ML052280308
| ML052280308 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 08/09/2005 |
| From: | Rosalyn Jones Duke Power Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 05-ON-004 | |
| Download: ML052280308 (18) | |
Text
Duke laPowere RONALD A JONES Vice President Oconee Nuclear Site Duke Power ONO1VP / 7800 Rochester Hwy.
Seneca, SC 29672 864 885 3158 864 885 3564 fax August 9, 2005 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Docket Nos. 50-269 Fourth Ten Year Inservice Inspection Interval Request for Relief No. 05-ON-004 Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g) (5)(iii), attached is a Request for Relief from the requirement to examine 100% of the volume specified by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition with 2000 Addenda (as modified by Code Case N-460).
Request for Relief 05-ON-004 is to allow Duke Energy to take credit for four (4) limited ultrasonic examinations on welds associated with various systems and components described in the attached request.
The ultrasonic examination coverage of the subject Unit 1 welds did not meet the 90% examination requirements of Code Case N-460.
The obtainable volume coverage for each weld examination is indicated on the attached requests. Achievement of greater examination coverage for these welds is impractical due to piping/valve geometry, interferences, and existing examination technology.
Therefore, Duke Energy requests that the NRC grant relief as authorized under 10 CFR 50.55a(g) (6) (i).
If there are any questions or further information is needed you contact R. P. Todd at (864) 885-3418.
V rul
- yours, R. A Jones Site Vice President Attachment 1f voql www.dukepower.com
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 9, 2005 Page 2 xc w/att: Mr. William D. Travers Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth St., SWW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, GA 30303 L. N. Olshan, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 S. E. Peters, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 xc(w/o attch):
M. C. Shannon Senior NRC Resident Inspector Oconee Nuclear Station Mr. Henry Porter Division of Radioactive Waste Management Bureau of Land and Waste Management SC Dept. of Health & Environmental Control 2600 Bull St.
Columbia, SC 29201
Attachment Oconee Nuclear Station Request for Relief 05-ON-004 Limited Examinations Associated With Various Systems and Components lEOC 22
Relief Request 05-ON-004 Page 1 of 4 Proposed Relief in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii)
Inservice Inspection Impracticality Duke Energy Corporation Oconee Nuclear Station - Unit 1 (EOC-22)
Fourth 10-Year Interval - Inservice Inspection Plan Interval Start Date = 1-1-2004 Interval End Date = 7-15-2013 ASME Section XI Code - 1998 Edition thru the 2000 Addenda Code Case N-460 is applicable
.IIIl.IV.
&V.
VI.
VIL Vill.
List Limited System /
Code Requirement from Impracticality/
Proposed Implementation Justification for Number Area/Weld I.D.
Component for Which Which Relief is Requested:
Burden Caused by Alternate Schedule and Granting Relief Number Relief is Requested:
100% Exam Volume Coverage Compliance Examinations or Duration Area or Weld to be Exam Category Testing Examined Item No.
Fig. No.
Limitation Percentage
- 1.
I-PIAI-9 Reactor Coolant System Exam Category B-J See Paragraph "A" See Paragraph "D" See Paragraph "E" See Paragraph "F' Reactor Coolant Pump Item Number B09.011.032 IAI Inlet Nozzle to Fig. IWB-2500-8 (c)
Safe End 37.50% Volume Coverage Limited Scan of Examination Volume C-D-E-F
- 2.
1-51A-01-79A High Pressure Injection Exam Category C-F-I See Paragraph "B" See Paragraph "D" See Paragraph "E" See Paragraph "G" System Item Number C05.02 1.001 Elbow to Fig. IWC-2500-7(a)
Valve IHP-148 Weld 37.50% Volume Coverage (circumferential weld)
Limited Scan of Examination Volume C-D-E-F
- 3.
1-5 1A-01-106A High Pressure Injection Exam Category C-F-I See Paragraph "C" See Paragraph "D" See Paragraph "E' See Paragraph "G" System Item Number C05.021.082 Pipe to Valve IHP-I 15 Fig. IWC-2500-7(a)
Weld 37.50% Volume Coverage (circumferential weld)
Limited Scan of Examination Volume C-D-E-F See Attachment A for inspection data on all items listed in the above table for this Relief Request.
Note: Items in this relief request were inspected during February or April of 2005.
Relief Request 05-ON-004 Page 2 of 4 IV. & V. ImpracticalitvlBurden Caused by Code Compliance Paragraph A: (The Reactor Coolant Pump Inlet Nozzle material is A351 CF-8 and the Safe-End material is A376 TP 316. This weld has a diameter of 36.5 inches and a wall thickness of 2.330 inches.)
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 37.50% coverage of the required examination volume was obtained for this weld. The percentage of coverage reported represents the aggregate coverage from all scans performed on the weld and adjacent base material. The coverage from each scan was as follows: 450 shear wave scan parallel to the weld both clockwise and counter-clockwise covered 50% of the weld and base material; 600 shear wave scan perpendicular to the weld covered 50% of the weld and base material in one axial direction. A supplemental scan using a 600 refracted longitudinal wave search unit covered 50% of the weld and adjacent base material from one direction perpendicular to the weld including 100% of the inside surface within the area of interest. The reactor coolant pump inlet nozzle configuration prevented scanning from both sides of the weld. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the inlet nozzle would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical. There were no recordable indications found during the inspection of this weld.
Paragraph B: (The valve and elbow material is stainless steel. This weld has a diameter of 4.0 inches and a wall thickness of.53 inches.)
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 37.50% coverage of the required examination volume was obtained.
The percentage of coverage represents the aggregate coverage from all scans performed on the weld and adjacent base material. The coverage from each scan was as follows: 450 shear wave circumferential scans, both clockwise and counter-clockwise covered 50% of the weld and base material; 600 shear wave scan perpendicular to the weld covered 50% of the weld and base material from one axial direction. A supplemental scan using a 600 refracted longitudinal wave search unit covered 50% of the weld and adjacent base material from one direction perpendicular to the weld including 100% of the inside surface within the area of interest. The limitation was caused by the taper on the valve side of the weld which prevented scanning from that side. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.
There were no recordable indications found during the inspection of this weld.
Paragraph C: (The valve and pipe material is stainless steel. This weld has a diameter of 4.0 inches and a wall thickness of.53 inches.)
During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 37.50% coverage of the required examination volume was obtained.
The percentage of coverage represents the aggregate coverage from all scans performed on the weld and adjacent base material. The coverage from each scan was as follows: 45° shear wave circumferential scans, both clockwise and counter-clockwise covered 50% of the weld and base material; 60° shear wave scan perpendicular to the weld covered 50% of the weld and base material from one axial direction. A supplemental scan using a 60° refracted longitudinal wave search unit covered 50% of the weld and adjacent base material from one direction perpendicular to the weld including 100% of the inside surface within the area of interest. The limitation was caused by the taper on the valve side of the weld which prevented scanning from that side. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.
There were no recordable indications found during the inspection of this weld.
VI.
Proposed Alternate Examinations or Testing Paragraph D:
The scheduled 10-year code examination was performed on the referenced area/weld and it resulted in the noted limited coverage of the required ultrasonic volume. These inspections were performed during the first inspection outage of the interval; no additional examinations are planned for the area/weld during the current inspection interval.
Relief Request 05-ON-004 Page 3 of 4 VII. Implementation Schedule and Duration Paragraph E The scheduled fourth 10-year interval plan code examination was performed on the referenced areas/welds resulting in limited scan and volumetric coverage. No additional examinations are planned for the areas/welds during the current inspection interval. The same areas/welds may be examined again as part of the next (fifth) 10-year interval plan, depending on the applicable code year edition and addenda requirements adopted in the future.
VIII. Justification for Granting Relief Paragraph F:
Ultrasonic examination of areas/welds for item number B09.011 were conducted using personnel, equipment and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section Xl, Appendix VIII Supplement 2 of the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda as administered by the PDI. Although 100% coverage of the examination volume could not be achieved, the amount of coverage obtained for this weld provides an acceptable level of quality and integrity. In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke Energy performed a surface examination (code required) on this weld and achieved 100% coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.
In addition to the B09.01 1 weld that relief is being requested for limited volume coverage, there were 4 additional B09.011 welds that surface and volumetric examinations were performed on. The examinations didn't identify any recordable indications and 100% coverage was obtained on each of them. The 4 additional welds were from the same system as the B09.01 1 weld of this request.
Duke Energy will use Class 1, Examination Category B-P, pressure testing and VT-2 visual examination to compliment the limited scan examinations. The Code requires that a pressure test be performed after each refueling outage for Class 1. These tests require a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing provides adequate assurance of pressure boundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and isolated. Specifically, leakage from this weld would be detected by monitoring of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS), which is performed once each shift under procedure PT/1/A10600/10, "RCS Leakage". This RCS leakage monitoring is a requirement of Technical Specification 3.4.13, "Reactor Coolant System Leakage". Any leakage is also evaluated in accordance with this Technical Specification. The leakage could also be detected through several other methods. One method is the Reactor Building air particulate monitor. This monitor is sensitive to low leak rates; the iodine monitor, gaseous monitor and area monitor are capable of detecting any fission products in the coolant and making these monitors sensitive to coolant leakage. A second is the level indicator in the Reactor Building normal sump. A third is a loss of level in the Letdown Storage Tank. Based on the results of the required volumetric, surface and VT-2 examinations performed during this outage, it is Duke's belief that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of component integrity.
Paragraph G:
Ultrasonic examination of areas/welds for the item numbers C05.021 were conducted using personnel, equipment and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII Supplement 2 of the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda as administered by the PDI. Although 100% coverage of the examination volume could not be achieved, the amount of coverage obtained for each of these welds provides an acceptable level of quality and integrity. In addition to the volumetric examinations with limited coverage, Duke Energy performed a surface examination (code required) on each of the C05.021 items and achieved 100% coverage. The results from the surface examinations were acceptable.
In addition to the C05.021 welds that relief is being requested for limited volume coverage, there were 7 additional C05.021 welds that surface and volumetric examinations were performed on. The examinations didn't identify any recordable indications and 100% coverage was obtained on each of them. The 7 additional welds were from the same system as the C05.021 welds of this request.
Relief Request 05-ON-004 Page 4 of 4 Duke Energy Corporation does not claim credit for coverage of the far side of austenitic welds. The characteristics of austenitic weld metal attenuate and distort the sound beam when shear waves pass through the weld. Refracted longitudinal waves provide better penetration but cannot be used beyond the first path leg. Duke Energy Corporation uses a combination of shear waves and longitudinal waves to examine single sided austenitic welds when the nominal material thickness exceeds 0.5 inch. A 700 shear wave angle beam is used to interrogate the far side of the weld when the nominal material thickness is equal to or less than 0.5 inch and a 600 refracted longitudinal wave is used to interrogate the far side of the weld when the nominal material thickness is greater than 0.5 inch.
Duke Energy will use Class 2, Examination Category C-H, pressure testing and VT-2 visual examination to compliment the limited examination coverage. The Code requires that a pressure test be performed once each period for Class 2 items. These tests require a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing provides adequate assurance of pressure boundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely case that leakage did occur through these welds, it would be detected and isolated. One is that leakage from these welds would be detected by Operations personnel during their regular rounds (reference procedure OP/l/ANI 102/020A "Primary Rounds"). The Nuclear Equipment Operator has been trained to look for any unusual conditions, such as leaks. In addition, the procedure addresses leaks as being an item to consider during rounds. The C05.021 items in this request are located in an area where operations personnel will be walking through as part of their rounds; therefore, any leak would be identified by visual observation.
Duke Energy has examined the welds/components referenced in this request to the maximum extent possible utilizing the latest in examination techniques and equipment. The welds/components identified in Section II of this request were rigorously inspected by volumetric NDE methods during construction and verified to be free from unacceptable fabrication defects. Based on the coverage and results of the required volumetric exams, surface exams, and the pressure testing (VT-2) exams during this outage, it is Duke's belief that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of component integrity.
IX.
Other Information The following individuals contributed to the development of this relief request:
James J. McArdle (Principal UT NDE Level III Examiner) provided Sections III., IV., V., and part of Section VIII.
B. W. Carney, Jr. (Oconee Engineering) provided part of Section VIII.
Larry C. Keith (Oconee ISI Plan Manager) compiled the remaining sections.
Sponsored By:
Date 6-3 O 5 Approved By:
I /
Date
_s
(
I
AtTACHMENT \\
PA6E I OF II B'Duke c VEnergy.
UT Pipe Weld Examination Site/Unit: Oconee /
Summary No.:
B0 Workscope:
1 9.011.032 lSI Procedure:
Procedure Rev.:
Work Order No.:
NDE-600 16 98678358 Outage No.:
ONS1EOC22 Report No.:
UT-05-055 Page:
1 of 3
Code:
1998 thru 2000 Addenda CatJltem:
B-J- /B9.11.32 Location:
N/A Drawing No.:
ISI-OCN1-007
==
Description:==
Nozzle to Safe end System ID:
50 Component ID: B09.011.032 11-PIA1-9 Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter:
2.330 / 36.50 Limitations:
Yes - See Attached Limitation Report Start Tlime:
1113 Finish Time:
1210 Examination Surface:
Inside M Outside Z Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location:
RT INT. 1 Wo Location:
Centerline of Weld Couplant:
ULTRAGEL II Batch No.:
03125 Temp. Tool Mfg.:
D.A.S Serial No.:
MCNDE32800 Surface Temp.:
71 OF Cal. Report No.:
CAL-05-071, CAL-05-072, CAL-05-073 Angle Used I 01 45 l45T 60 l 60L l
Scanning dB 60 52 55 Indication(s):
Yes E No M Scan Coverage:
Upstream E Downstream 2 CW I CCW &5 Comments:
Results:
Accept f Reject M Info Q Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%:
No - 37.5%
Reviewed Previous Data:
Yes Examiner Level iII Signature Date Reviewe Signature Date Eaton, Jay A.
L V
_`4/14/2005 I7tA
/
8/?-05 Examiner Level III Signature Date Site Revlew Y
Signature Date Houser, Gayle E.
4/14/2005 Other Level N/A Signature Date A vsignat Date N/A A
I J
R
-~~
~
~
Site/Unit:
Oconee /
I
'hummary No.:
B09.011.032 Workscope:
ISI Limitation Record A1l1ACHMENT 4 PACE a OF I1 Outage No.:
ONSlEOC22 Report No.:
UT-05-055 Page:
2 of 3
Procedure:
Procedure Rev.:
Work Order No.:
NDE-600 16 98678358 Description of Limitation:
Limited 360D on the S2 - Upstream Side of the weld from the weld centerline and beyond due to the RCP Inlet Nozzle configuration. See attached limitation calculations.
Sketch of Limitation:
t-zB5 mDA,= 31a~s" wc""Ci 3loG x
-_ \\\\LA.17 '
SZCd?
=',)OZLZ-j sz7-54rA 9'D -Ss kA5/
t
=AL C,0Q"AUVV_
(Loo U5 EYr C:..4 MiA k-C Limitations removal requirements:
N/A Radiation field:
NIA I
Examiner Level ll nature Date Eaton, Jay A.
411412005 Examiner Level Ill l
Signature Date Houser, Gayle E.
j4/14/2005 Other Level N/A Signature Date Reviewn Signature Date Site Review V
Signature Date
.ANII view
,ignat Date LM wfi~ (f. adtfu I
A11ACHMENT fi PA6E 3 GF 11
- 90.lei Supplemental Report Report No.:
UT-05-055 Page:
3 of 3
Summary No.: B09.011.032 I
Examiner. Eaton, Jay A.
Examiner. Houser, Gayle E.
Other NIA L
e Level:
IlIl t44_Level:
Ill Level:
NWA Reviewer.
Site Review:
/
O1-VI -
Date: y 19,5 Date:
ANII Review:
Date:
V Ur---r Comments:
CA___CO_______o A<
bol-n
- zoe,-',no.A lAA =
QldirmKT91 Co'JELA :
AL" to I)
As
= Z"Lk10J1
-ron.
- L
\\/OLOtAC Z Z,4,I X
l\\4, Zv1.3 IA)S 5CAO z
%-A - Z 0o
\\lowmc' S CA: 0 i3
$- L\\
15q3 Q Z1.,3 z
I Z 7,.5-3)
X 00 Z "5 o0/
0 V
Sz (oO s$
50 7---1 0 =07 lr
5 0 11/c
2 5 010/0 4o - -- 1.S 70 A kkakAT
(
0ooc C waje ZCI'
=Z 7PC-E0Yr
/Q1VAe
- DO1E, QJiD OF0 I CI c
5, tS tt ) (s).
rnJI-AtC 04 S5 T.
5; o D 5 '
Co A,.
At ACHMENT A m Duke UT Pipe Weld Examination PE,+ OF /I
?VvEnergy.
Site/Unit: Oconee /
Summary No.:
Co Workscope:
1 5.021.001 ISI Procedure:
Procedure Rev.:
Work Order No.:
1s 98680918 NDE-600 Outage No.:
ONS1EOC22 Report No.:
UT-04-516 Page:
1 of 3
Code:
1998 thru 2000 Addenda Cat./Iltem:
C-F-11C5.21.1 Location:
N/A Drawing No.:
1.51 A-01 (3)
==
Description:==
Elbow to Valve (1 HP-148)
System ID:
51A Component ID: C05.021.001 11-51A-01-79A Size/Length:
n/a Thickness/Diameter:
47/.531" Limitations:
Yes - See limitation report Start Time:
0940 Finish Time:
1004 Examination Surface:
Inside E Outside 0 Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location:
9.1.1.2 Wo Location:
Centerline of Weld Couplant:
ULTRAGEL II Batch No.:
03125 Temp. Tool Mfg.:
FISHER Serial No.: _
MCNDE 27218 Surface Temp.:
79 OF Cal. Report No.:
CAL-04-827, CAL.04-828, CAL-04-829 Angle Used 01 45 45T 60 60RL l Scanning dB 42 42 46 Indication(s):
Yes E No i Scan Coverage:
Upstream El Downstream i CW i CCW Ed Comments:
Results:
Accept i Reject El Info Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%:
No - 37.5%
Reviewed Previous Data:
Yes Examiner Level iII Signature Date Reviewer Signature Date Zimmerman, David K.
/Z.+/g S
2/212005 2(
J I/u9-2-/(
'1-_0oS Examiner Level Ii Sigratpr6-1'1 Date Site Review Signature Date Leeper, Winfred C.
21212005.
Other Level 6 Signature Date ANU Review A
I lure Date vIJ M
U
/H/Ci,
A1 1ACHMENT A PAGE 5 OF It M Didw Haiti Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations - Pipe SitloUnit: Oconee I I
SUMmary t4o.:
CIDS.021AX)1 Workazcope:
Ml1 Procedute:
I'Mcedura Rov-.
Work Order lNo2 HDE-600~
Is 9&.80s18 Outago No.:
ONSlEOC22 Repoc No.:
UT-04-516 Page:
2 of 3
4S dea Scan I Scane 2 Scan 3 Scan 4
_ % LonglhX 4 Longqh X 10D.O00
% LengthX 50.000 100.004
% LenguthX s_
%vlune of lsngthlI 100 =
- A Voltiffl of length / I100 =
% Vetumeootlenigth / IDO0=
% volutmieoflength / I Oa
__________%total for Scan I totrat far Scan 2 50.1000
% toutfor San 3 150.003
% total Wo Scan 4 Add totals and Mdivd by$ scans=
50.000
% lotal for 45dog Othe dm 16 nio be Uzed ior supplemwftj1 zcana)
The data to be 5Sted below is for coverage that w8s not oaainod with the 4,5 dog cana.
scanI Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000
% LcngthX SO.000 100.000
% LengthX 0000
% LengthX_
% Longth X V voliuie of lengthi 100O =
.' volumea of longth I1100.
V. volume of lenglh I11(X
=
50.000 0.000
% towafor SC il
'Atoteltfor Scan 2
% totalloc Scani 3 V. total for Scan 4 Percent coninlete eoverasm Add totals for each scan required and dMde Ly S of scane to dotermtne,
%1 Total for comnpltet exam Ste Fiold S jsOr1 K
Dvid K mgmqnV n
,2 0
Dat:a; 2/005 Note: 60°RL scan not included in prcentage coverage due to rcquirements of 10CFR5O.55a(b)(2)(xvXA)(2). Best flort scan with 6OfRL obtaincd55;,% coverage in one axial direction.
So 1
.Sa!
Summary No.:
C05.O21.0O1 Wcrkscope:
ISI Limitation Record AIIACHMEdIT A
PAE 6 OF U1 Outage No.:
ONlS! EOt=2 -
Report No-:
LrrU-04-516 5 Page:
- 1 o
3 Poceduze:
Procedure FRev.:
Workc Ordor No.,
?4DE-600 is 98803918 DescriptIon of Limila~ion:
Valve I HP-1 48 S5 r. - k!AL.-1e Sketch of Umilawin:
~,-t--*n.ZjLI V
L Limitations eremoval reqjitemefts:
CgnT'.ttt A rq_
PULL...Ei TAMEZZF7" A.
Radiaion field:
Examiner Level m gnature Date RevieweeiA
/
SignatuLre Dl 7Jnmmerman, David ic.
__0_
Exermtmer Level jSgtuDt teRvwSiaur Leo pe.WimiredC.DtSieR" Rau ae n)ther Level Y SignSIU1,5q Date ANII iew
.izcre I
I U
ATIACHMENT A' PAGE 7 nO
/1 DUKE POWER COMPANY FORM NDE-UT-4 ISI LIMITATION REPORT Revision 1 ComponentWeld ID:
1-51A-01-79A Item No:
C05.021.001 remarks:
J NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Valve Configuration:
E LIMITED SCAN 1
0 2
3 1 [
2 E cw D ccw FROM L N/A to L N/A INCHES FROM WO C/L to Beyond ANGLE:
El 0 0l 45 Z 60 other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG El NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Valve Configuration Z
LIMITED SCAN C]1 E 2 0
1 l 2 E cw Zc cow FROM L N/A to L N/A INCHES FROM WO C/L to Beyond ANGLE:
El 0 Z 45 0] 60 other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG El NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION alLIMITED SCAN El1 i 2
l1 2 E cw M cow FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE:
a1 0 El 45 El 60 other FROM DEG to DEG El NO SCAN E
LIMITED SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION El 1 2
1 i 2 El cw a ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE:
a 0 E 45 El 60 01 FROM DEG to DEG Sketch(s) attached Z
yes
[her E No Prepared By:
David Zimmerman Reviewed By: '
a
APwke Site/Unit: Oconee /
Summary No.:
C0O Workscope:
UT Pipe Weid Examination ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 8 OF I I 1
5.021.082 Ist Procedure:
Procedure Rev.:
Work Order No.:
NDE-600 15 98681153 Outage No.:
ONS1EOC22 Report No.:
UT-04-517 Page:
1 of 3
Code:
1998 thru 2000 Addenda Catiltem:
C-F-1/C5.21.82 Location:
N/A Drawing No.:
1-51A-01 (4)
==
Description:==
Pipe to Valve (1HP-115)
System ID:
51A Component ID: C05.021.082 /1-51A-01-106A Size/Length:
n/a Thickness/Diameter:
4"I.531" Limitations:
Yes-See limitation report Start Time:
0915 Finish Time:
0936 Examination Surface:
Inside E Outside 0 Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location:
9.1.1.1 Wo Location:
Centerline of Weld Couplant:
ULTRAGEL II Batch No.:
03125 Temp. Tool Mfg.:
FISHER Serial No.:
MCNDE 27218 Surface Temp.:
79 OF Cal. Report No.:
CAL-04-827, CAL-04-828, CAL-04-829 Angle Used 0
45 45T 60 6ORL Scanning dB 42 42 46 Indication(s):
Yes D No i.
Scan Coverage:
Upstream i Downstream E CW 0 CCW i Comments:
Results:
Accept i Reject
]
Info E Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%:
No - 37.5%
Reviewed Previous Data:
Yes Examiner Level ll Sigiature Date Reviewer (b 1
Signature Date Zimmerman, David K.
2/2/1
/20 4-/5 Examiner Level Sig Date Site Review Signature Date Leeper, Winfred C.
L2 D
/e Other Level A/ Signature Date ANe ee nature Date v
AIACHMENT A PAGE 9 OF It M Md'09 MFbWTQY.
Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations - Pipe SitolUnit: Oconve I I
Surnmary No.:
COS.02.082 Warkrsccpo:
1St Procedure:
HOE-500 Procodutfe Rev.:
As WorkOtder t4o:
115611I53 Outege No.:
OHS1EOC=
Pageo 2
a(
3
.45 dea Scan I Rsan. 2 Sca n, 3 Scan 4 Length X I____
% t.ongKh X ____
100.000
% Lentigh X 50..OaO 100.M0
% Lenqlh X S0.00
%volume 0okgti loom~
% voumeoIl ength I100O
%W VolM4*of lg#h11I00 =
- Avolunit oC lonohI100 =
% totl for Scnn I
% Iotal tor Scan 2 50s000
% total lof Scan 3 5aMoo
% totatforScan 4 Add totals and divtde by P szcan
=
50000 Ytotatf or 45 dceg Oherdct-6C (o be usedlruppl amental scans)
Th1 data to be Wtod below i5 for coverage that was not obIlaned witb the 45 deg 5cans.
.a Scan I Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.00_% Longth X 0.000 100.000
% LnglthX -
S0Jooo
% L engt X
% Lonrgth X
% Volumeo ongih I 00 0.000
- Atotatfor ScanlI I% votum of tlatvgh I o 50S.000
% tolal forSc~an 2 Avotume of 6ength I1IG0 =
total for Scan 3 Avoluno of kmgth Iloo
______%totaltarScar%4 Percent comofete Coveraqe Add totals for each scan rmqujred and dv by J of scms to determine; s :-
__5%Total for complete exam Sie Field Suporvtsor 03vldYK.ZimmerMan A"142=
~~'i
-~'rz Dale:
2Z2005 Note: 60"RL scan not included in pc-vcntage coverage duc to requirements of 10CFRS0-5Sa(b)(2)(7xv)(AX2). Best effoit scan with E0'L>.L obtzincd-5-54 covtrage-- in ona axial direction.
o I-
- S
Site/Unit: Oconee /
1 ummary No.:
C05.021.082 Workscope:
ISI Limitation Record Ai i AcIwIFT i)
PAGE 1o OF 11 Procedure:
Procedure Rev.:
Work Order No.:
NDE-600 15 98681153 Outage No.:
ONS1EOC22 Report No.:
UT-04-517 Page:
3 of 3
Description of Umitation:
Valve lHP-115
-,1 nI 5
I
,P t
OR Z-Sketch of Limitation:
A, C
C F
D O.
'tA4 t
- C
~
(0oiAi St~P
-e-
-Yc-AQ -3,-
or zt
- o.
.lI/.
e d
nC il 5u P-gH< *
.Zk-C L-C).§ bvarc{/
4.
Umitations removal requirements:
m44)1o~sA< 1{,t t-C n u6j-T? A r-r(-:
OJL
-P4 yT. P77
.JOK(C-79 Radiation field:
Examiner Level liI Signature Date Reviewer Signature Date Zimmerman, David K.
212/2005 4
l oW / / /V
/2-1 /0 Examiner Level II Signature Date Site Review r
Signature
/
Date Leeper, Winfred C.
/
I7 Si u
Di 2PJD2005
'ther Level A'Signature-/
Date ANII Review
.Sig ature Date 1/,
5M
°
%//
AHrACHMENT 1`1 PAGE it OFF 1i DUKE POWER COMPANY FORM NDE-UT-4 ISI LIMITATION REPORT Revision 1 ComponentN~eld ID:
1-51A-01-106A Item No:
C05.021.082 remarks:
3 NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Valve Configuration:
E LIMITED SCAN E
1 2 E 1 Z 2 0cw E ccw FROM L N/A to L N/A INCHES FROM WO C/L to Beyond ANGLE:
Ea 0 El 45 Z 60 other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG El NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Valve Configuration lLIMITED SCAN E
El 2E 2 Z cw E cow FROM L N/A to L N/A INCHES FROM WO C/L to Beyond ANGLE:
E 0 Z 45 El 60 other FROM 0 DEG to -360 DEG El NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION E
LIMITED SCAN l1 E 2 El 1 E 2 cw l ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE:
El 0 El 45 El 60 other FROM DEG to DEG E NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION E
LIMITED SCAN El1 E 2 E 1 E 2 E cw El ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to Sketch(s) attached ANGLE:
El 0 El 45 El 60 other FROM DEG to DEG JZ yes E No Prepared By:
David Zimmerman Ax Leel:
I Date:
02/02/05
'thet of Reviewed By:
Date:
Authorize, nspe Date: