.2 F-.r 2 --*-,_ \ B09.011.228 0
VF9 01-667 A7,4PAG F3ZZ DUKE POWER COMPANY FORM NDE-UT-10 ULTRASONIC INDICATION RECORD FOR PIPING Revision 0 station: McGuire Unit: 1 Component/Weld ID: 1NI1 F-280 Date: 3/25/01 Surface Condition: AS ROUND Item No: B09.011.228 Examiner: Jay A. Eaton Level: II Procedure: NDE-600 Rev: 13 FC: N/A Examiner: Gayle E. Houserr Level: II Lo: 9.1.1.1 Configuration: CIRC.
Calibration Sheet No: 0101036 Si-PIPE to S2-VALVE Scan Surface: OD
% Mp W L Li L2 Beam Exam IND# d4 FSH Max Max Max 20 % FSH 20 % FSH Dir. Surf. Scan Damps Remarks 1 600 80 1.7 1.5 0+3" 3600 INT. S2 S1 AXIAL NO NRI 450
YKR 61-&67 ATT,ýSWPAGE 73a f *v DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-UT-5 UT PROFILE/PLOT SHEET Revision 1 EXAMINATION SURFACE 1 VA LQE: EXAMINATION SURFACE 2 WELD 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 A
0 0 INN IIIl III/ I I I 11111111 ii 'fii iLiii N
! I! iI II Ii
.5 1.S 2
2.S 3
Component ID/Weld No. U I -L -i lE zO Remarks:
270 Examiner. Level: =:: Date: 31z._loi Reviewed By: ,,Level: 2ff Date: Z.79-o,'
Authorized Inspecton - .Qk Date::ý,-q--/
RF1I567 AlP-I PA6E 3Sf DUKE POWER COMPANY Form NDE-UT-8 ULTRASONIC INDICATION RESOLUTION SHEET Revision 1 Acceptance Standard:
IND. #1 - 60°L IS A GEOMETRIC REFLECTOR FROM THE WELD ROOT CONFIGURATION. THE REFLECTOR WAS NOT SEEN WITH A 600 SHEAR WAVE OR A WSY-70 BI-MODAL TRANSDUCER.
Item No: B09.011.228 Acceptable Indications: IND. #1 - 600L Rejectable Indications:
These indications have been compared with previous ultrasonic data 11 Yes 0 No previous data available I_
Sheet f ,of Date: L!1
ATVI PPE 35 FORM NDE-UT-4 DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Revision 1 Component/Weld ID: 1 NIl F-280 Item No: B09.011.228 Remarks:
0] NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION VALVE CONFIGURATION 0 1 0 2 0 l 2 cw I- ccw
- LIMITED SCAN FROM L + 0" to L + 34" INCHES FROM WO CL + 0.5" to BEYOND ANGLE: 0 0 01 45 0 60 01 Other FROM DEG to DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION SHEAR WAVE LIMITED DUE TO SS oI NO SCAN WELD METAL 01 ccw 0 LIMITED SCAN 0 1 0 2 01 1 E1 2 03 cw FROM L +00" to L + 34" INCHES FROM WO CCL - 0.5" to WELD CL ANGLE: 0 0 0 45 02 60 01 Other FROM DEG to DEG o] NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Q 1 03 2 O1 1 [] 2 [] cwO] ccw 11 LIMITED SCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 03 0 0 45 01 60 01 Other FROM DEG to DEG 0] NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION
[0 1 01 2 0 1 2 cw o ccw 11 LIMITED SCAN FROML toL INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: *0 11 45 ý1ý60*E[ Other FROM. DEG to-Prepared By: _ - 1 _* Level: -7 Date: *//,Sketch(s) attached [] yes [] no Sheet , Of Reviewed By: Date: 3 ,2* uhorized Inspector: * *Dt._,.£_
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-91-1 Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination Volume/Area Defined 0 Base Metal 0 Weld El Near Surface El Boltina El Inner Radius Area Calculation Volume Calculation te, U.i 1.5" x 0.33 =0.5 SQ. IN. 0.5 SQ. IN. x 34"= 17 CU. IN.
sic
%J g Coverage Calculations Area Length Volume Volume Beam Examined Examined Examined Required LAL Scan # Angle Direction (sq.in.) (in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.) Percent Coverage 1 450 CW 0.5 34 17 17 100.00 2 450 CCW 0.5 34 17 17 100.00 3 600 S2 0.21 34 7.14 17 42.00 4 600 $1 0 34 0 17 0.00 SHEAR WAVE AGG. COVERAGE 41.14 68 60.50 3 600L S2 0.28 34 9.52 17 56.00 RL WAVE COVERAGE 56% x 25% (1 SCAN) = 14%
Item No: B09.01 1.228 Prepared By: Level: - Date: O Reviewed By: */f**Level: ZE Date: 3 . cy(.)
IRFIr 61-607 ATr, 9 PAwf-.37 DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-UT-5 UT PROFILE/PLOT SHEET Revision I EXAMINATION SURFACE 1 - 'PIF-- WELD \/A L\/Z - EXAMINATION SURFACE 2 4 3 2 1 q 1 2 3 4 1111111 Hliii 111 liii11114 K 11
.5 (0~~ 0ý$-- 15 0.?E.f k2 IDAr Component ID/Weld No. I ALrr1 O 0 Remarks:
270 at: cI LL 90 Item No: ]c>. oj\' LZ.*5 Examiner .. Level: : Date: 3 z.5o, Reviewed By: Level: Date: 3.29 ./ 180 Sheet -7_of___
or Authorized Insprecr Date: 'y-2,9-
RFA wA-607 ?PEF- 31 McGuire Unit #1 EOC14 Item # . Ot ZZ5 Weld # 16KýJTh1 ý - z OC No Data Recorded. Reference Calibration Sheet #'s O)10 10 - LA S
Form NDE-620 Revision 0 RWA'57 FO RKT bL~ 1'-067 ATK(V%\% '5 VN2 \r'X DUKE POWER COMPANY ULTRASONIC DATA SHEET FOR PLANAR REFLECTORS IN FERRITIC PRESSURE VESSELS Station: C.
...( 1 -r [Unit: I Component/Weld ID: I SC1- \,jLS9 I Date: .3-z7-01 Weld Length (in.): 7" Surface Condition: F ILo qz . 3. 1 fExam Start: FIExam Finish: ,.*3 2.
Procedure No: Scans Configuration Calibration Sheet No:
/YD 6- 70' dB Zone I 600 9/ dB Zone II SurfaceTemp. 0 ]Z" 0/
Revision: 8 600 c)
Revision: dB Zone
~' III Axial Scan Surface: OD Pyrometer s/n:*9(,12kDG&
~/0 .2 FC C0-037 60o6I dBZoneIIICirc. Cal. Due Date: 7-/8 06 Indication su BEAM SCAN
- / MPMfl %pFSH .nj Wn,, LOCATION DIRECTION REMARKS
/'V21 (nO0L__ _ __ ___ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 90% Coverage obtained: yes 7 no 2 (see NDE-UT-4) Limitation report is required .
It emNo: 6ZO. 0_-1. 008 Examiner: Level: -= Date: 7, 0/ Examiner: Level: j Date: l/z?/7/
Reviewed by:_ __ _ Level: ___ Date: 3 oi Authorized Inspector: i --.-
Page I_of (
FORM NDE-UT-4 DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Revision 1 Component/Weld ID: 1SGD-W259 Item No: C02.021.008 Remarks:
SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION DUE TO NOZZLE CONFIGURATION 0 NO SCAN 01 02 0 0 2 cw ccw LIMITEDSCAN FROM L N/A to L -N/A INCHES FROM WO - 2.7 to BEYOND ANGLE: 00] 45 0 60 0 Other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0 NO SCAN 2
01SLIMITEDSCAN 1 2 cw ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 01 0 0 45 01 60 01 Other FROM DEG to DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0 NO SCAN 0 2 1 2 cw ccw 0 LIMITEDSCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 01 0 01 45 03 60 0 Other FROM DEG to DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0] NO SCAN 02 0 SLIMITEDSCAN 1 2 cw ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 01 0 0 45 03 60 01 Other FROM DEG to Prepared By: CAV .& Level: Date: ?,,27-0! Sketch(s) attached 0 yes 0 no Sheet " of 4.,
Reviewed By: Date: 3/ g/01 Authorized Inspector: Date:
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-91-1 Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination Volume/Area Defined 0 Base Metal 0 Weld E0 Near Surface 0 Boltinq 0 Inner Radius Area Calculation Volume Calculation 1.375 IN. x 1.75 IN. = 2.4 SQ. IN. 2.4 SQ. IN. x 70 IN. = 168 CU. IN.
Coverage Calculations Area Length Volume Volume Beam Examined Examined Examined Required "Scan# Angle Direction (sq.in.) (in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.) Percent Coverage 1 60 0 L 2 2.4 70 168 16b 2 60 L0 1 0 70 0 168 3 60 0L CW 2.4 70 168 168 4 60°L CCw 2.4 70 168 168 504 672 75.00 K
-?A %y 3o0r
ALLIILLr)PY fý6bOj)f&12 dQ 2--a LG 667 RITS x
AT, r,2 q -s 0 VE
ýro,(A(- Lassý (06 ow ky- (v/.
,t'-v'.'-
- I 1' r...(r.fl.. - .* -- -
Exam Start: 1105 NDE-UT-3A DUKE POWER COMPANY ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION DATA SHEET FOR LAMINAR REFLECTORS Exam Finish: 1109 Revision 2 Station: McGuire Unit: 1 Component/Weld ID: 1NI1F-167 Date: 4/2/01 Nominal Material Thickness (in): 0.906 Weld Length (in.): 28" Surface Temperature: 82° Deg F Measured Material Thickness (in): 1.2 Lo: 9.1.1.1 Pyrometer S/N: MCNDE 27205 AS GROUND Calibration Sheet No: Cal Due: 7/18/01 Surface Condition:
Level: 111 0101066 Configuration: Elbow to Type III Series 2 Pen.
Examiner: Larry Mauldin Level: II S2 Flow $1 Examiner: Gary J. Moss
('Rev: 1 FC: ELBOW to PEN.
Procedure: NDE-640 Ampl LI Wl Mpl W2 Mp2 L2 Wi Mpl W2 Mp2 IND rem arem >rem arem rem arem > rem ?rem ?rem arem 2: rem Exam Damps NO. -4 BW BW BW BW BW BW BW BW BW BW BW Surf.
LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB NRI 0o i
4
RRFY 01~-Ac7 AVW&- ', 7 I D UKE pnWFF S.... m @ V @ W *@
COMPANY NDE-UT-5 i7 UIT PROFILE/PLOT SI-FFT Pavicirin 1
- VA l1 IA ytUT 9 , IIIIPL /A,,T S rIA MNINA I IUIN )UKI-AL;t I WPfl n EXAMINATION SURFACE 2 4 3 2 1l 33 c.3 C- N 0
2 4 Ni N -
"- -., "
- N N I
IIi Cut rII 11111 I.I I III ItI I I II IN" I
tin I
.5 *I -.---
44
- 1 0 ,stl . I 1.5 --- ' "- -
2 2.5 3
Component IU/weio NO. J. fJ-JF-/1 7 U
- Remarks:
270 90 Item No: coS*. C/1. 1/1 Examiner: Level: -r Date: _.z.61 Reviewed By: Level: Date: o Authorized Inspector. Date: qL-/1_' o 180 Sheet.Iof A
YZ? O\-6cfJ rz\w6, FORM NDE-UT4 DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Revision 1 Item No: C05.011.113 Remarks:
Component/Weld ID: 1NI1F-167 SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION DUE TO TYPE IIISERIES 2 0 NO SCAN PENETRATION CONFIGURATION 123011 02 0 1 2 0 w O- LIMITED SCAN FROM L - to L - INCHES FROM WO . 2.0"f_
_. ._ .. to . . ,_,-,--
03 0 01 45 0 60 0l Other FROM 0 - DEG to 360 DEG ANGLE:
SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0] NO SCAN 01 2 0 1 2 cw O3 ccw 0 LIMITEDSCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to 0 0 0 45 E0 60 01 Other FROM DEGto DEG ANGLE:
SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0] NO SCAN 0 2 0 1i0 2 01 cw O1 ccw SLIMITEDSCAN 01 FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO ....... to 0l 0 0 45 03 60 01 Other FROM DEGto DEG ANGLE:
SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0 NO SCAN 0 102 01 10 2 0cw EIccw 03 LIMITED SCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 000 13 45 0 60 IDC )ther FROM DEG to
.1 33 of (..
Level: III Date: 4/2/01 Sketch(s) attached 12 yes 0 no Sheet of ( .,
Date:
V
t2ti) f\I-AA7 DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-UT-5 UT PROFILE/PLOT SHEET Revision 1 EXAMINATION SURFACE 1 EXAMINATION SURFACE 2 WELD 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 II 11111 11ift
.5 I III III I' I II 111111111 I*IIII I iI E-x/hA I - -A S ai I"X 1.5 S JRLkýv/r- G-L 2 -S-h/6iWO U/A/4L (ZovAR46d ,Z'6 L(f4V 6v6ige 2.5 T?!8L
(.37 "q) .3.35./o __ ______I De .
1 ÷
(/, 7 ,;u-sD:
2.5 _ _5 _5____
3 Component ID/Weld No. I/1I U Remarks:
270 a: 90 7 ,ItemNo:
Examiner yAik{*4/g* ) ILevel:ZZr I Date: f4.2.y)_
Reviewed By: L1_evel: --- Date: q o Authorized Inspector. VI Date: .01
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-91-1 Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination VolumelArea Defined ED Base Metal El Weld [I Near Surface EJ Bolting El Inner Radius Area Calculation Volume Calculation
.4 IN.X 2.1 IN. = .84 SQ.IN. .84 SQ.IN. X 28 IN. = 23.52 CU.IN.
Coverage Calculations Area Length Volume Volume Beam Examined Examined Examined Required Scan # Angle Direction (sq.in.) (in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.) Percent Coverage 1 60 1 .33 28 9.24 23.52 2 60 2 0 28 0 23.52 3 45 CW .84 28 23.52 23.52 4 45 CCW .84 28 23.52 23.52 SHEAR WAVE AGGREGATE COVERAGE 56.28 94.08 59.82 2 60L 1 .51 28 14.28 23.52 60.71 RL WAVE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE; 60.71% X 25% (1 SCAN) = 15.18% OF TOTAL WELD Item No: C05.011.113 N
Prepared By: Larry Mauldin Level: III Date: 4/2/01 Reviewed By: Level: f Date: 41 UI i1a 7-
RFIZ 61- 667 KIT-(o McGuire Unit #1 EOC14 Item #
Weld # I nvrI-- I .1 No Data Recorded. Reference Calibration Sheet #'s Li oC
Ri~qXS1 FbR aZLliF 6A-cG7 &7,CW OAfE9Ti ThQFS 7-1 (o 0946 NDE-UT-3A DUKE POWER COMPANY Exam Start:
ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION DATA SHEET FOR LAMINAR REFLECTORS Exam Finish: 0953 Revision 2 Station: McGuire Unit: 1 Component/Weld ID: 1NIl F-293 Date: 3/17/01 Nominal Material Thickness (in): 0.719 Weld Length (in.): 20.8 Surface Temperature: 80.90 Deg F Measured Material Thickness (in). .725 Lo: 9.1.1.1 Pyrometer S/N: MCNDE 27205 Surface Condition: AS GROUND Calibration Sheet No: Cal Due: 7/18/01 Level: II 0101021 Configuration: CIRC.
Examiner: Gayle E. Houser Examiner: Gary J. Moss , cT'evel: II S2 Flow S1 Procedure: NDE-640 Rev. 1 FC: *
'1PIPE PIPE to VALVE to VALVE Ampl Li WI Mpl W2 Mp2 L2 Wl Mpl W2 Mp2 IND :t rem >rem >.rem >rem ;z rem ; rem >rem : rem ; rem trem krem Exam Damps NO. 4 BW 8W 8W BW BW BW BW BW BW BW BW Surf.
LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB LOB NRI 00
_____ ~~v* j * . ____vg,.
B.'TT', ('_ P%
S~ ~ ~t6rm~~Fkr 607
-*'L %L VJ'~ S DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-UT-5 UT PROFILE/PLOT SHEET Revision 1 EXAMINATION SURFACE 1 EXAMINATION SURFACE 2 WELD 4 3 2 1 L 1 2 3 4 Iiii.
HHl IlHI!HilHi Iiiil IIi11III III! II!! III! III II!I III IlIIIIII I
.5 P)P6 1
1,5 2
2.5 2.S _ _ _ _ _
3 ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
0 Component ID/Weld No. IA'Z1F-23 Remarks: , ;R')/LL 270 Item No:-r6.011.1 Iz Exmnr. Level: gr Date: 3-17-6 11-evel - - IDate:
I Ud L*. S*IZ,4')IQDI r i AuthorizedBY:Inspector.
lReviewed Date: A,-*t,--01 Authorized Inspector. Date: &&: '-01
fZFX 61- 607 AkT- ( PAGE __
DUKE POWER COMPANY FORM NDE-UT-10 ULTRASONIC INDICATION RECORD FOR PIPING Revision 0 Station: McGuire Unit: 1 Component/Weld ID: 1NIl F-293 Date: 3/17/01 Surface Condition: AS GROUND Item No: C05.011.120 Examiner: GaryJ. Moss (f,,,Level: II Procedure: NDE-600 Rev: 13 FC: N/A Examiner: Gayle E. Houser Level: II Lo: 9.1.1.1 Configuration: CIRC.
Calibration Sheet No: 0101022 S2-PIPE to Si-VALVE Scan Surface: OD ID# % Mp W L L1 L2 Beam Exam ID#FSH Max Max Max 20 % FSH 20 % FSH Dir. Surf. Scan Damps Remarks 1 600 75 1.34 1.25 11.75 INT. 360 1 2 AXIAL NO
ID DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-UT-5 UT PROFILE/PLOT SHEET Revision 1 p.
EXAMINATION SURFACE 1 EXAMINATION SURFACE 2 WELD 4 3 2 1 C 1 2 3 4 1111l t)
IIii' III!.
iIIIIIII I'Il IIII !II! I!II II III I II i
'IIII UIiIII1 I111
.5 VA L V/ P, P, r
1.5 2
2.5S_____
3 ________ ________
U Component ID/Weld No. 1A/Th 23-Remarks: ior oP 7*. t 270 90 Item No: Co5,. o/1. IZ0 Examiner.- - Level: r Date: 3-17-.0 Reviewed By: [Level: j::I Date: -z- bl 180 Sheet._ of I0 Authorized Inspector. Da3t e: " < ""-
IAuthorized Inspector Date: 3O$-O\
RFROb -o0 7 AT ,, PP%* 1, Form NDE-UT-9 DUKE POWER COMPANY ULTRASONIC BEAM ANGLE MEASUREMENT RECORD Revision 3
- 1. Take thickness measurements between.
wedge locations.
- 2. Place search unit on straight turn of pipe, and peak the signal.
tI 3. Measure distance (d) between exit points.
- 4. Calculate beam angle with formula tan o = (d/2) as shown using measured wall t
thickness.
- 5. Use the measured beam angle to F7- determine coverage and when plotting any indications.
Pipe Size: 6"11 For thin wall pipe use 2nd Vee path 160 Pipe Schedule: ___
tan o = (d/2) 2t Nominal 45 deg: d= 0 t= 0 ; measured angle= _ 0.00 deg Nominal 60 deg: d= 2.5-5 t= 0.719_; measured angle= 60.09 deg Item No.
Nominal 70 deg: d= 0 t= 0 ; measured angle= _ 0.00 deg C05.011.120 Examiner Level Date Examiner evel Date Gayle E. Houser II 3/21/01 Winfred C. Leeper II 3/21/01 Reviewed By Level Date Authorized Inspector Date
-31 Z(P4o
DUKE POWER COMPANY Form NDE-UT-8 ULTRASONIC INDICATION RESOLUTION SHEET Revision 1 Acceptance Standard:
AMPLITUDE WOULD NOT INDICATION #1: DETERMINED TO BE A GEOMETRIC REFLECTOR OFF THE WELD ROOT. INDICATION COULD NOT GET ANY HOLD UP TO SKEWING OF TRANSDUCER, LESS THAN 35% AMPLITUDE WHEN 70- WEDGE USED AND SIGNAL WITH WSY TRANSDUCER.
VY) /ý-ot, V,
Item No: C05.011.120 Acceptable Indications: IND. #1 Rejectable Indications: NONE These indications have been compared with previous ultrasonic data 0 Yes 0 No previous data available Examiner: ,Level,/ Date:
3/17/01 Sof I 4 Gary J. Moss* ., *-- 11I Date: Authorized Inspector: Date:
Reviewer: v *Level:
RFR 61-b67 AT7, (o V FORM NDE-UT-4 DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Revision 1 Component/Weld ID: 1NIl F-293 Item No: C05.011.120 Remarks:
SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION NO SCAN DUE TO VALVE 0] NO SCAN 0 1I 2 03 cw 0 ccw o LIMITED SCAN E) 1 03 2 FROM L 0 to L 20.80 INCHES FROM WO .550 - S1 to - .550 - §2 ANGLE: 00] 45 0 60 0 Other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION LIMITED SCAN DUE TO STAINLESS 0 NO SCAN WELD METAL 0 2 0 1E 20 cwO cow 0 LIMITED SCAN FROM L - 0 to L 20.8 INCHES FROM WO - .100 - S2 to .575 -S1 ANGLE: 0 0 01 45 0 60 0 Other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG 0] NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION i 02 0] 103 201 cwO ccw 0 LIMITED SCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 01 0 0 45 0 60 01 Other FROM DEG to DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0] NO SCAN 0 1 01 2 0 1 0 2 0 cw 0 ccw O1 LIMITED SCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 0- 0 0 45 01 60 01 Other FROM DEG to Prepared By: Level: Date: 1//o0 Sketch(s) attached 0l yes 03 no Sheet -7 of Reviewed By: Date: Authorized Inspector: Dater .if-")
UI
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-91-1 Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination VolumelArea Defined
" Base Metal 0] Weld 1l Near Surface 0 Bolting El Inner Radius Area Calculation Volume Calculation
- 1.1 x .259 = .285 SQ. IN. .285 SQ. IN. x 20.8 IN. = 5.93 Coverage Calculations Area Length Volume Volume Beam Examined Examined Examined Required j Scan # Angle Direction (sq.in.) (in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.) Percent Coverage 1 450 CW .285 20.8 5.93 5.931 -IUU.UU CCw .285 20.8 5.93 5.93 100.00 2 450 3 600 S1 .129 20.8 2.68 5.93 45.19 4 60' S2 0 20.8 0 5.93 0.00 SHEAR WAVE AGGREGATE COVERAGE 14.54 23.72 61.30 3 60'L S1 .159 20.8 3.3 5.93 55.65 RL WAVE COVERAGE 56% x 25% (1 SCAN) = 14%
0b
-- *R 6t1-o7 AIT to 'A6E ;5-w15 DUKE POWER COMPANY PA*E NDE-UT-5
- LUT PROFILE/PLOT SHEET Revision 1 EXAMINATION SURFACE 1 m WELD EXAMINATION SURFACE 2 4>/*L*\J3 2 1 ¢ 1 lI 3-',e 4 IIIl[I111 III II1l1 ,,,, , ?l,, 41 11111 liii III III ilL li, 11111111 l ~ l ~ l i IIII Ili
. , I ' ' -
- I I I 1 F .5 1.5 I
3 vlinpUi'iWL nJ/lflllol 1. .. 'L*/, -117. U Remarks:
..Examiner:.
Reviewed By:
Item No: Co5,i//. /Zo
!Level: -17 Date: _/o
/__
270 at 80 Sheeo. jo90
, ,-Level: 7a Date: -ex,-o S~180 Sheet 9. of Io Autnonzeo inspector.
nn )
PFL 61,-607 AT (o McGuire Unit # 1 EOC14 Item #
Weld # I " T- t VE' - Zq 3 No Data Recorded. Reference Calibration Sheet #'s ID
KbWST F61 1LIff)-667 7~E5 ý7-22 PA(-,
DUKE POWER COMPANY FORM NDE-UT-4 ISI LIMITATION REPORT Revision 1 Component/Weld ID: 1NI169-4 Item No: C05.011.129 Remarks:
0] NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION NO SCAN DUE TO ELECTRICAL TRAY.
0LIMITED SCAN 10 2 l rO2 cw 1 ccw FROM L 24.08 to L 3" INCHES FROM WO C LINE to BEYOND ANGLE: 0 0 0 45 0 60 03 Other FROM N/A DEG to N/A DEG 0] NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION LIMITED DUE TO ID TAG PLATE El LIMITED SCAN 0 1 01 2 1 1 12 2O1 cw 13 ccw FROM L 19.08 to L 21.08 INCHES FROM WO C LINE 1.5 to BEYOND ANGLE: 03 0 01 45 0 60 0 Other FROM N/A DEG to N/A DEG 0] NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0 LIMITED SCAN Q 1 03 2 0l 1iD 2 03 cw O ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 0 0 0l 45 0l 60 01 Other FROM DEG to DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0 NO SCAN 01 02 03 1 03 2 01 cw O ccw 0 LIMITED SCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to Sketch(s) attached 0 yes 0 no Sheet._*of._,
(
-Date:
DUKE POWER-COMPANY NDE-91-1 Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination Volume/Area Defined 0 Base Metal 0 Weld 11 Near Surface El Bolting E0 Inner Radius Area Calculation Volume Calculation 1.35 x .300 = 405 SQ. IN. .405 SQ. IN. x 27.08 = 10.96 CU. IN.
-..9 Chi 0,
Coverage Calculations Area Length Volume Volume Beam Examined Examined Examined Required Scan # Angle Direction (sq.in.) :(in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.) Percent Coverage 1 45° Cw .405 27.08 10.96 10.96 2 450 Ccw .405 27.08 10.96 10.96 3 60° S2 0.0 6.0 0 2.43 3 60' S2 0.0 2.0 0 0.81 3 600 S2 .405 19.08 7.72 7.72 4 600 S1 .405 19.08 7.72 7.72 4 600 S1 .18 6.0 1.08 2.43 4 600 S1 .18 2.0 0.36 0.81 SHEAR WAVE AGGREGATE COVERAGE 38.8 43.84 88.50 3 60°L S1 .217 6.0 1.302 10.96 RL WAVE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE 7.92 % x 25 % (1 SCAN) = 1.98%
C" 0
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-91-1 Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination VolumelArea Defined 0 Base Metal 0 Weld 11 Near Surface 13 Bolting 0 Inner Radius L14 Area Calculation Volume Calculation 1.35 x .300 = 405 SQ. IN. .405 SQ. IN. x 27.08 = 10.96 CU. IN.
Coverage Calculations L0 w.,
Area Length Volume Volume Beam Examined Examined Examined Required Percent Coverage Scan # Angle Direction (sq.in.) (in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.)
3 60°L Si .217 2.0 U.434 21 .9o 1.736 21.92 7.92 RL WAVE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE 7.92 % x 25 % (1 SCAN) = 1.98%
-\3
lRFV- 01-607 AIT17 PAGE Z6~
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE- -5 UT PROFILE/PLOT SHEET R i~V3'.I i 1 WELD EXAMINATION SURFACE 2 4,, 3 2 2 3 f ) 4 1 2
.5 1111 1411 1111 111 d1III 11 1 1 11 IL1 1 IlL. liii liii Jill Ill IIII A i S16 !
3 Component IuiWelo No. / ty/4l V Remarks: i1) ..S,". -. ' <'*p"- I - 1K.
I--t 270 90 Item No:
Exaine. Level: -uWD Date:
Reviewed By: lLevel: 211?: Date: 1 'd Authrize Insectof)
KzLLt-Date: 3-&,t-0 f 180 SheetL.l of(.ýL V
- R 01-6o7 AlTt, PAGF- 21zi DUKE POWER COMPANY Ri-ZThPA6 NDE-UT-5 UT PROFILE/PLOT SHEET Revision 1 EXAMINATION SURFACE 1
.00 WELD EXAMINATION SURFACE 2 4 ,, 3 2 1 1 2 -36&,j 4 fl
- 1 2 3f) 4 IIII1,111 l III II tli ii II .LLL.J.L.L !II*J. liii liii liii II1II IIII
.5 1~-b 1?,~~ pgx 3
u kUl I IPU"U." L ILJI YVt:IU NO.
Ityl 11,0q Remarks: N o -,a0 .sA lj, .e, s " r -
270 I IItem No: C 5,60 )). 12.-9 Examner.ýA(1, 0Lev e:1: Date:S z, il Reviewed By: &224 1Level: Z Date: .291r LAuthorized InsIectorr0 Date: ,
- Q8ILUI I..L
,FK 61- 667 AV,6 PAGE ZZ McGuire Unit #1 EOC14 Item # CýS-.7c\.L) VL9 Weld # ýKý11 1(.09 - 4 No Data Recorded. Reference Calibration Sheet #'s 1~~~ ~ " -D10-I
%RF9b -667 AT (o PMNE 2q DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-UT-5 UT PROFILEIPLOT SHEET Revision 1 EXAMINATION SURFACE 1 EXAMINATION SURFACE 2 WELD 4 3 2 1* 1 2 3 4 IIIIIIII1III I I III'lll I I II -I I:tl-:"I, III I II I1
.5 4-I-
1.5 2
2.5 3 .. ,,,,
=F
~i Component ID/Weld No. 0
//vy/Fkl / 7,5- ,
Remarks:
270 90 Item.No: L oY'Fs-Examiner..% / -. *..-. ,- I !Level: l Date: -- -c Reviewed By: ILevel: T_ I Date: *-1.vl 180 Sheet.Z of Jo Authorized Inspector. Date: ?---o
-- I
1?tIM-007 AWL, I'MA ZS DUKE POWER COMPANY FORM NDE-UT-10 ULTRASONIC INDICATION RECORD FOR PIPING Revision 0 Station: McGuire Unit: 1 Component/Weld ID: 1NV1 FW1 75-29 Date: 3/6/01 Surface Condition: AS GROUND Item No: C05.021.085 Examiner: Gary J. Moss __/-Level: II Procedure: NDE-600 Rev: 13 FC: N/A Examiner: Gayle E. Houser / , Level: II Lo: 9.1.1.1 Configuration: CIRO. WELD Calibration Sheet No: 0101001 PIPE to TEE Scan Surface: OD ID# % Mp W L L1 19 Beam Exam FSH Max Max Max 20 %FSH 20 %FSH Dir. Surf. Scan Damps Remarks N 1 600 141 1.05" .8" 9.5" 3600 INT. 1 2 AX. NO i
1:Y2 tI-6O7 ATrL PAE2(o
[ DUKE POWER COMPANY UT PROFILE/PLOT SHEET NDE-UT-5 Revision 1 EXAMINATI N SURFACE1 tAAMMUNA I IIUJN ~rr-'A WELD 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 I 11I I I I II iiiI IIII~IIIII La II II* II II II II
.5 '1 j I 2
2.5S______
3 _______ _______
Component ID!Weld No. IA//i liThi /7s--?9 Remarks:
270 Item No: 605: / 083 Examiner.: +/-L4ýC<z Level=.L- Date: 3/,l I Reviewed By: ..- I L: Level: 1C- Date:3 -1k I At ithorizd Insoector. U /tiA. Date:- 0 Authorized Inspector ywl-ý
FFYZ 6[-667 )JT-,o PA(E 2-7 DUKE POWER COMPANY Form NDE-UT-8 ULTRASONIC INDICATION RESOLUTION SHEET Revision 1 Acceptance Standard:
THIS WAS INDICATION #1 WAS DETERMINED TO BE AN I.D. GEOMETRIC REFLECTOR DUE TO WELD ROOT GEOMETRY.
OF 600 SHEAR WAVE). ALSO A 60- R.L. WAVE WAS VERIFIED BY THE USE OF A 70- SHEAR WAVE (AMPLITUDE LESS THAN 50%
NO RESPONSE. A REVIEW OF THE USED, INDICATION WAS NOT SEEN WITH THIS TRANSDUCER. A WSY 70 WAS USED WITH RT FILM VERIFIED THESE FINDINGS.
Item No: C05.021.085 Acceptable Indications: IND. #1 Rejectable Indications:
These indications have been compared with previous ultrasonic data 13 Yes 0 No previous data available Gary J. Moss 11I 3/6/01 Level: Date: Authorized Inspector: Date:
Reviewer:
P1? M- (7 .AV, VAG Z5 FORM NDE-UT-4 DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Revision 1 Component/Weld ID: 1NV1FW175-29 Item No: C05.021.085 Remarks:
SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION DUE TO TEE CONFIGURATION (4.0" O3 NO SCAN LIMITED) 0 2 1 2 cw ccw 0 LIMITEDSCAN FROM L -.. .
9.0" to L - -,
2.0" INCHES FROM WO -
1.2 to BEYOND ANGLE: 01 0 01 45 0 60 0 Other FROM N/A DEG to N/A DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0] NO SCAN 01 0 2 0 1 0 2 cw 11 ccw LIMITEDSCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO . . .. to ANGLE: 0 0 01 45 01 60 01 Other FROM DEG to DEG "SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0] NO SCAN 0 1 1 2 21 cw 1 ccw
" LIMITEDSCAN FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 01 0 01 45 01 60 0 Other FROM DEG to DEG SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0] NO SCAN 02 0 SLIMITEDSCAN l 1 2 cw ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO . . .. to ANGLE: 0] 0 01 45 01 60 01 Other .. FROM . - DEGto ."1 Level:
- Date: , Sketch(s) attached. yes 1 Sheet (e of C0 Prepared By:
Date: . \ Authorized Inspector: Date.-.. ,
Reviewed By: -
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-91-1 Limited Examination Coverage Worksheet Revision 0 Examination VolumelArea Defined 0 Base Metal 0 Weld 11 Near Surface 03 Boltinq 01 Inner Radius Area Calculation Volume Calculation 1 .15 IN. x.8 IN. =.12 SQ. IN. .12 SQ. IN. x 11.0 IN. = 1.32 CU. IN.
-9 Coverage Calculations Area Length Volume Volume Beam Examined Examined Examined Required U- Scan # Angle Direction (sq.in.) (in.) (cu.in.) (cu.in.)
1 600 1 .12 7 0.84 0.84 1 600 1 .05 4 0.2 0.48 2 600 2 .12 7 0.84 0.84 2 600 2 0 4 0 0.48 3 450 CW .12 11 1.32 1.32 4 450 CCW .12 11 1.32 1.32 SHEAR WAVE AGGREGATE COVERAGE 4.52 5.28 85.61 60 RL SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE 2 60RL 1 .07 4 0.28 0.48 58.33 58.3% OF 25% (1 SCAN) = 14.6%
14.6% OF TOTAL WELD
_*Item No: C05.021.085 Prepared By: Level: Date:
Reviewed By: Level: J Date: 0(
0
-y
rTF CA-bb7 AITt(o bFTh 3t.,:.
DUKE POWER COMPANY NDE-UT-5 UT PROFILE/PLOT SHEET Revision 1 EXAMINATION SURFACE 1 WEXAMINATION SURFACE 2 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 III JiIIL ]l III l lIIII~I -L Il-IIlllI ll l I I-
.5
- /e.2"- *:.L.,;xi - .is ./____,,
______ ~~~~~4c E>-/,A~ fr~ii~
Kt~
.4 Component ID/Weld No. -0 Remarks:
..... __ _270 at: 90 Item No: 0 nwj_
Examiner. I ILevel: ::g-- Date: z 1J01 (.-
Reviewed By: 4 Level: - Date:'-7-c/ 180 Sheet_ &of Io Authorized Inspecttonr J .*.,& Date:_?4--r.).
IFJ? (1-6O7 ATF4 Form NDE-UT-9 DUKE POWER COMPANY ULTRASONIC BEAM ANGLE MEASUREMENT RECORD Revision 3
- 1. Take thickness measurements between.
wedge locations.
- 2. Place search unit on straight turn of pipe, and peak the signal.
t 3. Measure distance (d) between exit points.
tan o =(d/2) 4. Calculate beam angle with formula t as shown using measured wall thickness.
- 5. Use the measured beam angle to determine coverage and when plotting any indications.
('IY Al60 AI, Pipe Size: - - 3----
For thin wall pipe use 2nd Vee path Pipe Schedule: 160 Schedule- - 160 tan o = (d/2) 2t Nominal 45 deg: d= _0__ ; t= 0_ measured angle= 0.00 deg Nominal 60 deg: d= 1.4 ; t= 0.439 ; measured angle= 57.91 deg Item No.
Nominal 70 deg: d= 0 ; t= 0 ; measured angle= 0.00 deg C05.021.085 Examiner Level Date Examiner Level Date II 3/6/01 Gayle E. Houser 1 3/6/01 Gary J. Moss Level Date Authorized Ins t Date Reviewed By VI 'PAC-*c-- 9 oei,>
Rpyz 0I-667 ATT,& PAGE 37_
McGuire Unit #1 EOC14 Item # Qlos. ol. 05S Weld # )K\ I4T:vt n-s-z No Data Recorded. Reference Calibration Sheet #'s D10o\1O I - L5° 01G01007_ -(o'00 ,
,AL- h,...1o - IQ
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 August 23, 2001 Mr. H. B. Barron Vice President, McGuire Site Duke Energy Corporation 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, NC 28078-8985
SUBJECT:
MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, RE: RELIEF REQUEST NO.00-001 (TAC NOS. MB2325 AND MB2326)
Dear Mr. Barron:
By letter dated April 5, 2000, as supplemented on August 8, 2001, Duke Energy Corporation (the licensee), requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff grant relief from certain requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, for the examination of pressurizer skirt welds at McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
The staff has reviewed the information provided for this relief request. The staff's evaluation and conclusion are provided in the Enclosure. Based on the information provided in the relief request, the staff concludes that your proposed alternative will provide an acceptable level of quality and safety. Therefore, the proposed alternative is authorized pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of FederalRegulations (10 CFR) Section 50.55a(a)(3)(i) for the second inspection interval for inservice inspection at McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
Sincerely,
, A Richard L. Emch, Jr., Chief, Section 1 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page APA.
G__ EMT -7 PRGF-S I(-13:
McGuire Nuclear Station cc:
Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn Ms. Karen E. Long Legal Department (PBO5E) Assistant Attorney General Duke Energy Corporation North Carolina Department of 422 South Church Street Justice Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 P. 0. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 County Manager of Mecklenburg County Mr. C. Jeffrey Thomas 720 East Fourth Street Manager - Nuclear Regulatory Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Licensing Duke Energy Corporation Michael T. Cash 526 South Church Street Regulatory Compliance Manager Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Duke Energy Corporation McGuire Nuclear Site Elaine Wathen, Lead REP Planner 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Division of Emergency Management Huntersville, North Carolina 28078 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-1335 Anne Cottingham, Esquire Winston and Strawn Mr. Richard M. Fry, Director 1400 L Street, NW. Division of Radiation Protection Washington, DC 20005 North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Senior Resident Inspector Resources c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3825 Barrett Drive 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 Huntersville, North Carolina 28078 Mr. T. Richard Puryear Dr. John M. Barry Owners Group (NCEMC)
Mecklenburg County Duke Energy Corporation Department of Environmental 4800 Concord Road Protection York, South Carolina 29745 700 N. Tryon Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Mr. Peter R. Harden, IV VP-Customer Relations and Sales Westinshouse Electric Company 5929 Carnegie Blvd.
Suite 500 Charlotte, North Carolina 28209 AJi*
TI-1 0 AZT'7
'p,,6rz
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REQUEST FOR RELIEF 00-001 FROM ASME SECTION XI REQUIREMENTS DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-369, 50-370
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Title 10 of the Code of FederalRegulations (10 CFR), Section 50.55a, requires that inservice inspection (ISI) of certain American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components be performed in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) applicable Edition and Addenda, except where specific written relief has been granted by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i). In 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3), it states that alternatives to the requirements of paragraph (g) may be used, when authorized by the NRC, if (i) the proposed alternatives would provide an acceptable level of quality and safety, or (ii) compliance with the specified requirements would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4), ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 components (including supports) shall meet the requirements, except the design and access provisions and the preservice examination requirements, set forth in the ASME Code,Section XI, "Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components," to the extent practical within the limitations of design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components. The regulations require that inservice examination of components and system pressure tests conducted during the first 10-year interval and subsequent intervals comply with the requirements in the latest edition and addenda of Section XI of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a(b) 12 months prior to the start of the 120-month interval, subject to the limitations and modifications listed therein. For McGuire Units 1 and 2, the applicable edition of Section XI of the ASME Code for the second ten-year ISI interval is the 1989 Edition with no addenda.
The NRC staff's findings with respect to Duke Energy Corporation's (DEC's or licensee's) proposed alternative submitted on April 5, 2000, as supplemented on August 8, 2001, is contained in this safety evaluation.
AT).'7 4 3
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 LICENSEE'S EVALUATION The Components for Which Relief is Requested:
Safety-related ASME Section XI Code Class 1 pressurizer integrally welded attachments (pressurizer support skirt to lower head, Item B08.020.001 for McGuire 1 and Item B08.020.001 for McGuire 2)
Requirement From Which Relief is Requested:
The ASME Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition, Table IWB-2500-1 Examination Category B-H, Item No. B8-20, Figure No. IWB-2500-13, requires a surface examination to the inside and outside areas of the skirt-to-pressurizer weld. The inside and outside areas of the weld are denoted as areas C-D and A-B, respectively, in DEC's request. Note 2 states "The extent of the examination includes essentially 100% of the length of the attachment weld at each attachment subject to examination."
By letter dated August 8, 2001, DEC provided clarification that the Code required surface examination of the outside (area A-B) surface of the weld will continue to be performed and that no relief is being requested from examination of the outside weld surface area.
Licensee's Basis for Requesting Relief and Justification for Granting Relief:
The licensee requests relief from the surface examination required on the inside surface area of the support skirt-to-pressurizer weld (area C-D). Surface area C-D is inaccessible for examination for the following reasons:
- 1. The pressurizer heater cables must be disconnected for access which, in the past, has caused a number of the termination joints and ceramic insulators to fail.
2 The maximum clearance between the inside surface of the support skirt and the outside row of the pressurizer heaters is 14 inches. This is insufficient clearance for performing the required surface examination.
3 The inside diameter of the pressurizer support skirt is a high radiation area. Personnel performing the required examination would receive a significant dose. The general area dose rate is 400 mr/hr and the contact dose rates range from 1000 to 3000 mr/hr.
Alternative Examination:
The licensee proposed, as an alternative to the surface examination required by Table IWB-2500-1 Examination Category B-H, Item No. B8-20, Figure No. IWB-2500-13, to conduct ultrasonic examination of the inner examination surface (surface area C-D) from the skirt's exterior surface. The support skirt weld surface will be scanned with two angle beams in two opposing axial directions and two opposing circumferential directions. These angle beam scans will cover the inner weld and base metal surfaces from points "C" to "D". A straight beam scan will also be performed from point "C" toward the vessel shell to the maximum extent practical. IR- 01 -6o7 AT - ' >
2.2 STAFF EVALUATION The Request for Relief No.00-001 pertains to Table IWB-2500-1 Examination Category B-H, Item No. B8-20, that requires a 100% volumetric or surface examination, for integrally welded attachments to the pressurizer as defined by Figure No. IWB-2500-13. The licensee requested relief from the Code-required surface examination for Weld 1 PZR-SKIRT for Unit 1 and Weld 2PZR-SKIRT for Unit 2.
The licensee has proposed an alternative to the surface examinations required by Figure IWA-2500-13 for the support skirt-to-pressurizer circumferential welds. Instead of performing the surface examinations on both inside and outside surfaces of the weld, the licensee will perform a surface examination on the outside (accessible) surface and UT examinations of the volume adjacent to the inside surface. The alternative is necessitated by the narrow access through the skirt openings and the obstructions in the confined area inside the skirt under the bottom head. The working area inside the skirt limits maneuverability and exposes examiners to high radiation doses.
The proposed alternative is the same as the Code requirement for the attachment weld depicted in Figure IWA-2500-14. Figure IWA-2500-14 has an ideal weld profile for UT examinations. The difference between Figures IWA-2500-14 and IWA-2500-13 is the weld profile. Figure IWA-2500-13 has a non-ideal weld profile for UT examinations performed from the outside surface in search for flaws on the inside surface. The inside weld surface farthest from the outside surface cannot be directly examined with UT. However, if a flaw existed, it would have depth. The depth would be detected with a UT examination of the volume performed from the outside surface. The proposed UT examination on the volume near the inside surface of the support skirt weld provides reasonable assurance of its structural integrity.
Therefore, the staff has determined that the surface examination on the outside surface and a UT examination of the volume adjacent to the inside surface will provide an acceptable level of quality and safety.
3.0 CONCLUSION
Based on the NRC staff's review of the information provided in the request for relief (Relief Request 00-001), the staff concludes that the combination of the Code-required surface examination of the outside weld surface area and the alternate ultrasonic examination of the weld from the outside surface area of the pressurizer-to-skirt weld at McGuire Units 1 and 2 will provide an acceptable level of quality and safety. Therefore, the proposed alternative is authorized for the second inservice inspection interval pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i).
Principal Contributor: D. Naujock R. E. Martin Date: August 23, 2001 R -o07
<l~47 AR7T. 7
Serial No.00-001 Page 1 of 4 Duke Energy Corporation Station McGuire Unit 1 & 2 SECOND 10-YEAR INTERVAL REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE NO.00-001 Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a) (3) (i), Duke Energy Corporation requests the use of an alternative to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI for McGuire Units 1 and 2. Specifically, Duke Energy requests approval to perform ultrasonic examination of area C-D on Attachment 1, the ID surface area of the Pressurizer Skirt. The ultrasonic examination is proposed as an alternative to the required surface examination of the support skirt weld area C-D. There is insufficient clearance to permit the required surface examination.
I. System / Component(s) for Which the Alternative is Requested:
Safety-related ASME Section XI Code Class 1 Pressurizer Integrally Welded Attachments (Pressurizer Support Skirt to Lower Head.)
McGuire 1 Item Number ID Number Description B08.020.001 1PZR-SKIRT Pressurizer Support Skirt to Lower Head McGuire 2 Item Number ID Number Description B08.020.001 2PZR-SKIRT Pressurizer Support Skirt to Lower Head II. Code Requirement:
It is required by the 1989 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Section XI Code (no addenda) that the surface of Class A Pressurizer Integrally Welded Attachments, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-H, Item Number B8.20 be examined per Examination Requirements IWB 2500-13, 14 and 15.
RIF v~-6&:-60
Serial No.00-001 Page 2 of 4 III. Code Requirement for which the Alternative is Requested:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI, 1989 Edition (no addenda), Table IWB-2500-1 Examination Category B-H, Item No. B8.20, Figure No. IWB-2500-13.
Examination Requirements Figure Number IWB-2500-13 requires a surface examination to areas (A-B) and (C-D). Note 2 states "The extent of the examination includes essentially 100% of the length of the attachment weld at each attachment subject to examination. (See Attachment 1)
IV. Basis for Alternative Examination Duke Energy requests relief from the surface examination required on surface area C-D as shown on Attachment 1. Surface area C-D is inaccessible for examination for the following reasons:
- 1. The Pressurizer heater cables must be disconnected for access which, in the past, has caused a number of the termination joints and ceramic insulators to fail. (See Attachment 2)
- 2. The maximum clearance between the inside surface of the support skirt and the outside row of the Pressurizer heaters is 14 inches. This is insufficient clearance for performing the required surface examination. (See Attachment 3)
- 3. The ID of the Pressurizer Support Skirt is a high radiation area. Personnel performing the required examination would receive a significant dose.
The general area dose rate is 400mr/hr and the contact dose rates range from 1000 to 3000mr/hr.
F7t 01 -o67
Serial No.00-001 Page 3 of 4 V. Alternate Examination or Testing:
The ID surface (surface area C-D) of the weld will be examined by ultrasonic testing. The support skirt weld surface will be scanned with two angle beams in two opposing axial directions and two opposing circumferential directions. These angle beam scans will cover the inner weld and base metal surfaces from points "C" to "D". A straight beam scan will also be performed from point "C" toward the vessel shell to the maximum extent practical. (See Attachment 4)
VI. Justification for the Granting of Relief:
There is inadequate accessibility of the inside surface (surface C-D) of the Pressurizer Support Skirt Weld to perform the required surface examination. Therefore, an ultrasonic examination will be used to inspect the inner examination surface from the skirt's exterior surface. The ultrasonic method has been shown capable of detecting surface connected flaws in pressure vessel welds when a properly designed technique is used. The ultrasonic procedure and the basic calibration block will conform to the requirements of ASME Section XI, Appendix I, 1989 Edition.
AT 67
Serial No.00-001 Page 4 of 4 VII. Implementation Schedule:
The weld will be scheduled in accordance with ASME Section XI requirements as shown in the McGuire Nuclear Station Inservice Inspection Plan Second Ten Year Interval for Unit 1 & Unit 2.
The following individuals contributed to the development of this RFA. Gary Underwood (Plan Manager McGuire) sections I-VII, Jim McArdle (Level III NDE) sections V and VI, Ken Pitser (Engineer Primary Systems) section V, Mark Pyne (Nuclear G.O.
Engineering) review and Kevin Rhyne (Nuclear G.O.
Supervising Engineer) final review.
Sponsored By: Dates 3--,717-00c:ý Approved By: "Date A/ 71o0 Rrk C,[e7 MWRý -
TOO-00 DAF-letIJD-)TV A'ýJ
>D Oýv luc,"AIDMV -
.11 zil
')UD%)OdLL)Oa
SEE OETAIL "A"'
CERAMIC INSULATOR TYPICAL HEATER ASSEYH R 0-O-607 A.
ALtachmeneyL 2 RýequesL Jc~'. 0 ItiV(: 00
SUPPORT SKIRT ATTACHM'ENT WELD z"
HEAT ER "OUTER F SUPPORT SKIRT 0ETAIL "A" ATh-,
AttachmenL 3 RequesL For AlLeinadtive 00 001
of Pressurizer Support Skirt Weld UT Scan Plan ALtachmenL 4 Request For A]ltCenative 00-00 TV6 1