L-PI-04-005, Request for Relief No. 16, Revision 0 for the Third 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program

Request for Relief No. 16, Revision 0 for the Third 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program

ML040150068
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	01/07/2004
From:	Solymossy J Nuclear Management Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-PI-04-005
Download: ML040150068 (110)

Text

I I NM Committd to Nuckear'Excenceo Nuclear Management Company, LLC PrairIe Island Nuclear Generating Plant 1717 Wakonade Dr. East

• Welch MN 55089 IAN 7 2004 L-PI-04-005 10 CFR 50.55a U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-306 LICENSE NO. DPR-60

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR RELIEF NO. 16, REVISION 0, FOR THE UNIT 2 3RD 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM On November 15,1994 we submitted for review our third 10-year Inservice Inspection Examination Plan for Unit 2 and, on April 19,1995, relief request revisions associated with that plan. The NRC issued its evaluation of the 3rd 10-year Interval Program Plan on February 22, 1996.

The purpose of this letter is to submit a relief request for "limited examinations" associated with that plan. Attached is Unit 2 Relief Request No. 16, Revision 0 which addresses those limited examinations. We are requesting relief pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.55a(g)(5)(iii) due to the impracticality of obtaining "100%"

examination coverage for the affected items.

This letter contains no new commitments and no revisions to existing commitments.

Please contact Jack Leveille (651-388-1121, Ext. 4142) if you have any questions related to this letter.

i. Solymossy Sii Vice President. Pr i e Is and Nuclear Generatina Plant cc: (see next page) 1717 Wakonade Drive East

• Welch, Minnesota 55089-9642 Telephone: 651.388.1121 i~O421

USNRC NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC L-PI-04-005 Page 2 cc:

Regional Administrator, USNRC, Region III Project Manager, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, USNRC, NRR NRC Resident Inspector - Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Chief Boiler Inspector, State of Minnesota P. Fisher, Hartford Insurance

Enclosure:

ISI Relief Request No. 16 (Rev. 0), Prairie Island Unit 2, 3"d Interval, with attached examination reports and Prairie Island Procedure SWI NDE-LTS-1, "Limitations to NDE" 1717 Wakonade Drive East

• Welch, Minnesota 55089-9642 Telephone: 651.388.1121

ENCLOSURE NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-306 January 2004 ISI Relief Request No. 16 (Rev. 0), Prairie Island Unit 2, 3rd Interval This enclosure consists of a 10 page write-up, entitled, "ISI Relief Request No. 16 (Rev. 0), Prairie Island Unit 2, 3r Interval" and the following attachments:

• , Drawing No. 2-ISI-41, 1 page

• , Inspection Report No. 2003U033, 4 pages

• , Inspection Report No. 2000U1 56, 26 pages

• , Drawing No. 2-ISI-33B, 1 page

• , Inspection Report No. 2003U005, 6 pages

• , Drawing No. 2-ISI-21, 1 page

• , Inspection Report No. 2003U002, 6 pages

• , Inspection Report No. 2003P01 2,4 pages

• , Drawing No. 2-ISI-29, I page 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment 10, Inspection Report No. 2003U040, 5 pages 11, Drawing No. 2-lSI-1 1,1 page 12, Inspection Report No. 2003U015, 4 pages 13, Drawing No. 2-ISI-69B, 1 page 14, Inspection Report No. 2003U035, 5 pages 15, Drawing No. 2-ISI-90A, I page 16, Inspection Report No. 2003U010, 4 pages 17, Inspection Report No. 2003U01 1, 4 pages 18, Drawing No. 2-ISI-93A, 1 page 19, Inspection Report No. 2003U026, 4 pages 0, Drawing No. 2-ISI-46B, I page 1, Inspection Report No. 2003U029, 3 pages 2, Prairie Island Procedure SWI NDE-LTS-1, 'Limitations to NDE" 13 pages

ISI Relief Request No. 16 (Rev. 0), Prairie Island Unit 2, 3rd Interval Limited Examination SYSTEM:

Various CLASS: 1 and 2 CATEGORY: Various ITEM NO: Various ImPractical Examination Requirements:

ASME Section XI (1989 Edition, no addenda) Code requires full examination coverage of inservice inspection (ISI) components per Table IWB-2500-1, and IWC-2500-1. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.147 endorses the use of Section XI Code Case N-460, "Alternative Examination Coverage for Class 1 and Class 2 Welds." This code case allows greater than 90% coverage of a weld to meet the "essentially 100%" requirement.

In addition, NRC Information Notice 98-42 "Implementation of 10 CFR 50.55a(g) Inservice Inspection requirements" dated Dec. 1, 1998, states, "The NRC has adopted and further refined the definition of 'essentially 100 percent' to mean 'greater than 90 percent' in 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A)(2) for required examination coverage of reactor pressure vessel welds.

This standard has been applied to all examination of welds or other areas required by ASME Section Xl.

The Prairie Island construction permit was issued in 1967. This facility was designed and constructed with limited accessibility due to component configurations and/or physical barriers for which 100% examination coverage is not achievable on some ISI components examined for the Third Ten Year Interval.

Basis for Relief:

This request is submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iv) which states, "Where an examination requirement by the code or addenda is determined to be impractical by the licensee and is not included in the revised inservice inspection program as permitted by paragraph (g)(4) of this section, the basis for this determination must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission."

The regulation further states in 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(1) that, "For a boiling or pressurized water-cooled nuclear power facility whose construction permit was issued before January 1, 1971, components (including supports) must meet the requirements of paragraphs (g) (4) and (g)(5) of this section to the extent practical." 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) states, 'Throughout the service life of a boiling or pressurized water-cooled nuclear power facility, components (including supports) which are classified as ASME Code Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 must meet the requirements, except design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements, set forth in Section Xl of editions of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code... to the extent practical within the limitations of design, geometry and materials of construction of the components."

I of 10

ISI Relief Request No. 16 (Rev. 0), Prairie Island Unit 2, 3rd Interval Prairie Island was designed and constructed prior to development of ASME Xi, therefore design for accessibility and inspection coverage is not in many cases, sufficient to permit satisfying the current Code requirements. Limitations to inspections are primarily due to design obstructions, component configurations and interference. In the case of circumferential welds a limitation from ultrasonic examination may exist simply because of weld joint configuration as with a pipe to valve or fitting weld.

A summary of the limited examinations are described below and also included in Table 1, "Limited Examinations - Prairie Island Unit 2 - 2003 Refueling Outage."

Part A: Category B-A, "Pressure Retaining Welds In Reactor Vessel" Reactor Vessel (RV) Weld (W-6), Head to Flange:

The RV head-to-flange weld is subject to volumetric and surface examination. In addition to Section Xl Code requirements the volumetric examination was performed pursuant to the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.150. The material of the head is carbon steel. The weld was examined, to the maximum extent practical, using a 0-degree longitudinal wave and 45 and 60-degree shear waves. Supplemental ultrasonic techniques were considered to extend examination coverage of the weld required volume (WRV). It was determined that no significant additional coverage could be obtained. As an alternative to the ultrasonic examination, radiography was considered and determined to be an unacceptable substitute due to radiological constraints, weld configuration, and the undue hardship imposed without offering any commensurate increase in safety with cost benefit.

This weld was examined in three separate sections throughout the 3rd Interval.

Limitations of one-third of the weld from 0' to 12' was approved by the staff on August 8, 2000 per Unit 2 Relief Request #8. This request for relief represents the remaining two-thirds of the weld, 12' to 24' and 24' to 36'.

The required volumetric examination of the WRV was limited from the flange side of the weld due to weld joint configuration and close proximity of the flange to the intersecting radius of the reactor head. In addition, there are two 5.5 inch wide lifting lugs located approximately 120 degrees apart and 3 inches from the toe of the weld on the head that prevent 100% scanning and axial coverage from the head side of the weld. The axial WRV was limited to approximately 43.4% using a 45-degree shear wave and 41.9% using a 60-degree shear wave. Circumferential scanning in the clockwise and counterclockwise direction of the WRV was limited to 66.7% again by the flange and could only be performed on the head side of the weld. The credited volumetric examination of the WRV was limited to 58.68%.

The Ultrasonic reflectors recorded with this examination are within the outer 75% of through-wall thickness, are not surface related and are not suspected to being cracks.

2 of 10

ISI Relief Request No. 16 (Rev. 0), Prairie Island Unit 2, 3d Interval The required surface examinations were performed using magnetic particle and were not limited. 100% of the required surface area was inspected (Inspection Report Nos.

2000M093 and 2003M004). No relevant indications were detected.

The weld is included in the boundary examined by VT-2 during pressure testing (SP 2070, "Reactor Coolant System Integrity Test," completed on 6/5/2000 and 10/8/2003).

The following supporting documentation is provided:, ISI Drawing 2-ISI-41, Examination Report Number 2003U033, Examination Report Number 2000U156 Part B: Category B1J, "Pressure Retaining Welds In Piping" Reactor Coolant (RC) Weld (W-612LSU) Elbow to Pump:

This piping weld is subject to be examined by both volumetric and surface examination methods. The volumetric examination was performed using personnel and procedures qualified in accordance with Appendix Ill. The examination was conducted using 45 refracted longitudinal transducers. The pump and piping elbow material are cast austenitic stainless steel. In addition, the attenuation of the cast stainless material of the pump and elbow impedes the examination and use of other angles. The examination is limited to 48% in the axial direction and 90% in the circumferential direction from the piping elbow side of the weld due to the weld joint configuration connection to the pump. The credited volumetric examination of the WRV was limited to 69% and only a single-sided examination could be performed. The techniques employed for the examination provide for a best effort examination. As an alternative to the ultrasonic examination, radiography was considered and determined to be an unacceptable substitute due to radiological constraints, weld configuration, and the undue hardship imposed without offering any commensurate increase in safety with cost benefit.

The required surface examination was performed using liquid penetrant and was not limited. 100% of the required surface area was inspected (Inspection Report No.

2003P019). No relevant indications were detected.

The weld is included in the boundary examined by VT-2 during pressure testing (SP 2070, "Reactor Coolant System Integrity Test," completed on 10/8/2003).

The following supporting documentation is provided:, ISI Drawing 2-ISI-33B, Examination Report Number 2003U005 3 of 10

ISI Relief Request No. 16 (Rev. 0), Prairie Island Unit 2, 3d Interval Safety Injection (SI) Weld (W.2), Elbow to Pipe:

This piping weld is subject to be examined by both volumetric and surface examination methods. The volumetric examination was performed using personnel and procedures qualified in accordance with Appendix VIII, Supplement 2. The examination was conducted using 45 and 60-degree transducers. The elbow and piping material are austenitic stainless steel. The examination is limited to 34.5% in the axial direction and 44% in the circumferential direction due to four welded support lugs covering the weld.

The credited volumetric examination of the WRV was limited to 39.25%. The techniques employed for the examination provide for a best effort examination. As an alternative to the ultrasonic examination, radiography was considered and determined to be an unacceptable substitute due to radiological constraints, weld configuration, and the undue hardship imposed without offering any commensurate increase in safety with cost benefit.

The required surface examination was performed using liquid penetrant. This exam was limited due to four welded support lugs covering the weld. 52.9% of the required surface area was inspected. Alternative exams would be subject to the same limitations. No relevant indications were detected.

The weld is included in the boundary examined by VT-2 during pressure testing (SP 2070, "Reactor Coolant System Integrity Test," completed on 10/8/2003).

The following supporting documentation is provided:, ISI Drawing 2-ISI-21, Examination Report Number 2003U002, Examination Report Number 2003P012 Safety Injection (SI) Weld (W-3). Pipe to Elbow:

This piping weld is subject to be examined by both volumetric and surface examination methods. The volumetric examination was performed using personnel and procedures qualified in accordance with Appendix VIII, Supplement 2. The examination was conducted using 45 and 60-degree transducers. The elbow and piping material are austenitic stainless steel. The examination is limited to 50% in the axial direction due to a non-removable restraint on the upstream side of the weld. 100% of the circumferential direction was examined. The credited volumetric examination of the WRV was limited to 75% and only a single-sided examination could be performed for the axial direction. It should be noted that the volumetric examination was performed through 100% of the Code WRV; however, the Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI) Appendix Vil procedure used is not qualified for the detection of flaws on the far side of single sided access examinations on austenitic stainless steel piping welds.

The techniques employed for the examination provide for a best effort examination.

As an alternative to the ultrasonic examination, radiography was considered and determined to be an unacceptable substitute due to radiological constraints, weld 4 of 10

ISI Relief Request No. 16 (Rev. 0), Prairie Island Unit 2, 3rd Interval configuration, and the undue hardship imposed without offering any commensurate increase in safety with cost benefit.

The required surface examination was performed using liquid penetrant and was not limited. 100% of the required surface area was inspected (Inspection Report No.

2003P057). No relevant indications were detected.

The weld is included in the boundary examined by VT-2 during pressure testing (SP 2070, "Reactor Coolant System Integrity Test," completed on 10/8/2003).

The following supporting documentation is provided:, ISI Drawing 2-ISI-29 0, Examination Report Number 2003U040 Reactor Coolant (RC) Weld (W-12), Nozzle to Pipe:

This piping branch connection weld is subject to be examined by both volumetric and surface examination methods. The volumetric examination was performed using personnel and procedures qualified in accordance with Appendix Vil, Supplement 2.

The examination was conducted using a 45-degree transducer. No 60-degree refracted longitudinal examination was performed due to technique limitations based on material thicknesses and component diameter considerations that are outside the qualified typical equipment parameters of Table 1 of the PDI document.

The branch nozzle connection to the reactor coolant piping material is austenitic stainless steel. The examination is limited to 50% in both the axial and circumferential directions from the nozzle side of the weld due to the weld joint configuration of the branch connection to the process pipe. The credited volumetric examination of the WRV was limited to 50% and only a single-sided examination could be performed. It should be noted that the volumetric examination was performed through 100% of the Code WRV; however, the PDI Appendix Vil procedure used is not qualified for the detection of flaws on the far side of single sided access examinations on austenitic stainless steel piping welds. The techniques employed for the examination provide for a best effort examination. As an alternative to the ultrasonic examination, radiography was considered and determined to be an unacceptable substitute due to radiological constraints, weld configuration, and the undue hardship imposed without offering any commensurate increase in safety with cost benefit.

The required surface examination was performed using liquid penetrant and was not limited. 100% of the required surface area was (Inspection Report No. 2003P020).

No relevant indications were detected.

The weld is included in the boundary examined by VT-2 during pressure testing (SP 2070, "Reactor Coolant System Integrity Test," completed on 10/8/2003).

5 of 10

ISI Relief Request No. 16 (Rev. 0), Prairie Island Unit 2, 3rd Interval The following supporting documentation is provided: 1, ISI Drawing 2-1SI-11 2, Examination Report Number 2003U015 Part C: Category C-A "Pressure Retaining Welds In Pressure Vessels" Residual Heat Removal (RH) Weld (W-1). Head to Shell:

This head to shell weld is subject to be examined by volumetric examination method.

The volumetric examination was performed using personnel and procedures qualified in accordance with Appendix l1l. The examination was conducted using a 45 and 60-degree transducers. The head and shell materials are austenitic stainless steel. The examination is limited in all scan directions due to outlet / inlet nozzle reinforcing rings and two welded supports. The credited volumetric examination of the WRV was limited to 74%. The techniques employed for the examination provide for a best effort examination. As an alternative to the ultrasonic examination, radiography and liquid penetrant was considered and determined to add no examination area due to limited accessibility.

The weld is included in the boundary examined by VT-2 during pressure testing (SP 2168.10, "RHR System Pressure Test," completed 10/7/2003.

The following supporting documentation is provided: 3, ISI Drawing 2-ISI-69B 4, Examination Report Number 2003U035 Part D: Category C-F-1 "Pressure Retaining Welds In Austenitic Stainless Steel or High Alloy Piping" Safety Inlection (SI) Weld (W-11). Valve to Elbow:

This piping weld is subject to be examined by both volumetric and surface examination methods. The volumetric examination was performed using personnel and procedures qualified in accordance with Appendix Vill, Supplement 2. The examination was conducted using 45 and 70-degree transducers. The elbow and piping material are austenitic stainless steel. The examination is limited to 50% in both the axial and circumferential directions from the piping side of the weld due to the weld joint configuration connection to the valve. The credited volumetric examination of the WRV was limited to 50% and only a single-sided examination could be performed. It should be noted that the volumetric examination was performed through 100% of the Code WRV; however, the PDI Appendix VIII procedure used is not qualified for the detection of flaws on the far side of single sided access examinations on austenitic stainless steel piping welds. The techniques employed for the examination provide for a best effort examination. As an alternative to the ultrasonic examination, radiography 6 of 10

ISI Relief Request No. 16 (Rev. 0), Prairie Island Unit 2, 3rd Interval was considered and determined to be an unacceptable substitute due to radiological constraints, weld configuration, and the undue hardship imposed without offering any commensurate increase in safety with cost benefit.

The required surface examination was performed using liquid penetrant and was not limited. 100% of the required surface area was inspected (Inspection Report No.

2003P014). No relevant indications were detected.

The weld is included in the boundary examined by VT-2 during pressure testing (SP 2168.13, "Safety Injection System Pressure Test." This test has not been completed in its entirety; however the portion of piping that includes this weld has been completed per this SP).

The following supporting documentation is provided: 5, ISI Drawing 2-lSI-90A 6, Examination Report Number 2003U01 0 a

Safety Infection (SI) Weld (W-14), Elbow to Valve:

This piping weld is subject to be examined by both volumetric and surface examination methods. The volumetric examination was performed using personnel and procedures qualified in accordance with Appendix Vil, Supplement 2. The examination was conducted using 45 and 70-degree transducers. The valve and piping material are austenitic stainless steel. The examination is limited to 50% in both the axial and circumferential directions from the piping elbow side of the weld due to the weld joint configuration connection. The credited volumetric examination of the WRV was limited to 50% and only a single-sided examination could be performed. It should be noted that the volumetric examination was performed through 100% of the Code WRV; however, the PDI Appendix VIII procedure used is not qualified for the detection of flaws on the far si6e of single sided access examinations on austenitic stainless steel piping welds. The techniques employed for the examination provide for a best effort examination. As an alternative to the ultrasonic examination, radiography was considered and determined to be an unacceptable substitute due to radiological constraints, weld configuration, and the undue hardship imposed without offering any commensurate increase in safety with cost benefit.

The required surface examination was performed using liquid penetrant and was not limited. 100% of the required surface area was inspected (Inspection Report No.

2003P030). No relevant indications were detected.

The weld is included in the boundary examined by VT-2 during pressure testing (SP 2168.13, 'Safety Injection System Pressure Test." This test has not been completed in its entirety; however the portion of piping that includes this weld has been completed per this SP).

7 of 10

ISI Relief Request No. 16 (Rev. 0), Prairie Island Unit 2, 3d Interval The following supporting documentation Is provided: 5, 1SI Drawing 2-ISI-90A 7, Examination Report Number 2003U01 I Safety Infection (SI) Weld (W-17). Pipe to Flange:

This piping weld is subject to be examined by both volumetric and surface examination methods. The volumetric examination was performed using personnel and procedures qualified in accordance with Appendix VilI, Supplement 2. The examination was conducted using 45 and 70-degree transducers. The flange and piping material are austenitic stainless steel. The examination is limited to 50% in both the axial and circumferential directions from the piping side of the weld due to the weld joint configuration connection to the flange. The credited volumetric examination of the WRV was limited to 50% and only a single-sided examination could be performed. It should be noted that the volumetric examination was performed through 100% of the Code WRV; however, the PDI Appendix Vil procedure used is not qualified for the detection of flaws on the far side of single sided access examinations on austenitic stainless steel piping welds. The techniques employed for the examination provide for a best effort examination. As an alternative to the ultrasonic examination, radiography was considered and determined to be an unacceptable substitute due to radiological constraints, weld configuration, and the undue hardship imposed without offering any commensurate increase in safety with cost benefit.

The required surface examination was performed using liquid penetrant and was not limited. 100% of the required surface area was inspected (Inspection Report No.

2003P032). No relevant indications were detected.

The weld is included in the boundary examined by VT-2 during pressure testing (SP 2168.13, "Safety Injection System Pressure Test." This test has not been completed in its entirety; however the portion of piping that includes this weld has been completed per this SP).

The following supporting documentation is provided: 8, ISI Drawing 2-ISI-93A 9, Examination Report Number 2003U026 Part E: Category C-F-2 "Pressure Retaining Welds In Carbon or Low Alloy Steel Piping" Main Steam (MS) Weld (W-36), Elbow to Pipe:

This sweepolet to Flanged Nozzle weld is subject to be examined by both volumetric and surface examination methods. The sweepolet and flange materials are carbon steel. No volumetric examination was performed due to joint configuration. At the time 8 of 10

ISI Relief Request No. 16 (Rev. 0), Prairie Island Unit 2, 3rd Interval of the examination the adjacent relief valve RS-21-14 was removed for maintenance work. As an additional means of examination a VT-1 was performed on the ID (Inspection Report No. 2003V1 15). No relevant indications were detected. As an alternative to the ultrasonic examination, radiography was considered and determined to be an unacceptable substitute due to radiological constraints, weld configuration, and the undue hardship imposed without offering any commensurate increase in safety with cost benefit.

The required surface examination was performed using Magnetic Particle and was not limited. 100% of the required surface area was inspected (inspection Report No.

2003M002). No relevant indications were detected.

The weld is included in the boundary examined by VT-2 during pressure testing (SP 2168.11, "Main Steam System Pressure Test," completed 9/13/2003.

The following supporting documentation is provided: 0, ISI Drawing 2-lSI-46B 1, Examination Report Number 2003U029 Additional Means of Establishing Component Intesritv:

System integrity is monitored during normal operation by many direct and indirect methods, e.g., containment radiation monitoring, containment air monitoring, containment sump monitoring, containment temperature monitoring, system walk downs, surveillance testing, etc.

Alternate Examination:

The limitations have been noted on the ISI examination reports and are included in the 2003 ISI Outage Summary Report. NMC will continue to document limitations.

All in-service inspections at Prairie Island Unit 2 have been completed to the greatest extent practical. When limitations to required inspections are encountered, Prairie Island Procedure SWI NDE-LTS-1, "Limitations to NDE,n was applied. SWI NDE-LTS-1 (Attachment 22) is used when an ASME Section Xl Code required examination results in less than 90%

coverage. It requires a review of the procedures to obtain maximum coverage and documentation of the limitation. The procedure also examines whether an alternative method could be used to obtain better coverage as allowed by the Code. This procedure was used for all the items identified above and the maximum inspection coverage was achieved.

Limitations are due to design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components.

NMC will continue to utilize the most current techniques available for future examinations.

9 of 10

ISI Relief Request No. 16 (Rev. 0), Prairie Island Unit 2, 3rd Interval Table 1. Limited Examinations - Prairie Island Unit 2 - 2003 Refueling Outage

,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

i X

6, -1..7

-R

^ gA^X x :t-5,I; ;eA-T. 1:- T s-x19:,-i::,,

B-A B1.40 Reactor Vessel 2-ISI-41 W-6 Head to Flange Volumetric 58.68%

2003U033 Limited to flange 501733 UT configuration (lifting lugs).

58.68%

2000U156 B-J B9.10 Reactor Coolant 2-ISI-33B W-6/2LSU Elbow to Pump Volumetric 69%

2003U005 Limited due to configuration 501145 UT and material attenuation B-J B9.11 Safety Injection 2-ISI-21 W-2 Elbow to Pipe Volumetric 39.25%

2003U002 Limited due to four welded 501900 UT support attachments.

52.9%

2003P012 B-J B9.11 Safety Injection 2-ISI-29 W-3 Pipe to Elbow Volumetric 75%

2003U040 Limited due to restraint 501813 UT B-J B9.31 Reactor Coolant 2-ISI-1 I W-12 Nozzle to Pipe Volumetric 50%

20033U015 Limited due to Nozzle weld 501939 UT configuration.

C-A C1.20 Residual Heat Removal 2-ISI69B W-1 Head to Shell Volumetric 74%

2003U035 Limited due to inlet / outlet 501477 UT reinforcing rings and two I__ _ _ _

w elded supports.

C-F-1 C5.21 Safety Injection 2-ISI-90A W-1 1 Valve to Elbow Volumetric 50%

2003UO10 Limited on valve side due to 505055 UT configuration.

C-F-i C5.21 Safety Injection 2-ISI-90A W-14 Elbow to Valve Volumetric 50%

2003UO I Limited on valve side due to 505058 UT configuration.

C-F-I C5.21 Safety Injection 2-ISI-93A W-17 Pipe to Flange Volumetric 50%

2003U026 Limited on flange side due to 505370 UT configuration.

C-F-2 C5.51 Main Steam 2-ISI-46B W-36 Sweepolet to Volumetric 0%

2003U029 Limited due to joint 500861 Flanged Nozzle UT configuration 10 of 10

REACTOR VESSEL HEAD WELD

)

WELD NO.

REF:

l IFILE NO:

21041 R05 5P (M&SP)-_P1-2 isI DWN: CADWorks CHKDDDza.J SYSTEM: REACTOR VESSEL HEAD WELD LINE: NA DWG:

2-ISI-41 I REV. 05 Ar;IcY/ne/ur /

ps66 / OF/

NO,,

Site/Unit:

PINGP /

Summary No.:

Workscope:

UT Vessel Examination P12 501733 ISI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

SWI NDE-UT-3A 0

0305010 Outage No.,

P12RF2003 Report No.:

2003U033 Page:

I of 4

Code:

1989 Code Cat.:

B-A Location:

Drawing No.:

2-ISI41

==

Description:==

Head to Flange System ID:

RV Component ID: W-6 Size/Length:

12' Thickness/Diameter:

6.30" Umitations:

See attached limitation data sheet Start Time:

1305 Finish Time:

1350 Examination Surface:

Inside Outside 9j Surface Condition: Ground Lo Location:

Stud Hole #1 Wo Location:

Centerline of Weld Couplant:

Sonotrace 40 Batch No.:

1. 00143 Temp. Tool Mfg.:

PTC Instruments Serial No.:

3796 Surface Temp.:

84

• F Cal. Report No.:

2003CA036, 2003CA037, 2003CA038 Angle Used I 0l45 l45T 60 60T Scanning dB 33.3 52.3 52.3 63 63 Indication(s):

Yes [J No 4:

Scan Coverage:

Upstream i Downstream rI CW 9, CCW E Comments:

Examined from 24' to 36'. Location: Containment Results:

NAD IND GEO Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%:

No Reviewed Previous Data:

Yes Examiner Level II Signature Date Reviewer Signature ate Howard, Dean 912312003 Jones, Thomas

/

4 g/

3 Examiner Level II ig ure Date Site Review Signature Date Stevermer, Aaron 9/23/2003 Hanson, Shannon lb z Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Review Sbeue Date N/A Daly, Gerald We=O0 3

'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0E111"EA e q OF

Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Egaminations - Vessels L4 Site/Unit:

PINGP I P12 Procedure:

SWI NDE-UT-3A Outage No.:

P12RF2003t Summary No.:

501733 Procedure Rev.:

0 Report No.:

2003U033 Workscope:

ISI Work Order No.:

0305010 Page:

2 of 4

0 deg Planar Scan 100.000

% Length X 66.700

% volume of length /100=

66.700

% total for 0 deg k

45den Scan 1 0.000

% Length X 0.000

% volume of length / 100 =

0.000

% total for Scan 1 I

Scan 2 100.000

% Length X 86.800

% volume of length / 100 =

86.800

% total for Scan 2 Scan 3 100.000

% Length X 66.700

% volume of length /1 00 =

66.700

% total for Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000

% Length X 66.700

% volume of length / 100 =

66.700

% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans =

55.050

% total for 45 deg Other decq 60 Scan 1 0.000

% Length X 0.000

% volume of length / 100 =

0.000

% total for Scan 1 Scan 2 100.000

% Length X 83.800

% volume of length /100 =

83.800

% total for Scan 2 Scan 3 100.000

% Length X 66.700

% volume of length / 100 =

66.700

% total for Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000

% Length X 66.700

% volume of length /100 =

66.700

% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by X scans 54.300

% total for 60 deg Percent complete coverage Add totals for each angle and scan required and divide by # of angles to determine; 58.683

% Total for complete exam Note:

Supplemental coverage may be achieved by use of other angles I methods. When used, the coverage for volume not obtained with angles as noted above shall be calculated and added to the total to provide the percent total for the complete examination.

Site Field Supervisor.

J6 k Iv/z t Date:

IxI14 -

Additional - Calculation Vessel <edit from Setup>

§N.

)_

Site/Unit:

PINGP /

P12 Summary No.:

501733 Workscope:

ISI Limitation Record Procedure:

SWI NDE-UT-3A Procedure Rev.:

0 Work Order No.:

0305010 Outage No.:

P12RF2003 L

Report No.:

2003U033 Page:

3 of 4___

Description of Limitation:

5 50W IDE L FT//& LLL&

3'U Sketch of Limitation:

J:%lddeaI-Photos~Pl2RF02003XUT lmagesV00O3U0331.bmnp W-6 Limitations removal requirements:

None Radiation field:

Examiner Level 11 Signature Date Reviewer Signature DDpte Howard, Dean 912312003 Jones, Thomas VYJ Examiner Level gj Date Site Review Siature Date Stevermer, Aaron 912312003 Hanson, Shannonr

_ SA I a2, Other Level NWA Signature Date ANII Review

'igpature Date NIA Daly, Gerald J3a3 Additional - UnNation <edit from Setup>

Ut)

J1

NriJ Supplemental Report Report No.:

Page:

Summary No.: 501733 Examiner Howard, Dean Examiner: Stevermer, Aaron Other NWA Level:

11 Reviewer Jones, Thomas Level:

11 Site Review: Hanson, Shannon god.f&Ok Level:

NIA ANII Review: Daly, Gerald 4

2003U133 4

of 4

4t Date:

g ~i?3 I Date:

W1b\\

Date: oesccs3, k Comments: None Sketch or Photo:

J:'ddealPhotos\\PI2RFO2003\\UT Images\\2003U033_2.bmp CLO.,

Cove.

4/NA OLUE s4 BAD MA~c pLOT Pir AP I~ ~

~~~~~~~~~Ct ai C-CW

'WSX#e-

&rAAWA~.

Additional - Supplemental Reports <edit from Setup>

II

---

I.

UT Vessel Examination Report No.:

2000U156 Site/Unit NSP

/

P12 Procedure:

ISI-UT-3A Page:

1 of 5

Summary No.:

501733 Procedure Revislon/FC:

8 I

Examination For 151 Work Order No.:

0000232 Applicable Code: 1989 ISO Drawing No.:

2-4l-41 Location:

Containment

==

Description:==

Head to Flange System ID: RV Component ID: W-6 Size/Length:

NIA Thick/Dia:

6.00" LUmitations: See attached lImitation data sheets.

Start Time:

08:00 Finish Tlime:

18:30 Examination Surface:

Inside ]

Outside 0 Surface Condition: Blended Temp. Tool MFG:

Telatemp Serial No.:

NSP 118 Surface Temp.:

75 OF Couplant Sonotrace 40 Batch No.:

1. 98243 Angle Used 0 l 45 45T 60 l 60T I

Lo Location:

Stud Holef i Wo Location:

Cenferine of Weld Scanning dB 2013 I 2012 201r2 20M23 20n23 NIA Cal Sheet No.:

2000CAI62. 2000CA163, 2000CA164 Indication(s):

Yes0 No[]

Scan Coverage WRT Weld:

Upstream r Downstream R CWR CCW0 Comments:

Examined from 12 to 24 only.

I; Results:

NADfl IND GEO Percent Of Coverage Obtained ? 90%:

No Reviewed Previous Data:

Yes Examiner Level ill Signatyre Date Reviewer Signature Date Carlin, William 0.

I

__£

_,J 5121000 Hafing, David A.

I

.)0/040 Examiner Level 1.

Signature Date Site Review BDe Auer, Robert G.

I 512012000 Knney, Charles R.

5 Other Level N/A MSignature Date ANII Review Date NI A

I Heeter, Stephen B.

I 6-/

/01i' z~

A&-66 / OF..?I.A, Site/Unit:

NSP

/

P12 Summary No.:

501733 Examination For.

ISI Ultrasonic In Ation Report Report No.:

2000U156 Page:

2 of 5

Procedure:

Procedure Revision/FC:

Work Order No.:

ISI4UT-3A 8

a 0000232

• 1 WO WMWx Search Unit Angie:

60 Wo Location:

Weld Centerline Lo Location:

1. 1 Bolt Hole O Piping Welds (3 Ferritic Vessels > 27r o Other MP Metal Path Wimax Distance From Wo To S.U. At Maximum Response RBR Remaining Back Reflection WI Distance From Wo At 50%

Of Max (Forward)

L Distance From Datum W2 Distance From Wo At 50%

Of Max (Forward)

UT 1LmULx

-4_______ATUAM 1

Lo 1

mXX ';2 SAMPLE INDICATION r

C Scan Indicaton W

Forward Backward L1 L2 RBR Remarks w$

No.

Of Max 50%Of Max 50%Of Max 50%

Max 50%

Amp.

DAC W

MP WI MP W2 MP Max Max 2

1 27%

3A 3.17 3.0 2.88 4A 3A5 254.5 254.6 264.7 Adjust per Paragraph 8.3.2.a 2

2 25%

3.5 3.27 3.0 2.96 4.7 3.68 255.0 255.4 255.6 Adjust per Paragraph 8.3.2.a 2

3 26%

4.0 3.64 3.2 3.36 4.6 3.92 266.4 266.6 266.7 Adjust per Paragraph 8.3.2.a 2

4 39%

4.0 3.75 3.2 3A7 4.9 4.03 267.9 268.2 268.4 Adjust per Paragraph 8.32.a 2

5 40%

3.6 3.29 3.2 2.97 4.9 3.61 270.8 271.0 271.1 Adjust per Paragraph 8.3.2.a

? 12 a

52%

3.7 3.41 3.3 3.13 4.7 3.69 279.2 279A 279.7 Adjust per Paragraph 8.3.2.a s'

2 7

51%

4.2 3.90 3.2 3.65 4.8 4.15 281.1 281A 281.6 Adjust per Paragraph 8.3.2.a Examiner Level IlIl ignatt Date Reviewer i nature Date Carlin, WilIlam D.

/

=

5/2012000 Halting, David A.

/

Y9 l 6/30/o Examiner Level 11 Signature Date Site Review Auer, Robert G.

/

IOg" 512012000 Kinney, Charles R.

I Other Level NIA 6

Signature Date ANII Review Date NIA I Heater, Stephen B.

/

Co A i f

~ c / ' ~ ~ v r.3 pxa-A OF--76

'up Limitation Record Site/Unit:

NSP

/

P12 mary No.:

5 01733 Procedure:

Procedure RevisiontFC:

Sum ISI-JT-4A 8

I Report No.:

2000U156 Page:

3 of 5

Examination For:

Is1 Work Order No.:

0000232 Description of Limitation:

Flange configuration prohibits exam from flange side. In area of lifting lug, exam limited from head side for 17.6". Lifting lug limits 12.3% of exam length. In this 12.3% area, 45 degree had 56% coverage and 60 degree had 31% coverage. See Determination of Percent Coverage Worksheet (UT - Vessel) for Scan 2 coverage.

Sketch of Limitation:

G:UDDEAL5OIPl2RF02000Pi2 SUPPLEMENTALP12 SUPPLEMENTAL UTMOOU1 3 -

,-

Lmitations removal requirements:

None Radiation field:

8 -12 mR I hr Examiner Level IlIgnFtre Date Reviewer Signature Date Carlin, William D.

612012000 Hailing, David A.

Examiner Level it Sgnature Date Site Review ate Auer, Robert G.

I Aj f

A W 512012000 Kinney, Charles R.

I t

Other Level NWA Mnature Date ANII Review Date NtA I

Heater, Stephen B.

I REPORT #Loo u0 s(.

PEP Supplemental Report Report No.:

2000U156 Page:

4 of 6

L

(3 1.4-LI) kb Q1

Summary No.: 601733 Examiner. Carlin, William D.

Examiner: Auer, Robert 0.

Other NIA Level:

III l Reviewer: Halling, David A.

Level:

11 Site Review: Kinney, Charles ft Level:

NIA ANI Review: Heater, Stephen B.

Date: g~23o/0 Date:

3J <D Date: &-l-Comments: None Sketch or Photo: G:MlDDEAL50l2RF02000 2 SUPPLEMENTAL1P12 SUPPLEMENTAL UT%2000Ul Z.

CIOSUIRE 6-EA0 COVe#.AC-C PLor

/Ni r 2 T~

• I ~ 0

• .~

~

~

• I Lu.o r.q

&A

• 4 r

a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I k-i C

COK O~tGV04A48 VA&UAr,...

PAGE OF A REPORTS #-L.

fG.

I15P Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations - Vessels Report No.:

2000U156 Page:

5 of 5

A SiteUnit NSP

/

P12 Summary No.:

501733 Examination For ISI Procedure:

Procedure Revision/FC:

Work Order No.:

ISI-UT4SA 8

1 0000232 0 deg Planar Scan 100.000

% Length X 66.700

% volume of length /100 =

66.700

% total for 0 deg 45 deg Scan I 0.000

% Length X 0.000

% volume of length / 100 -

0.000

% total for Scan 1 Scan 2 100.000

% Length X 86.800

% volume of length / 100 =

86.800

% total for Scan 2 Scan 3 100.000

% Length X 66.700

% volume of length / 100

• 66.700

% total for Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000

% Length X 66.700

% volume of length /100 a 66.700

% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans =

65.050

% total for 45 deg Other deg 60 Scan 1 0.000

% Length X 0.000

% volume of length /100 a 0.000

% total for Scan 1 Scan 2 100.000

% Length X 83.800

% volume of length /100

• 83.800

% total for Scan 2 Scan 3 100.000

% Length X 66.700

% volume of length /100 S 66.700

% total for Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000

% Length X 66.700

% volume of length / 100 a 66.700

% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by S scans a 54.300

% total for 60 deg Percent complete coverage Add totals for each angle and scan required and divide by # of angles to determine; 58.683

% Total for complete exam Note:

Supplemental coverage may be achieved by use of other angles I methods. When used, the coverage for volume not obtained with angles as noted above shall be calculated and added to the total to provide the percent total for the complete examination.

j Site Field Supervisor PAGEPR OF 26 REPORT 2 666W56

mPm Site/Unit: i_

_2 1

Summary No.:

t

/ 713 Examination For.

1) Flaw Number _

2) Item Number A' /- C0 ISI Flaw Disposition Worksheet Procedure: ;:-d7-&V Procedure Revislon/FC:

I Work Order.No.:

OOO023 2 Report No.: boo U,S_,

Page: -

of 2

E-

3) tSI Interval

4) Code Edition & Addend

5) Acceptance Standard r0C//-V0 rype -,:~l mo

6) Calculations (See

/$457kzr d'a'r/o.5. dq Z:I/11,

=. So 100VIAs -40, r

-P S

>/,>O e Below

__O (oK Reviewer la 19 tt9 Ali Al f

• 'OK Reviewer AZ~c'&

ivSo -/

iOK Reviewer

() OK Reviewer~u.

&iA GusA s

"wcc=06-3VV0-/ tf-2 w'd rv S

alre"st D0~-

I / &

,=

. 7.

=1%1 4&1e 5

7) Results (OK Reviewer a/l=, Tt Code allowable a/t%

6 Calculated aft% =

6.

Laminar flaw surface area: (0.75 I w) =_

8) Table used for analysis

(/OK Reviewer VW 3Xe.

9) Was linear Interpolation used? ?

Yes

@ No If no, why ?

CF4~etX°oIQ Synct by*i rg" zEi Gv'4*

e.

10) Was IWA-3200 SIgnificant Digits For Umiting Values followed?

G3 Yes 0

No 11 no, why?

11) The correct Code Edition and Addenda was available and used.

t0 Yes Preparer QGo,1 eOK Reviewer

12) Statement of acceptability or rejectability with basis.

(I-(AK Reviewer

@ Accept 0 Reject

• (aft) Code allowable > (aft) calculated oCk'-

(i)OEM flaw evaluation handbook (see attached analysis)

@ (a/t) Code allowable < (alt) calculated

13) Prepared by and date

14) 5ngineerirg reydey by and date 6-96-

-ite&~

44<-dL..

@ -dO The results are correct and the methodology used Is In accordance hIs review assures that the results are correct and the with appflcable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.

methodology used Is In accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.

15)Appoedkyanddate This approval assures that all Involved with this flaw sizing and flaw disposition were aware of the necessity that the results and the methodology are correct and In accordancewith applicable codes, standards, specifcatIons and procedures.

PAGE 6

OF 2 REPORT# 200-C&I 5

Flaw Sizing Calculations Using Metal Path for Vessel Welds > 2' For surface and subsurface single planar lws oiented In plans normal to pressure retalning mafac ASME SECT XI 1989 WI NO ADDENDA 5

!INITIAL TO VERIFY.

1IS Report #a sL0 Evaluation Perfo r yed By,_

Flaw I

Rei wed Dote:

ZS-o Length of the flaw T is determined by firuing the difference between Li and L2 for perpendicular sans, 1

WI end W2 for parallel moans.

L and W values are fromn page A of the UT report.

I-254.7 (0.2) -

54.5 (LI) =

.2 Inches.

IhLiknesS Thlckness of the component at the location of the flaw, usfrUlr nom wall (circle one).

This value is from page I of the UT report "t*

Q.0 Inches q

Cal~bratlon The measured an the Ine celbraton blockwas 60L_ degrees calculations usinq ma path, From page _

of the UT report, Scan The flawexblted O$ DACat 2,I and.4A6 inchesMP. MaxamplitdQeIs.1L Inches MPwiththe transducer ex't poltt IL Indies (W) from the centedine oftho weld and 254& 6 iches (L) from the 0 ref3rence. (Use of 20% DAC vs. 60% max amp for IndIcaflons > 100% DAC Is conservathe.)

1)

Determine the upper depth of the flaw from te exam surface.

2-L (metal path at 20% upper)

• COS of the measured anglo.6

= JA4. Inches depth.

2)

Determine the lower depth of the fkw from the exam surface.

_3_41_ (metal path at 20% lower)

• COS of the measured angle.J 1.73 Inches depth.

3)

Determine the depth of the flaw from the exam surface at the maximum umpitude point.

3.Jr (metal path at maxm amplide polnt)COS of the measured angle.B _=AM Inches depth.

4)

Detemilne the distance from the center line of the weld to the maximum amplitude point of the flew.

Af_

(metal path at maximum amplitude point) squared =.1Q0489_- (at) 11JA8 (depth at maximumn ampitude point) squared,2.C122 (bt) 4 a' - V' 24j,

Iches ot surface distance to the flaw from the transducer exit point.

,.4.

(Wmax) - i2-1I3 (surf dist) e AL Inches to the centerline of Dhe weld.

5)

Determine S by picking the smaller of the folfwing; S = 1.44 (result of 1) - distance between exam surface and the upper Alaw lip t> O, cc S = 6,Q (part 1)- 1.73 (result of 2) - 4 distance between the side opposite exam surface and the ower flaw tip

6)

DetermIne 2d In though wall Uickness.

tlJ3 (from step 2)- JA4 (from step 1) =.29 Inches.

mation of surfage or subsurface 0Xd v- (2d / 2)

• 0.4 -

A58 Cormpare to S (from step 5) -

If f Is less than O.4d. t flaw Is surface: a = 2d + 6 = NItA. inches.

Iffl greater lan orequal boOAathe niaw is sub-curface. a =2a /2

.145 I. ches.

I x,,30 (for a 3,0.6, & 2a)

It-a O (part tlhickess) ae.16 (surf or clre one) 8 _A_

PAGE -

O F 2 10d REPORT #06oouI6 9:i

n. OO-SZ-AU

4;;
S1 t)q rt SiteA~t*

P zr I

A Sumnufry No.:

S

-5I 7A3$

Examination For AtJ.4p

/.a'.i.,/'

II5 Flaw Sizing Worksheet Report No.: 2zouvI(00 Page, -

of Procedure:

Procedure Revslon/FC:

Work Order No.:

Z~sZ-~4r3 A t

I d*l

1) Flaw Number

2) item Number

--B I /

3) 1I1 tnterval

4) Code Edtlon & Addenda

5) Method

6) Flaw Sketch 1OK

_ _eewe K Raviewer OK feviewer :

OK Reviewer 5PC Flaw View

,Sq.

6

.ns" Pide V-iew End !View l0 Sq.1p Ijead Weld CL Flange

7) Calculetlions OK Reviewer Show detennination of Surface or subsurface 5ee A A4*r A.,d Show determination of type of *, to use Top YWeW f) ISI-FE-1 Paragraph 7.0 - "Rounding-off Method' was used Jt Yes Preparer

9) Code Flaw Oimenslons OK Reviewer-s

,30 a"

nomrnal l.O7 "Imeasured 6-P "5

10)FlawType OKRevlwer-er1A r 4 i

+/-

'e.fut,-

1t) Flaw ChatacterIation Figure OK Revlewer

)

12) flaw Charactertzaton Figure Number I.

13) Was IWA-3300 Flaw Churacterizaton tlowed o

• Yes No If no. why ?

OK Reviewer

-- ?

br. -

14) The'etrrect Code Ediron gnd Addenda was available and ured

15) Prepared by and date I

CeW -

uaEf The results Are correct and th menthodology used is in accordance with applicable codes. standards. speclfications and procedures.

I Yes Preparer

____e__

OK Reviewer

16) Reilew by and date The review assures that the results are correct and the methodology used Is in accordance with applicable codes, standards, pecificadons and procedures, PAGE - I OF 2.i REPORT # Z-Oo00 6I6 6:ZI mu.

oo-9Z-A 1 0 Id

ItMANIF Site/Unit Summary No.:

-Z 5

/ 7 X 3 Examination For.

OrZ 31 Flaw Disposition Worksheet Procedure:

-k7.3 Procedure RevIsion/FC:

8

/

Work Order No.:

35,oJ.23o Report No.:

0c-OW tSc.

Page:

of

1) Flaw Number 2

2) Item Number e /. YO By' *V ft,V f -Smg s-aps~

3) ISI Intenral

__,2

4) Code Edition & Addenda

/9.4 9

,lO B

5) Acceptance Standard c

- ?_

-757,/

6) Calculations (See Below)

C(OK Reviewer

• /OK Reviewer I

VOK Reviewer i VOK Reviewer *4 4_ =o Is, e,

6 t{.

zrri iP

° air4w <erw V :-

= 6-25,

~4ceer~e~ro.

e.

3_

A/E--

o/__2D,

o,= /

5/Z~. -

f°

' 'ff1 ZD Fo aref^}-

-i' Z,44 dX40= 3 S'1 or C6~/£.)

Ai Ji"'7

),>2. S%1

'e44.-d 06't->

.qe C4.

7) Results *'OK Reviewer A

all = 0 -A 6 Code allowable aft% = 3. 8 Calculated af% =

,2. 5 Laminar flaw surface area: (0.75 I w) = AoA

8) Table used for analysis

• 'OK Revlewer -

7&

zw-35/14-/

9) Was linear interpolation used ? Ah Yes e No If no, why ? ateo

10) Was IWA-3200 Slgnlicant Digits For Umitdng Values followed?.

• Yes 0 No 11 no, why?

11) The correct Ccde Edition and Addenda was available and used.

• Yes Preparer

&OK Reviewer

12) Statement of acceptability or rejectability with basis.

VOK Reviewer a

• Accept 0 Reject

• (alt) Code allowable > (aft) calculated pSj)

(9 OEM flaw evaluation handbook (see attached analysis)

I@ (alt) Code allowable < (aft) calculated

13) Prepared by and date fi 5-a The results are correct and the methodology used Is In accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.

14) E1gineering reviewby and date 5--4d -<d)

This review assures that the results are correct and the methodology used is In accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.

15) Approvcd by and date This approval assures that all Involved with the flaw sizing and flaw disposition were aware of the necessity that the results and the methodology are correct and in accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.

PAGE.

OF 2' REPORT # 2000 156--

Flaw Sizing Calculatlons Using Metal Path for Vessel Welds, 2"l For surfac nd ubsurface singte planar faws oriented in pa nomia to pressur retaining surfacek A6ME 6EC1T Xl

)[ 198 NO ADDEND1A 4$NITIAL TO VERIFY C

ISI Report #t -gooo I krto Evaluatin Perform By:

Date: 5-W-5V rO few #.

2 Reviewed By; Date-,

Length of the law Y Is determined by finding the difference between Li and L2 for perpendicular scans, WI and W2 for parallel scans.

1. and W values are from page - of the UT report.

in 25-j5 (L2)..25I0 (LI)

.6= Incthes.

Thicknosl lblckness of the component at the location of the flaw, usInoa"r nom watl (drde one),

K Tlls value Is from page _

of the UT report.

W-6.0 Inches The measured anle In the calibration block was _iLQ degrees Calculations using metAl pot From page of the UT repout, Scan # j The flaw exhibited 20% DAC at 2_PL and.6L_ Inches MP. Max amplitude Is 7J Inches MP with the thnsducer exit point at..

_ Incdes (W) from the centeline of the weld and 2HA. Inches (L) from the 0a inaherence. (Use of 20% DAC vs. 0W%

max amp for Indications > 100% DAC Is conservative.)

1)

Detenrmne the upper depth of the 1aw from the exami surface.

IlL (metal path at 20% upper)

• COS of the measured angle L. 1 1

Inches depth.

2)

Determine the tower depth of the flaw from the exam surface.

3.5L (metal path at 20% lower)

• COS of the measured angle,$L.

J1.7 Inches depth.

3)

Determine the depth of th Raw from the exam surface at the maximum amplitude paint.

UZ.7. (metal path at maximum amplitude point)* COS of the measured "nle._L a 1.35 Inches depth.

4)

Determine the distance from the center fine of the wetd to the maximum amplitude point of the flaw.

3.L (metal path at maximum amplitude point) squared 0

J 923 (a2)

_.635 (depth at maidmum ampnitude point) squared =..WI2. (b')

4a2 -

i In 2

10 iches of surface distane the flaw from the transducer et point.

,.C (Wmax) - 2.31(surf dist) =

8 Inches to the centerine of the weld.

5)

DetermIne S by picking the smaller of the following:

S.AAL,.(resldt of 1) = distance between exam surface end te upper flaw tp S

• _f (part

) -JLt(resul of 2) - AlL distance between the side opposite exam surface and the lower flaw tip

6)

Detrmilne 2d hI though wall Idukess.

1... (from step 2)- IA (from step 1)

Al inches.

petejnination of eurfage or -suburface 0.4d a (2d / 2)

• OA.

Compare to S (from step 6) f 8 Is less thaft 0.4d, he taw is surface. a u 2d + 8 -

NIA inches.

If S Is greater than or equal to OAa the flaw Is sub-urface. a £ 2a1 2 x.in nches.

• . 0 (for aA >o 0.6, r m2e) t m.IL (part thlckness) e a _1 (surf or Amb", cirde one)

PAGE 1 0O REPORT #

Wo oo.t66 tU d Ui;Gt IlltL UU-~G-AVKR

KNP 8HeJInit; P7-,, J Summary No.: u Examination For- _

t 4 '

ISI Flaw Sizing Worksheet Repvit No.. 2~0e0 1, I(

Page: -

of Procedure:

Procedure Revislon/FC:

Work Order No jcnz-L.,'

f-5 9

I 4V b ivcgw~l

1) Flaw Number

2) Item Number

.9/'S0

3) ISI interval f 4

4) Code Edition & Addenda

-/B'g.

_ya.40.

5) Method

6) Flow Sketch OK Reviewer OK Reviewer M

OK< Rcviewer AW;

.^S4.B,

.W Flaw VYew Ife.

6 MA -15 1

kt!1 Side View C.)

tz CI.

II Head End 'Miew

_SO N

____H mu Weld CL Flange

7) Calculations

'* OK Reviewer 5 Top View Show determination of Surface Or subsurftce

,566:

A174cMC4 Show determination of type of "a' to use 56c-jrmo-U-s-

8) 1SI-FE-1 Parsgraph 7.0 - Rounding-aff Method was used

)( Yes Preparer P

OK Review

9) Code Flaw Dlmensions OK Reviewer r

.4' "a",

't nominal A

t measurud s s

/.5 f

10) Flaw Type OK Reviewer _lW ue 5cl(z fdArte

11) Flaw Charucterlzaton Figure

^ OK Reviewer 8.+.o3 5ZO o-

12) Flow Characterization Figure Number

/

13) Was IWA-3300 Flaw Characterzation followed I

• Yes No It no. why 7 e r

21=

14) The correct Code Edition and Addenda was available and used.

15) Prejpar y and dqat j r 7

_-a q

_a...

The results are correct and Tbe methodology used Is In accordance with appilcable codes. standards, specifications and procedures Jf.YeR prepere

r. +/-...-

OK Reviewer The review assures that the results are correct and the methodology used Is in accordance with applicable codes. standards, speclficatlonh and procedures.

PAGE 1OOF 2

6O REPORT#s

,~us BVO NIs (IDz--Mu to Id

NIP Report No.: Zpgo otli5 Y ISI Flaw Disposition Worksheet Site/Unit:

IV?

I Procedure:

Page:

of Summary No.:

5O / 73.

Procedure RevisionIFC:

Or

/

Examination For Work Order No.:

gffz3

1) Flaw Number 3

3) ISI Interval c~a4/.

AMOK Reviewerea

2) Item Number

,'/.

MO

4) Code Edition & Addenda 794g

&,0 b

s.

(iK Reviewer eg

5) Acceptance Standard Z&W8 -

,576 -/

10K Reviewer i24 e '

Il a

AS.

t" 0I

-7ff.

'6) Calculations (Se caz,15Z-,3o 7,~t;4o 5-/,vl 7 e r V1O 5

'i t

90= 54 = /'a@'s

/6/ s"' >

-00 M= 5g

/. o//5__ A/

F>/

~~~~~~A, ee Below)

"K Reviewer Ho r4pFc,.

God

- 3i/b-/ (r1-/2J9'"21

= '/5

.2-to

?S-

'Yee 2,4aw 76 4/,/ % 'A

.1 a/4z >

5d-/~b

.4
L e

7. 92 >

7

0. to Oq-#w /-
Aee-r "

"4 7 Results @/K Reviewer :/> Ae al =

6 Code allowable at% =

-7, Calculated alt% = Ao 5 Laminar flaw surface area: (0.75 I w)=

VA

8) Table used for analysis VOK Reviewer He,'

ZW

9) Was linear Interpolation used ? X' Yes A No If no, why ? 4'e V,4t.b eA C C ee Rev t'#

7A'fJrc6.

10) Was IWA-3200 Signifcant Digits For Umiting Values followed.?

e Yes 0 No Hi no, why?

11) The correct Code Edition and Addenda was available and used.

• Yes Preparer j

@6Ki Reviewer

12) Statement of acceptability or rejectabilty with basis.

0 OK Reviewer A -.

Accept 0 Reject

• (a/t) Code allowable > (alt) calculated He45-"

@ OEM flaw evaluation handbook (see attached analysis)

I) (aft) Code allowable < (aft) calculated

13) Prepared bond 4ate 14)Eglneeringrevigvbyand date The results are correct and the methodology used is In accordance This review assures that the results are correct and the with applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.

methodology used Is In accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.

15) Ap roveSV and date This approval assures that all Involved with this flaw sizing and flaw disposition were aware of the necessity that the results and the methodology are correct and in accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.

PAGE IZ OF 24 REPORT#

2Y 6cul Ad

Flaw Sizing Calculations Using Motal Path for Vessel Welds t 2" Frsurface and subsurface sfnglo pfanarfiawa orinted In plane normal tg pressure retalning surfaco ASME 9 tJ XNI WI NO AtDDENA dP INIMIL TO VERIFY ISI Report P l l Evaluation Pered By Date: S ffC Flaw Reviewed Byy:__

Date:-

Length of the flaw 'I Is determined by finding tie difference between LI and L2 for perpendicular scans, WI and W2 for paralel scans.

L and W values are from papa _

of the UT report I-

-2a.-

(1.2) - 26.4 (L)

Inches.

Ildbknes Thickness of the component at the location of the flaw, uslnm4%r nom wall (circle one),

Thi value is from page _ of the UT report.

= 6,0 Inches Callbratton The measured angle Inlbs calibration block was 60L._ degrees Culmjlatlons using metal path From page -

of the UT report, Scan #.2 The law exhibited 20% DAC atAN-and 3,92 inctes MP. Max amplitude is -4 hiches MP with the transducer exit point at __inchIes (W) from the centerline of the weld and Ziij Inches (L) tom the 0" reference, (Use of 20% DAC vs. 50% rrax amp for Indications > 100% DAC Is conservative.)

1)

Determine the upper depth of fte flaw from the exam surface.

j..&

(metal path at 20% upper) *CO of the measured angle

.5 a J 1A Inches depth.

2)

Determine the lower depth of the law from lth exam surface.

_LI2. (metal path at 20% oer) 0 C08 of the measured angle

.6

- 1.J6 hches depth.

3)

Determine the depth of the faw from the exam surface at Ile maximum amplitude point.

J&L (metal path at maximum amplitude point) I COS of the measured angle,L e inches depth.

4)

Determine the distance fom the center line of the weld to the maximum arnplitude point of the flaw.

3.64.

metal path at maxhnurn amplitude point) squared = A3,24Ij. (a')

_1.82 -(depth at maxlrnum amnplitude polnt) *quared - 3,12i k 4 e - bs o

3.1629 "es of curface dstance to the ow fom t transducer exit point.

£40 (W~max)-

3.1523 (surf dIWt)A..8477 iches to the centerline of the weld.

5)

Determine S by picking the smaller of the followftg S c l.C8 (result of 1) = distance between exxn suface end the upper flaw tip 8

0 L.0 (part ")

(result ot2)

_ 40_ distance between the side opposite exam surface and the lower flaw Up

6)

Detenrmne 2d in though wall thickness.

11.4 (from tep 2) -A 1 t(from step 1)

.28 Inches.

Determinatron of surface or-subsurfac OAd

( (2d J 2) '0.4 a *.M Compare to S (from step 5)

IfS Is less than 0.d, the flaw i surface. a a2d + S =-N&

inches.

If S Is greater than or equal to 0Aa the flaw Is sub-surface. a w 2e /2 =

I inches, I c.30 (for a8 > 0.6. I I 2a) t

6.

(paert thklkness) a a _11_ (surf or &&sLd, circle one) n

• PAGE 3

OFU 90 'J REPORT Z o O9:ZI m oo-s - vu

KSP ISI Flaw Slzlng Worksheet 61te/Unit -

/ I

L Procedure.

rZ 4--3 Summary No.

.23 3.

Procedure Revlsiol/FC:

s I

Ar Exarnination For:

i

/21 -;.1 WorkiOrderNo.:

C2

% Z.

Report No..

Page:

of 1*1 11%.

4) 11-t C1Z

1) Flaw Number

2) Item Nunber

&fe>-vp

3) ISI Inten al

4) Code Edition & Addenda dS

5) Method 27

6) Flaw Sketch OK Reviewer a

OK Reviewer OK Reviewer Flaw View 0

1.1"1 I I I-S

-I I I

.1.5*

_ I -

.1 C'-

.Ir

_____________________________________________I 0

Weld CL I n.-....*--.........e.

Flag

7) Calculatlons OK Reviewer Up view Show delermination of Surface or subsurface Show determination of type of l' to use

8) 1t8-FE-l Paragrtph 7.0- 'Rounding-off Metod was used

)(Yes Preparer 9

I OK Reviewer

9) Code Flaw Dimensions f OK Reviewer

'I" 30 *"a'

.6-

"t nominsal jt

• tmeasumd

"(

O IS,

/7*

W "/k

10) Flow Type OK Reviewer S

fig. 5i c fjte5 p

^uit

11) Fbw Characteriation Figure OK Revlewer t

W04 10o I

12) Flaw Characterfzaton Figure Number A /

13) Ws WA-3300 Flaw Characterizsain fofowed?

• Yes No If no, why"

14) The corred Code Edition and Addenda was avelable and used

15) Prae 7b aJ dal f

The result correct and the rnelhodology used la hi accordance with applicable codes. standards, apecificatlons and procedures.

,Yes Preparer OK Reviewer 3

18) Review bya ;/

The review assures that the results are correct and the methodology used Is in accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.

PAGE 1

OF 26 REPORT # U856-OS:lz MI' 0O-S?-AW 90 Id

NIP Site/Unit:

I?

/

Summary No.:

1__7

_3_

Examination For

-Z

1) Flaw Number el

2) Item Number

?/.

'/0

(

r1#$tAJ t'ffI 5e%

ISt Flaw Disposition Worksheet c

Procedure:

5 Procedure Revision/FC

Work Order No.:

0

3) ISi Interval

4) Code Edition & Addenda

5) Acceptance Standard z

6) Calculations (See Below)

Re X76 z 327 iport No.: 2 C 0 I

Page:

of

_OK Reviewer

,/

°

'f*8

&V5 A4d.

(4OK Reviewer L

W.9,- 95s;0 -

@'OK Reviewer

(*OK Reviewer YW I

6ZDAW 7A'0 4 B36o8-;9~

/A45f~4W AW4

'r'~

a 5.3e0 4'4 I re I

,0e:, tb e,,J

/ S'K

.-o 5 = A 7 0/S 14,1--/'fV/

y15=13'1>

51e

= */>go5=,02z S- =R. <-

A/0 5y; vz&-e ov ~2

>.?2S-z 0

6 0 4//~j%

4L

."Ir

'r.....

Oak~ /.

"r 147 e.11Z.

7) Results @/OK Reviewer 0-aI = 6, 3, Code allowable a/t% =

M9}

Calculated a8/%

=

27.

Laminar flaw surface area: (0.75 I w)=

=

8) Table used for analysis 0KReviewer

9) Was linear Interpolation used ?

Ct Yes

• No If no, why ?

10) Was IWA-3200 Significant Digits For Umitlng Values followed?

Yes 0 No If no, why?

I

11) The correct Code Edition and Addenda was available and used.

Yes Preparer XXV-

12) Statement of acceptability or rejectabillty with basis.

(OK Reviewer 4 (B'ccept 0 ReJect

• (a/t) Code allowable > (ast) calculated

@ OEM flaw evaluation handbook (see attached analysis)

(alt) Code allowable < (a/t) calculated t3)aPrepared ily snd date

-14) 9)gineerng ew ya date The results are correct and the methodology used Is In accordance Th s review assures that the results ar with applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.

methodology used Is In accordance wit standards, specifications and procedur OK Reviewer.4Z*

gc.do ^ 0c a correct and the ih applicable codes,

,es.

15) pproved by and date This approval assures that all involved with this flaw sizing and flaw disposition were aware of the necessity that the results and the methodology are correct and in accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.

PAGE

(

OF 2 REPORT #

-2.OiX15%

RSP 151 Flaw Sizing Worksheet Sltel/Jnll:.

R Procedure 7 r 4

Sunmnary No.;

9Qnrl Procedure RevislonIFC:

F I

e4 ExamrinalonFor 4)-to

/

4 - '#'

Work Order No.; _

6oo23z?

Report No.,

Page

° of

1) Flaw Number

2) Item Number 4,

• 6- /,yV10

3) tSl Interval

'; eV

4) Code Edilon 1 Addenda fg5 6c

6) Mdthod J

(

6) Flaw Sketch OK Reviewer OK evlewer OK Reviewer 5

p FaView 0

I.7,Z C,-

,7S1' I(-

Head En1Vw 0

a M.LI.

Weld CL-----------------------*-

7) Cauculations COK Reviewer Mpi V Show deteYinnation of Surface or subsurface

(

Sa2e2z d/ 4 ';

4 Show determination of typo of "a lo use B) ISJ-FE-1 Paragraph 7.0 - "Rounding-off Method war used t Yes Preparer

?+/-

OK Reviewer

9) Code Flaw Dimensions C

OK Reviewer r.~ s

' a-

./5 t nornina ri't measued 0

'ur" /- 7

-S=

10) Flaw Type OK Reviewer 5^

fAr&Ac f _

11) Flaw Characterizatlon Figure OK Reviewer 4J

' 3

°-

12) Flaw Characterization Figure Number 9.t

13) Was IWA-3300 Flow CharacterlzaUton followed ?

• Yes No If no, why )

14) The correct Code Edition and Addenda was available end used

15) Prepared by anrJ dalp The results are correct and the methodology used is hI accordance with applicable codes. standards, spedfications and procedures Preare C OK Reviewer 1o HevieW DY end ga1c The review assures that the resulta are correct and the nethodology used is hI accordance with applicable crodes. standards, speclicatione and procedures.

PAGE

[L OF k REPORT IM AM -

19:ZtI DU 00-9Z-hW 80 Id

Flaw SIzIng Calculations Using Metal Path for Vessel Welds. 2" For suface and suurface single planar flaws oriented In plane norml to pressure retaining surface ASMESECT Xl 1989 §Wt)

A)ENDA -

INITIAL TO VERIFY SISReport#.ŽfLvua, Evaluation Performd Date:SBy Flaw#

4 Reviewed t

Dete. -

2gO Length of the flaw ' is determined by finding the difference between Li and L2 for perpendicular scans, WI end W2 for parallel scans.

L and W vdues sre from page _ of the UT report.

to 268.4 (12) - &ZSLL (LI) =

.50 Inches.

Thickness Thiclesn of the component at the location of the law, uslnqg r nor wall (circle one).

This vatue Is from page - of the UT report.

"t"

• OA.1 Inches Calibration The measured angle In the calibration block was -LO_ degrees Celculations using metpal Rth From page of the UT report, Scan #.Z The ltaw exhilbtted 20% DAC Gt 3A7L and A4 Inches MP. Max amplitude Is JtB inches MP with the transducer exii point at 4.o hIches (W) from the centerline of the weld and -26a inches (L) from the Ov reference. (Use of 20% DAC vs. 60% max amp for Indications > 100% DAC Is conservative.)

1)

Determine the upper depth of the ftaw from the exam curfaoe.

JAL (metal path at 20% upper)

• COS of the measured angle..

1 735 h

iches depth.

2)

Determine the lower depth of Mle flaw from the exam surface.

4A03 (metal path at 20% lower) ' COS of the measured angle c.. 2I01 Inches depth.

3)

Determine the depth of the faw from the exam surface at the maximum amplitude point.

-37 (metal path at maxfmum amplitude point)

• COS of the measured angle -. A_

Inches depth.

4)

Determine the distance from the center Une of the weld to the maximwum amplitude point of the faw.

,Jj.7_

(metal path at maximum amplItude point) squared =14+/-.Q625 (a)

.YJ6 (depth at maxImum amplitude point) squared = 3..15L (b) 4 a'* b' c 31476 Inches of surface distance to the flaw kom the transducer exit point.

4.0 (Wmax) - 1,247Z (surf dist) a 7 L24 Inches to the centerline of the weld,

5)

Determine 5 by pIcking the smaller of the following; S

1,.735 (result of 1) = distanoce between exam surface and the upper tlaw Up

>> OR c S -_6.0 (part r) - 2.116 (result of 2) 3ll5 distance between the side opposite exam surface end the lower flaw Up

6)

Determine 2d In though wall thlck8ss.

J.015 (from stop 2)- 1j7S (from stop 1) =.2L hIches.

DoterminatI osrfa or sUbsudsa 0Ad r (2d 12) *0.4 O

.058f Compare to 8 (from tep 5)

If S Is less than OAd, the flaw Is surfac. a= 2d + S a NIA Iches.

fs Is greater than or equal t O.4a the flaw is sub-surface. a m 2a 12 4 h.44-Iches.

I

.AL_ (for a/ > 0.5, 1= 2a)

Ita-(part thickness) a e.15 (surf or aub

.iL circle one) 1.T PAGE

)

OF 7 n '.

REPORT #

nuODbI1S6 t

mu. no-S iZ-AU

.9 w

NIP Site/Unit Po2 1 Summary No.:

D /7J3 Examination For

$Zs ISI Flaw DIsposition Worksheet..

Procedure:

Procedure Revision/FC:

Work Order No.:

Re gv-6at-3.4 00' I

eoDw.7 la-eport No.: 2oo Q V5I Page:

of

1) Flaw Number __

2) Item Number At/

eD' KAT*/JZ.

3) 181 Interval

4) Code Edition & Addenda

5) Acceptance Standard

6) Calculations (See Below) 45/~~7 ~eM-d' O/

-e-.g /3 IY-t-517-VI)

Y>/ f. 4 g',2e/.

v6 K Reviewer

/If5 A. Ago.

"KReviewer Z/h~ -7570z (OK Reviewer v

a OK Reviewer A

nd-S~

c (44z 2~

".9 26 2

A 6 S~

• 5/

.47s r

/

W/

t'l -,0

2) >

? r

7) Results (/oK Reviewer aAl=

,<1O Code allowable a/to Calculated at% = h. I Laminar flaw surface area: (0.75 I w)=

6) Table used for analysis

@6K Reviewer zerag A-j

9) Was linear Interpolation used ?

K Yes No If no, why ?

1 0) Was IWA-3200 Significant Digits For Umiting Values followed ?

Yes 0 No It no, why ?

11) The correct Code Edition and Addenda was available and used.

@ Yes Preparer

• ` 60K Reviewer 4V

12) Statement of acceptability or rejectability with basis.

eOK Reviewer Accept 0 Reject Of (aft) Code allowable> (aft) calculated okc.-'

6 OEM flaw evaluation handbook (see attached analysis) i) (at) Code allowable c (alt) calculated

13) Prepared by and date The results are correct and the methodology used Is in accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.

14) E g~ineering

"~viep by id date 4

- o0)

This review assures that the results are correct and the methodology used is In accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.

15) Approved by and date This approval assures that all Involved with thk flaw sizing and flaw disposition were aware of the necessity that the results and the methodology are correct and In accordance vith applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.

PAGE ILI OF 26 REPORT # IWOouiS6

Flaw Sizing Calculations Using Metal Path for Vessel Weld$s 2' 2" For surface and subsurface sinale ptoa flaws oriented in piano normal to pressure retaining surface ASME SEQT )J I99 WI NO ADDENDA&S INMAL TO VERIFY ISI Report #.AOoAI k(a Evaluation Performnd By Date:

5 V'Z; Flaw I Reviewed Byt Length of Uh fRaw r Is determined by finding the difference between Li end L2 for perpendicular scans.,

WI and W2 for parallel scans.

L and W values are (tom page -

of the UT report.

L =

127t.1 - (U2) - 270.8 (LI) 3 Inches.

Thicknesp ThIchness of the component at the location of the tiaw, usln, r room wall (drole one).

This value Is from page - of e UT report-

'It"

= A0 inches The measured engle In the calibration bloc was _It_ deOrees Celculatlons using Mgtal oit From page _

of the UT report, Scan #I2 The flaw exhibited 20% A at.ZL and ).0_ Inches MP. Max amplitude Is _.2M Indces MP with 0t transducer exit point at IL Inches (W) from the centerine of the weld and JTJ& inches (L) from the O" reference. (Use of 20% DAC vs. 60% max amp for indIcatlons > 100% DAC is conservatie.)

1)

Determine the upper depth of the taw from the exam surface.

.LL (metal path at 20% upper)

• COS of the measured angfe _-j6

-= 4 inches depth.

2)

Determine te lower depth of the flaw from the exam surface.

.I& (metal path at 20% lower)

• COS of the measured angle -

.S05 Inches depth.

3)

Determine the depth of the flaw from the exam surface at the maximum amplitude point.

3.2L (metal path at maximum ampfltude point) I COS of the measured angle t; A

1 inches depth.

4)

DetermIne the distance from the center lin of the weld to fie maximum amplitude point of the daw.

3.2.

(metal path at maximum amplitude point) squared = j 1 241 (a,)

1.64L (depth at maximum amplitude point) squared c 2.7D0iQ (b')

Yr '-b.O i khesof surfacE distance to the law fm the transducer ext point.

3,6 (Wmax) - 2J8492 (surf dist) a.7508 Inches tlo the centerline of the weld.

5)

Determine S by picldng the smaller of the following; 6 &4 14485 (result of 1) = distance between exam surface and the upper flaw tp 8 -D 60 (part y)-

.605 (result of 2) wA I5 distance between he side opposite xam surface and the lower flaw Up

6)

Determine 2d I though wall thickness.

-1,J,5 (fromstep2)--1.485 (fromstepI)-

.32 inches.

2e2trminatlon of surface or subsurface Q.4d - (2d1 2) ' 0.4 i DB Compere to 6 (from step 6) f Is less than 0.4d, the flaw Is surface. a t 2d Sa IA

-hInches.

If S Is greater than or equal to 0.4a the flaw Is sub-surface. a v2a /2 4

n J

nches.

I a.

(for u

> 0.5, t 2a) t W AQ (part thlknes)

• a _.1 (surf or LsudW circle one)

S ao PAGE-19 OF -2 6 REPORT# Lcutj6 ZS:ZI

. O0-S Rn elfa 0 iZ-AV14 I

POP SiteA~nlrd I

-a

.Summary No.:

ExaminatlonFor~ W(4)-C JAje,

ISI Flaw Sizing Worksheet Report No.

(p Page: -

of-Procedure:

Z,sr - i r. ? 4 Procedure RevislonlFC I

6d Work Order No..

1) Flaw Number

2) Item Number I%4 O

3) ISI Interval 5 r

4) Code Editon b Addenda j>f£f WI &O

5) Method Or

6) Flaw Sketch OK Reviewer !

OK Reviewer 6yr>

OK Reviewer I

1711.01 0

Ij**

Ci

.i H2ad Flanpe C) 7Lo '

"ed Weld CL

• 

Fianas

7) Calculations i OK Reviewer Top new Show determination of Surface or subsurface I

Show determination of type of to use B) ISI-1E.1 Paragrph 7.0 - 'Rounding-off Method" was used X Yes Preparer L.)

Y^ OK Reviewer

9) Code Flaw Dimensions I OK Reviewer T1",._Q i0 I noming) 4 i measured 6 -S

w.

S

_1A 10)FlowType

" OKReviewer SU e Izf

[c.

P(C.C. r iIjFlaw CharacterizationFigure OK Reviewer

_ P

12) Flaw Characterization Figure Number

13) Was IWA-3300 Flaw Characterization followed ?

• Yes No If no. why ?

14) The correct Code Edition and Addenda was avarilabl and used.

15) Prepared by and date The results are correct and the mnetiodology used Is in accordance with applicable codes, standards, specfications and procedures.

XC Yes Preparer V ;7~

OK Reviewer

16) Review by and date The review assures that the results are correct and the metlodology used is In accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifickons and procedures.

PAGE

2..OF2:

REPORT #

ZS2:1 nu OO-Sz-)MI 01 Id

ANI Site/Unit pra

/

Summary No.:

Sin

&33 Examination For:

Z_5_

1) Flaw Number 6

2) Item Number d./. VI Ha at £ '

Adwfe S*

Hl Flaw Disposition Worksheet F

Procedure: Z:4;1j-4C-a'AI Procedure Revision/FC:

I Work Order No.:

etz*

.2?

leport No.: ?Z.OOO a as1o Page:

Iof

3) ISI Interval

4) Code Edition & A

5) Acceptance Stan

6) Calculations (Se(

X 3______________

0iK Reviewer ddenda V5 #

41O'6K Reviewer Idard 7& '

VOK Reviewer Below)

@KOK Reviewer JF//0$

g£

.g

-/

(C/-a"2) zig f Ho m

-/'

5C" 4d'%(:-zx4v

£ 4.O6r-./

A v~

Of

=-

P 25--c At

>,'.S t

,"e~

4Zy-e 7 Results /

KReviewer r

av = 6g,3 Code allowable a/t% = Zt Calculated al%

= _

.S-Laminar flaw surface area: (0.75 I w) = A44

8) Table used for analysis I'O'K Reviewer

(-

nde iS

-/

9) Was linear interpolation used?

• Yes

@ No If no, why ?,041-'

10 oasr-A3c2 ASfcat Digt Fo UmtAlCuf

10) Was IWA-3200 Signi~cant Digits For Umiting Values followed7 ?

Yes 0

No If no, why ?

11) The correct Code Edition and Addenda was available and used.

Yes Preparer ROK Reviewer

12) Statement of acceptability or rejectability with basis.

640K Reviewer i

.'Accept 0 Reject O (alt) Code allowable > (aft) calculated e

i) OEM flaw evaluation handbook (see attached analysis)

(aAt) Code allowable < (alt) calculated 13Prprdb n date The results are correct and the methodology used is in accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.

14) 8glneeringp rqiew~y and date This review assures that the results are correct and the methodology used is In accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.

15) Approved by and date This approval assures that all Involved with this flaw sizing and flaw disposition were aware of the necessity that the results and the methodology are corect and in accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.

PAGE 2.1 OF 273 REPORT#

7-L°ouli

Flaw Sizing C11culations Using Metal Path for Vessel Welds > 2" For surface and ubsurface single planar laws oriented In plano normal to pressure ratalning surface ASME 6ECT Xl 1989 W/I NO ADDENDA 0- INmiAL TO VERIFY ISI Report #

sjo 1.

Evaluation Performe Sy e

Data: S-ZSV Flaw #

6 Reviewed By yate::&-c Length of the Raw T Is determined by finding the difference between Li and L2 for perpendicular scans.

WI and W2 for paralel scans.

L Wd W values ere from page _

of the UT feport.

to 279...

(L2) -

27p.2 (LI) e_.60 kidces.

Thickness Thickness of the component at the location of the llaw. usinQ %r nom wall (circle one).

This value Is from page _of the UT mport "a

6.0 hiches Ctlibration The measured angle In the calibration block was JOL degrees Calculationg using metal patij From page _ of the UT report, Scan #.

The flaw exhibited 20% DAC atalL and AfiiL_ Inches MP. Max amplitude Is 41L Inches MP with the transducer exit point at.L Inches (W) from the centerline of the weld and -2iM4 Inches (L) from the 0 reference. (Use of 20% DAC vs. 60% max amp for indcatlons >100% DAC is coervative.)

1)

Determine the upper depth of h law from te exam surface.

hAL (metal path at 20% upper) I COS of the measured angle.6L 1..6§1 Inches depth.

2)

Determirne the lower depth of the flaw from the exam surface.

,UL (metal path at 20% lower) ^ COS of the measured angle

.5

= t.645 Inches depth.

3)

Determine the depth of the flaw from the exam surface at the maxinum amplitude point.

-Al (meW path at maximum amplitude point)

• COS of the measured angle... L 0

inches depth.

4)

Determine the distance from the center One of lhe weld to the maximum amplitude point o the flaw.

A.41 (metal patt at maximum amplitude porit) squared c -1,.281 (i')

1.7W_ (depth at maximum ampiltude point) squared =.2.9Q.0 (b')

J n' - b -.2.0532 Ihchea of surface distance to the flaw from dhe transducer exit point.

37 (Wmax) -2.32 (surf dist) hIche s

tot he centerline o f t

weld.

6)

Determine 8 by picking the smaher of the following; 8 a _.1665 (result of 1) -distance between exam surface and the upper flaw lip

>> OR c S -j.0 -- (partT) - J.U4L (result of 2) a 4155L distance between the side opposite exam surface and the lower law tp

6)

Determine 2d In though wall thickness.

JE~L.. (from step 2) -,.fl5 (from step 1)

J h iches.

Determination pf surface or sUbkuh 0.4d a (2d 1 2)

• 0,4 a.06 Compare to 8 (fOm step 6) if S Is les tan 0.4d, the flaw surface. a a 2d + S=

IA Iches.

If S Is greater than or equal to 0.4a the flaw Is sub-surface. a a 2a /2

.4 Iches.

I (UAL (for.>

0.5, I a 2a) t JUL(partthickness) a A.16 (surf or aujksirf, cicle one) 8 c PAGE.2 OF %U Ft --I REPORT #

2.boouDiS6 Z9:Z n. oo-s9Z-1vU li U

vJ v,

vv

WM SitePnklt I

"~

surmmary No.:

SOn Il Examination For:

L'-

W(6

-172',

2 t'

ISI Flaw Slzing Worksheet Report No.: -

5 b Pogwe of Procedure:

Procedure Revision/FC Work Order No..

X CZ L1 T !*

1) Flaw Nurrmer

2) Item Number t9 --

& I.q(3

3) ISI IntWezu g r

4) Code Edition & Addenda i_- 7 dzIv

$J o.

6) Method i T

6) Flaw Sketch OK Reviewer -

OK Reviewer -

C OK Reviewer

-I-Flow View

_~~

Slide ViMw I i_

Bsad E~~~~~~~lan~

___________________I___________I____

a 0

V.lkA4 H a" Weld CL Flanco

7) Caleulatons OK Reviewer.. 3-Tob View Show determination of Surface or subsurface Show determinaton of typeof to us I if a

8) ISI-FE.1 Paragraph 7.0 ' "Rounding-off Method' was used C Yes Preparer e¢ OK Reviewer Xf

9) Code Flaw Dimensions OK Reviewer

=

"1".+/-~

50J -Z1 nominal I tmeasurod

^

.0

• S

/,

'W'at4 1O) FIw Type

OK Reviewer S_.El. U

£°

(#

11) Flaw Charactenlzation Figure OK Reviewer -M)-

3 S

2 a,

12) Flaw Characterization Figure Number

-1

13) Was IWA-3300 Flaw Chlaraclefiation followed?

a Yes

\\ No If no. why?

14) The correct Code Edition and Addenda was available and used

15) Prepared by end date The results are correct and fth methodology used Is in accordance wth applicable codes, atandards. sppcicalilons and procedures.

x Yes Preparer 4 r XOK Reviewer

16) Review by and date

_16)

S_

GIA4 S

L56 The rvlew assures fat the results are correct and the methodology used is In accordance with applicable eodes, standards, apealications and procedures.

PAGE..

3 0FL-F 27-REPORT #t 20O0 2f-IJ E 1 MIL OO-q?.-A'1 Zl d

NP Site/Unit:

_;_2

/

Summary No.:

56 / 733 Examination For ISI Flaw Disposition Worksheet

• N I~L Report No.: Zk2.3LLjfo Z'-

Page:

of I)

/ '

}J,,#

Procedure R Work Procedure:

31 4 evlsionIFC:

8

./

k Order No.:

eoc7 o

1) Flaw Number

2) Item Number F A' Vb

/rM4W 7yf'£.' 45;Wd c

o

3) ISI Interval

<? &2

4) Code Edition & Addenda

/57*5 4v 4&

5) Acceptance Standard A,013-y5 /o

6) Calculations (See Below) e

• oK Reviewer

• /OK Reviewer 4 -,

,,f-6),,

e.0"

~

~~

a /0/

'.'~so VOKReviewer vO t6K Reviewer k

'/6%de.-, 5s

'J

=,

/

4-8 Y> A0rr I. 177c, p

,A
W'>

vellt Af 3,' ~?> AO/4 1-11'4-lud &a"

,t7 4W-Z

7) Results @/K Reviewer 7SX atl=

Codeallowableaft% = 3.3 3

8) Table used for analysis

@/OK Reviewer7

9) Was linear Interpolation used? g A'§" 0 No LllWe lccCCe e

a.

77gt 9 CalcuIgted aff/. =

/. 6 7 Laminar flaw surface area: (0.75 I w)

ZWl-

/

If nor why ?

10) Was IWA-3200 Significant Digits For Umiting Values followj 1 1) The correct Code Edition and Addenda was available and us

12) Statement of acceptability or reJectab7lity with basis.

eC 0 (aft) Code allowable > (alt) calculated m.-'

ci OEM flaw evaluation handbook (see attached analysis Ci) (alt) Code allowable < (a/t) calculated I7 ?

Yes 0 No If no,why?

ed.

1. Yes Preparer (vr Reviewer 4

Accept 0 Reject

'K Reviewer 1)Prepared bvaddt S

s ~~~~~~F2g-,0.V The results are correct and the methodology used is In accords with applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedure

15) Approvesby and date 7-M111 A2f).l nce

14) Ennern r V~w ind'Vate

-0 This review assures that the results are correct and the methodology used is in accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications and procedures.

ThiapprovaI assures that all Involved wth th flaw sizing and methodology are correct and in accordance with applicable coc law disposition were aware of the necessity that the results and the

,s, standards, specifications and procedures.

PAGE 2AI OF 2.'

REPORT# uaoix*6

C Flaw Sizing Calculations Using Metal Path for Vessel Welds > 2" For surface and subsurface single planar flaws oriented In plans nonnal to pressure retaining surface ASMg SECT Xi 1089 Wl NO AD DENDt INITIAL TO VERIFY 151 Rep o

JIW tIS_

EvaluationPerorked l&::,

Date:_

Flaw#_

Reviewed 6_ty Lgnntb Length of the eaw 'ri1 determined by finding the difference between Li and L2 for perpendicular scanis, WI end W2 for parallel scans.

L and W values are from page _

of the UT report.

Io 251.0 (12) -

j281.1 (LI) =

Js inches.

Ulcknoss R

Thickness of the component at the location of th flaw, usin tr nom wall (circl one).

This value Is from page _ of the U T report.

w I le L....0 hches Q01lbratlon The measured angle in the caUbraton blockwas 60 degrees Caiculations using metaJ path From page -

of the UT report. Scan 5.2 The flaw exhibited 20% DAC at J.65 and 4.15 inches MP. Max amplitude is.jXQ hIdies MP withi lth tirnsducer exit point at,_ Inches (W) from the centerline of the weld and 20IL4 Inches (L) from the 0 reference. (Use of 20% DAC vs. 50% max amp for indications > 100% DAC is conservative.)

I)

Determine the upper depth of the flaw from the exam surface.

LflL (metal pthat20%p CO8Softhe rneasured engle LI..

J1fl26 Inches depth.

2)

Determine the bwr depth of the flaw from the exam surface.

A4l (metal path at 20% lower)

• COS of the measured angle A _.

2 07A Inches depth.

3)

Determine the depth of (he law from the exam surface at the maximum amplitude point.

2SL.

(metal path at maidmum amplitude point)

• COS of the measured angle,6_AL1, Inches depth.

4)

Determine the distance from the center tine of the weld to the ma dmum amplitude point of the flaw.

Le_ (metal path at maximum amplitude poInt) squared c _,21 - (a')

1.Li5 (depth at maximum amplitude point) squared =.3ffiQ (b')

4s t-bs

• 776 Inches of surface distance to the lew from the transducer exit point.

4.A (Wmax) - IJ11L (surf diet) c.8226 Inches to the centeriine of the weld.

6)

Determine S by picking the smaller of the following; S.

1.825 (resul of 1) distance between exam surface and the upper faw tip

>> CR cc S

.0 (part Or) -.,07L (result of 2) r 3.I26 distance between e side opposite exam surface and the lower flaw tip

6)

Determine 2d in though wall thickness.

IALL.. (from step 2) -, J.25 (fron step 1) = _._ Inches.

Mrnation of surface gr subsurfece 0.4d - (2d 1 2)

• OA 0.4U Compare to S (om step 6) tS 8 ilelss than O.4d, theleaw k surface. a u 2d + S INA liches.

ifS Is greater than or equal to 0.4a the flaw Is subsurface. a 2a 12 a.t2L Inches.

I a ED_ (for RO 0.5,1 = 2a) t 6.0 (part thlckness)

A I -A (surf or Aub c

, crcle one) 8

• PAGE OF _21

!lf -1 REPORT # 1-0bal O

£Q:Z1 MR nn-qz-iw GI a

Shte/Unft:

E I

'~

Summary No.:

!5h,13 w Examination For:

W -(.

I

' 4 ' 2-1 '

ISI Flaw Sizing Worksheet Report No.

aW 5sa Page- -

of Procedure:

_':C 2; A Procedure Revialon/FC 7

N P-Work Order No:

2.32Z 11 Flaw Nufber

2) Item Number

_6D /.-go

3) Is Interval 3

4) Code Edition & Addenda tiff.

W, M

5) Method l

6) Flaw Sketch OK Reviewer S MC OK Reviewer

'T OK Reviewer Flaw Vtew mmQ

.1;0 0

E,

0~~~~~~X12 Side VIOw 0

Z, Itt-li~~n4 Ii~

End !View Wiad 4

Wed C;L

.* **t*S-.s..a.....a...

7) Cslculatlors

• OK Reviewer Top V~eW Show determination of Surrace or subsurface I

$e2.

a1

1. r Show determination of type of "am to use er
   -4'1-tj B) ISI-FE-1 Paregrph 7.0 -'Rounding-off Method' was used

,k.Yes Preparer

, s OKReviewer

9) Code Flaw Dimensious i 0 Reviewer 1' _

e

/

,"t nornmnal Al "tmessuard

(

°

/o

'WS--_biL

10) Flow Type OK Reviewer,

1P_ ALL Poli.

11) Flw Characterization Figure OK Reviewer

• A It o

12) Flaw Characlerization Figure Number

%4-I

13) Was IWA-3300 Flaw Characterization followed ?

• Yes No If no, why?

14) The correct Code Edition and Addenda was available and used

) Yes Prepar er~

Z OK Reviewer

15) Prepared b and date f

16) Review by and date The results are correct and the imethodology used is m aCcordance The review assures that the results are correct and the methodology with applicable codes, standards. specifications end procedures.

used Is in accordance with applicable codes, standards.

specifications and procedures.

PAGE.. 2- -OF D26 1b1 REPORT#

Uov°l 92:I n OO-SR-AM

1. 22 REACTOR COOLANT PUMP

1. 22 STEAM GENERATOR CONT 2-IS CONT ON DWG 2-ISI-17 CONT ON DWG 2-ISI-16 ON DWG

-33A WELD 1 DETAIL DS,

\\

= HANGER NO.

NAVCO

) = WELD NO.

(

XH-1 001-388 REF: XH-1106-7028 IFILE NO:2133BR01 REACTOR COOLANT LOOP "B "

MS (m&SP)-PI-2 ISI DWN: CADWorKsCHKD:DSW APPD:DSW SYSTEM:REACTOR COOLANT LINE: 31-2RC-2B DWG:

2-1SI-33B l REV: 02 firr4c4'Afl&J9 1/

Pk6/oFIj

No Site/Unit, PINGP /

Summary No.:

Workscope:

UT Pipe Weld Examination P12 501145 lSI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

SWi NDE-UT-11 0

0%z //,927 Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

200MU005 Pawe:

I of 6

Code:

1989 Code Cat.:

B-J Location:

C Drawing No.:

241S133B

==

Description:==

Elbow To Pump System ID:

RC Component ID: W-M2LSU Size/Length:

310/1160 Thlciness/Diameter:

2.90/31 Umitations:

No scens on pump side due to configuration Start Time:

1100 Finish Time:

1145 Examination Surface:

Inside Q Outside 0 Surface Condition: Machined Lo Location:

Intrados of Elbow Wo Location:

Centerline of Weld Couplant:

Sonotrace 40 Batch No.:

1. 00143 Temp. Tool Mfg.:

PTC Insruments Serial No.:

3792 Surface Temp.:

80 OF Cal. Report No.:

2003CA009, 2003CA010, 2003CA011 AngleUsed 0

45 l 45T 60 l I

I Scanning dB 37.0 88.0 83.0 N/A Indication(s):

Yes 0 No 2 Scan Coverage:

Upstream 0 Downstream M CW 0 CCW 0 Comments:

0 deg scan coverage 90%

Results:

NAD Q IND E]

GEO 0 Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%:

No Reviewed Previous Data:

Yes Examiner Level ii S

rsat re, 1

Date Reviewer

/

Signature Date Blechinger, Todd P.

9f17/003 Jones, Thomas 7ek Ja.,k I Examiner Level N/A Signature Date Site Review A

S gnature Date N/A Hanson, Shannon A-

• 'n.- 5-A Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Review K

1 S S

tu

'Date N/A Daly, Gerald I

c g

,A7rhq1n

.vr 57 j

)QEl~ 9F16

'Pi, I I 0

She/Unit:

PINOP

/

P12 Summary No.:

501145 Workscope:

[SI Ultrasonic Indication Report Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

SWI NDE4UT-1 1 0

02 11,?z Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

2003U005 Page:

2 of 6

Searc h Unit Angie:

45 No Location:

Weld CL Lo Location:

Intrados of Elbow 2

(

Piping Welds 0

Ferritic Vessels ? 2"T n

Other wo WMW L

I

.WI W2 I

MP Metal Path Wmax Distance From Wo To S.U. At Maximum Response RBR Remaining Back Reflection W1 Distance From Wo At Of Max (Forward)

L Distance From Datum W2 Distance From Wo At Of Max (Forward)

Comments:

uni I" T

L4o I1-0

-13 13

=

=

VP2 TRMX VD2 1

Scan InW Forward Baard rd L

L L2 RqRemarks No.

Of Max Of Max OfOMMax O

Amp.

DAC W

MP W1 MP W2 MP Max Max 1

1 75 4.5" 4.49" 26.5-29" 31.5" Splitter Vane Geomety 1

2 75 4.5" 4.49" 84.5 7

e89.s splier Vane y

Examiner Level ill Sg tfq

r.

D e R viwr Signature i

D ate Blechinger, Todd P.

SJ.4(

I V JV' 9/1 7/2003 Jones, Thomas 2

J-43 bzz Examiner Level N/A Signature Date Site Review

~

-~

sign ture Date N/A Hanson, Shannon 5

~

J

~

\\

c\\Z AZ~"C03 Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Review I,~

aueDate N/A Daly, Gerald 4N

(

Additional - UT Indication Data <edft from Setup>

,4rM 1)?1-J7 9-P/'6E ;?OI,4

N

)

Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations - Pipe SiteAUnit:

PINGP I P12 Summary No.:

501145 Workscope:

IS[

Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

SWI NDE-UT-11 0

Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

2003U005 Page:

3 of 6

45 den Scan 1 100.000

% Length X Scan 2 0.000

% Length X Scan 3 100.000

% Length X Scan 4 100.000

% Length X 96.000

% volume of length /I 00 =

0.000

% volume of length 100 =

00.000

% volume of length / 100 =

90.000

% volume of length /100 =

96.000

% total for Scan 1 0.000

% total for Scan 2 90.000

% total for Scan 3 90.000

% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans =

69.000

% total for 45 deg Other deg (to be used for supplemental scans)

The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.

Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4

% Length X

% Length X

% Length X

_ % Length X

% volume of length /100 =

% volume of length / 100 =

% volume of length / 100 =

% volume of length/ 1 00 =

% total for Scan 1

% total for Scan 2

% total for Scan 3

% total for Scan 4 Percent complete coveraae Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine; 69.000

%Total for complete exam Jaw Dale:

Site Field Supervisor AMtonal -Calculation Pipe edit from Setup

NM Summary No.: 501145 Examiner Blechinger, Todd P.

Examiner WA Other: WA Supplemental Report t

Report No.:

20031.1005 Page:

4 of 6

9 Level:

II Level: WA Level:

WA Revtewer: Jones, Thomas 9tj Site Revlew: Hanson, Shannon

--A if ANtI Review, Daly, Gerald I2 U

Dati Dati Dat 8:

El: cU 2 4z~)

4iz Gornments: W-6 Coverage Plot O deg coverage 90% due to pump configuration. No 0 deg scan on pump due to configuration.

Sketch or Photo: J.\\lddealPhotos\\PI2RFO2003WT Images\\2003U0561a.bmp obL

'p '

I fpiWne

/

Ec-8D VY

/

A

-- I, I

I I

AdditWal - Supplemental Repots <edit from SetUp>

N)

Summary No.: 501145 Examiner Blechinger, Todd P.

Examiner: WA Other. NA Supplemental Report Report No.:

2003U005 c

Page:

6 of 6

vJ 9A 1 J Date:

V 3t Date-_ iIAIl m

Date:

,q Level:

III Reviewer: Jones, Thomas Level: WA Site Revlew. Hanson,Shanon Level:

NIA ANIU Review: DalyGerald d

J-1 UJ)

Comments: W-6 Indication Plot Sketch or Photo:

J:.ddealPhotos\\P12RFO2003\\UT Images\\2003U005_2a.bmp 1,jD 4' t 7

/

/

J5LBO0.)

l 1

/

.9fL, rrgpA V*A4J Add toinaf -Supplemental Reports <edit from Setup>

NO)

Supplemental Report Report No.:

Page:

Summary No.: 601145 Examiner: Blechinger, Todd P.

Examiner N/A Other: WUA Level:

IlIl Reviewer: Jones, Thomas 94 Level:

W/A Site Review: Hanson, Shannon 4

, 5t Level: WA ANII Review: Daly, Gerald LI-2003U005 6

of 6

Date:

Date:

Date:

,%SeZ Comments: General configuration Sketch or Photo: J:AddealPhotos\\PI2RFO2003\\UT Images\\2003U005_3a.brnp A,4'c i#

~2i Additonal - Supplemental Reports cedit from Setup>

I R T rH CONT ON DWG 2-ISI-57

\\EL. 704'-11 5/8'

'5 15ii /

INTEGRAL ATTACHMtF

= HANGER N

(

NAVC0

) = WELO NO.

(S

= SOLT NO.

E f= VALVE NO NT O0.

CONT ON DWG '-,

2-'ISI-22A EL. 704'-11 5/8" REF: XH-1 106-2552 IFILE NO:21021R05 10" RHR RETURN LOOP "B "

h~

(M&SP)-PI-2 ISI DWN: CADWorksCHKD:DSW APPD:DSW SYSTEM:RHR RETURNE LINE: 10-2SI-26 DWG:

2-ISI-21 REV: 06 AmncuAevr (o PAC-re / op/

Site/Unit:

PINOP /

Summary No.:

I Workscope:

UT Pipe Weld Examination P12 501900 lSI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

SMi NDE-UT-16A 0

0211924 Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

2003U002 Page:

1 of 6

Code:

1989 Code Cat.:

B..

Location:

OA2A',

th" 7n Drawing No.:

24SI-21

==

Description:==

Elbow to Pipe System ID:

Si Component ID: W. 2 Skze/Length:

34N Thicknessiameter.

/10 Limitations:

Sheet attached, supplemental report form Start Time:

1122 Finish Time:

1205 Examination Surface:

Inside Q Outside 0 Surface Condition: Ground Smooth Lo Location:

Elbow Outer Radlus Wo Location:

Centerline of Weld Couplant:

Sonotrace 40 Batch No.:

1. 00143 Temp. Tool Mvg.:

PTC Instruments Serial No.:

3792 Surface Temp.:

88 OF Cal. Report No.:

2003CA003, 2003CA004 Angle Used l0 45 l 45T l 60 l I

i Scanning dB N/A 34.5 34.5 46.0 Indication(s):

Yes Q No 0 Scan Coverage:

Upstream 0 Downstream 0 CW 0 CCW 0 Comments:

Results:

NAD 0 IND Q GEO Q Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%:

No Reviewed Previous Data:

Yes Examiner Level i S

Date Reviewer Si tye Date Stevermer, Aaron 9/1162003 Jones, Thomas

/

)o7 Examiner Level II gawe Date Site Review n

l

{igateturm Date Bowne, Lowell V.

9/16/2003 Hanson,Shannon V.

Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Review

\\,gp_

u re Date N/A Daly, Gerald r,

L/

%O Am 7A60776&U

- 7 4'6C / 6rF

NlD Summary No.: 501900 Examiner. Stevermer, Aaron Examiner. Bowne, Lowell V.

Other:

NWA Supplemental Report Report No.:

2003U002 Page:

2 of 6

Level:

I Reviewer Jones, Thomas 9Z;LJ Level:

HI Site Review: Hanson, Shannon Level:

N/A ANII Review: Daly, Gerald 2Q

-~

~~~~~~~~~~

IJ-Date: X5M Comments: Umrtatlons for component W-2. RHR Return *B goIR2p W&Lo0o sueoe LUCAS COiCJ&t WCo Sketch or Photo: J:iddeai_PhotosPI2RFO203MUT hIages%2=U002_1.bmp

-'-*1--

-**-

-- *--'--e---j-t*---t----*

1

.till 1

1 I

B

.*

iii II I

I



II I __

I I

I



I

-..............



I1li

11

-r 1111111 II '

ii1iiIi.

-A--

I' i{i iji 1 iH 1-j I

I

-1 11L11 4-;-+---.-

1.4



1.

1



Fl-F'- 4

-

I

.1

-



it'll 4  Th

zxL

'-v 111111 jI I

1

+/-1 1

• 1

-

I t 

t I I-I--I.

I 1 11

- iI tTTLVV 43f

I

- 

1j1: j jy.

Addonal - Supplemental Reports <edt from Setup>

rMI..

Supplemental Report Repot No.:

Page:

203U3002 3

of a

Summary No.: 501900 Examiner: Stevermer, Aar Examiner. Bowne, LOwell Other. NA Level:

II Level:

0 Level:

N/A Reviewer. Jones, Thomas Site Review: Hanson, Shannon

<T 1s,,

ANII Review: Daly, Gerald Date:___

'0 I Date: 2/7,S Date:

E#p Comments

Thickness readings and contour taken at 300 deg. for component W-2.

Sketch or Photo:

J:~Jddoal-Photos\\PI2RFO2003\\UT lmages\\2003UO02..2a.bmp

'
r Io Vt 10 0

1 a;,

9 40?-Pe-4"iir "ife6, jp
.

I0-id

/I /9 J.

410 tt I-

/jo

.. -JIM 4Y/'JO Addltonal - Supplemental Reports.cedft from Setup>.

A7Tcrni'eBWJ7 7

N. ?)

Summary No.: 501900 Examiner. Stevermer, Aaron Examiner. Bowne, Lowell V.

Other WA Supplemental Report Report No.:

2003U002 Page:

4 of 6

Level:

it Reviewer Jones, Thomas Date:

Level: _ 11 Site Review: Hanson, Shannon 1IasAt Date:

Level:

HWA ANII Review. Daly, Gerald 4

Date:

JlS Comments: Overall picture of component with limrtations Sketch or Photo: J:\\ldde&aIPhotos\\Pi2RF02003\\tJT Images\\2003AJ002_2.JPG Additional -Supplemental Reports <edit from Setup>

NM)

Supplemental Report Report No.:

Page:

Summary No.: 501900 Examiner. Stevermer, Aaron Examiner. Bowne, Lowell V.

Other: WA Level:

II Reviewer. Jones, Thomas CY l

Level:

U Site Review: Hanson, Shannon Level: WA ANII Review: Daly, Gerald I )

2003U002 5

of 6

Date:

Date:_______

Date:

756°0 iN Comments: Close up picture of limitations Sketch or Photo: J:YddeaLPhotos\\PI2RF02003WT ImagesM20L3UO2_3.JPG AddIonal - SupptementW Reports <edit from Setup>

,V6>,1-..

Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations - Pipe SlteAUnIt PINGP I P12 Summary No.:

601900 Worickcope:

ISI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

SWI NDE4UT-16A 0.

0211924 Outage No.:

Pi2RF2003 Report No.:

2003U002 Page:

6 of 6

45 den Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 44.000

% Length X 25.000

% Length X 44.000

% Length X 44.000

% Length X 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

% volume of length /100 =

% volume of length / 100 =

% volume of length / 100 =

% volume of length / 100 =

44.000

% total for Scan 1 25.000

% total for Scan 2 44.000

% total for Scan 3 44.000

% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by# scans =

39.250

% total for 45 deg Other den -

(to be used for supplemental scans)

The data to be listed below Is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.

Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4

% Length X

% volume of length / 100 =

% Length X

% volume of length I 00 =

% Length X

% volume of length I 100 =

% Length X

% volume of length /i 100 =

% total for Scan 1

% total for Scan 2

% total for Scan 3

% total for Scan 4 Percent complete yoverane Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine; 39.250

% Total for complete exam

-
W /V/72f -

Date:

t Site Field Supervisor Additional - Calculation Pie Fedit from Setup>

N Site/Unit Summary No.:

Workscope:

LlquId Penetrant Examination PINGP /

P12 501900 Procedure:

SWI NDE-PT-1 Procedure Rev.:

0 Work Order No.:

0211924 Outage No.:

Pi2RF2003 Report No.:

2003P012 Page:

I of 4

IS#

Code:

1989 Code Cat.:

B-J Location:

-tz4 eAJt Drawing No.

2-ISI-21

==

Description:==

Elbow to Pipe System ID, Si Component ID W-2 Size/Length:

34" Umitations:

See attached drawing and Percent of Coverage Sheet Temp. Tool Mfg.:

PTC Instruments Serial No.:

3792 Surface Temp.:

88 OF Comparator Block Temp.:

Side A:

NWA

°F Side B:

NWA OF Resolution:

Not Used LolWo Location:

Elbow Outer Radius I Weld CL Surface Condition:

Ground Smooth Cleaner Penetrant Remover Developer Brand Magnatlux Magnaflux Magnaflux Magnafiux Type SKC-S SKL-/FIS SKC-S SKD-S2 Batch No.

94L07K 87C054 94L07K 95D07K Time Evap.

5 min Dwell 15 min Evap.

5 min Develop 7 min Time Exam Started:

1030 Time Exam Completed:

1120 Indication Loc Loc Diameter Length Type Remarks No.

L W

RiL Comments:

None Results:

NAD IND O GEO Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%:

No Reviewed Previous Data:

Yes Examiner Level I a

e Date Reviewer Signature D

jate Stevermer, Aaron

/8c6 1162003 Jones, Thomas 1/ /t 94/7os Examiner Level Ii re Date Site Review Si nature Date Bowne, Lowell V.

9f1612003 Hanson,Shannon Other Level NWA Signature Date ANII Review IBgI Date NWA Daly, Gerald J1V

NM

)

Determination of Percent Coverage for Surface Examinations SfteIUnit:

PINGP 1 P12 Summary No.:

501900 Workscope:

ISI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

SWI NDE-PT-1 0

Outage No.:

Report No.:

P12RF2003 2003P012 Work Order No.:

0211924 Page:

2 of 4

00 Area Required (as shown in applicable code reference drawing)

Length 34.000

• Width 2.100

= Total Area required 71.400 square inches Coverage Achieved Area examined 37.800 sq. In. / Total area required (100%)

71.400 sq. in.

= Percent coverage 0.529

% (area required - area of limitations = area examined)

S2.9 To determine length of a circumferential weld Note -

Diameter refers to actual external diameter not pipe size (see table below)

Diameter pl../.

(Pi) 3.1416

= Length.L A/,+

Inches Pipe Actual (Length)

Pipe Actual (Length)

Size Diameter Circumference Size Diameter Circumference 2

2.375 7.46 12 12.75 40.06 2.5 2.875 9.03 14.

14.0 43.98 3

3.5 11.0 16 16.0 50.27 3.5 4.0 12.57 18 18.0 56.55 4

4.5 14.14 20 20.0 62.83 5

5.563 17.48 22 22.0 69.12 6

6.625 20.81 24 24.0 75.40 8

8.625 27.10 30 30.0 94.25 10 10.75 33.77 Site Field Supervisor.

/.--6i 41 AZzt D/

Date:

-%L SummaryNo.: 501900 Examlner Stevermer, Aaron Examiner Bowne, Lowell V.

Other WA Supplemental Report X

Report No.:

2003P012 ai Page:

3 o

4r Level:

nI Reviewer Jones, Thomas 3 A Date: ______

Level:

II Site Review: Hanson, Shannon t;SU Date:

k&11, Level: WA ANII Review: Daly, Gerald I% 2)

Date:

Comments: Umitations for component W-2. RHR Return B*

Sketch or Photo: J:-ddeaLPhotosXP12RF02003\\PT Images\\2003pO121a.bnp I;-

II!

. --i--

I I

_,_ I I i

I I.

a i I

I j

I I '

jij i

IffiIHiIH It.'

I it'.,



-I-I I

I ii 1:411111

--- 1-i--1j

I1!I1{IIt!a

I

'ILLiL.LLL'2i

-I-

- ¶i 211dii 4dif IZITFI H 14 2



31 i'1-i1 Ii 1i

I I

r V

IA 1Q t 'I

-1iI I

• 1-1trt4-1.-I

--T4 1   TtJK14iHI 1z I

III H KHH ilif Li I

I iI-t 117

-1\\

..

I-M11-"t>

Supplemental Report Report No.:

Page:

2003P012 4

of 4

Summary No.: 501900 Examiner: Stevern, Aaron Examiner: Bowne, Lowel V.

Other: N/A Level:

II Level:

II Level:

N/A Reviewer: Jones, Thomas Site Review. Hanson, Shanni ANII Review. Daly, Gerald Os& k' I I&b

- Date:

/e'2 Date:

cl__C?

Date: p5f!5 I

I Comments:

'CJBL0EO FoudR tcc.r W6.O' S(4ppeoT L.CGS, C-otjeiR (AJC-L Sketch or Photo: J:AlddeePhotos\\PI2RF02Qo3\\PT lrmages=O0PO12. jjPa J:AIddeaL-PhotoskPI21IF02003\\1T ImnagesWOOP012_.2jPG3 PR966 l 4F1

NORTH REACTOR VESSEL EL. 723'-4 1/4" EL. 707' N VJ 0

H IS1 I INTEGRAL ATTACHMENT

= HANGER NO.

= WELD NO.

= BOLT NO.

= VALVE NO.

REF:XH-1106-2553 IFILE NO:21029R05 ZSP(M&SP)-PI-2 iSI DWN: CADWorksCHKD :DSW APPD :DSW SYSTEM:REACTOR VESSEL SAFETY INJECTION 4" & 6" REACTOR VESSEL SIS LOOP "A/"

L INE: 4-2RC-14A, 6-2RC-14A. 6-2SI-25A DWG:

2-IS I -29 I REV: 06 I

A47-uAchu1e/f) 9 p,q4r6 / orF!

Site/Unit:

PINGP /

Summary No.:

Workscope:

UT Pipe Weld Examination P12 501813

'SI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

SWI NDE-UT-16A 0

0211924 Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

2003U040 Page:

1 of 5

Code:

1989 Code Cat.:

B-J Location:

l/'

rIleAJt Drawing No.:

2-4SI-29

==

Description:==

Pipe To Elbow System ID:

Si Component ID: W-3 Size/Length:

.70" Thickness/Diameter:

.750" 16.0" Limitations:

Restraint obstructed upstream axial scanning Start lime:

1450 Finish lime:

1520 Examination Surface:

Inside Outside Vj Surface Condition: Ground Lo Location:

Extrados of elbow Wo Location:

Centerline of Weld Couplant:

Sonotrace 40 Batch No.:

1. 00143 Temp. Tool Mfg.:

PTC Instruments Serial No.:

3774 Surface Temp.:

78

• F Cal. Report No.:

2003CA050, 2003CA051 Angle Used 145 1 45T 1 60 1 60RL_ l Scanning dB 36 36 61 Indication(s):

Yes No M#

Scan Coverage:

Upstream' Downstream A, CW fik CCW A Comments:

Results:

NAD v IND GEO Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%:

No Reviewed Previous Data:

Yes Examiner Level II Signature Date Reviewer Signaturm Date Howard, Dean o

o10/1/2003 Wren, Jerry P.

,LkJ, L.Q. "L l

O

-TO Examiner Level NIA Signature Date Site Review aSignature Date N/A Hanson, Shannon MA..

W o

\\

Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Review

,Spnture Date N/A Daly, Gerald I1).

82cTm U-'1-A4rpAc4'/Th6X

/0 10,66/

toFS-

NM-__

Site/Unit:

PINGP

/

P12 Summary No.:

501813 Workscope:

ISI Limitation Record Procedure:

SWI NDE-UT-16A Procedure Rev.:

0 Work Order No.:

0211924 Outage No.:

P12RF2003 9)

Report No.:

2003U040 Page:

2 of 5 Q Description of Limitation:

DWG 241S-29 System Reactor Vessel Safety Injection (6")

-S Sketch of Limitation:

JA~lddea1LPhotos\\PI2RF02003WUT Images\\2003tJO40..2.bmnp QSA.4-7 h~z 1d

- &Id~

04 14 ov1gVW A 0 lo a, &ee,:rz Ui~

at Limitations removal requirements:

Although the examination was perforned through 100% of the code required volume, procedure SWi NDE-UT-16A is not qualified for the detection of flaws on the far side of single side access exams. The techniques provided by this procedure were used for a best effort examination for flaws on the far side of the weld.

Radiation field:

Examiner Level ii Signature Date Reviewer Signature Date Howard, Dean 101112003 Wren, Jerry P.

I Examiner Level NIA Signature Date Site Review Signature Date NtA Hanson, Shannon 6W~

3I CA j b\\3\\B Other Level NIA Signature Date ANII Review Signature

'Date NA Daly, Gerald

n Q Ai O3acrol Additional - Limitation 'edit from Setup>

U

/U

t o.

Summary No.: 601813 Examiner: Howard, Dean Examiner: NIA Other: NIA Supplemental Report Report No.:

2003U040 LL Page:

3 of 5

o t

Level:

II Reviewer: Wren, Jerry P.

Cog Level:

NIA Site Review: Hanson, Shannon Level:

NIA ANII Review: Daly, Gerald Date:

I Db-3 Date: ____7 _

Date: b30c cz1 Comments:

Exam coverage sketch Sketch or Photo: J:UddealPhotos'Tl2RFO2003XUT Images'2003U040J.bmp FLtW

\\

0 ij
' &00,qL

'-S'rRlifLk/r Or35I-gUCTIOA N/o 14xii SC.AA/ FI<oM LUPSflZEAA 5 CDE Add ional - Supplemental Reports <edit from Setup>

I "

sk a Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations - Pipe Site/Unit:

PINGP /

P12 Summary No.:

501813 Workscope:

IS!

Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

SWI NDE-UT-16A 0

0211924 Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

2003U040 Page:

4 Of 5

45 deg Scan I Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000

% Length X 0.000

% Length X 100.000

% Length X 100.000

% Length X 100.000 0.000 100.000 100.000

% volume of length /100 =

% volume of length /100 =

% volume of length / 100 =

% volume of length / 100 =

100.000

% total for Scan 1 0.000

% total for Scan 2 100.000

% total for Scan 3 100.000

% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans =

75.000

% total for 45 deg Other dea- -

(to be used for supplemental scans)

The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.

Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4

% Length X

% Length X

% Length X

% Length X

% volume of length 1100 =

% volume of length /100 =

% volume of length /100 =

% volume of length / 100 =

% total for Scan I

% total for Scan 2

% total for Scan 3

% total for Scan 4 ruyruuvn

.t

,,&tm fuvu t4u Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine; 75.000

% Total for complete exam Site Field Supervisor:

K.4 iLS~

Date:

ga -

d 5 Additional - Calculation Pipe <edit from Setup>

I~

Supplemental Report Report No.:

Page:

Summary No.: 501813 Examiner: Howard, Dean Examiner NIA Other NIA Level:

II Reviewer: Wren, Jerry P.

Level:

NIA Site Review: Hanson, Shannon Level:

NWA ANII Review: Daly, Gerald A FAA 2003U040 5

of 5

izs Date: l _ -

Date:

_____sl -

Date:

OIS2 5

Comments: Photo of component Sketch or Photo: J:lddealIPhotosPI2RFO2003WUT lmagesI2003U040_3.JPG Additional - Supplemental Reports <edit from Setup>

ASTrH

~Isi

\\wEL J 0

7 INTEGRAL ATTACHMENT

= HANGER NO.

= WELD NO.

= BOLT NO.

= VALVE NO.

/NO CONT EXEMPT PER

. IWC-1221(E)

LOOP "A" ACCUMULATOR DISCHARGE REF XH-1106-2517 IFILE NO:2101 1R05 IS?

(M&SP)-PI-2 IS!

DWN: CADWorksCHKD:DSW APPD:DSW SYSTEM:ACCUMULATOR DISCHARGE LINE:12-2RC-16A, 12-2S1-27A DWG:

2-ISI-11 IREV: 06 I

/4o77#dAa91A/)r /1 IJfcE F

UT Pipe Weld Examination Site/Unit:

PINGP /

Summary No.:

P12 501939 Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

SWI NDE-UT-16A 0

Q-7I11 I2 2

Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

2003U015 Page:

1 of 4

Workscope:

ISI Work Order No.:

Code:

1989 Code Cat.:

B.J Location:

r A g, 1t-Drawing No.:

241SI-II

==

Description:==

Nozzle To Pipe System ID:

RC Component ID: W-12 Size/Length:

12" 148 314" Thickness/Diameter 2.950 Limitations:

Single side examination due to component configuration Start Time:

1145 Finish Time:

1210 Examination Surface:

Inside [C Outside i Surface Condition: Smooth Lo Location:

OSR of UIS Elbow Wo Location:

Centerine of Weld Couplant:

Sonotrace 40 Batch No.:

1. 00143 Temp. Tool Mfg.:

PTC Instruments Serial No.:

3778 Surface Temp.:

101 OF Cal. Report No.:

2003CA019 Angle Used

°0 _

45 l 45T l 60 I i

Scanning dB 55.2 55.2 Indication(s):

Yes n No 0 Scan Coverage:

Upstream 0j Downstream I CW V CCW w:i Comments:

WO# 0211922 Location: Containment Results:

NAD 0 IND GEO [1 Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%:

No Reviewed Previous Data:

Yes Examiner Level II gnatufe Date Reviewer Signature Date Stevermer, Aaron 9/17/2003 Jones, Thomas

//

la'/zzc 9t /, 1 3?

Examiner Level II in~ure Date Site Review ignature Date Bowne, Lowell V.

9/17/2003 Hanson,Shannon A

1J?

sSlJ Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Review Signstut

'Date N/A Daly, Gerald A4T~C#1me'VT /9,A~ /j&-F / or

ro, t P Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations - Pipe Site/Unit:

PINGP /

P12 Summary No.:

501939 Workscope:

ISI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

SWI NDE-UT-16A 0

02I I I qA-2 Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

2003U01S Page:

2 of 4

45 den Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000 0.000 100.000 100.000

% Length X

% Length X

% Length X

% Length X 100.000 0.000 50.000 50.000

% volume of length / 100 =

% volume of length 1100 =

% volume of length /100 =

% volume of length /100 =

100.000 0.000 50.000 50.000

% total for Scan 1

% total for Scan 2

% total for Scan 3

% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans =

50.000

% total for 45 deg Other den-(to be used for supplemental scans)

The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.

Scan I Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4

% Length X

% Length X

% Length X

% Length X

% volume of length / 100 =

% volume of length /100 =

% volume of length /100 =

% volume of length /100 =

% total for Scan 1

% total for Scan 2

% total for Scan 3

% total for Scan 4 Percent cornolete covera-ge Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine; 50.000

% Total for complete exam Site Field Supervisor

/k.

/ ti7l-Date: -

II Additional - Calculation Pipe <edit from Setup>

N.

Supplemental Report Report No.:

Page:

2003U101S L

3 of 4

M Date:

I_

Date: _____

Date:

Summary No.: 501939 Examiner Stevermer, Aaron Examiner Bowne, Lowell V.

Other NIA Level:

11 Reviewer-Jones, Thomas q>J Level:

11 Site Review: Hanson, Shannon _fM L,69 Level:

NIA ANII Review: Daly, Gerald r-Comments: General configuration sketch Sketch or Photo:

J:\\lddealPhotos\\Pl2RFO2003WUT lmages\\2003UO15_2a.bmp SKETCH V, 149vi Additional - Supplemental Reports <edit from Setup>

Nisi SitelUnit:

PINGP I P12 Summary No.:

501939 Limitation Record Procedure:

SWI NDE-UT-16A Procedure Rev.:

o Work Order No.:

_Z

//1 aZ,

Outa!

Repc Workscope:

ISI ZK

)e No.:

Pl2RF2003 rt No.:

2003U015 Page:

4 of 4

t 3)

Description of Limitation:

Single sided exam -Although the examination was performed through 100% of the code required volume, procedure SWI NDE-UT-16A Is not qualified for the detection of flaws on the far side of single side access exams. The techniques provided by this procedure were used for a best effort examination for flaws on the far side of the weld.

%_X Sketch of Limitation:

JA~IddeaILPhotos\\PI2RFO2003%UT Images\\20O3U01 5.ja.bmp 0vS

"'/4

'V#9 N%

r---- - ---

N I

N
,

I t

I Umitations removal requirements:

No scans were performed from the cold leg side of the weld due to configuration and attenuation. No 60 deg. RL was performed due to technique limitlatlons based on thickness and diameter considerations failing outside of typical equipment parameters of the PD! Table I document.

Radiation field:

Examiner Level 11 Signature Date Reviewer Signature e

Stevermer, Aaron 911712003 Jones, Thomas CjA. I Examiner Level II Signature Date Site Review Sign ure Date Bowne, Lowell V.

911712003 Hanson, Shannon A

2V 54I ct)2j Other Level NIA Signature Date ANII Review

_, i9 are Date NIA Daly, Gerald AaAi.n..

I ii.t;^

aA d._

• "WuW'JSldi

• LUNIILdUUII1 '.5WL Irwil 0CIup.

U)

LOOKING DOWN NOZZLE RING DETAIL LD)

'EiE

7_ INTEGRAL ATTACHMENT

= HANGER NO.

SEE DETAILm l

NF-38298-3 XH-1 -215 REF: XH-1 001-1022 (MAN.

X:

= WELD NO.

. FILE NO:

I NsP (M&SP)-

ISI DWN:

CHKD:

APPD:

SYSTEM: RESIDUAL HEAT EXCHANGER 22 LINE: NA DWG:

2-ISI-69B REV: 02 RESIDUAL HEAT EXCHANGER 22 1-17MR171afl- /3 pl*;6- /OF/

Site/Unit:

PINOP /

UT Vessel Examination 2

Procedure:

SWI NDE-UT-18 Summary No.:

Workscope:

501477 lSI Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

0 0211925 Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

2003U035 Page:

1 of 5

Code:

1989 Code Cat.:

C-A Location:

R4 R 22.

Drawing No.:

24S-189

==

Description:==

Head to Shell System ID:

RH Component ID: W-1 Size/Length:

240 I78 ThihessDameter

.50" Limitatons:

see sketch Start Time:

1205 Finish Time:

1239 Examination Surface:

Inside Q Outside 0 Surface Condition: Ground Lo Location:

Y/A Wo Location:

WCL Couplant Sonotrace 40 Satch No.:

1. 00143 Temp. Tool Mfg.:

PTC Instruments Serial No.:

379B Surface Temp.:

88 OF Cal. Report No.:

2003CA043, 2003CA044 Angle Used I °l45 45T 60 60T 80 RL Scanning dB WA 28.5 26.5 WA WA 57.0 Indication(s):

Yes M No R Scan Coverage:

Upstream 0 Downstream 0 CW 0 CCW 0 Comments:

Location: RHR 22 Results:

NAD I IND E GEO Q_

Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%:

No Reviewed Previous Data:

Yes Examiner Level Ii Signaqure Date Reviewer

/ Signature Date Thomas, Travis O

912312003 Jones, Thomas

/

/

/

Examiner Level,,

Signatsre Date Site Review Sigpature Date VanRuter, Christopher D.

t

!g,

9/232003 Hanson,hannon Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Review Jaf i

ar Date NIA Daly, Gemld It'.%. j.

6SoC63 L/~~ %

10O105E / 40F$5

NM)

SummaryNo.: 601477 Examiner Thomas, Travis Examiner VnRuler, Christopher D.

Other WA Supplemental Report Level:

it Reviewer: Jones, Thomas Level:

11 Site Review: Hanson, Shannon Level:

WA ANII Review: Daly, Gerald LL.

Report No.:

2003U035 Q

Page:

2 of 5

Date:

___5 J& tab Date:____

Date: O3SW43 t-Comments: None Sketch or Photo: J.UddeaLPhotoS\\PI2RF02003\\UT Images\\2OO3U35jMJPG Additonal - Supplemntal Reports <W tfom Sotup.

No

)

SummaryNo.: 501477 Examiner: Thomas, Travis Examiner: VanRuler, Christopher D.

Other: WA Supplemental Report c:

Report No.:

2003U035 M

Page:

3 of b

W Date: /_/s _

6 cA s

Date:

f Date:

CCTZB Level:

U Reviewer Jones, Thomas C

Level.

11 Shte Revlew. Hanson, haon Level:

WA ANII Review. Daly, Gerald I/

Comments: None Sketch or Photo: J:Iddea-PhOtos\\PI2RFO2003WT ImagesWO03JO35.2.jpg Addtia - SupplonxmW Reports <edit from Setup>

NwM )

Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations - Vessels Site/Unit:

PINGP /

P12 Summary No.:

601477 Workscope:

ISI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

SWI NDE-UT-16 029 0211925 Outage No.:

P12RF2003

• Report No.'

2003U035 Page:

4 ofr 0 den Planar Scan A) /A

% Length X o

% volume of length /100 =

% total for 0 deg 45 E

C C

C den Scan 1 74.000

% volume of lens

'can 2 74.000

% Length X 100.000

% volume of lens

'can 3 74.000

% Length X 100.000

% volume of lenc

'can 4 74.000

% Length X 100.000

% volume of lens Add totals and divide by # scans =

74.000

% total for 45 deg Ith / 100 =

74.000

% total for Scan 1 Ith / 100 =

74.000

% total for Scan 2 Ith / 100 =

74.000

% total for Scan 3 gth 1 100 =

74.000

% total for Scan 4 Other den 60 RL Scan 1 74.000

% Length X 100.000

% volume of length 1100 =

Scan 2 74.000

• % Length X 100.000

%volumeoflength1100=

Scan 3 _

% Length X

% volume of length /1 00 =

Scan 4 A) /A

% Length X

% volume of length / 100 =

Add totals and divide by # scans =

74.000

% total for 60 RL deg 74.000

% total for Scan 1 74.000

% total for Scan 2

% total for Scan 3

% total for Scan 4 Percent complete coverage Add totals for each angle and scan required and divide by # of angles to determine;74-000

% Total for complete exam Note:

Supplemental coverage may be achieved by use of other angles / methods. When used, the coverage for volume not obtained with angles as noted above shall be calculated'and added to the total to provide the percent total for the complete examination.

Site Field Supervisor:

H i L w //IB t Additional - Calculation Vessel <edit from Setup>

Date:

__Al

Site/Unit:

PINGP I P12 Summary No.:

501477 Limitation Record

~J)

Procedure:

SW! NDE-UT-16 Procedure Rev.:

0 Work Order No.:

0211925 Outage No.:

Report No.:

P12RF2003 2003U035 Workscope:

SIM Page:

5 of 5

Description of Limitation:

Point A @ bottom dead center of outlet nozzle to point B=5", Point B Q end of reinforcing ring to point C start of support=3.5",

Point D Is a support for 21.5"'imited to 1" from weld toe (112 node), Point E is @ end of support to point F start of reinfocing ring 1imitatlon4", Point F to point G end of reinforcing ring=10", Point G to point H start of support3.5", Point I Is a support for 21.5" limited to 1" from weld toe (112 node), Point J Is @ end of support to point K start of reforcing ring Ilmitation4",

Point K to point L @ 0 deg=5".

Sketch of Umation:

J:MlddeaL.PhotosP12RF02003WLT Images%2003U035._.1a.bmp

) OxLE The following points are defined by start position A-U@ 1811 dog from TDClimited a -5' C D-limited to 1Vfom weld toe (W2 node)

E-305' F-34' Limitations removal requirements:

R E l #jFo,;rcIs. G G

4' Pm 9t O H47.5" I-limited to 1' from weld toe (112 node)

J - 69.

K - 73 L -back lo 0-Radiation field:

Examiner Level ii Sjgnature Date Reviewer Sigrwnure 9ate Thomas, Travis A

9123/2003 Jones, Thomas Qa.- J

/o/

/e'3 Examiner Level Ii Signature Date Site Review Signature Date VanRuler, Christopher D.

A, CfWVSe,&j123 120 03 Hanson,Shannon rN\\h b Other Level NIA Signature Date ANII Review SigatreDate N/A Daly, Gerald 03

,4 3OC03 Additional - Umitation <edit from Setup>

lJ (J

5115 NORTH W-d 1687

'-1 A

TS-H

\\

[sSi J INTEGRAL I\\ WELO

' =ATTACHMENT

= HANGER NO.

= WELD NO.

INAVC>

ND-92172-18 REF:XH-1 106-2510 IFILE NO:2190AR01 "C')

a SAFETY INJECTION PUMP 21 DISCHARGE S

(M&SP)-PI-2 ISI DWN:CADWorksCHKD:QX APPD:Q8_

SYSTEM:SAFETY INJECTION LINE: 3-2S1-15. 3-2S1-15A. 4-2S1-14A DWG:

2-ISI-90A IREV: 02 A47rT1ClIM/6I7

/5 P 6A e /

9 F/

7.r.

NXs Site/Unit:

PINGP I Summary No.:

Workscope:

UT Pipe Weld Examination P12 505055 MI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

SW NDE.UTI16A 0

Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

2003U010 Page:

1 of 4

0211924 Code:

1989 Code Cat.:

C-F-1 Location:

A,,

.- M s

7 a

o Drawing No.:

2-iSI-90A

==

Description:==

Valve to Elbow System ID:

Si Component ID: W-1I Size/Length:

3" 111.0" Thickness/Diameter

.438"I 3" Limitations:

No scans on valve due to configuration Start Time:

1330 Finish Time:

1455 Examination Surface:

Inside C]

Outside Ve Surface Condition: Flat Topped Lo Location:

TDC Wo Location:

Centerline of Weld Couplant:

Sonotrace 40 Batch No.:

1143 Temp. Tool Mfg.:

PTC Instruments Serial No.:

3792 Surface Temp.:

8s OF Cal. Report No.:

2003CA012, 2003CA014 AngleUsed l

45 45T 60l 70 T

Scanning dB 41.5 41.5 52.5 Indication(s):

Yes No 0 Scan Coverage:

Upstream "]

Downstream i CW i CCW v' Comments:

Location Aux. Bldg. 702' No previous data Results:

NAD v-IND Fl GEO Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%:

No Reviewed Previous Data:

N/A Examiner Level II Date Reviewer Signaturp Date Blechinger, Todd P.

ZOM 9/19/2003 Jones, Thomas alS_

.9

/3 Examiner Level N/A Signature Date Site Review Sig ature Date N/A Hanson, Shannon

-N 2M Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Review Ila ate NIA Daly, Gerald I

e4).

SE8°3 L.A

.1 PAW66! / t*F 4

.k~

Determination of Percent Coverage fc UT Examinations - Pipe or

'%3 Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

2003U010

)

Page:

2 of 4

V SitelUnit:

PINGP I P12 Summary No.:

505055 Workscope:

ISI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

SWI NDE-UT-16A 0

0211924 45 den Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 0.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

% Length X

% Length X

% Length X

% Length X 0.000

% volume of length 1 100 =

100.000

% volume of length I 100 =

50.000

% volume of length /100=

50.000

% volume of length /100 =

0.000

% total for Scan 1 100.000

% total for Scan 2 50.000

% total for Scan 3 50.000

% total for Scan 4 Add totats and divide by # scans =

50.000

% total for 45 deg Other deg.

70 (to be used for supplemental scans)

The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.

Scan I Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4

% Length X 100.000

% Length X

% Length X

% Length X

% volume of length /1 00 =

100.000

% volume of length /100 =

% volume of length /1 00 =

% volume of length / 100 =

100.000

% total for Scan I

% total for Scan 2

% total for Scan 3

% total for Scan 4 Percent complete coverage Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine; 5-0.00

¶08.M

% Total for complete exam Site Field Supervisor:

-'7-f

-/./

Date:

Iz/4 Additional - Calculation Pipe <edit from Setup>

Site/UnRt:

PINGP

/

P12 Summary No.:

505055 Workscope:

IS1 Limitation Record Procedure:

SWI NDE-UT-16A Procedure Rev.:

0 Work Order No.:

0211924 Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

2003U10 C )

Page:

3 of 4 r1 Description of Umitation:

Q Valve body taper Sketch of Umitation:

J.'JddealPhotos\\P12RF02003\\LJT 1rnages\\2003UO10_j.JPG Umitatlons removal requirements:

Single sided exam - Although the examination was performed through 100% of the code required volume, procedure SWIf NDE-UT-1GA Is not qualified for the detection of flaws on the far side of single side access exams. The techniques provided by this procedure were used for a best effort examination for flaws on the far side of the weld.

Radiation field:

Examiner Level III I§l

~atr Date Reviewer Signature e 13te Blechinger, Todd P.

.1,0i r

U*

t911912003 Jones, Thomas C>

J

'/6 Examiner Level WA Signaturl Date Site Review

/)

ignature Date WA Hanson, Shannon fA 9/iq/6i Other Level WVA Signature Date ANII Review Imnature

' Dite W/A Daly, Gerald AddioaW - Uritatlon cedit from Setup>

(2

I NMt 10 Supplemental Report Report No.:

Page:

Summary No.: 505055 Examiner: Blechinger, Todd P.

Examiner: WA Other: NIA Level:

Ill Reviewer: Jones, Thomas cfJ Level:

NIA Site Review: Hanson, Shannon(W ft& St Level:

NIA ANII Review: Daly, Gerald A D 2003U010 4

of 4

Date:

Date: _____

Date: 4,S'F%

Comments: W-1 I coverage plot Sketch or Photo: J:UddealPhotos\\PI2RFO2003\\UT lmages\\2003U010_1a.bmp i

'.A-. ;E u

O f

w So "4,o, ace,it-,gQ

• , 'I-.

0't$' t.X.:--

Do

V q

~

~

~

~

p______________________

Additional - Supplemental Reports <edit from Setup>

Site/Unit:

PINGP /

Summary No.:

f Workscope:

UT Pipe Weld Examination P12 505058 iSI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

SWI NDE-UT-16A 0

0211924 Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

2003U011 Page:

1 of 4

Code:

1989 Code Cat.:

C-F-I Location:

Auxiliary Building Drawing No.:

24iSI-90A

==

Description:==

Elbow to Valve System ID:

Si Component ID: W-14 Size/Length:

3" /11.0" Thickness/Diameter.

.438" /3" Limitations:

No scans on valve due to configuration Start Time:

1400 Finish Time:

1600 Examination Surface:

Inside E Outside wi Surface Condition: Flat Topped Lo Location:

TDC Wo Location:

Centeriline of Weld Couplant:

Sonotrace 40 Batch No.:

1. 00143 Temp. Tool Mfg.:

PTC Instruments Serial No.:

3792 Surface Temp.:

8s

• F Cal. Report No.:

2003CA012, 2003CA014 AngleUsed 10 45 45T 60 70 Scanning dB 41.5 41.5 52.5 Indication(s):

Yes No j Scan Coverage:

Upstream 63 Downstream CW 0 CCW V Comments:

No previous data available Results:

NAD 4.

IND A]

GEO Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%:

No Reviewed Previous Data:

N/A Examiner Level ill nin tur Date Reviewer

/

Slgnatur Date Blechinger, Todd P.

P.0A 9/19/2003 Jones, Thomas v/g Examiner Level N/A Signature Date Site Review A

Sinature Date N/A.

_Hanson,Shannon

-a.-

,'W Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Review Sigatyr Date N/A Daly, Gerald 4

wM Q D

5 ATTJcH/n' 6A)T

//7 A#6 / OF

Summary No.: 505058 Examiner Blechinger, Todd P.

Examiner: N/A Other NIA Supplemental Report Level:

III Level:

NJA Level:

NIA Reviewer: Jones, Thomas C

Site Review: Hanson, Shannon4 ANII Review: Daly, Gerald I

Report No.:

2003U011 Page:

2 of 4

JDDate:

OA SW Date e

CZ

22 Date

CIS Comments:

W-14 coverage plot Sketch or Photo: J:iddeaLPhotos'P12RFO2003WUT Images\\2003U0 1.1a.bmp I

r

. I...

I.

-

, T,

... I

-I

-711-

42
k,.:..

7 1-1 4 ql

i I " :I a
I.,.

t

/fLE IA' Addiftonal - Supplemental Reports cedit from Setup>

4 IN Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations - Pipe Site/Unit:

PINGP 1 P12 Summary No.:

505058 Workscope:

ISI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

SWI NDE-UT-16A 0

0211924 Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

2003U01I Page:

3 of 4

45 dea Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000 0.000 100.000 100.000

% Length X

% Length X

% Length X

% Length X 100.000 0.000 50.000 50.000

% volume of length / 100 =

% volume of length /1 00 =

% volume of length / 100 =

% volume of length / 100 =

100.000 0.000 50.000 50.000

% total for Scan 1

% total for Scan 2

% total for Scan 3

% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans =

50.000

% total for 45 deg Other den.

70 (to be used for supplemental scans)

The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.

Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000

% Length X

% Length X

% Length X

% Length X 100.000

% volume of length / 100 =

% volume of length / 100 =

% volume of length / 100 =

% volume of length /100 =

100.000

% total for Scan 1

% total for Scan 2

% total for Scan 3

% total for Scan 4 Percent complete coverage Adyotals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine; Sf61Mr

% Total for complete exam f.1W

/4 --

e

/Z Date:

Site Field Supervisor Additional - Calculation Pipe <edit from Setup>

'Nt Limitation Record Site/Uni:

PINGP

/

P12 mary No.:

505058 Sum Procedure:

SWI NDE-UT-16A Procedure Rev.:

0 Work Order No.:

0211924 Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

2003U011 Page:

4 of 4

Workscope:

'SI Description of Limitation:

i Valve body taper A

Sketch of Limitation:

J:%iddeaLPhotosl~i2RF02003WUT Images%2003UO1 ij.JPG Limitations removal requirements:

Single sided exam - Although the examination was performed through 100% of the code required volume, procedure SWI NDE-..

UT-16A Is not qualified for the detection of flaws on the far side of single side access exams. The techniques provided by this procedure were used for a best effort examination for flaws on the far side of the weld.,

Radiation field:

Examiner Level lill I0;q~e jDate Reviewer Signate

/

te Blechinger, Todd P.

c} }

or s911912003 Jones, Thomas Cut

_/

e,,,3 Examiner Level NIA Signatbre Date Site Review ignature Date Hanson,Shannon Am S 1s FA V/ ^;

Other Level NIA Signature Date ANII Review

(

ure Date N1A Daly, Gerald 4 4 9 J xSZd3 Additional - Umiftation <edit from Setup>

U '

C7,

POINT

//A //

CONT ON THIS SHEET POINT "A" 1/8' I W-7 208 SAFETY PUMP DISCHARGE INJECTION

1. 22 7 INTEGRAL ATTACHMENT

= HANGER NO.

CONT ON DWG 2-ISI-938 5 WELD NO.

REF:XH-1106-2510 IFILE NO:2193AR01 N) cI Ln SAFETY INJECTION PUMP 22 DISCHARGE r

PM&SP)-Pl-2 Isi DWN: CADWorksCHKD:DSW APPD:DSW SYSTEM:SAFETY INJECTION LLINE: 3-2S1-15B.

4-2Sl-14B, 3-2S1-15 DWG:

2-ISI-93A IREV: 02' t9T7-ff1/4ME A)7

~6 F

/9 joto,66, / OF /

Site/Unit:

PINGP /

Summary No.:

Workscope:

UT Pipe Weld Examination P12 505370 ISI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

SWI NDE-UT-16A 0

0211924 Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:.

2003U028 Page:

1 of 4

Code:

1989 Code Cat.:

C-F-1 Location:

Auxiliary Building Drawing No.:

241SI-93A

==

Description:==

Pipe To Flange System ID:

Si Component ID: W-17 Size/Length:

3" 111.0" Thickness/Diameter

.438" /3" Limitations:

No scans on flange due to configuration Start Time:

0950 Finish Time:

1036 Examination Surface:

Inside [3 Outside i Surface Condition: As Welded Lo Location:

TDC Wo Location:

Centerline of Weld Couplant:

Sonotrace 40 Batch No.:

1. 00143 Temp. Tool Mfg.:

PTC Instruments Serial No.:

3792 Surface Temp.:

85

• F Cal. Report No.:

2003CA026, 2003CA028 AngleUsed 0

45 45T 60 70 l

l Scanning dB 41.5 41.5 52.5 Indication(s):

Yes !-

No it Scan Coverage:

Upstream V; Downstream L.]

CW v CCW 0 Comments:

No previous data Results:

NAD l

IND GEO 'f Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%:

No Reviewed Previous Data:

N/A Examiner Level i(A nayre.

r Date Reviewer

/

Signature

/

Date Blechinger, Todd P.

9/20/2003 Jones, Thomas _

C

/a49 s

Examiner Level N/A Signature Date Site Review Signature Date N/A Hanson, Shannon rZ A_

C0 Z.A.

Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Review

\\

Signpre Date NIA Daly, Gerald o4S&'.

U-i/9 i7 -C47~,117- / '7 PA'6e7 /OFZ(

.)

4-e Site/UnK:

PINGP I

P12 Summary No.:

505370 Workscope:

1SI Lmiltation Record Procedure:

SWI NDE-UT-16A Procedure Rev.:

0 Work Order No.:

0211924 Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

2003U026 Page:

2 of 4

2 Description of Limitation:

Flange configuration Sketch of Umitation:

J.MdeaLPhotos\\1RF02003\\T Images%2M0U026_.j.PG Umitations removal requirements:

Single sided exam - Although the examination was performed through 100% of the code required volume, procedure SWI NDE-UT-16A Is not qualified for the detection of flaws on the far side of single side access exams. The techniques provided by this procedure were used for a best effort examination for flaws on the fr side of the weld.

Radiation field:

Examiner Leel III 1 §tyaturj '

Date Reviewer Sign ure ate Blechinger, Todd P.

W Sf202003 Jones, Thomas J

a Examiner Level WA Signaturd Date Site Review S

N A!nature D te WA Hanson, Shannon q)24 b Other Level WA Signature Date ANII Review S nature Date WA Daly, Gerald (Ef Additional~~~

~

~

~

~

LklalnSdtfo eu>1 AWRIonal - Urriftation <KM from Sehip>

U

'1V -N:iT:

Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations-- Pipe Site/Unit:

PINGP /

P12 Summary No.:

505370 Workscope:

ISI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

SWi NDE-UT-16A 0

0211924 Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

2003U026 Page:

3 of 4

45 deg Scan I Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000

% Length X 0.000

% Length X 100.000

% Length X 100.000

% Length X 100.000

% volume of length / 100 =

0.000

% volume of length / 100 =

50.000

% volume of length / 100 =

50.000

% volume of length / 100 =

100.000

% total for Scan 1 0.000

% total for Scan 2 50.000

% total for Scan 3 50.000

% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans =

50.000

% total for 45 deg Other dea -

70 (to be used for supplemental scans)

The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.

Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000

% Length X

% Length X

% Length X

% Length X 100.000

% volume of length / 100 =

% volume of length /100 =

% volume of length / 100 =

% volume of length /100 =

100.000

% total for Scan I

% total for Scan 2

% total for Scan 3

% total for Scan 4 Percent complete coverage Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine;

• %-7. 90 I

4&O-fr

% Total for complete exam 19-I&3~

- Idae Site Field Supervisor Date: -

Additional - Calculation Pipe 'edit from Setup>

Or Summary No.: 505370 Examiner Blechinger, Todd P.

Examiner: NIA Other WA Supplemental Report Level:

III Level:

NIA Level:

WA Reviewer. Jones, Thomas Site Review: Hanson, Shannon ANII Review. Daly. Gerald 4

Report No.:

2003U026 Page:

4 of 4

Date:

V 9

l5 4, A.

Date:

__,2 _

7 Ad If Date:

A oak b

Comments: W-17 coverage plot Sketch or Photo: J:uddea-PhotosuPl2RFo2003wUT lmagesN2003U026_1a.bmp FL"

&F, P, PE I~~~~~.

Additional - Supplemental Reports cedit from Setup>

A

NORT POINT

//

A //

Lis[

\\(5AVCO-

\\wE 7 INTEGRAL ATTACHMENT

= HANGER NO.

= WELD NO.

CV-311 16 EL.

726'-7 1/2" ND CONT REF:XH-1 106-47 IFILE NO:2146BR04 M\\

I 0-l 1

.6 MSP (M&SP)-PI-2 ISI DWN: CADWorksCHKD:DSW APPD:DSW SYSTEM:MAIN STEAM LLINE: 6-2MS-1.

30-2MS-1.

31-2MS-1 DWG:

2-1 S I -46B I REV: 05 i9rywsN 7sr so PA!6 /

or-/

MAIN STEAM LOOP./A'

RPM 1

Site/Unit:

PINGP /

Summary No.:

Workscope:

UT Pipe Weld Examination P12 500861 Is' Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

SWI NDE-UT-1A 0

0211927 Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

• 2003U029 Pace:

I of 3

Code:

1989 Code Cat.:

C-F-2 Location: MU c.3 Q

?3 '

Drawing No.:

24lSl-46B Descuiption: Sweepolet to Flanged Nozzle System ID:

MS Component ID: W-36 Size/Length:

6" Thickness/Diameter 1.031T Limitations:

No exam due to configuration. See photo Start Time:

N/A Finish Time:

NIA Examination Surface:

Inside Outside vI Surface Condition: Machined Lo Location:

NIA Wo Location:

Centerline of Weld Couplant:

AZA Batch No.:

A Temp. Tool Mfg.:

Telatemp Serial No.:

N/A Surface Temp.:

N/A GF Cal. Report No.:

N/A Angle Used 0

45 1 45T 1 60 Scanning dB N/A NIA NIA N/A Indication(s):

Yes [

No v.

Scan Coverage:

Upstream Downstream CW CCWL]

Comments:

Location: Aux. Bldg. 735. No exam performed due to configuration. See photo.

Results:

NAD n IND GEO; Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%

0 Reviewed Previous Data:

N/A Examiner Level II Signature Date Reviewer Signature Date Hailing, David A.

)

\\X 9/19/2003 Jones, Thomas Z O je/sy Examiner Level N/A Signature Date Site Review Signature Date N/AHanson, Shannon

)..

03 Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Review Date NIA Daly, Gerald 36!=

Lu I

Arr4-cMEIlV7-9/

9A46E /OF3-V

I P

Summary No.: 500861 Examiner: Hailing, David A.

Examiner: NIA Other:

NWA Supplemental Report Level:

11 Level:

NIA Level:

NWA Reviewer: Jones, Thomas C

Site Review: Hanson, Shannon 4 ANII Review: Daly, Gerald K i

'I -~~1 Report No.:

2003U029 Page:

2 of 3

M,

Sh 4-ali Date:

li2 6

D4 5fg Date:

____441 p -

Date:

Comments: VT-l Exam performed on flange weld interior. See 'Visual Examination of Welds' report#2003V115.

Sketch or Photo:

J:Xlddal-PhotosXPl2RFO2003XUT lmagesV2003U029j.jpg Additional - Supplemental Reports cedit from Setup>

W 14 0

Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations - Pipe Site/Unit:

PINGP I P12 Summary No.:

500861 Workscope:

ISI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.:

Work Order No.:

SWI NDE-UT-IA 0

0211927 Outage No.:

P12RF2003 Report No.:

2003U029 Page:

3 of 3

45 deg Scan I Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 0.000

% Length X 0.000

% Length X 0.000

% Length X 0.000

% Length X 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

% volume of length /100 =

% volume of length / 100 =

% volume of length 1 100 =

% volume of length! 100 =

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

% total for Scan I

% total for Scan 2

% total for Scan 3

% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans

• 0.000

% total for 45 deg Other deg -

(to be used for supplemental scans)

The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.

Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4

% Length X

% Length X

% Length X

% Length X

% volume of length /100 =

% volume of length /100 =

% volume of length 1 100 =

% volume olength / 100 =

% total for Scan I

% total for Scan 2

% total for Scan 3

% total for Scan 4 Percent complete coveraoe Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine; 0.000

% Total for complete exam Site Field Supervisor BV J

I

/:Zy Date:

_ _ _ _3 Additional - Calculation Pipe <edit from Setup>

PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT SECTION WORK INSTRUCTION Procedure may be performed from memory.

User remains responsible for procedure adherence.

Procedure should be available, but not necessarily at, the work location.

O.C. REVIEW DATE:

OWNER:

EFFECTIE DATE IV&

T. Downing 6 30-639

PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT SECTION WORK INSTRUCTION 1.0 PURPOSE This procedure provides instruction for identifying, quantifying and recording of limitations encountered while performing NDE examinations under the ISI program.

2.0 REFERENCES

This procedure complies with the applicable portions of the following referenced documents:

2.1 American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code:

Sections V and Xl, 1989 edition, no addenda.

2.2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide - 1.150 "Ultrasonic Testing of Reactor Vessel Welds during Preservice and Inservice Examinations", (Rev. 1 dated Feb. 1983).

2.3 Code case N-460 - Alternative Examination Coverage for Class 1 and Class 2 Welds - Section Xl, Division 1.

2.4 Procedure SWI NDE-0 Equipment, Personnel and Material Reporting."

2.5 5AWI 14.6.0 NISI Examination Program."

3.0 APPLICABILITY 3.1 This procedure is applicable to examinations performed at Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant.

3.2 This procedure is to be followed when it has been determined that there is a limitation which prevents obtaining full coverage of an area or volume as stated by the applicable examination procedure.

For ultrasonic examinations, this would mean less than all of the required scans and/or a reduction of required scan path for one or more scans.

PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT SECTION WORK INSTRUCTION 4.0 DEFINITIONS 4.1 LImitatIon - something that limits, restraint: An obstacle to the performance of an examination procedure.

4.2 Evaluation - to determine the significance, worth, or condition of, usually by careful appraisal and study.

4.3 Practical - " of, relating to, or manifested in practice or action: not theoretical or ideal; concerned with voluntary action and ethical decisions. Useful." For this application this is interpreted to mean, for a specific case the benefits of a proposed action outweigh the negative aspects of that action.

5.0 PREREQUISITES Personnel Requirements 5.1 Examination personnel certification and eye examinations SHALL be documented in accordance with SWI NDE-O.

5.2 Nondestructive examination personnel SHALL be certified to a minimum of Level I in the appropriate method to operate equipment and Level 11 to interpret test results.

6.0 EQUIPMENT This item is not applicable to this procedure. If alternate methods are required to augment coverage, that work SHALL be done under a separate procedure.

PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT SECTION WORK INSTRUCTION 7.0 INSTRUCTIONS 7.1 Initial Examination Where the examiner is not able to complete a full examination as dictated by applicable procedure, the following steps SHALL be taken:

7.1.1 Complete original examination on accessible portions.

7.1.2 Make sketch which includes dimensions defining location and size of limitations using a report format similar to that shown in Figure 3.

7.1.3 Describe the limitation including what it is and how it interferes with the exam. State what appears to be required to remove the limitation using a report format similar to that shown in Figure 3.

7.1.4 For volumetric examinations, construct a surface profile using a surface contour gauge and perform a thickness profile (typically one reading each 1/2" in a line) of the area that encompasses the code required volume. For UT that would include the available scanning surface.

7.1.5 Record radiation field information on the report (this may require assistance from the health physics group).

7.1.6 Sign and date the data sheet then forward it to the NDE Level IlIl.

7.2 Evaluation 7.2.1 The data gathered by the initial examiner SHALL be reviewed by the NDE Level Ill or / designee to determine if alternate methods may be used to achieve additional coverage.

7.2.2 If alternate methods would provide additional coverage, a review of the benefit versus the required resources (radiation dose, time, cost etc.) to achieve that coverage SHALL be performed by the NDE Level Ill to determine if that action is practical (see Step 7.3).

PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT SECTION WORK INSTRUCTION q ;4i

~~~~~~~~~~~~~NUMBER:

SWI NDE-LTS-1 w

LIMITATIONS TO NDE Re 0

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _P a g e 5 o f 1 3 7.2.3 If it is determined that the entire examination volume or area cannot be examined due to interference by another component or part geometry, a reduction in examination coverage on any Class 1 or Class 2 weld may be accepted provided the reduction in coverage for that weld is less than 10%.

The applicable examination records SHALL identify both the cause and percentage of reduced examination coverage (see Step 7.4).

7.3 Alternate Methods to Achieve Coverage 7.3.1 For surface examinations, MT and PT may be interchanged / intermixed as appropriate to the material and the conditions.

7.3.2 For volumetric examinations, RT may be substituted for or augment UT assuming the ability to drain the line, and that the wall thickness / diameter is within a practical range.

7.3.3 For UT, use of other angles, full node or node and one half calibrations, skewed scans or approach from another surface to achieve additional coverage SHALL be considered.

7.4 Determining Coverage Achieved When evaluation of initial and alternate examination methods results in examinations, which do not provide full coverage, a determination of percent coverage SHALL be made. The required examination coverage is defined by applicable figures in ASME Sect Xi.

7.4.1 For surface examinations, a worksheet similar to that shown in Figure 4 SHALL be completed.

g -lFor ASME Section Xi appendix Vill exams, code coverage may be limited by what the procedure has been demonstrated.

7.4.2 For volumetric examinations, a worksheet similar to that shown in Figure 5 or Figure 6 (ultrasonic examinations) SHALL be completed.

PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT SECTION WORK INSTRUCTION

~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~

~~~NUMBER:

SWI NDE-LTS-1, LIMITATIONS TO NDE S

ne-LTSf1

~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~REV:

0

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _P a g e 6 o f 13 7.5 Should the evaluation show that 90% weld coverage has been achieved, attach all related information to the original NDE report and no further action is required.

7.6 Contractor procedures for performing examinations utilizing automated equipment (e.g. reactor vessel and nozzle safe-end exams) SHALL be reviewed by an NDE Level III in the appropriate method to ensure the requirements for identifying, quantifying and recording of limitations encountered are adequately addressed.

7.7 When it has been determined that the maximum examination coverage practically achievable for a code required item is less than required; a relief request is required to be submitted to the NRC (5AWI 14.6.0).

8.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA This item is not applicable to this procedure.

9.0 REPORTING 9.1 Information addressed in Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 (as applicable) SHALL be reported.

9.2 Information for examinations that are required to meet Reg. Guide 1.150 SHALL also include the following from Appendix A - Alternate Method:

7.c

'The best estimate of the portion of the volume required to be examined by the ASME Code that has not been effectively examined such as volumes of material near each surface because of near-field or other effects, volumes near interfaces between cladding and parent metal, volumes shadowed by laminar material defects, volumes shadowed by part geometry, volumes inaccessible to the transducer, volumes affected by electronic gating, and volumes near the surface opposite the transducer. Sketches and/or descriptions of the tools, fixtures and component geometry which contribute to Incomplete coverage should be included."

9.3 Reference System Recording of limitations SHALL be based on the reference system shown in the original examination procedure.

PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT SECTION WORK INSTRUCTION 9.4 Documentation A picture of the limitation should be taken and added to the description, preferably in a digital format.

10.0 RECORDS 10.1 Inservice inspection examinations SHALL be incorporated in the ISI records. See

'ISI Examination Program.'

10.2 Records of other examinations SHALL be the responsibility of the organization requesting the examination.

11.0 ATTACHMENTS 11.1 Figure 1 - Example of UT Scan Coverage 11.2 Figure 2-Example of UT, One Sided Exam, Supplemental Coverage 11.3 Figure 3 - Limitation Data Sheet 11.4 Figure 4 - Determination of Percent Coverage for Surface Examinations 11.5 Figure 5 - Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations -Pipe 11.6 Figure 6-Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations -Vessels 12.0

SUMMARY

OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES NONE

PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT SECTION WORK INSTRUCTION

,:q M-I NI~S-WI, LIMITATIONS TO NDE NUMBER:

I-SWI NDE-LTS-1 REV:

0 Page 8 of 13 Figure 1 - Example of UT scan coverage E-a)

.v5 E

E

PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT SECTION WORK INSTRUCTION

~~77q"~~~'

I','

~~~~NUMBER:

SWI NDE-LTS-1 LIMITATIONS TO NDEREV:

0 1:

Page 9of 13 Figure 2 - Example of UT, One Sided Exam, Supplemental Coverage It S

0 0) 40

'-a 0

4I-0 c

At 2

0 I

PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT SECTION WORK INSTRUCTION Figure 3 -Limitation Data Sheet TITLE:

Umitations to NDE NUMBER:

SWI NDE-LTS-1 Revision 0 Figure 3 Limitation Data Sheet Initial exam report #

Procedure#

ISO #

Item #

Desciption of Limitation Sketch of Limitation Limitation removal requirements Radiation field Date:

PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT SECTION WORK INSTRUCTION Figure 4 -Determination of Percent Coverage for Surface Examinations TrrLE:

Limitations to NDE NUMBER:

SWJ NDE-LTS-1 Revision 0 Figure 4 Determination of Percent Coverane for Surface Examinations This Is a samnle form only Initial exam rpt #

Procedure #

ISO #

Item Applicable Code figure #

Area Required (as shown in applicable code reference drawing)

Length

• Width

= Total area required square inches Coverage Achieved Area examined sq. in. I Total area required (100%)

sq. In.

= Percent coverage

% (area required - area of limitations = area examined)

To determine length of a circumferential weld Note - Diameter refers to actual external diameter not pipe size (see table below)

Diameter

• (Pi) 3.1416

= Length inches Pipe Actual (Length)

Pipe Actual (Length)

Size Diameter Circumference Size Diameter Circumference 2

2.375 7A6 12 12.75 40.06 2.5 2.875 9.03 14 14.0 43.98 3

3.5 11.0 16 16.0 50.27 3.5 4.0 12.57 18 18.0 56.55 4

4.5 14.14 20 20.0 62.83 5

5.563 17A8 22 22.0 69.12 6

6.625 20.81 24 24.0 75.40 8

8.625 27.10 30 30.0 94.25 10 10.75 33.77 I _

I NDE Level III:

Date:

NDE Level ill:

Date:~~~~~~~~

PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT SECTION WORK INSTRUCTION l j j Pagel12 of 13 Figure 5 - Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations -Pipe 1_

TITLE:

Limitations to NDE J

NUMBER:

SWI NDE-LTS-1 Revision 0 Figure 5 Z

Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations - Pipe This Is a sample form onlA Initial exam rpt #

Procedure #

ISO #

Item #

Applicable Code figure #

45 den Scan I

% length X

% volume of length / 100 =

% total for Scan I Scan 2

% length X

% volume of length / 100 =

% total for Scan 2 Scan 3

% length X

% volume of length 1 100 =

% total for Scan 3 Scan 4

% length X

% volume of length /100 =

_ % total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans =_

% total for 45 deg Other den -.

(to be used for supplemental scans)

The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.

Scan I

% length X

% volume of length /1 00 =

% total for Scan I Scan 2

% length X

% volume of length /1 00 =

% total for Scan 2 Scan 3

% length X

% volume of length /100

_= % total for Scan 3 Scan 4

% length X Y%

volume of length 1100 =

% total for Scan 4 Percent complete coverage Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine;

% total for complete exam Example - 45 deg scan I = 63% plus supplemental 60 deg scan I = 28% (of remaining required scan volume) for total of 91% coverage for scan I volume. Repeat for the remaining scans, add together and divide by the # of scans (typically 4).

NDE Level III:

Date:

NDE Level ill:

Date:

WA or Figure 6 - Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations -Vessels TTFLE:

LIMltationS to NDE NUMBER:

SWI NDE-LTS-1 Revision 0 Figure 6 Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations - Vessels This Is a sample form only Initial exam rpt #

Procedure #_

ISO #

Item #

Applicable Code figure #

0 den Planar Scan

% length X

% volume of length 1 100 =

% total for 0 deg 45 den Scan I

% length X

% volume of length /100 =

% total for Scan 1 Scan 2

% length X

% volume of length I 100 =

% total for Scan 2 Scan 3

% length X

% volume of length / 100 =

% total for Scan 3 Scan 4

% length X

% volume of length 1100 =

% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans =

% total for 45 deg 60 den Scan I

% length X __

% volume of length 1100 =

% total for Scan I Scan 2

% length X

% volume of length /1 00 =

% total for Scan 2 Scan 3

% length X

% volume of length 1 100 =

% total for Scan 3 Scan 4

% length X

% volume of length /l100 =

% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans =

% total for 60 deg Percent complete coverage Add totals for each angle and scan required and divide by # angles to determine;

% total for complete exam Note: Supplemental coverage may be achieved by use of other angles I methods. When used, the coverage for volume not obtained with angles as noted above shall be calculated and added to the total to provide the percent total for the complete examination.

NDE Level IIl:

Date: