ML041240028
| ML041240028 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/2004 |
| From: | Vanderheyden G Constellation Energy Group |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| EA-03-009, TAC MC1921 | |
| Download: ML041240028 (15) | |
Text
11 George Vanderheyden Vice President Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Constellation Generation Group, LLC 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, Maryland 20657 410.495.4455 410.495.3500 Fax I3 Constellation Energy April 27, 2004 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:
SUBJECT:
Document Control Desk Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit No. 1; Docket No. 50-317 Supplemental Data for Request for Relaxation from Interim Inspection Requirements for Reactor Pressure Vessel Head (TAC No. MC1921)
REFERENCES:
(a)
Letter from Mr. G. Vanderheyden (CCNPP) to Document Control Desk (NRC), dated January 30, 2004, Request for Relaxation from NRC Order EA-03-009, "Interim Inspection Requirements for Reactor Pressure Vessel Heads at Pressurized Water Reactors" (b)
Letter from Mr. S. J. Collins (NRC) to Holders of Licenses for Operating Pressurized Water Reactors, dated February 11, 2003, Issuance of Order Establishing Interim Inspection Requirements for Reactor Pressure Vessel Heads at Pressurized Water Reactors (EA-03-009)
(c)
Letter from Mr. G. Vanderheyden (CCNPP) to Document Control Desk (NRC), dated April 13, 2004, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Interim Inspection Requirements for Reactor Pressure Vessel Head (TAC No. MC1921)
(d)
Letter from Mr. R. William Borchardt (NRC) to Holders of Licenses for Operating Pressurized Water Reactors, dated February 20, 2004, Issuance of First Revised Order (EA-03-009) Establishing Interim Inspection Requirements for Reactor Pressure Vessel Heads at Pressurized Water Reactors (e)
Electronic Mail from Mr. G. Vissing (NRC) to Mr. J. Kirk-wood (CCNPP),
dated April 21, 2004, RAls for CCNPP Relaxation Request By letter dated January 30, 2004, (Reference a), and supplemented by letter dated April 13, 2004, (Reference c), Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. submitted a request for relaxation from the inspection requirements of Section IV.C(l)(b)(i) of Order EA-03-009 (Reference b). On February 20, 2004, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued First Revised Order EA-03-009 (Reference d). Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant completed the inspections required by Reference (d) on April 20, 2004. This letter supplements our relaxation request by providing the final results of our ultrasonic testing AlD(
Document Control Desk April 27, 2004 Page 2 examination. This letter also affirms our desire for the staff to continue reviewing relaxation request number one, of Reference (a), in accordance with Section IV(F)(2) of the First Revised Order EA-03-009 (Reference d). We would like to withdraw relaxation request number two of Reference (a); volumetric inspection to the end of the head penetration nozzles was achieved using an axial probe, therefore the need for relaxation from the requirement to inspect to the end of the nozzle no longer exists.
The response to requests for additional information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Reference e) are provided in Attachment (1).
The final reactor pressure vessel head control element drive mechanism penetrations' ultrasonic testing examination results, including specific nozzles for which relaxation is requested by Reference (a), are contained in Attachment (2).
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. requests approval of the relaxation requests as soon as reasonably achievable. Calvert Cliffs Unit I is currently scheduled to start plant heat-up May 4, 2004.
Document Control Desk April 27, 2004 Page 3 Should you have questions regarding this matter, we will be pleased to iscuss them with you.
Very tr ul ou s, STATE OF MARYLAND TO WIT:
COUNTY OF CALVERT I, George Vanderheyden, being duly sworn, state that I am Vice President - Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. (CCNPP), and that I am duly authorized to execute and file this response on behalf of CCNPP.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements contained in this document are true and correct.
To the extent that these statements are not based on my personal knowledge, they are based upon information provided by other CCNPP employees and/or consultants.
Such information has been reviewed in accordance with company practice and I believe it to be reliable CJ/
Subscribed and sworn before me a Notary Public in and for the State of Maryland and County of this,27A;day of 2004.
WITNESS my Hand and Notarial Seal:
61 2 2acŽ 5
/
Notary Public h)awcz D2* oZ6 O1 My.Commission Expires:
GV/JKK/bjd Attachments:
(1)
Response to Requests fob (2)
J. Petro, Esquire J. E. Silberg, Esquire Director, Project Directorate I-l, NRC G. S. Vissing, NRC l
Date /
r Additional Information Head UT Examination Results H. J. Miller, NRC Resident Inspector, NRC R. 1. McLean, DNR
ATTACHMENT (1)
RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.
April 27, 2004
ATTACHMENT (1)
RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NRC Request 1:
CCNPP is requested to revise the relaxation request to identify the corresponding paragraphs of the First Revised Order EA-03-009 dated February 20, 2004 that CCNPP is requesting relaxation from.
CCNPP Response:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) seeks relaxation from the inspection requirements of paragraph IV.C(5)(b) of the Issuance of First Revised NRC Order (EA-03-009) Establishing Interim Inspection Requirements for Reactor Pressure Vessel Heads at Pressurized Water Reactors, in accordance with paragraph IV.F(2) of same.
NRC Request 2:
In CCNPP response to NRC Request #4 to Relaxation 1, the licensee said performing a destructive examination by removing the thermal sleeves and using a rotating probe would present a hardship in terms of outage extension, radiological dose, industry safety risk, and expense. Please identify the specifics in more detailfor each of these items identified.
CCNPP Response:
- Outage extension - To sever thermal sleeves, inspect with rotating Ultrasonic Technology (UT) and re-install guide funnels, is estimated to result in extending the outage 8.5 days using parallel operations.
- Radiological Dose - The dose estimate for the 17 nozzles for which relaxation is requested is 28.376 Rem using semi-remote welding to re-install the guide funnels for the 17 affected nozzles.
- Industrial Safety - Personnel would be exposed to manual cleaning (flapping) and machining, and welding set-ups and breakdowns under the head using scaffold platforms or ladders while wearing respirators and double anti-contamination clothing. This would increase the industrial safety risks due to heat stress, fatigue, and potential injury to personnel operating rotating equipment under the reactor head.
- Expense - Total additional cost to perform the plant modification that would allow access for a rotating probe is estimated to be $6,300,000: Direct Cost = $1,200,000; Indirect Cost (extended outage 8.5 days) = $5,100,000.
NRC Request 3:
In CCNPP relaxation request dated January 30, 2004, it was stated that the most limiting inspection area during the 2003 inspection was on the 42.5 degree nozzle and the reported stress values were based on finite element analysis. The licensee stated that the new stress values reportedfor the Spring 2004 outage are lower than those originally provided The licensee stated that the new values wvere based on absolute elevation values which shows that the stresses computed by the FEA model were lower than the values reported in the 2003 inspection submittal.
Question (A):
Explain in detail how the absolute elevations of the top and bottom of the lveld were obtained CCNPP Response:
For the purposes of reporting stresses from the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) model, the absolute elevations of the top and bottom of the weld are obtained from the vertical position in the model of the 1
ATTACHMENT (1)
RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION nodes at the nozzle outside diameter (OD)/weld interface. The bottom of the weld is the lowest node along this interface and the top of the weld is the highest node along this interface. Please refer to Figure 1 where the top and the bottom of the weld for the uphill weld are identified for the 43degree angle model.
Question (B):
Describe in detail [the difference in] the methodology between using the 2003 FEA method and the post-processing methodfor the Unit I Relaxation Request of2004.
CCNPP Response:
There is no difference in the analysis methodology used to support the 2003 relaxation request and the 2004 relaxation request. The same analysis is used. The differences in stress values reported for the 2003 and 2004 requests are due to a difference in how the location of specific nodes in the model are identified with respect to the top of the J-groove weld; please refer to the response to question (D) for further explanation.
Question (C):
Were the stresses extrapolated from the 2003 FEA model and applied to the Unit I relaxation request?
Provide justification that the method usedfor Unit 1 relaxation request is correct and more accurate than the FEA model usedfor Unit 2.
CCNPP Response:
Yes, the same FEA model and stress values used to support the 2003 relaxation request were used for the 2004 relaxation request. The justification for the 2004 methodology is best explained by an example; please refer to the response to question (D) for further explanation.
As indicated in the CCNPP Request for Additional Information dated April 4, 2003, (Reference 1), the FEA model was performed for a material having a yield strength of 42 ksi, which is equal to the yield strength of Calvert Cliffs Unit I control element drive mechanism material. The model is accurate for Unit 1 and conservative for Unit 2. This relaxation is requested for Unit 1.
Question (D):
Provide an example using this methodology. For example, for node 81701 at a 43 degree angle, the distance above the J-groove wveld was 1.216 inches and the Hoop Stress calculated in the FEA was 33954 psi.
With the updated post-processing method, a nozzle at 43 degrees with a distance of 1.185 inches above the wveld has a Hoop Stress calculated at 16.2 ksi. CCNPP needs to justify this huge discrepancy in stress values.
CCNPP Response:
The discrepancy in stress values between the 2003 relaxation request and the 2004 relaxation request is due to a conservative simplification of the model geometry used in 2003 to calculate stresses above the top of the weld at the uphill side. Figure 1 is a plot of the operating hoop stresses at the uphill side of the 43 degree nozzle. The nodes at the top and bottom of the weld are identified, as are nodes of interest on the inside diameter (ID) side of the nozzle.
2
ATTACHMENT (1)
RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION In our April 4, 2003 response to a Request for Additional Information (Reference 1) we provided a tabular listing of stresses. A portion of that table is reproduced below.
Residual Plus Operating Stresses for Penetration Nozzle at 43 Degree Angle Nozzle ID Nozzle OD Inches HopSrs xa tesInches Hoop Stress Axial Stress Node above Hoop St Axial Stress Node above (psi)
(pss J-groove (s)(i)
J-groove pi1pi 81401 0
41891
-1095.8 81405 0
56042 17699 81701 1.216 33954 13208 81705 1.079
-12184
-11826 As shown in the table, nodes 81405 (on the OD) and 81401 (on the ID) were both assumed to be at the same absolute elevation (shown in bold). In fact, node 81405 is at the elevation of the weld root, but node 81401 is below the elevation of the weld root as shown in Figure 1 (by the bold line). In 2003 we reported the stresses on the nozzle ID surface at various distances with respect to 81401 instead of with respect to 81405. The assumption that 81401 and 81405 were at the same elevation simplified the determination of stresses, but provided values that were conservatively high.
The stress at node 81701, which is 1.216 inches above node 81401, is 33,954 psi. The stress at this node in 2004 is that same as it was in 2003. As shown in Figure 1, this stress value agrees with the stress contours of the hoop stress plot.
In 2004, it was decided to report ID stresses in reference to the location of the top of the weld. As shown in Figure 1, node 81701 is actually only 0.745 inches above the top of the J-groove weld.
The actual nozzle ID stress at an elevation of 1.185 inches above the top of the weld for the 43 degree nozzle is 16.2 ksi. As shown in Figure 2, this stress value agrees with the stress contours of the hoop stress plot.
In conclusion, the differences between the stress values reported in the 2003 and 2004 relaxation requests was due to the different ways the ID nodes were indexed to the J-groove weld root elevation. In 2003 the stresses were conservatively indexed to the ID node along the same mesh line that intersected the weld root. In 2004 the stresses were indexed to the actual weld root elevation.
3
ATTACHMENT (1)
RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 2003 Determination that Stress equals 33,954 psi 1.216 inches above the J-groove Weld Root (at Node 81701) is Referenced to Node 81401 Elevation ANSYS 5.7 DEC 19 2001 19:01:00 PLOT NO.
3 ELEMENTS PowerGraphics EFACET=1 MAT NUM NODAL SOLUTION TIME=4004 SY (AVG)
RSYS=11 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=Mat DMX =.411895 SMN =-32908 SMX =76770
-32908
-10000
-E 0
10000 20000 30000
=
40000 50000 100000 Figure 1: Illustration of Stress Analysis Mesh Indexed to Node 81401 4
ATTACHMENT (1)
RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 2004 Determination that Stress equals 16.2 ksi 1.185 Inches above the J-groove Weld Root is Referenced to Node 81405 Elevation (Actual Weld Root)
Actual Elevation for Top of Weld
-32908
-10000 0
10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 100000 Figure 2: Illustration of Stress Analysis Mesh Indexed to the Root of the J-groove Weld 5
ATTACHMENT (1)
RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NRC Request 4:
For Table identifying UT coverage in RVHP nozzles for Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 outage 2004, ii addition to nozzle angles, please provide the stress levels for the 17 nozzles that did not have complete coverage at both the uphill and downhill locations CCNPP Response:
Please refer to Attachment 2 to this letter.
NRC Request 5:
For the 17 nozzles that did not have complete coverage as required by the First Revised Order, provide a column identifying the distance of UT coverage in the downhill side above the root of the J-groove weld.
CCNPP Response:
Please refer to Attachment 2 to this letter.
NRC Request 6:
In response to NRC question 1 of RAI's for Relaxation Request 1 dated April 13, 2004, CCNPP identified that the crack growth methodology used was consistent with MRP-55. The NRC has not approved MRP-55 to date and iill therefore, thefollowing statement will be included in the final SE:
If the NRC staiffinds that the crack-growth formula in industry report MRP-55 is unacceptable, the licensee shall revise its analysis that justifies relaxation of the First Revised Order dated February 20, 2004, within 30 days after the NRC informs the licensee of an NRC-approved crack growth formula. If the licensee's revised analysis shows that the crack growth acceptance criteria are exceeded prior to the end of the current operating cycle, this relaxation is rescinded and the licensee shall, within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, submit to the NRC written justification for continued operation. If the revised analysis shows that the crack growth acceptance criteria are exceeded during the subsequent operating cycle, the licensee shall, within 30 days, submit the revised analysis for NRC review. If the revised analysis shows that the crack growth acceptance criteria are not exceeded during either the current operating cycle or the subsequent operating cycle, the licensee shall, within 30 days submit a letter to the NRC confirming that its analyses has been revised. Any future crack-growth analyses performed for this and future cycles for RPV head penetrations must be based on an acceptable crack growth rate formula.
CCNPP Response:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant concurs with the above statement.
REFERENCE:
- 1. Letter from Mr. P. E. Katz (CCNPP) to Document Control Desk (NRC), dated April 4, 2003, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Interim Inspection Requirements for Reactor Pressure Vessel Head (TAC Nos. MB7752 and MB7753 6
ATTACHMENT (2)
REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL HEAD UT EXAMINATION RESULTS Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.
April 27, 2004
ATTACHIMENT (2)
Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 (Spring 2004)
Extent of UT Coveraae in RVHP Nozzle Material Minimum Stress Level Above Minimum Axial Stress Level Above Axial the Uphill Weld Distance Achieved the Downhill Weld Ci fernI Leak Path Nozzle Distance Root at the Axial Above Downhill Root at the Axial ircumferenta Scan Type Examined Assessment Angle Achieved Distance for Weld Root for Distance for Achieved (Blade Probe /
to End of Possible?
Above Uphill Nozzles Without Nozzles with Nozzles Without (Degrees)
Rotating)
Nozzle (Yes / No)
Weld Root Complete Coverage <2" above Complete Pen #
(n)
Coverage (ksi)
Uphill Weld Root (in)
Coverage (ksl)
CEDM 1 0.0
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 2 11.1
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM3 11.1
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 4 11.1
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 5 11.1
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 6 12.0
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 7 12.0
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 8 12.0
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 9 12.0
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 10 22.6
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 11 22.6
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 12 22.6
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 13 22.6
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 14 24.1
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 15 24.1
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 16 24.1
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 17 24.1
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 18 25.5
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 19 25.5
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 20 25.5
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 21 25.5
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 22 25.5
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 23 25.5
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 24 25.5
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 25 25.5
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 26 29.3
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 27 29.3
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes A'rACHMENT (2)
Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 (Spring 2004)
Extent of UT Coveraae in RVHP Nozzle Material Minimum Stress Level Above Minimum Axial Stress Level Above Axial the Uphill Weld Distance Achieved the Downhill Weld Circumferential Leak Path Nozzle Distance Root at the Axial Above Downhill Root at the Axial Coverage Scan Type Examined Assessment Angle Achieved Distance for Weld Root for Distance for Acheved (Blade Probe to End of Possible?
Above Uphill Nozzles Without Nozzles with Nozzles Without (Degrees)
Rotating)
Nozzle (Yes / No)
Weld Root Complete Coverage <2" above Complete Pen #
(in)
Coverage (ksi)
Uphill Weld Root (in)
Coverage (ksl)
CEDM 28 29.3
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 29 29.3
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 30 29.3
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 31 29.3
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 32 29.3
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 33 29.3
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 34 34.9
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes ID: 7.2, OD:
ID: 10.1, OD:
CEDM 35 34.9 1.880
-3.5 4.760 3.2 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes ID: 6.7, OD:
ID: 9.9, OD:
CEDM 36 34.9 1.960
-2.5 4.400 3.5 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes ID: 6.6, OD:
ID: 10.3, OD:
CEDM 37 34.9 1.970
-2.4 5.040 3.0 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 38 38.5
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 39 38.5
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 40 38.5
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 41 38.5
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 42 38.5
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes ID: 10.3, OD:
ID: 14.3, OD:
CEDM 43 38.5 1.900
-4.5 5.130 2.0 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 44 38.5
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes ID: 10.2, OD:
ID: 13.8, OD:
CEDM 45 38.5 1.950
-4.1 5.070 2.1 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes ID: 10.3, OD:
ID: 15.3, OD:
CEDM 46 41.8 1.862
-4.9 5.240 1.8 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes ID: 10.0, OD:
ID: 16.1, OD:
CEDM 47 41.8 1.960
-4.0 5.610 1.4 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 48 41.8
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes ID:10.1, OD:
ID: 16.4, OD:
CEDM 49 41.8 1.956
-4.0 5.450 1.6 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes ATTACHMENT (2)
Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 (Spring 2004)
Extent of UT Coverage in RVHP Nozzle Material Minimum Stress Level Above Minimum Axial Stress Level Above Axial the Uphill Weld Distance Achieved the Downhill Weld CSca Typ Exet I
Leae sPth Distance Root at the Axial Above Downhill Root at the Axial ircumferenl Scan Type Examined Lea at ANozle Achieved Distance for Weld Root for Distance for Coverage (Blade Probe to End of Asse?
Angle Above Uphill Nozzles Without Nozzles with Nozzles Without Achieved
( Rotating)
Nozzle ePossible?
Weld Root Complete Coverage <2" above Complete (Degrees)
(Yes / No)
Pen #
(in)
Coverage (ksi)
Uphill Weld Root (in)
Coverage (ksi)
ID: 10.2, OD:
ID: 16.4, OD:
CEDM5o 41.8 1.950
-4.1 5.390 1.6 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM s1 41.8
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes ID: 10.2, OD:
ID: 16.1, OD:
CEDM52 41.8 1.950
-4.1 5.630 1.3 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes ID: 10.6, OD:
ID: 16.3, OD:
CEDM 53 41.8 1.730
-6.1 5.490 1.5 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 54 42.5 2.000 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes ID: 10.7, OD:
ID: 16.3, OD:
CEDM 55 42.5 1.700
-6.4 5.470 1.5 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes ID: 10.3, OD:
ID: 16.1, OD:
CEDM 56 42.5 1.860
-4.9 5.340 1.7 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 57 42.5
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 58 42.5 2.000 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes ID: 10.3, OD:
ID: 16.1, OD:
CEDM 59 42.5 1.860
-4.9 5.340 1.7 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes ID: 10.7, OD:
ID: 16.0, OD:
CEDM 60 42.5 1.670
-6.7 5.320 1.7 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes ID: 10.4, OD:
ID: 16.4, OD:
CEDM 6i 42.5 1.850
-5.0 5.450 1.6 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 62 42.5
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 63 42.5
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes CEDM 64 42.5
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes ID: 10.2, OD:
ID: 16.4, OD:
CEDM65 42.5 1.910
-4.5 5.410 1.6 360 Ax Blade Yes Yes ICI 66 54.8
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Rotating Yes Yes ICI 67 54.8
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Rotating Yes Yes ICI 68 54.8
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Rotating Yes Yes ICI 69 54.8
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Rotating Yes Yes IC 70 54.8
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Rotating Yes Yes 11 ATTACHMENT (2)
Calvert Cliffs Unit I (Spring 2004)
Extent of UT Coverage in RVHP Nozzle Material Minimum Stress Level Above Minimum Axial Stress Level Above Axial the Uphill Weld Distance Achieved the Downhill Weld CSca Type E
e AI La k P th Distance Root at the Axial Above Downhill Root at the Axial Coverage Scan Type Examined esma ANozle Achieved Distance for Weld Root for Distance for Coved (Blade Probe to End of Asse?
Angle Above Uphill Nozzles Without Nozzles with Nozzles Without (Degrees) R otating) Nozzle of Pss/ No)
Weld Root Complete Coverage <2' above Complete Pen #
(in)
Coverage (ksi)
Uphill Weld Root (in)
Coverage (ksi)
ICI 71 54.8
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Rotating Yes Yes ICI 72 54.8
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Rotating Yes Yes ICI 73 54.8
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Rotating Yes Yes Vent-Line 0-11
>2 N/A N/A N/A 360 Rotating/ECT Yes N/A