ML063450026
| ML063450026 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/06/2006 |
| From: | Conte R NRC Region 1 |
| To: | |
| References | |
| %dam200701, FOIA/PA-2009-0070, TAC 8261 | |
| Download: ML063450026 (48) | |
Text
IR 0553792-02, Drywell Structural Integrity Basis from 1R21 Inspections Reasons for Evaluation/Scope The purpose of this Technical Evaluation is to present current and projected (until 1R22) margin in Drywell Vessel Thicknesses and the bases to further confirm that the drywell structur4l integrity
- continues to maintain design basis requirements as established in references 1 through 3. Tlie intent of this evaluation is to demonstrate that the Drywell Vessel thicknesses are adequate to satisfy current licensing and design bases requirements.
This Technical Evaluation was developed in accordance with CC-AA-309-101, Revjsion 7.
A prejob brief for this Technical Evaluation was performed by Howie Ray in accordance with HU-AA-1212 Rev 1. The risk rank of this Technical Evaluation was concluded to be a "4", since the acceptance criteria have already been established and 'approved through existing design analysis.'
Therefore a third party review is not required.
Background
In the 1R21 Outage a series of UT thickness measurements were performed of various elevations of the Drywell Vessel in accordance with specification OC-IS -328277-004. The purpose of these UT inspections is to measure corrosion rates of the Drywell Vessel and further confirm that the vessel meets the design basis.
This is accomplished by inspecting the same locations over time.
In the mid 1980's a survey was performed of the Drywell Vessel at the Sandbed elevation (11' 3").
As a minimum at least one inspection location (also referred to as a grid) was selected in each of the 10 Drywell Bays and permanently marked. These were then selected for repeat inspection and entered into the Drywell Thickness Monitoring Program.
UT Inspection of locations with the most thinning consisted of obtaining 49 individual UT thickness readings in a 7 by 7 pattern spaced on 1 inch centers. These measurements were taken using a stainless steel template. The template was designed to ensure that the 7 by 7 grid is located in the same area with repeatability of a 1/16".
The program then performed UT inspections over time at these same locations from 1987 to 1996.
The corrosion rates were developed using a standard regression analysis and establishment of the 95% confidence intervals to capture increasing variance depending on the projection of ongoing corrosion and the number of inspections. This methodology is based on the following references:
- 1) Applied Regression Analysis, Second Edition, N.R. Draper & H. Smith, John Wiley and Sons 1981
- 2) Statistical Concept and Methods, G.K. Bhattacharyya & R.A. Johnson, John Wiley and Sons 1977,.
IR 553792 Assignment 02 1
- 3) Experimental Statistics, Mary Gobbons Natrella, John Wiley ard Sons 1966 (Reprint National Bureau of Standards Handbook 91)
- 4) Fundamental Concepts in the Design of Experiments, Charles C Hicks, Saunders College Publishing, Fort Worth, 1982 Each time UT inspections are performed the distribution of the individual readings is checked to confirm the original distribution evaluation.
Inspections of the Drywell above the sandbed have been performed up to 2006. Corrosion rates have been calculated in calculation C-1302-187-E310-037 Revision 2 and ECR 05-00575.
Corrosion in the sand bed region was addressed by removing sand, water, and corrosion byproduct in the sandbed and applying a coating on the exterior of the vessel in 1992.
Comparison of UT inspections performed in 1992 and 1994 as documented in C-1302-187-5300-030 shows that the sandbed region continues to meet design basis requirements.
This Technical Evaluation will compare the 2006 UT inspection data to these earlier calculations to further confirm conclusion that the drywell vessel continues to meet design basis.
Detailed Evaluation Methodology C-1302-187-E310-037 Revision 2 and C-1302-187-5300-030 identify the locations which are the most critical with respect to thinning (see table 1). These are located at five different elevations 11' 3, 50' 2", 51' 10", 60' 10", and 87' 5".
These calculations developed corrosion rate projections for these critical locations. The mean of the 2006 inspection of the same critical locations plotted on the earlier projections to determine if those projections are still valid and bound the current inspection results.
Elevation 11' 3 Refer to the data in attachment 3 and the projection curve for location 19A in attachment 2.
Calculation C-1302-187-5300-030 identified location 19A as the most critical since it was the thinnest area in the sandbed. However the calculation concluded with 95% confidence that this location and the other sandbed region locations were not experiencing corrosion. Figure 1 provides a trend of the mean values for this location. Figure 1 also provides curves showing the calculated standard error of plus or minus 0.0034 inches for the means. The 2006 mean is also plotted on figure 1 and shows that this value is well within the standard error band.
Table 1 provides a breakdown of the mean thickness measured in 2006 and associated current margin.
IR 553792 Assignment 02 2
Elevation 50' 2" Refer to the data in attachment 3 and the projection curves for locations 5-5 and 15-23 in attachment 2.
The 2004 calculation identified locations 5-5HI and 15-23HI as the most critical since they were the thinnest at this elevation. The calculation concluded that these locations are. expefiencing corrosion rates of 0.Q003 and 0.0004 inches per year with 95% confidence. Figure 2 and Figur6,3 provide trends of the means of data collected from 1987 through 2004 for these locations taken from calculation C-1302-187-E310-037 Revision 2. The 2006 means for each location are plotted on these figures. These show that the 2006 means are consistent with and are bounded by the 2004 projections. Therefore the margins and projections from 2004 remain valid and bouziding. Table 1 provides the means and margin calculated in 2004.
I Table 1 provides a breakdo&vn'of the mean thickness measured in 2004 and associated current margin for these two locations.
Elevation 51' 10" Refer to the data in attachment 3 and the projection curve for location 13-32 in attachment 2.
The 2004 calculation identified location 13-32 as the most critical since it was the thinnest at this elevation. However the calculation concluded with 95% confidence that the location was not experiencing corrosion. Figure 4 provides a trend of the means of data collected from 1987 through 2004 for this location taken from calculation C-1302-187-E310-037 Revision 2. The 2006 mean for this location is plotted on this figure. Figure 4 also provides curves showing the 2004 calculated standard error of -/+ 0.0053 inches for the data from 1987 to 2004. The 2006 mean is well within the 2004 standard error band.
This shows that the 2006 mean is consistent with and bounded by the 2004 projection, which concluded that this location is not corroding. Therefore the margin and projection from 2004 remains valid and bounding. Table 1 provides the means and margin calculated in 2004.
Table 1 provides a breakdown of the mean thickness measured in 2004 and associated current margin.
Elevation 60' ' 10" Refer to the data in attachment 3 and the projection curve for location 5-22 in attachment 2.
The 2004 calculation identified location 5-22 as the most critical since it was the thinnest at this elevation. However the calculation concluded with 95% confidence that the location was not experiencing corrosion. Figure 5 provides a trend of the means of data collected from 1992 through 2004 for these locations taken from calculation C-1302-187-E310-037 Revision 2. The IR 553792 Assignment 02 3
2006 mean for this location is plotted on this figure and shows that this,value has virtually not changed since 2004.
Figure 4 Also provides curves showing the 2004 calculated standard error of the data from' 1987 to 2004. The 2006 mean is well within the 2004 standard error band.
Table I provides a breakdown of the mean thickness measured in 2004 and associated current margin Elevation 87' 5" Refer to the data in attachment 3 and the projection curve for location 9-20 in attachment 2.
The 2004 calculation identified location 9-20 as the most critical since it was the thinnest at this elevation. The calculation concluded that this location was experiencing a corrosion rate of 0.00075 inches per year with 95% confidence. Figure 6 provides the trend of the means of data collected from 1987 through 2004 for these locations taken from calculation C-1302-187-E3 10-037 Revision 2. The 2006 mean for this location is plotted on this figure. This shows that the 2006 mean is consistent with and is bounded by the 2004 projection. Therefore the margin and projection from 2004 remain valid and bounding. Table 1 provides the means and margin calculated in 2004.
Table 1 in attachment 1 provides a breakdown of the mean thickness measured in 2004 and associated current margin for these two locations.
Bay 15 Grid at Elevation 71' 6" In 1R21. Oyster Creek performed first time inspections of two 6" by 6" areas above the transition weld at elevation 71' 6". The results of the 6" by 6" area in bay 15 showed several local readings less than the inspection specification acceptance criteria (ref. 4). The intent of the criteria in the specification was to provide a low threshold for inspection results so that unexpected readings would be evaluated. As a result IR 00556049 was issued. Review of the inspection results showed that the thinnest local reading was 0.449 inches.
The inspection specification criteria were purposefully set well above the design basis criteria. The minimum required design basis local thickness for this elevation is 0.300 inches (reference 2).
Therefore the as found thickness at this location meets the design basis requirements. In addition even when assuming a .001 inches per year corrosion rate, this location will continue to meet design basis until well past 2008. Comparison of this new location to an existing monitored location that has been determined to be the most critical for the plates at this elevation (location 9-
- 20) shows that the projections for the previously monitored location are bounding (refer to attachment 3 page 11).
Bay 17 Grid at Elevation 23' 76" In 1R21 Oyster Creek performed first time inspections of two 6" by 6" areas above the transition weld at elevation 23' 6". The results of the 6" by 6" area in bay 17 showed several local readings IR 553792 Assignment 02 4
less than the inspection specification acceptance criteria (ref. 4). The intent of the criteria in the specification was to provide a low threshold for the inspection results so that unexpected readings would be evaluated. As a result IR 00548459 was issued. Review of the inspection results showed that the thinnest local reading was 0.628 inches.
The inspection specification criteria were purposefully set well above the design basis criteria. The minimum required design basis local thickness for this elevation is 0.360 inches (refeience 2).
Therefore the as found thickness at this location meets the design basis requirements. In additido4 even when assuming a .001 inches per year corrosion rate, this location will continue to meet design basis until well past 2008. Comparison of this new location to an existing monitored location that has been determined to be the most critical for the plates at this elevation (location 15-23) shows that the projections for the previously monitored location are boundini (refer to attachment 3 page 14).
Conclusions '
Table 1 demonstrates that current and projected margin in critical Drywell Vessel locations based on the comparison of recently obtained 2006 UT data and previously approved calculations remain adequate to continue to satisfy design bases requirements until 1R22. Comparison of the 2006 data to previously approved calculations, demonstrates that the conclusions in the previous calculations are still bounding the current data.
References
- 1) C-1302-187-E310-037 Revision 2
- 2) ECR 05-00575
- 3) C-1302-187-5300-030 Revision 1
- 4) Specification IS-328227-004 Rev. 13 Attachments
- 1) Margin Table - 1 page
- 2) Review of 2006 means value to previous projections - 6 pages
- 3) Drywell UT Inspection Data - 16 pages IR 553792 Assignment 02 5
Prepared by Pete Tamburro (17-d ///4 ý/0,6 I have performed an independent technical review of this technical evaluation in accordance with Section 4/.3 of CC-AA-309-101, Revision 7. I have confirmed the correctness of the inpuis, mathematics, and outputs. I have verified the methodology and compliance with design bases criteria are appropriate. The results accomplish the stated purpose.
Independent Review By Frank Stulb Date: 11/06/06 *4/ (
Manager Comments: I This technical evaluation was prepared and reviewed by qualified personnel to provide a summary of the 1R21 Drywell Inspection results performed in 2006. The conclusions demonstrate that the structural integrity of the drywell shell, based on its measured thickness at representative locations, remains acceptable based on the previously approved methodologies and acceptance criteria.
Approved 'for Use: Ray, F.H. 11/6/2006.
IR 553792 Assignment 02 6
Summary of Oyster Creek Drywell Corrosion Monitoring Program Controlling Locations Elevation/ Location Measur When Criteria Margin Percent Measured Preliminary Reference Plate with ement in 2006 Corrosion Projected (Nominal Mean (inches) Rate. margin in Thickness thinnest (' 2029 based Inches) Inches/ on 95%
year confidence 61) interval 42, arouna he
__ *rat 11' 3" 19A 0.8066 10/2006 0).0706 9.6% None 9.6/o C-1302-187-5300-030 (1.154")
50' 2" Bay 5 0.7556 10/2004 0.541 0.2146 39.7% 0.0003 36.5% C-1302-187-Location -tE310-037 Rev (0.770") 5-HI _ 2 50' 2" Bay 15 0.7573 10/2004 0.541 0.2163 40% 0.0004 36.4%. C-1302-187-Location E310-037 Rev (0.770") 23-HI -2 51 10" Bay 13 0.6872 10/2004 0.518 0.1692 32.7% None 32.7% C-1302-187-Location - E310-037 Rev (0.772') 32 Lo, 2 60' 10" Bay 5 0.6928 10/2004 0.518 0.1748 33.7% None 33.7% C-1302-187-Location E310-037 Rev (0.722") 22 __2__
87' 5" Bay 9 0.6123 10/2004 0.452 0.1603 35.4% 0.00075 33.6% C-1302-187-location . E310-037 Rev (0.640") 20 2_
2
-- 0oy:103".. -:
(..Cr
AmnerGen Calculation Sheet Appendix 10 System No. Sheet No.
Subject:
Calc. No. Rev. No. \ 187 11 of 15 Drywell Corrosion C-1301-187-E310-6nAff-Rf'3 LI(
" A /
F actaul :- MSR I (g/t'L'\ -02.
MSE lu a:=0.05 a I -, L F actaul F-F ratio F ratio = 1.715-10-3 F critical Therefore the curve fit of the means does not have a slope and the grandmean is an accurate measure of the thickness at this location 1
i := 0.. Total means PIgrand measuredi :=mean(V measured)
._ grand measured agrand measured := Stdev(P measured) error° " a l GrandStandard Total means The minimum required thickness at this elevation is Tmin__gen SB. :=736 (Ref. Calc. SE-000243-002) 1 Plot of the grand mean and the actual means over time P measured XXX p'grand measured Tmin.gen SB 6g medown Og meup 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Dates
AmerGen Calculation Sheet Appendix 2 Bay 5 Area 5
Subject:
Sheet No.
Drywell Corrosion A2- 27 of 32 upperf Thick predictf
+ qt I- 2-Total means-
, I lowerf := Thickpredict"
-2)Stand errorI (year predictf- Thick actualmean means - r (d -I1) sum J General area Tmin for this elevation in the Drywell Tr-hin~e 5 := 541 (Ref. Calc. SE-000243-002)
Iýnl m =-0.246 max( upper )+30 750 0 S- A t.
Thick predict 700h upper lower 650 -
A measured Tmintgen 51 743 00 550 min (Tmin..ien 51) -30 I I I I I I 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 200 1.985.103 year pre ict, year predict, Year predict, Dates, year predict, 6.8 2.029.103
,4My Ct44+ -
O r- .3 - Of 6
AmerGen Calculation Sheet Appendix 4 Bay 15 Area 23
Subject:
System No. Sheet No.
Drywell Corrosion 187 A4- 28 of 32 For the thicker points Sc,-53 of upperf:= Thick highpredictf "
+ qt 1- tTotal means 2Standard (year predictf - Thick actualmean) 2 2 + (d
- 1) sum lowerf -Thick highpredictf ""
+ (year predict.- Thick actualmean)2
'-qt I- a -,2Total means mnt - 2 'Standardhigherrrl-
~suml 4
M hias = -. 19
.U*. .. . .. ... . . . . . . I JI I I I OWU K-7, -r ------F---------- - - - ------- - -------- ------- - -------
750 Thick highpredicl 700
.thigh measured coo lower upper 650 1-Tmin.gen 51 760 00 600-55 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 0068 Year predict- ats Year predict, Yea predict, Year predict, 2 .
AmerGen Calculation Sheet Appendix 5 Bay 13 Area 32
Subject:
Drywell Corrosion
. I Standard error mean(low measured)= 5.291
,Total means og medown :lowhgrand measured- mean(olow measured)
VTotal means mean (010w measured) og meup := lowhgrand measured+
ýTotal means Loe fic £O.
700 I I I1,-,~ Oi I~
695 F-6901-1+/-10W memsred XXX 1+/-Iowhgmn easurd~~
x 6851-09 medown x X~xX x agmeup 6801- xx mmlmX xx x
675 1-I I, I I 6"7U 1990 1995 2000 2005 Dates
AmnerGen Calculation Sheet Appendix 6 Bay I Area 50-22
Subject:
Drywell Corrosion Standard error mean(C measured) _ 11.865 Total means og medown :=2 pgrand measured- mean(lmeasured) mTotal means Gg meup := pgrand measured -Imean(o measured) 4Total means
,7,)n 710 measured XXx 700 lgrand measured 09 medown ag meup 690- x x 680 I~ ~ X 670 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Dates
AmerGen Calculation Sheet Appendix 7 Bay 9 Area 20
Subject:
System No. Sheet No.
Drywell Corrosion 187 A7- 23 of 23 The minimum req Calc. SE-000243-002) m= -0.754 .
Location Curve Fit Projected to Plant End Of Life 650 Thick predict upper lower I measured 0
Tminmgen 86 00:
617 422 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 1.985.103 year predict-Year predict-year predict. Dates, year predict,2006.8 2030 year predict = 2.009-103 Thick predict1 ý6 40 1. 1 5 Therefore the regression model shows that even at the lower 95% confidence band this location will not corrode to below Drywell Vessel Minimum required thickness by the plant end of life.
A-4St+ I No Pits have been identified for this location
C
'-p K~pof.r it VJ- L P-'g.-OOk P5 Is nw iwnu;3 'WI I, r~m1rnW FW^
lflmtnr Cmk Ultrasohic Thickness AMeasur'ement LI
- r I iLm&Refue~iflg EziterCie4 OutAge- 11 R1 Data Sheet UT Pwcedurem-, 45~0 w P~v~1 tif 1 5 .1 ISpedflatim1 382-0 Exmi *!LseRicter .. eta1.. i lnstw.!tN N 0. 1 125409!_ . .
Tr .s Tye DV 508 Ser t 072561-. l . 0.4W . Mhz ),
Tansduo Cable Type: Paaerc egh 'couplatSuda ac o _ _ _ _ _
Calibrat6li kBl Type: C/S Step Wedge I Bock Number 'CAL.STE 8 _,_,,,,...
",..... .. .....- SYSTEM CAIR ON
- INSTRUMENT sETIiNGS Iniia a.Th CuixtoCed'FalCat Thos -_____
Coarse Range:*2ff-10t0,0,eDaa-e Data 14:1Z :"_
CaeDea WAdange Cal..r.te.... ".3C" e6 IndmIoes t I In, ,:
Delay Wp 'al.
rrflgniet'f: 246847 . . 72. '" B.... TC+D :E:.*F::
RaeCaib DamplngWA WA W/ Nube _____________ . 17 R209... ...
.... .,:' ++,:IO O O O ins. uen Frq -eo...y-:ln WA Toa Ce D2 Conte,,n unt Vmal.Thicnes E.xa... inat)iO O. n n......RejeetWA... 67 Z ... d.I.rennr* . nera " 5 lnsp ..... ..
______ WA 'Tnpaelgetytms 2.. 37.8 . -0 2 1.0, T0 .0ckner74 gs taken at holes0 , 00-0 0
!~ ~~ ~~~~~~~qp c . :*: jts7AIe-e ed46V
- e* i ; :
- No 40 000f 0.00
+?::- :08* 093 0 L9 + 096.:.0 .i:1;4 :-.+0109 : .+.. :. .... ,a +
V- D' S T 0:93 1500 *.i9:::. * ..
Coo0-
-Lo0t880.+:.8 1.066 0.96861^313 *132 W .13681.10170.0.0. albtn+Ch
- 2- 5509*i k
- 10G:8 0
" 01, 0..
2 . 9 27 1.067', 1.03V 1~ 0.974 1.077 1.0891 ".......0.0 3 0.761 0.883 0M75 1.071.1 1.03 1.105 1.123 _________
4 -0.885, 0.993 0.949t ij~Ti 1.0411l a 6 0980 0.968 0.93 0.4 .88 097.Ql CS a Olbai ecia*l 6 0.960; 0.869 0.976. 0.0987 0.96 A 0.960 04 . .Tsc.. AV " ..
T7 0968 . .963 4967 1.004 "0947 0.892 0!943 .8 .9W.
Locatson'I0 .1: *1A .Bay. 11 Elev. i 3. COMMENTS:
. A B :-C V, . 'E. :F, ;G CoI *loca* at:Co4.C05,04,B0.
0.900 s 01832 :0.829 0.03 :0.830, 0.812. 0737
-, 0 .97 0.825 :0834 0.822 0.858 0.783 .71
- 3 - 0.720 0.768:. 0168 0.731 0.762 :0.669,+ 0 ,7 0739 A. .047I 1.057 0.806", 0.7611" -.'821 b084.
1.090, 1.104 0.8791 0.879 0.854 0.817 )PallbraUponw eck- :2 8 0.843 6 0.741 '0.897 0.818 0.890 0.907. 0.833°0.826 scr, AVG, .
7 .. 0.875 0.869 0.923 0.888 0.871 ':810 0.842: 2 0846 COMMIENTS:. File Specdfic Commentst ocated toCu1gt of readings, Localon ID IIC: The following templafe ioles were painted onto6th plate+usL+ing: thetemplate. The ýeadings were m ten takebniwth thertemplate removed.+Thl.was done due toethe
. Dryw VntAttathmerntweld
.ei obstuctingthe template., Row,1 Athrough ,.rR ow2Ath'r+Ough C,.Row 7Cthrough D.
Reviewed by: Lee Stone4 level I Dat6ý iollwooor Lee mone */: Level II Date ioiierŽoos R*b*
K..j; Y
General Eletri FiPe Na1meI . W.IA I
~vtn C- dUltrasponic Thickness Measureme
- mm I II I I I DOW Creek
,MefeWng_ OutagG
- JI. R2i -I q Data Sheet LTPceure ER*M-335-004.
POa. 2:. of 15 I EKE '-~'~ - a U - U- Y-~ ~ I ~- Y -- ~- 'U - ..... -~ -
I':n.mtionnIo 1,11;: Ray. .... ~11 Flay.V 3r
- Poirnrauon Check.*10:4 T*. * ! *,=1F G. COMMENTS: AM 6ihxied d W.to D.:+:i-::ST. 0.7711 0SO&_ 0167, 06
_I0 8 t'V, 2- 0 1,O1.056 L081 4 1.094,0 TX1.036 1.118" 4.029I 8WtdWMw*,.
3 10*CO73 1.113, 1.002 :0.93S- 0142 0.88 ::0.853,- C*wbv&.
4 0837 0.83t .. .8 B 0.846 0.838 ...
..5A 40.810W 0.82C 10869 0.833i 10866j 0876 0.889:
AB: 10.866 0.840 I 0.864 I"'0.829 0.872 0.876 018441: T-Cr. I AWLI.
a .
'OA7=W ,---,----6623ý
___________________ - - . - :0.877, 'U - 01.879 'U - 018851I - 0.8ft. U1 ýV;849 - I - U
- *LOCca8OnIll -1.
OAGII' 13A. 9 B k V, I 1 IS- 9I ElV.; I-- VVI I Calibrati*
A [] C : LI J1 I I '
...... 0.88 0.833. 0.8 0908 j1.046 091j .2 S 2... 0.823 0.883 0.897 00.774j08I1 0.870 I 0.'78 L 3: 0.760 0.913- 0798 0. 8 0.746& 0.79 0.7.8 ,SI 7~
.4 0.45 0.895 0*,.75 -0.848 0.788 .799 0.882 i;nnmO 0.511 I. 0.561 I 0553k :0.795' 0.54'1I ,0".540
- 8+ j.0.816. 0.8' .8 0.924 1, 0.824 1.1. 07 I ._-+
0.8001,'0, 834 076 j .3 0."895- 08985" 1 .8
'Location
-13W, !0.
E as ratfonheck::11:
-, A-, -D 1B 6_ ....
-F-
- .083,10E8 -
F OW
-l
.1
-1 .1.114 1.17 03 1.0;8. IiI* 1.1190 ::
- 2
~~ ~ ~0960 ~' ~~ .......... 0.999 .01 1 I0 1.117 1.100 : .. / :: :
- 3* 0.986 0.5 0.8370.833 AM 0.948 88M 1*C08 5 0.960: 10*90O U0.874,j 0O.874, 0.9160 0916 0.905
, 0.944: :0.947:* A07- *:0.887 "0.920 0865 0,892 01AV cr. .
7 0.0996 0.939 0.929 104.8 0.944 0.8321 0.21 F
-r t"! 1 B 18 Elev. 11"3" 1 l o .....
... ....... A *B-B : -+ : .; : ; E ,' _ S"!G + " ." :*
- 1 "1.133! - .i1.flI fi j11j;,!*110j 1j111 1.1- 14& 1141
- *
1 .103 3 t.142 i101 11,j.0995 .19:& +:131*:
1.08 1. A0
__. t"109t4*
___-3:_ 1 .040 11;09 .02 6 1 A0 81 0 8 ,J~09j11 ,I ?!90 .1+030! 1.096 :1.0680. ._
i 4_-.....: 0.978:
5
' .... +::0.970 j,9 0 0 .977 01 ::"* J*0; 1 ' 1.067 I;I1.04 __ __ __ __ __
I :AVG.
8 930+ 0.97910 " I.,1J"'I07 0!6..... ... 1.017. 1;059 1T51i+: Tseo'r.: ::
.:7 . 0922 0.. ',,,,,,0.9,720 :0.996: *1.031. 1.005 1.0133! .t0 2:... .... . + 1* lr'.1.052.. .
- LocSUonlDF .. "17A,: . ::, 1T i:le.7 WF011"$"oc
__ A: B: . C ... .:-D "; E, * +F .0 +
- 1. 1.1,100 1.1411 !,,1 j
- !0013 . I;30 jt.t3 1 : 1.1.1:70: Jj.
1.123 01'. + .
2 "1.121 1.19 1.114 1.144 3 1.061.0.0734 1.11 1.11`4 1094 .083f 1.053 0.994 0.960 4 -oý 0;976
-7 -VV' 0980, 0.991 - -lml:,h 1.046 1,030 - -I .
, 0.A9 2 1 0.92 61 0.81 . D0 0.950 0 .
0o 86 0o.802 01 .936 C01.6 0.0963 1,
T c, I......AVG I 8 0.903 0.9*,5 0.839 0.960, 0.877 0.890 0 876 0o.89 .S M4, 07 0.. 64 0.972 I
Examined by MattLWilson Level, II 'Date 10118/200T Examined by Leslie:Ricer* .. Lev.. WII Dat 10/18/200 R~vtewedIbv: Lee Stone , Level' I Dats 101812008 ....
lgie21L9- 00 1 05 3eor-(.eneral tEkcft. i, FileNamlI %WA.
0'yte C~reek JUItrasonic Thickness Measurerneni I- LI~ ~ ~ 7 RON.J-10l12 Refelng Outag-112 I. Data Sheet I UT Proedioal IRE3~0 II Pbge 3 of t5 !d SPeclllctiOnU lS42U227.ý00 I ~ - -. - ... -. --
LO41;iIlIUII* IIJ* SII if* [*im*V:' I. I I*liNV: I Uallhmnl'!lntn .E: f**~r ;5*l*g' U
,i I.O I.,'r 079-9-8 0.821 l IGIP*
0.82a l -v
.1o0.894 irf 0'-5.78'2,0.-7,330.822:073 01.
17
- M E1bw 0.-888 r-.
I)JU102E066 AV3Ii g ýQ
.702 I
f.)Ollbr ICOMMEMT&-
cuPujlkcxmted a!.0~A4an
- i!
- OFI 0.54
__3 i 1.4_ o72"! 1._o0 !o74,ý-' -o0. 7,41-V 1 o01% 0. .0803 0.791' i_ 0.062
- 05. 1.**.';0.814 '0.541* VA 7PI0 0.51a 0.852 0R55 I a:Bnna 6_L 0.8291 0.881 W MiH 0846 One 0888 0.856 0,.800.. Tscr.. 1 -7.1 012241 0.89o j j0.837 I 0.108:, 1 0.89,1 0O.936i 0886 0.886i .525'. i o'8 i I.U.1.1W Bay A 1- i-lidMd L- : a,- Lnm-nn E, _ie I * 'AS LU l=
Elevi I..
1VzG( CallbrationCheckV,
- a. I
.2: A-8489 0.962i 0.95 046 0.931 0.7910.9r 0.965
_____lr970..971 0.980 5.95t,0.7
'0.928 5T37' ~.01.
- 30. t'*96810.974,1.004]i0.987 0982 0,9 0.924 I 1o0 ,2 0 0.94i 0.9 0M 0.92*2 05 :0.360 '.90:62! 0.95I1 0-0,50 0.43; i 0.,912* 0;982 t~~9 *0004*
0,
.0O IAEftd-r I :1.u-"iS~, U.w A.~AA ;.~I U .l5O* I U.U*lM 960 A943 UIL'ii J" ILNK2 I L~_nn l,* 1,
'. aeuI
- *AVmr i 71 Lt 1.01W'-, L-1.011 1:0.995], t in ',1.009.` ,17 , 0942 j 000 V X25: I
-AWL v
- ll;a*U llIf U 4*., I 0EV lIs I l:lt*D I 11"--1*', t~l~uiornrnn f;lEE~~ffI2 .. *2K
- l ,il , *I O i l I I MOV : I I*.... I :
GO&w -- OwCheck-12:za
't
- n:
016921 0.788'
!:.. ;,1:
.43,0.4 1069
- r*
0.702 ATM73 COMMENT:'
Coelu octe t 04 0enC0.CO&.
2- 1 07 6.774: 0.848 0.736 I01747 I0.724,I 0.773.
I 3: 7:7;.81j -0.812 0.92 .86 0.8810792'0.80 0.7F916 0.883 A.19:1 Am080 0.777 1 0.766,
'0.8731 0.904, 0842-1-1.160 0.801 0.7521* *0R87R 61:0.844 0F6 .3 1088I08617 I10-.834A V10867 AVor T- 865 -I 0- - 0.0 -
0-871 0I5.ifIVl
- 0'7 -28 :
f- Locatl..ion *. ...... 19 w F CllbrationoCheck- 2:.39 A 13 C D, E, F -.
1 F0866; 0.882 :.72 0.932. 0.947 0.992.
2- 2 0'883 0 014 0.915, `0.776 0.6 3 0861 0.906 8 8 0974 0930 083 4 069 V0.883 0807 00 10.766 08 5 0. 11 0.770 7 08 0.799 0-l8 08280.787 0..88 ý0891 0-934 0.634 7,0.73W.-.. AV4
.2 7-~~~~~~
.8 2 -082O,0r
-0 38JA3 "7-- V71ý 8 MJrj71.43086 19 ' .- 'Elev- .
L.AJ*tUUU*lFI Ifd i*ewPa I 13 lialta: I* .'..ia._* I kllIhraitlnn i'_te 1q,1gl tl
'19, wjjWi l ili 2
iI' l
6109i R I
`0.679l 0.74 4.768ý w
H l 0 0162 V
cr0F713 I
0;,8698 T 0.814. 0.766 m
U C0169, I
0.968 C I
`0961 0.865 P
10420 B Cli 0.848 l I COMENTS:
CoePu1oqaftedat 0,FMP04, GOS, G4. P03 obstructed diuoi etfifswfaodtin
.776 0. 8 0.863, .89
'079 1'0680 0.7oi793 1.161
.. 164 0.91 r~lAO takenneon Veila S I 0.601 0781 1 'I076 ".
ý A0862 ,0.787 I 0.791 7-6 0660.830 1-.01
-61:.8 ,19 0'6
.8 0.794 1 0.51,0.841, ý0901, 0906 I~0840`
.77[0.987 -60.7M0 0.761-1
[ Temr
'G8
'I AMV3.
89 ExaMined by Matff WIlson Level II Date I/OiW2 006-Examine by Leslie Richte L'evel II Date 10118/2008 D*t 10182006 .....
I II I1
- 1[l it i
LA-, do 0~
c~enmI Fedfl 2 ,File Nrni-,- i :. MAl utgriCmak vl..v. *.--.... __
Ultr asonic Thickness Measuremeih i.1 LIDateW l. oflw,0 r
RefýeliaOutiage. IR21, .+ Data Sheet UT' Procedurei: ERWAA335-004 L
m [ ?fre, 1 I -
. .a ' EleV. .Calibration Check:3
.o.o.
,*A I+'. I B !.. Co t t*:D IjFE .. .. F I.....+.G .. .
1 0.881 1..L.104 ,'_.
1.24 41.1341093. ..1122: ;T,,". AVo. I
,i'iY,,
7.
jf) .,
... 'iT; niDLw.~ .V" D.3E. .BsY.:.
ODty::: '1 ....3' '.tllý 1 Vl, C l "r i Checkl1t47l
ý,ýllibrslon C. . ... ++ 'I.
I" I
m A. B . EC.WD E IIII I F +G .
1; I .11.109 i 1189..I A1187, 141731 [4 .1 1.187 J, .I.166J, ....... ____....._"
'S on Ba E.... 1V3 .28 a.......ec Locaton! + I ,Ba 7 Elev, 11'3"' ia on Check =,:
.DI E . FIG .
I BBA I1 I144 1.191 1`1.1864 '1.187 110 .135 1.116 .A ". ...... .
Tscr. ' AVG. I I',
.... ~~A ,I Iio.
.AVG.
AE 1M .-1; ... ... . -.
ocuon. I BaV T' ELWY 1'! r mobn COcE.l 1 116 117;116 1159 1A16 1.1W ý1.130 L~ocaton~ll: 9A, ' Bay ,i-: -- iIT flow .l*l**- *llbmtlonwCMek.tl:0 11 k B I, ý.Cý. 'D, E *
- f ;"" -
-1, . 11.1i8 t1.16 71f9 t*1i+* i~lig; ,.118 :. +t3 ";+ +Wscri., 1,, AVG; J
[ .28-
- Examined by Malt Wilson EkaIn-ed by Leslie Ricdite I~f~J&~
i~74J ~-
Level
- Lee 11 I11 MDate Date 101181200 1011812006:
Dats 10i1812008>
Reviewed b L~eeStone:
I.
General Elecblo. .. file F Name:I WA OyserCreek Ultrasonic Thicknests Measuremeni I.
[,,. ... . . ... lOl81 0 Refueling Outma.e iR21 Data Sheet : 32U,1_.O ,O 4q PgE 5s oof I-.---
a oction I.. .Ba 13 Ele. 1 alanheck:l3:4871 A ,C 0: -.. ....SE. I :IG
,1;".14.6+: "1.148 - 1.148 1.149J 1.1*44 1.128 1.134 _, .
... ...... ......... * :+ : "Tscr.+ l::"AVG.;:
L~~iiJ~WIU 14A cvo e:
al~ :;O Lo::":: :: +. .
iA++.. Ba .:::8 : ::I4 , t'"...: " C .62..
llra ~'.;,~ h c :*:4AM I ii 11.18 1.Alff 129. 1.13 1.129 1.146 1.077 1.049.___________
AAm" 3712+
lecsc'
~9iY) 4.o Examined by.MalWilson LeelO II ainhed by,.iLeslie.,Rwter Level II bDate,- 1',1812 Reviewed br.: ILee&`Ston . Da:te 10/1*+81oe....0....
IR 553792-03, Torus Structural Integrity Basis from 1R21 Inspections This Technical Evaluation was prepared in accordance with CC-AA-309-101, Revision 7.
A technical task pre-job briefing was conducted in accordance with HU-AA-1212, Revision 1. As a result of this briefing the risk rank was determined to be 4, since the acceptance criteria had already been challenged and approved, therefore a third pairty.
review this document is not required.
Reason for Evaluation/Scope:
There is minor pitting of the Torus shell below the waterline known as the immersion area. The coating has been blistered since its application in 1984 and the shell in this area is a wetted surface (i.e. underwater). Some of the blisters become fractured during desludging and other torus, monitoring activities in preparation of the inspections. Prior to recoating activities' in .1984, weld repairs'vweie performed to repair significant ýit corrosion that was identified, however some minor pit depths of less than 0.040 inches were allowed to remain. These blisters and the substrate cbndition underneath continue to be monitored. The concern with this pitting is minor because the Torus is inerted by a nitrogen atmosphere during the normal operating cycle and since there is a lack of oxygen present, corrosion is minimal. Due to the pitting some local shell thicknesses fall below the nominal wall thickness and because there was no corrosion allowance considered in the original design thickness these pit locations must be evaluated to ensure they meet the allowable membrane stresses in the ASME B&PV Code Section III, 1977.
During the underwater inspections performed in 1R21 per ASME B&PV Code Section XM, Subsection IWE, 1992; seven pits were discovered that were deeper than the previously evaluated acceptance criteria of .040 inches. These were entered into the' Corrective Action Process and Condition Reports IR 548227 and IR 550462 were created in Passport and were evaluated by Engineering. These are being evaluated in this technical evaluation to ensure they meet the allowable membrane stresses in the ASME B&PV Code Section 111,1977.
This teclal evaluition will evaluate the condition of the Torus coating and the minor pitting discovered during the 1R21 inspections and demonstrates that the Torus structural integrity continues to satisfy all Licensing and Design Bases requirements.
Detailed Evaluation:
Visual, inspections performed in 1R21 revealed the condition of the coating in all 20 bays of the Torus was consistent with inspections performed in previous outages. There was no significant change and a similar amount of fractured and cracked blisters were found.
Seven pits were discovered that were deeper than the .040 inch preliminary acceptance criteria. These were evaluated in AR A2143995 Evaluations 3 and 4 in PIMS as IR 553792 Assignment 03 1
acceptable to meet the allowable membrane stresses in the ASME B&PV Code Section III, 1977.
Reference 1, evaluated the Torus shell thickness margin and established a general area acceptance criteria of 0.040 inch based on maximum depth of corrosion left in the Torus shell after the 1983 repairs. Since a few pits have been discovered that were deeper than
.040 inches, a new design analysis had been created to provide a refined local area acceptance criteria (Reference 2). for pitting based on the allowable membrane stresses in the ASME B&PV Code. Finite element analyses of the Torus shell and conservative engineering assumptions were used to determine the acceptance criteria for localized The pit depth, diameter, and spacing (edge to edge distance) from Table 3-1 of Reference 2 are used in this technical evaluation to evaluate the pits discovered in 1R21. The criteria from Table 3-1 are tabulated below:
Pit Diamneter Pit Depth Minimum Edge to Edge Spacing (inches) (inches) (inches)
.25 .173 .55
.50 .173 .84
.75 .173 1.15 1.00 .173 1.45 2.00 .173 2.85 3.00 .173 4.60 4.00 .173 6.70 Conclusions/Findings:
Since all of the seven pits discovered during the underwater inspections performed in 1R21 met these criteria, the Torus shell is acceptableaad meets the allowable membrane stresses in the ASME B&PV Code Section III, 1977LThe condition of the coating has not significantly degraded since the last inspection four years ago and the number of pits "
has not increased signific tly.frherefore, the Torus shell and associated coating acceptable and continue to .aisy all Licensing and Design Bases requirements. The coating continues to perfo is required function until the next scheduled inspections.
References:
Q0, A* k - s, U0 c -,* -
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Torus Shell Thickness Margin.
Gster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Torus Pitting Inspection -Iv V'-rV C.
V
-13U
&Vtl'ý I
N IR 553792 Assignment 03 2 I.NV
Attachments.
- 1) UCC Preliminary Inspection Report for 1R21
- 2) UCC Preliminary Inspection Data Sheets
- 3) AR 548227
- 4) AR 550462
- 5) AR 2143995 Eval 03
- 6) AR 2143995 Eval 04 Note: The UCC inspection reports are considered preliminary since the, Exelon NDE group are processing the final paperwork for administrative requirements. The NDE group provided oversight and approval of the UCC work. The NDE department will.
process the final inspection sheets. An Industry Coatings SME (Jon Cavallo of Corrosion Control Consultants & Labs) contracted by engineering to perform as an Independent Third Party Reviewer, also provided oversight of the inspections, coating and substrate conditions, and evaluated the results to ensure ill specification requirements were followed. He concluded-the coating and associate blisters that exist to be sufficient until the next scheduled inspections in 1R23.
Preparer: Frank Stulb Date: 11/05/06:
Independent Reviewer: Pete3, T r Date: 11/6/06 I have reviewed this Tech Eval and find it meets/te'equirements of CC-AA-309-101, Rev. 7. All inputs are accurate. The results are reasonable and meet the design basis for the Oyster Creek Torus. I have also reviewed manager comments and find them acceptable.
Approved for use by: Ray, -. Date: 11/06/2006 IR 553792 Assignment 03 3
I "All..
Urent 1 - UO:
U "Attachment 2 - UCC Proliminary Jnspectio Preliminary Jnspectlo
'Attachment 3 - AR "Attachment 4 - AR 548227.pdr 5S0462.pdr' "Attachment 5i- A "Attachment 6-AR A21'Z3995 EVAL 03.F A2143995 EVAL 04.p I.
I I !
IR 553792 Assignment 03 4
AR *53-7.9Z.- 0 FIRST DRAFT AI1+achmeni P 6 I I INFORMATION ONLY SECTION 3: INSPECTION FINDINGS RNII.REPORT-*TORS IEKEKISIE JIEll STuR REMaNU MAEEMMI STAIN The interior torus surfaces were coated in 1982 with Mobil 78 Hi-Build epoxy. In some areas, the',
Mobil 78 was applied over a Mobil 46X16 Epoxy Filler. Since then, immersion and vapor area inspections have been periodically performed by divers.
The 1 R12 and subsequent inspection reports document mechanical damage to substrate, blistering (both intact and fractured, some to substrate), pinpoint rusting, and pitting corrosion, Pit depths reportedly ranged from less than 5 mils to slightly more than 40 mils.
- SF. FUSFS Inspections were performed in accordance with ArerGen Specification SP-1302-52-120, Revision 3. Inspections consisted of a qualitative coating inspection and a qualitative and quantitative assessment of pitting corrosion of the submerged internal surfaces of the torus in all 20 torus bays. Inspection efforts focused primarily on pressure boundary (Shell) surfaces.
The purpose of the qualitative coating inspection was to assess coating degradation and evaluate any affect on pressure boundary base metal corrosion and the emergency core cooling system (ECCS). Qualitative pit assessment was performed to assess corrosion rates and to document any pitting exceeding pit depth acceptance criteria established by the Licensee. Data gathered during the qualitative inspection was also used to assist in defining the scope of coating repair.
Quantitative pit depth measurements were reported to the Licensee.
A VT-3 IWE inspection of the submerged catwalk bracing, downcomers, downcomer bracing, and vent header support columns was conducted and documented in accordance with Exelon Procedure ER-AA-335-016, Revision 3. Results of these inspections were submitted to Martin McAllister, site NDE Level Ill.
The internal surfaces of the torus suppression pool are a nuclear safety related Service Level 1 area. As such, all inspections were performed in accordance with the Underwater Construction Corporation Quality Assurance Program under the provisions of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, 10 CFR part 21. Inspections were performed by ASNT/ASME VT-1 and VT-3 certified Level II and Level III coating inspectors Figure I - Inspection template for torus in accordance with approved procedures. bay ,, ,.
TORUS IMMERSION AREA ASME Section Xl Level II and Level III inspectors performed all inspections. A Level III inspector reviewed and checked all critical findings. Underwater visibility during inspections was acceptable. The areas being inspected were lit by high intensity video lights.
For documentation purposes, the shell area in each bay .
was broken into six segments (see Figure 1) so that relevant indications could be accurately recorded. This system was also used to aid in identifying the location of video sequences. Inspection records are attached.
The qualitative inspection focused on the torus shell.
Sample areas of the ring girders, downcomers and 1
AR 53"379z-03 FIRST DRAFT pod k9ze I Z ,h f INFORMATION ONLY structural members were also inspected for coating deterioration, corrosion, or damage. High resolution video was used to document representative conditions. Vidleo footage is annotated and includes audio description.
/ iUMiTuATI,'aIf.&NquWfA=VEaNAUN& CIeIsniE UNCIo QUALITATIVE INSPECTION FINDINGS Torus PressureBoundary(Immersion Area)
Extensive blistering of the pressure boundary can be seen throughout the torus immersion area particularly in areas where Mobil 46X16 Epoxy Repair Compound was applied under Mobil 78 Series Epoxy. The extent of blistering corresponds generally to the amount of 46 X 16 present.
Figure 2 depicts the typical distribution of areas of blistered . * .,
coating with heaviest blistering near the torus invert. Blister size is No. 2 to No. 6. Degree of frequency is medium to medium dense as rated in accordance with ASTM D 714 = "
"Standard Test Method of Evaluating Degree of Blistering of, .
Paints". Fractured blisters appear to expose 46 X 16 filler or substrate. Blister size in these areas randomly exceeds ASTM rating (1/2" to 1-1/4" diameter).
The blistered conditions shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 are typical. Blistering is also found in areas where Mobil 46 X 16 was not applied. Blister size is No. 2 to No. 4 and degree of frequency is medium to dense. Attachment
- contains Figure 2 -Typical blister distribution by coating inspection reports documenting the visual torus bay inspection.
The majority of blisters (90% to 95%) appear to be intact.
Intact blisters examined by removing the blister cap expose the substrate. Corrosion: attack under non-.
fractured blisters appears minimal and is generally limited to surface discoloration. Examination :of the substrate typically reveals slight discoloration and pitting with pit depths of less than I thousandth of an inch.
Fractured blisters were observed, during the general visual Inspection. No accurate determination can be made when a given fracture occurred.
Figure 3 - Ty*pical blister density at Invert Nevertheless, It can be assumed that some fractures are recent while others date to 12R. The condition of fractured blisters varies as has been seen during previous inspections. Some blisters exhibit hairline cracking across the blister cap but appear otherwise undisturbed. There is generally no sign of significant corrosion activity (see Figure 19). A small percentage (less than 1% to 2%) of blisters exhibit open fractures. Substrate beneath fractured blisters exhibits a slightly heavier magnetite (Fe3 0 4 ) oxide layer and minor pitting (less than 10 thousandths) of the substrate. The presence of Fe304 suggests that oxygen concentration in the water in contact with exposed substrate has remained low. A higher oxygen content would likely have produced Fe 20 3 causing a red oxide. .. .......... .
Figure 4 - typical intact blisters 2
AR 5Y337,9Z-03 FIRST DRAFT AB-chn-i INFORMATION ONLY To characterize changes in blister condition, the one foot test squares established diring 1R1 2 in Bays 6 and 7 were reinspected* In addition, twenty, one foot square sample areas were established to assess substrate condition beneath cracked blisters. The results of these inspections are summarized :beginning on page 6 and detailed in Attachmentl.
Figure 6- Dense blistering In inverareaa Figure 6 - NO. 2 -. NO.:4 blisters; few to medium Figure 7 - Typical blister conditions showing fractured, cracked (circled) and Intact blisters.
3
APZ 5-63 7.9 2 -
FIRST DRAFT Af4-a~ch m e't n INFORMATION ONLY Pa~e 4.
/
Figure8- Typical cracked I Figure 9 - Substrate b Figure Figure' I.
Figure 12 - Typical minor staining and pinpoint rusting 7Figure 13 - Worst case staining and pinpoint rusting Other Coating Deficiencies (ImmersionArea)
Other coating deficiencies consisted primarily of spot rust, pinpoint rusting, and minor mechanical damage (Figure 12 and Figure 13). Random deficiencies that exposed base metal were identified.
They ranged in size from /1/6" to /" diameter. Some areas contained multiple deficiencies.
Pitting in these areas ranged from less than 10 mils to slightly more than 40 mils in a few isolated cases.
4
AR 5S-3379 -79 FIRST DRAFT A tm-Oc h /
' INFORMATION ONLY Pinpoint rusting mixed with small areas of mechanical damage was typically found inithe invert area in most bays. In many cases, mechanical damage is not to substrate. Areas such as this are randomly distributed on the pressure boundary. Surface staining of the coating was also noted in some areas on the invert but is not affecting coating integrity. It appears to have been caused by steel grit remaining'from previous coating operations.
Coating on the upper portion of the torus shell (below the waterline) appears to be in good condition. Few deficiencies were noted and staining is minimal. Occasional small random patches of No. 2 to No. 8 few to medium blisters were found (see Figure 6). Less than'1% were fractured.
Qualitative assessment of a sample of the pitting corrosion on the exposed bAse metal Indicates that pit depths overall do not exceed 0.040". Pit diameters ranged from 1/1(" to 1/2. Additional information is contained in the attachments. ,
CorrosionEvaluation Test Areas It was confirmed that the two bare metal areas previously established as corrosion evaluation test areas had been coated. Area I was located-in Bay 6--in the transition region between the heavily blistered coating system of Mobil 46 X 16 and Mot~il 78 and the non-blistered coating system of Mobil 78, and Area 2 was located on the Bay 6/7 ring girder in the non-blistered coating ýystem of Mobil 78. 1 1 Torus Components (Immersion Area)
Coating conditions on ring girders, downcomers, down comer bracing, vent header support columns, catwalk bracing, and ECCS penetrations are generally consistent with coating conditions found on the pressure boundary. No significant corrosion or evidence of section loss was identified.
Ring Girders: The coating is generally in good condition. Blistering and minor mechanical damage with isolated shallow pitting is found on the flange and web. Most is in the form of edge rusting. There are no visual indications of significant corrosion or loss of section in the flange, web or gusset base metal. A representative sample was Inspected.
Catwalk Bracing: A VT-3 inspection of the catwalk bracing was conducted in accordance with Exelon procedure ER-AA-335-016, Revision 3. Additional information is contained in the attachments. Additional information is contained in the attachments.
Vent Header Support Columns: A VT-3 inspection of the Vent Header Support Columns was conducted in accordance with Exelon procedure ER-AA-335-016, Revision 3. Additional information is contained in the attachments.
Downcomers: A VT-3 inspection of the downcomers and downcomer bracing was conducted in accordance with Exelon procedure ER-AA-335-016, Revision 3. The coating is generally in good condition. Minor mechanical damage with isolated shallow pitting is found on the structural members and downcomer surfaces. There are no visual indications of significant corrosion or loss of section in the structural members or downcomer base metal. Additional information is contained in the attachments.
Suction Strainers: ECCS Suction Strainers in Bay 4 (at Penetration X-69), Bay 11 (at Penetration X-68B), and Bay 18 (at Penetration X-68A). There was no visual evidence of fibrous debris or foreign material in contact with the strainers that could potentially cause blockage or plugging of the strainer inlets. A trivial accumulation of fine particulate covered the body of the strainers but does not appear to block or plug any of the strainer inlets.
The strainers exhibit no obvious mechanical damage. There are no apparent loose or missing flange bolts. The carbon steel torus-side of the strainer flanges was also visually inspected. The flange areas exhibit minor coating deficiencies, surface rusting, and shallow pitting. There are no visual indications of significant corrosion or loss of section in the flange base metal.
5
A 1 5-63 7,P2-FIRST DRAFT Al4a.Thrtml i INFORMATION ONLY Pa%-e, 14' Bolted conhection/Catwalk BraceF" Ring Girder @ VH Support Downcomer & Bracing I
QUANTITATIVE INSPECTION FINDINGS QuantitativeBlister Evaluation- Torus PressureBoundary In Immersion The one square foot test areas are designated as Test Patch 1, 2; and 3 respectively. The test areas are outlined with an epoxy coating and identified by bay and quadrant number. An arrow adjacent to each square indicates the direction of the reactor. Vertical and horizontal centerlines divide each test square into four quadrants.
Overall condition of the blisters in each square was assessed. Blisters that fell on the bisecting vertical or horizontal centerlines were numbered, measured, and documented. Blister counts indicate a general Increase in the formation of new and blisters and the occurrence of fractured blisters. The rates of increase appear to be decreasing with the Figure 14 - Blister exception new blisters recorded on the bisecting lines. Blister diameter evaluation in test patch measurements also suggest that only a few blisters have increased in size. The tables and charts that follow summarize the change in blisters over time.
6
AR 5'53 79P2-o-0 FIRST DRAFT A1+adc- mnernf I INFORMATION ONLY Pad e, 13R 16R 2% 500A 19R 1% 20% 116% j29% 1 2111 3% E31% j4% V13%
Table I - Summary of blister condition in test patch. Table 2 - Increase In total and fractured blisters.
-- 4 S-IUIAL IUNII - lt:l I AIM I*1, Z,&4 l TOTAL COUNT ON BISECTING LINES -lrUT PATCH 1,2. &
940 so 9~0 ID 0~0 70*
- 910 I
g
~8s0 870.
I 860:
10.
860<
IlKGE ISA 2IR U1R I.
U R - 1R 7
Figure 15- Total count of all blisters in test patch.: Figure 16 - Count of blisters falling on bisecting lines.
a01 UW MR 2M Table 3 - % fractured; total patch Vs Figure 17-. Graph of percentage of fractured blisters from Table 3 bisecting line The cumulative percentage of fractured blisters in the test patches ranges from 16% in 1990 (1R13) 24% in 1996 (1R16), 28% in 2002 (1R19), to 29% in 2006 (1R21). This is consistentwith the rate of change in occurrence of fracturing but appears to be higher than the percentage of fractured blisters observed overall.
Investigation of the test areas is documented in Attachment
- and on video tape number *.
Images in Attachment
- are a composite view of each test square and include the numbered blisters. These blisters correlate with the numbered blisters photographed during previous inspections. Drawings that document the location and condition of blisters are also found in Attachment *.
7
AR 5-53 72 - o3 FIRST DRAFT 4 ""-oC h* Y n 1C INFORMATION ONLY Blister Evaluation- Torus PressureBoundaryin Immersion
,The licensee provided the criteria for evaluation and disposition of blisters on the torus immersion coating. The blisters were categorized into three groups as shown in Figure 18.
,1. IntactlBlisters: Blisters indicated by green arrows which, when viewed with the naked eye, are intact, and exhibit no cracking and/or staining due to corrosion of the underlying substrate.
- 2. Cracked Blisters: Blisters indicated by yellow arrows which, when viewed with the naked eye, exhibit cracking and/or light surface staining due to corrosion of the underlying substrate. Although cracked, thezcap of a cracked blister remains in place.
3.' Fractured Blisters: Blisters indicated by red arrows which, when viewed with the naked eye, exhibit disbondment of the blister cap and active corrosion of the underlying substrate.
Figure 18- Categorization of blister conditions on the torus shell.
Fractured Blisters Fractured blisters, by definition, exposed the steel substrate and were designated for coating repair. Figure 19 illustrates the typical condition at fractured blister sites. before and after the substrate was cleaned for inspection. Each of the areas was inspected for pitting. With the exception of pits 18-P2-01, 15-P2-01, 05-PI-0, 05-P5-01, and 05-P5-02 (see Table 4), all other pitting was less than 0.040". Approximately **400 fractured blisters were identified. Blister diameters generally range from less than %" to 1-1/2". They represent less than 1% of the total submerged surface area of the torus shell. All fractured blister sites were repaired by the:
application of underwater coating.
Figure 19 -Typical condition of substrate at site of fractured blisters. Pitting is typically <40 mils.
8
.AR 55-379Z-03 FIRST DRAFT A '"cb * , INFORMATION ONLY Cracked Blisters The substrate condition beneath cracked blisters was evaluated by sampling a one foot square, area in each bay. Sample areas were selected based on worst case condition of cracked blisters.
Blister caps were removed from 10% (or a minimum of 10) of the cracked blistbrs and the substrate was evaluated for pitting.
Typical worstcase conditions (see Figure 20) were chosen for evaluation of substrate beneath cracked blisters (yellow arrows). Intact blisters in the sample area are indicated by green arrows.
Blister size and distribution is typical. Coating in the sample areas exhibits medium to dense blistering with a high ratio of cracked blisters. When blister caps are removed from cracked blisters (blue arrows), the substrate typically exhibits light surface rusting with. minor (<40 mil) pitting. Coating adjacent to blisters appears to have good adhesion except in areas where epoxy was applied over the 46x16 surfacer.
Three pits exceeding 0.040" were identified and reported. No other pits greater than.or equal to 0.040" were found. Sample photographs depicting typical condition of the cracked blisters and underlying substrate are shown in Figure 20. A map of blister locationscan be found in Attachment .
Figure 20 - Typical conditions in cracked blister areas.
9
AR 53537Y2- o_
FIRST DRAFT A.-+-'r0iev1, I INFORMATION ONLI f Pc~e. /0 o/Ž /o QuantitativeCorrosionEvaluation - Torus PressureBoundaryin Immersion Oyster Creek specification SP-1302-52-120, Revision 3 established giidelines for pittihg considered reportable. The majority pitting and general corrosion appeared to fall well inside the guidelines for pits requiring quantitative evaluation.
Localized general corrosion and surface rusting was found in randomly scatter areas on torus internal structures and components below the waterline. Visual assessment and selected confirming measurements show no indication that any significant metal loss has occurred.
.Minimal corrosion was noted on structures in the vapor area.
Seven reportable pit depth measurements were documented on the immersion area of the torus pressure boundary. Pit depths at these sites are documented in Attachment *.
The following table summarizes the quantitative pit depth measurements.
Table 4- Reportable pitting Indications 18-,P2-01 N/A 0.041 0.250 28" from P3 WS in 56" from IWS N/A 15-P2-01 N/A 0.044 0.250 48" from P2/3 WS in 6"'from IWS N/A 05.Pi-o1 N/A 0.041 0.038 46" from 4/5 RG In 50" from IWS N/A 05-P5-01 N/A 0.076 0.025 27" from P4/5 WS in 367 from IWS N/A 05-P5-02 N/A 0.039 0.025 22" from P5/6 WS in 34" from IWS NIA 07-P5-01 N/A 0.050 0.025 20" from P4/5 WS in 52.5" from IWS N/A 04-P5-01 1 0.041 0.125 10.5" from P4/5WS in 67" from IWS Pt,01-G1 04-P5-02 1 0.044 0.125 10" from.P4/5 WS in 61" from IWS PO02-G1 10
UNDERWATER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION 6 PROCEDURE: QP10.O9-OCNGS1R21 R REVISIONI I ATTACHMENT 1 QUALITATIVE INSPECTION RECORD PRESERVICE [ INSERVICE [XQ WORK ORDER NO. R207734 VT-I [ I VT-3 [ X ) GENERAL VISUAL [ J RECORD NO.;:.._ Page J. of A DIRECT [X] REMOTE [ I ILLUMINATION CHECK (TIME) START.NA STOP NA ILLUMINATION CHECK: SAT [XQ UNSAT [3 Client: ExciaLAmerLena Facility Location: Oyster Creek Nuclear Gen. Stalion Project No.: 01-02260.56 Date: 10/28/0, Description of Vessel: OZ. BWR /Mark I Containment-Toru Location: Bays No.1-20 (Shell)
INSPECTION INFORMATION: Submerged Torus Shell (Pressure foundary)
Principal Torus Coating: Mobil 78 + Mobil 46 x 16 Surface Classification of Coating Deficiencies:
TYPE DESCRIPTION Cracking In Top Coat None To SubstrateL/A Location N/A Area:-, N/A Delamination In Top Coat None To SubstruteN& Location N/A Area: NA Blistering Per D714: No. 2 to 6 Med to Dense Location Invert & near wtmline Area: I jqft M Flaking or Peeling ErIbslitersow adeoLocatin Associated with Blisterin Area: jto 2jgA IM, Mech. Damage Random to med den - Locatiob primarily at invert Area:.
Tiger Striping N/A LocatiOnA N/A . Area- NS&A-Discoloration Surface staining Location urmanly at invert Area: I Jo 1jftg t Clinsficatlon of Substrate Deficiencies:
Pinpoint Rusting Random . Location various locations Area: <1 Ig ty.
Uniform Rusting Minor Location various locations Area: <L soft tp, Pitting Corrosion (< threshold values) 2Jto39mils -Location primatljv at invert Are: - <1 soft ym.
Corrosion with loss of section WNA Location N/A Area: NIA Other Surface Indications* None Location N/A Area: N/A Note 1: *Document surface indications such as discoloration, arc strikes, gouges, dents, pitting, cracks, wear, excessive corrosion, erosion, or other signs of surface irregularities on the part or componen.
Note 2: Show references to continuation sheets when entering data on this sheet Measuring and Testing Equipment:
173 ¶11 Dry Film Thickness Gauge: SN I8j1771 SN f SN EJj,. N- .24N NISTCal. Plates: SN K-8"87 SN K-75160 Dial Depth Gauge. SN D-24 SN 177857 Calibration Flat: SN 05002 Go/No-Go Pit Gauge: SN PB-15 I - Gauges disposed of on site.
Level IIME cntpeL D1le ISI Enginer Review Dat ANI! Review Daoe Ae 5"53 7o9z- 03 Mf4-a chMe- k+ 2 Pao e- te f 4-
UNDERWATER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION I PROCEDUREý QP10.09-OCNGSlR21I REVISION: I AT'ACRMENT 1 (CONTINUED)
QUALITATIVE INSPECTION RECORD PRESERVICE INSERVICE [X] WORK ORDER NO. R2007734 VT-, [ VT-3 [ X I GENERAL VISUAL [ J RECORD NO.:L.L Page 2 of 4 DIRECT [X] REM*7E [J Client: Exelon/AmerGen Facility Location: OYster Creek Nuclear Gen. Station Project No.: 01-02260.56 Date: J115/02 Description of Vessel: G.E. BWR /Mark I Containmen-Torus Locado: Bays No. 1 2Q iSbgl substrae) 00n%9ftni;a amag and "ipitn~Ing o.te.. .i...o.nd.he.all es.e.o.day oain 20 bay .Tehais lsei I ge lnerallyn ea h vr identified~~ ~ ~
byteapiatowfavmera~caig ~ an r*p'ared
~ ~ ot Thaaneo thepoatinbli thelnins dicatons aexhbtreordedon moderatetachead quranttaie satrainieet (ahnot to 2:
Photographs ofitypial pitting conditions can be found in the final report. Other localized areaof exposed base metal LTve' only minor exhibit Inptoraftal-h al!'DEcorrosio and surface Ins rusting. There ari no indications of-dcolon, Enginee Review arc striks,.gouges, Da
.dents, pitting, cracks, wear, excessive corrosion, erosiOn, or other signs of sufc ieglarites.* " : "
an A4Trriri De DD Level 1 NDE nspecr Datet.
~/
AN]1 Review Date A, 6",33791.- o3 pje\3e 2
UNDERWATER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION PROCEDURE: QP10.09- OCNGSIR21 REVISION: I ATTACHMENT 2 QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF METAL LOSS RECORD PRESERVICE [ INSERVICE CI] WORK ORDER NO:,
VT-I [X]VT-3 []GENERAL VISUAL [ RECORD NO.:I Page 3 of 4 DIRECT [X] REMOTE [ ] Project No.:Q01-02260.56 ILLUMINATION CHECK (TIME): START HA. STOP___*&_
ILLUMINATION CHECK: SAT [XI UNSAT []
Client Exelon/AmerGen Facility Location: O Creek Nuclear GeneratingStationS Date:,-- 40U06, . WRFu/akICo~n 1ecito0f&esl o Location:jBayNo. Afkg&Sý Measure and Test Equipment, I-ni a 1o.00 Dry Film Thickness Gauge: SN 181771 SN
- SN EMJL SN 0J241 NIST Cal. Plates: SN K-84487 SN K-75160 Dial Depth Gauge: SN D-24 SN 177857 Calibration Flat: SN 05002 Go/No-Go Pit Gauge: SN PB-15
- Gauges disposed of on site.
Procedure for Deterlmning Metal Lost Metal loss values have a higher degree of accuracy when the protective coating is removed. Since it is not practical to remove the coating at all measured sites, it is generally performed when the metal loss values (obtained with coating in place) approach or exceed the maximum value (MAV) established by the Owner. Metal loss values (MLV) are obtained by subtracting the sum ofthe average dry film thickness (ADFI) value and the dial depth gauge adjusted to zero value (AZV) from the pit depth value (PDV). -Thus, MLV PDV (ADFT + AZV)
PICED EBa#Plate(P)#,Pit# . . Pit Gro EN-A Ifnot Present : islated Pit (SO) N/A if tn Pit th Unorrectlfor surface Examn s: roughness or DFT 16-2P-023 -Buy 16, shell plate 2, pit # 023 .............. .. near..,"
a ep !Ad. Zero - Surface rughness meanred pit Avg DFr - Average dry f lmthickness near pit Metal Lou -Pit Dep - (Adj, Zem + Avg. DFT) - PitDiametr E Diameterof pit or pit Ceerdiate - Locaion measured as an X Y distande from a stuctura feature_
group across longest dimension) (such as a Ring Girder) or azimuth &distance from a penetration.
Pit Coordinate - X I y coordinate or azimuth & distance.' Adjncet Pits Enter Pit ID#'s of adjacwnt pits or pit groups Vkldo Ref.- refaence UT Thi'kness - Wall ffom VCR counter thickness per Owner Reo. Eg-'ReporttoOwner'sfEnginee(Yes/No) ..............
R e.p." E ng. ". ." '*.. .. :,.". . 7.* ...- *,' " ' ,,' .. . * * '. .. . ." . .* . . ,, " .'
", .... . ,* :,.'.. ., .:.".:....* .. :,** * ... :,."*.* -:.... . . y'.Le.,s-_._..a:..-:. .-. '. :. .:
A 1Z 56737.92 -03
- "e L f_ 7
r~vIoI~Jr4. ~ II
-- - .... ~ ...
II UNDERWATER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION i rrtvtkiWur-: utiu.u - 0UIu a~ I I
flflflfllflkt.
"="'°'"N: II d
ATTACHMENT 2 (CONTUMD) - DATA SHET.
QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF METAL LOSS RECORD Work Order No.:.R2077340 Project No.: 01-02260.56 IRecord No.: I Page 4
.... = *j * ,, _ -* .........
- i. .. ... . .~ . .. . .. _____....____,____ ....
18-P.2141 JNWA X0020080010410250 28fromPaws In5" Wffrom Iws WA; X NIA AZwobsedmmetallossom 4W"frtm PM/
15-P2-O1 N/A X 0;073 0.026 0429 0.044 0260 WS In fromIWS WA WA X WA MZeronotusedinmetallos calc 0""P,02 NJ XA 0.05 i,00003 0.016 .9 Winlu WS025 34" from Wo X I A AA instaulose*isle 20ift= P415 - 52.5" from.
07..P51 N/A.X.0.070 0. 0 . "A4... Zeronot used Inmetal Ios calc
. N/A .. "* .
0.06,"! ~~0.5"
" fr om...... P4 15 . .... A, A X-04-P5-t 14 NA 0.058 0.000 0.018 0.04.1 0.125 MS in .froftnl Ws im wA X N/A h notcuseim cai 10" ~ 1 ArmP/
04-PS-02 i NA 0'0k2 0.000 0.080.044 0.125 WS in 61" frtomlWS pWoi WA X NA 14Zero not usemn metatl Ion cal
_,10 , 0&
,\- ,- . .. ,..
Level 11INDE Inspecor 1 Dat ~Lk.eilflNDE lhio~qm Dote Lorei 11NDE Inipedwe Id LenlI Iftmpeslv Dfte
- 1. .
Leve II DE nspetor ateLeve litNDEDate ISI Enginee Review Dt ANII MviewDte_
Ag SY379 z-03 A+-flermfn P.. 4 0f42.
AF, - Assignment Report Page 1 of 2 OGo Back Print I New Search Home AR 00548227 Report Aft Fac: Oyster Creek AR Type: CR Status: APPROVED Aff Unit NA Owed To: ACAPALL Due Date:.' 11/23/2006 Aff System: 187 Event Date: 10/24/2006 CR Level/Clase: 4/D Disc Date: 10/24/2006 How .H02 Orig Date: 10/24/2006 Discovered:
WRIPIMS AR: Component
- 187 Action Request Details
Subject:
PITS IN TORUS BAYS 5, 15, AND 18
Description:
Originator: ' PETErE TAMBURRO Supv Contacted: Howle Ray Condition
Description:
Inspection of the Torus per specification SP-1302-32-120 Revision 3 has found 4 pits which are greater than 40 mils deep. Per the requirements SP-1302-32-120 Revision 3 these pits shall be evaluated by Engineering.
Data for each pit is as follows Pit 18-P2-01 Data - Say 18 Metal Loss -- 0.041 Inches Pit Diameter -- 0.25 Inches Pit 15-P2-01 Data - Bay 15 Metal Loss -- 0.044 inches Pit Diameter -- 0.25 Inches Pit 05-PI-01 Data - Bay 0S Metal Loss -- 0.041 Inches Pit Diameter -- 0.03S Inches Pit 05-P5-01 Data - Bay 05 Metal Loss -- 0.076 Inches Pit Diameter -- 0.025 Inches Operability Preliminary Evaluation of these four pits indicates that they are well within design basis acceptance criteria.
Immediate actions taken:
Informed Howle Ray and THe Engineering Control Center Recommended Actions:
Perform a Technical Evaluation to disposistion these pits Operable Basis:
REB Pits appear to be minor and this will be confirmed by the engineering evaluaton. Primary contaiqment is not currently required to be ope abie.
Sfr1K4+.1raj ~tI -r fy o f/c. 7Thrus i s eval/u a.z a.Y duzepfm~ '.- MY~e~1 /c Reportfible Basis: 770 N/A A AV 5-53"792-03 l*.-.l "1'1.-1
... 1.11 ... A1*-..,*,"k M*_t- e" n 4 -3~lur e, 2-1 1C 11
AR - Assigm-nent Report Page 2 of 2 SOC Reviewed by: THOMAS A POWELL 10/26/2006 08:17:51 CDT SOC Comments:
10/26/06 TAP - Created PIMS TEch EVAL A2143995 02 to disposition the issue. Close to PIMS AR A2143995 Trend Codes TC1 TC2 TC3 Proc Org Rank EQM VSL SCNA ER *P AssIgnments Assign #: Assigned To: Status: COMPLETE Aff Fac: Oyster Creek Prim Grp: ACAPALL Due Date: 10/29/2006 Assign Type: TRKG See Grp: Orig Due Date: pp/IJplPPppj Priority:
Schedule Rep.
Unit Conditione Subject/Description: PITS IN TORUS BAYS 5, 15, AND 18 A5-*S779 z -03 AI-t-ach enr+ 3 ec~? o&2-httTn iI,,'m'.Jkf 1 pon r-nm6 rr/-Avl'tR~ntA1 ~r1t1169l. I 1 /6/l?("k
AR - Assignment Report Page I of 2 OGo Back Print I New Search I Home AR 00550462 Report Aff Fac: Oyster Creek AR Type: CR Status: APPROVED Aft Unit: 01 Owed To: A5352CAP Due Date:' 11/28/2006 Aff System: ý87 Event Date: 10/26/2006 CR Level/Class: 4/D Disc Date:.1 0/26/2006 How H02 Orig Date: 10/29/2O00 Discovered:
WRIPIMS AR: Component t TORUS Action Request Details
Subject:
THREE PITS FOUND DURING UNDERWATER INSPECTION OF TORUS.
Description:
Originator: FRANK STULB Supv Contzctdd: Howie Ray Condition
Description:
During underwater inspection of the Torus in accordarice with SP-1302-52-120, Revision 3, three pits were discovered which are greater than .040 Inches deep. SP-1302-52-120, Revision 3, requires all pits greater than .040 Inches deep be entered Into the Corrective Action Program (IR) and shall be evaluated by Engineering. The following are inspection data for each pit:
Bay 7, Plate S Pit ID: 07-PS-01 Metal Loss - .050 Inches Pit Diameter - .025 Inches Adjacent Pits - None Say 4, Plate 5 Pit ID: 04-PS-01 Metal Loss - .041 Inches Pit Diameter - .125 Inches Adjacent Pits - 6 Inches to 04-P5-02 Pit ID: 04-P5-02 Metal Loss - .044 Inches Pit Diameter - .125 Inches Adjacent Pits - 6 Inches to 04-P5-01 Immediate actions taken:
Created Tech Eval AR A2143995 Eval 03 to evaluate the pits against design basis acceptance criteria. Wrote this IR.
Preliminary evaluation of the three pits indicates they meet the acceptance criteria in MPR-2974 to meet the membrane stress limits in the B&PV Code.
Recommended Actions:
Perform Technical Evaluation of pits with AR A2143995 Eval 03. Prep surface and repair coating.
What activities, processes, or procedures were Involved?
Torus underwater inspection per SP-1302-52-120, Revision 3.
List of knowledgeable individuals: Ae --- 4"379
-. e f z .OP-2
AR - Assignment Report Page 2 of 2 Howie Ray Repeat or similar condition?
A similar condition was reported in IR 548227 and evaluated, In AR A2143995 Eval 02.
Operable Basis:
REB Preliminary evaluation of the three pits Indicates they meet the acceptance criteria In MPR-2974 to meet the membrane stress limits In the B&PV Code. Torus Is operable pending completion of engineering's evaluation.
Reportable Basis:
N/A SOC Reviewed by: STEVEN E GANSS 10/29/2006 10:00:39 CST Soc Comments:
close to actions taken Trend Codes TC1 TC2 TC3 Proc Org Rank EQM VSL 5CNA ER100
- P Assignments Assign #: Assigned To: Statue: COMPLETE Aff Fac: Oyster Creek Prim Grp: ACAPALL Due Date: 11/03/2006 Assign Type: TRKG Sec Grp: Orig Due Date, pp/pp/ppipp Prlority Schedule Ref:
Unit Condition:
Subject/Descrlptlon: THREE PITS FOUND DURING UNDERWATER INSPECTION OF TORUS.
A 53796-3W 03 0 -rckment 4 Pase 2 oF2-htmthrvIr~remv~f1 erprn cnm :61 2.1IcnnI-ýe~rvtf.tRe~nnnA R 5t-ervle116/00 11 /I/17"2{K
- ACTION REQUEST *** PAGE: 01 A/R TYPE : EC ECR A/R NUMBER : A2143995 REQUEST ORG : OEDM A/R STATUS : ROUTED REQUEST DATE: 09JUN06 STATUS DATE: 12JUN06 REQUESTED BY: TAMBURRO, PETE LAST UPDATE: 04NOV06 PRINT DATE : 06NOV06 EVALUATION NBR: 03 ORIG DATE ASSIGNED:
EVALUATING ORG: OEDM EVAL DUE DATE: 03NOV06 EVAL ASIGND TO: STULB DATE ASSIGNED: 280CT0A EVAL REQUEST ORG: OEDM EVAL REQUESTOR: STULB. F EVAL STATUS :RETURN EVAL RETURNED BY: RETURN IMPORTANCE CODE:__ OEAP: SCHEDULE CODE: DATE iIXED:_
EVAL DESC: EVALUATE PITS IN BAYS 4 AND 7 OF THE TORUS REASON FOR EVALUATION / SCOPE: , FJS2 260CT0f
- FJS2 26OCT06 INSPECTION OF THB TORUS PER SPECIFICATION SP-1302 FJS2 260CT06 120, REVISION 3 HAS FOUND 3 PITS WHICH ARE GREATER THAN FJS2 27OCT06 40 MILS DEEP. PER THE REQUIREMENTS SP-1302-52-120. FJS2 260CT06 REVISION 3 THESE PITS SHALL BE EVALUATED BY FJS2 26OCT06 ENGINEERING, THIS TECH EVAL. WILL EVALUATE THESE PITS FJS2 26OCT06 IN ACCORDANCE WITH MPR-2974, REVISION 0. FJS2 26OCT06 FJS2 260CT06 THIS TECH EVAL WAS DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CC-AA- FJS2 260CT06 309-101 REVISION 7. FJS2 26OCT06 FJS2 26OCT06 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS TECHNICAL EVALUATION WAS REVIEWED FJS2 290CT06 WITH HOWIE RAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH HU-AA-1212. RISK RANK FJS2 290CT06 WAS ASSESSED AS 4. THEREFORE A THIRD PARTY REVIEW IS NOT FJS2 29OCT06 REQUIRED. FJS2 29OCT06 FJS2 26OCT06 BACKGROUND:* FJS2 26OCT06 FjS2 26OCT06 INSPECTION RESULTS FROM TORUS BAYS 4 AND 7 (ATTACHED) FJS2 260CT06 INDICATE 3 SMALL PITS WHICH MEET THE FURTHER DISPOSITION FJS2 27OCT06 THRESHOLD IN SECTION 4.3.2 OF SPECIFICATION FJS2 270CT06 SP-1302-52-120, REVISION 3. FJS2 27OCT06
, FJS2 26OCT06 "NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED" FJS2 26OCT06 THIS TECH EVAL IS CONSIDERED FJS2 260CT06 DETAILED EVALUATION: FJS2 26OCT06 INSPECTION RESULTS ARE PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENT 1. SHOWN FJS2 260CT06 BELOW IS THE SPECIFIC EVALUATION FOR EACH PIT. FJS2 260CT06 FJS2 260CT06 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FJS2 26OCT06 FJS2 26OCT06 PER MPR-2974, REVISION 0, PAGE 3-2, TABLE 3.1 AN FJS2 260CT06 ACCEPTABLE PIT WITH' A DIAMETER UP TO 0.25 INCHES MAY HAVE FJS2 270CT06 A DEPTH UP TO 0.173" AS LONG AS THE EDGE TO EDGE DISTANCE FJS2 27OCT06 TO THE NEXT PIT IS NOT LESS THAN 0.55 INCHES IT WILL MEET FJS2 29OCT06 THE MEMBRANE STRESS LIMITS IN THE ASME B&PV CODE. FJS2 29OCT06 PIT 07-P5-01 DATA AR 5753-79?-- 05 DEPTH WITH COATING METAL LOSS 0.070 0.050 INCHES INCHES 1a~cchmeicnf 5 f&a'e, / -F 4+
- ACTION REQUEST *** PAGE: 02.
A/R TYPE : EC ECR A/R NUMBER : A2143995 REQUEST ORG : OEDM A/R STATUS : ROUTED REQUEST DATE: 09JUN06 STATUS DATE: 12JUN06 REQUESTED BY: TAMBURRO, PETE LAST UPDATE: 04NOV06 PRINT DATE : 06NOV06 PIT DIAMETER 0,025 INCHES FJS2 270CT06 MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE TO NEXT PIT - NO OTHER PITS. FJS2 270CT0O FJS2 2709T06 THIS PIT MEETS THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA INMPR-2974 TO FJS2 270CT06 MEET THE MEMBRANE STRESS LIMITS IN THE ASME B&PV CODE.' FJS2 270CT06 FJS2 27OCT06 PIT 04-P5-01 DATA -FJS2 270CT06 FJS2 270CT06 DEPTH WITH COATING 0.058 INCHES FJS2 27OCT06 METAL LOSS 0.041 INCHES FJS2 27OCT06 PIT DIAMETER 0.125 INCHES FJS2 27OCT06 MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE TO NEXT PIT -6 'INCHES TO 04-P5-02 FJS2 27OCT06 I . FJS2 270Ct06 THIS PIT MEETS THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA IN MPR-2974 TO FJS2 27OCT06 MEET THE MEMBRANE STRESS LIMITS IN THE ASME B&,V CODE, FJS2 270CT06 FJS*2 27OCT06 PIT 04-P5-02 DATA FJS2 27OCT06 FJS2 27OCT06 DEPTH WITH COATING 0.062 INCHES FJS2 27OCT06 METAL LOSS 0.044 INCHES FJS2 27OCT06 PIT DIAMETER 0.125 INCHES FJS2 27OCT06 MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE TO NEXT PIT - 6 INCHES TO 04-P5-01 FJS2 27OCT06 FJS2 270CT06 THIS PIT MEETS THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA IN MPR-2974 TO FJS2 270CT06 MEET THE MEMBRANE STRESS LIMITS IN THE ASME B&PV CODE. FJS2 270CT06 FJS2 270CT06 CONCLUSION: FJS2 270CT06 FJS2 270CT06 THE THREE PITS HAVE BEEN EVALUATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FJS2 27OCT06 MPR-2974, REVISION 0 AND WERE FOUND TO MEET THE DESIGN FJS2 27OCT06 BASIS ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA. COATING REPAIRS-CAN BE FJ$2 270CT06 PERFORMED FOR THESE PITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FJS2 27OCT06 SP-1302-52-120. FJS2 27OCT06 FJS2 27OCT06
REFERENCES:
FJS2 270CT06 FJS2 270CT06
- 1) MPR-2974, REVISION 0 - OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION FJS2 27OCT06 TORUS PITTING INSPECTION EVALUATION CRITERIA FJS2 27OCT06
- 2) SPECIFICATION SP-1302-52-120, REVISION 3 - INSPECTION FJS2 270CT06 AND LOCALIZED REPAIR OF THE TORUS AND VENT SYSTEM COATING FJS2 27OCT06
.FJS2 270CT06 ATTACHMENT I - INSPECTION DATA (I PAGE) FJS2 27OCT06
- ******************************* CAS7 29OCT06 INDEPENDENT REVIEW CAS7 29OCT06 CAS7 29OCT06 I HAVE REVIEWED THIS EVALUATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CAS7 29OCT06 CC-AA-309-101 REV 7. THE EVALUATION MEETS EXISTING CAS7 29OCT06 DESIGN AND CONFIGURATION CONTROL REOUIREMENTS. CAS7 290CT06 TT*PfTq AND THE METHOD USED ARE APPROPRIATE. THE REFERENCES AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ARE CLEARLY DEFINED, THE RESULTS ARE CLEARLY STATED AND THE Ag 5-5-37P2--03 FOLLOWUP ACTION IS CLEARLY DEFINED. A1ý+azh m en 5-~
e- 79--
- ACTION REQUEST *** PAGE: 03 A/R TYPE : EC ECR A/R NUMBER : A2143995 REQUEST ORG : OEDM A/R STATUS : ROUTED REQUEST DATE: 09JUN06 -STATUS DATE: 12JUN06 REQUESTED BY:_TAMBURRO, PETE LAST UPDATE: 04NOV06 PRINT DATE : 06NOV06 THIS EVAL IS ACCEPTABLE TO BE RETURNED. CAS7 29OCT06 CAS7 29OCT06 INDEPENDENT REVIEW PERFORMED BY C. SCHILLING CAS7 29OCT06
- *****~******* ********** ***************** CAS7 29OCT06 RCL4 ONOV06 REVIEWED AND APPROVED: R. LARZO RCL4 0INOV06
=======END OF ACTION REQUEST-...................
AR 5-s537 9 Z- 05 Af-Mxhme"f 5' paje- 3
ATTACHMENT 2 (CONTINUED) - DATA SHEET (Typical)
QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF METAL LOSS RECORD MCI Pit o 10 Pit 0.9Mb A*4 Z"o MaWWR Pit D A *0 tt YmdwI .. t Video Rep t coietS Group ~
(In) ~Lo Lw~i owII (bie oni kmi 0a0~h p Fup ft Thick-es DwGrou*
-P5.O1 NIA X 0.070 0.000 0.020 0.050 0.025 20'fromP4/SWS in 52.5' fkn IWS WA WA X W.A Zaero notusd Inmew om Cole
)4-Psko 1 NA 0.058 0.000 0.018 0.041 0.125 10.5 frorn P4/S WS in 67r IWS lom pit 01-G wA X NWA lZeo not used inme los* caOl I NA 1-PS-02 0.062 0.000 0.018I 0.044 0.125 0ItomP415WS in 61"fromlWS it0241 WA X I-I-I-I I-II I - -
A 4znotusedinmetalio"Cale i -m -I I III I -I i, -
~ -- - - - - -
- - -~~H -H ---
- - I--
-l
-,p -.z,-.- t.
4 A, At24-5-99S-'J AT7-rAcSMCAn I PA&-* oF I ul.w
- ACTION REQUEST *** PAGE: 01 A/R TYPE : EC ECR A/R NUMBER : A2143995 REQUEST ORG : OEDM A/R STATUS : ROUTED REQUEST DATE: 09JUN06 STATUS DATE: 12JUN06 REQUESTED BY: TAMBURROx PETE LAST UPDATE: 04NOV06 PRINT'DATE : 06NOV06 EVALUATION NBR: 04 ORIG DATE ASSIGNED:
EVALUATING ORG: OEDM EVAL DUE DATE: 01NOV06 EVAL ASIGND TO: TAMBURRO , PETE DATE ASSIGNED: 31OCT06' EVAL REQUEST ORG: OEDM EVAL REQUESTOR: TAMBURRO EVAL STATUS :-RETURN EVAL RETURNED BY: LARZO, R IMPORTANCE CODE:__ OEAP: SCHEDULE CODE:__ DATE FIXED:'
EVAL DESC: EVALUATE PITS IN BAYS 5, 15, AND 18 OF THE TORUS THIS EVAL WAS PREPARED BY PETER TAMBURRO. HOWEVER PXTO 30OCT06 IT WAS ENTERED INTO PIMS BY FRANK STULB PXTO 30OCT06 I
'PXTO 30OCT06 REASON FOR EVALUATION I SCOPE: FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 30OCT06 THIS TECHNICAL EVALUATION SUPERCEDES AR A2143995 EVAL 02 FJS2 30OCT06 TO CORRECT A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR THAT AFFECTED THE FJS2 30OCT06 TECHNICAL CONTENT OF THE EVALUATION. FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 30OCT06 INSPECTION OF THE TORUS PER SPECIFICATION SP-1302 FJS2 30OCT06 120. REVISION 3 HAS FOUND 4 PITS WHICH ARE GREATER THAN FJS2 30OCT06 40 MILS DEEP. PER THE REQUIREMENTS SP-1302-52-120, FJS2 30OCT06 REVISION 3 THESE PITS SHALL BE EVALUATED BY FJS2 30OCT06 ENGINEERING, THIS TECH EVAL, WILL EVALUATE THESE PITS FJS2 30OCT06 IN ACCORDANCE WITH MPR-2974, REVISION 0. FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 30OCT06 THIS TECH EVAL WAS DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CC-AA- FJS2 30OCT06 309-101 REVISION 7. FJS2 300CT06
- FJS2 30OCT06 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS TECH EVAL WAS REVIEWED WITH DAN FJS2 30OCT06 THOMAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH HU-AA-1212, THE RISK RANK WAS FJS2 30OCT06 ASSESSED AT A "4". THEREFORE A THIRD PARTY REVIEW IS FJS2 30OCT06 NOT REQUIRED. FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 30OCT06 BACKGROUND: FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 30OCT06
-INSPECTION RESULTS FROM TORUS BAYS 5, 15, AND 18 FJS2 30OCT06 (ATTACHED) INDICATE FOUR SMALL PITS WHICH MEET THE FJS2 30OCT06 "FURTHER DISPOSITION" THRESHOLD IN SECTION 4.3.2 OF FJS2 30OCT06 SPECIFICATION SP-1302-52-120, REVISION 3. FJS2 30OCT06
- FJS2 30OCT06 THIS TECH EVAL IS CONSIDERED "NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED"" FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 30OCT06 DETAILED EVALUATION: FJS2 30OCT06 INSPECTION RESULTS ARE PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENT 1. SHOWN FJS2 30OCT06 BELOW IS THE SPECIFIC EVALUATION FOR EACH PIT. FJS2 30OCT06 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA AR 5-53 7p2 -0 3 PER MPR-2974, ACCEPTANCE REVISION 0, ACCE.PTABLTE PIT WITH A DIAMETER UP TO 0.5 PAGE 3-2, TABLE 3.1 AN INCHES MAY HAVE A mArltn A flEPTH TIP A DEPTH UP 0.173" AS
!Pve. I op+
- ACTION REQUEST *** PAGE: 02 A/R TYPE : EC ECR A/R NUMBER: A2143995 REQUEST ORG 0EDM O A/R STATUS : ROUTED REQUEST DATE: 09JUN06 -STATUS DATE: 12JUN06 REQUESTED BY: TAMBURRO, PETE LAST UPDATE: 04NOV06 PRINT DATE : 06NOV06 TO THE NEXT PIT IS NOT LESS THAN 0.84 INCHES IT WILL MEET FJS2 30OCT06 THE MEMBRANE STRESS LIMITS IN THE ASME B&PV CODE. FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 30OCT06 PIT 18-P2-01 DATA FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 30OCT06 DEPTH WITH COATING -- 0.052 INCHES FJS2 30OCT06 METAL LOSS - 0,041 INCHES FJS2 30OCT06 PIT DIAMETER -- 0.25 INCHES FJS2 30OCT06 MINIMUM, EDGE DISTANCE TO NEXT PIT. -- NO OTHER FJS2 30OCT06 PITS ON THIS PLATE. FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 30OCT06 THEREFORE THIS PIT IS ACCEPTABLE, FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 30OCT06 PIT 15-P2-01 DATA FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 30OCT06 DEPTH WITH COATING -- 0,073 INCHES FJS2 30OCT06 METAL LOSS "" 0,044 INCHES FJS2 30OCT06 PIT DIAMETER -- 0.25 INCHES FJS2 30OCT06 MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE TO NEXT PIT. -- NO OTHER FJS2 30OCT06 PITS ON THIS PLATE. FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 30OCT06 THEREFORE THIS PIT IS ACCEPTABLE, FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 30OCT06 PIT 05-Pl-O DATA < FJS2 FJS2 30OCT06 30OCT06 DEPTH WITH COATING -- 0.062 INCHES FJS2 30OCT06 METAL LOSS -- 0.041 INCHES FJS2 30OCT06 PIT DIAMETER 0.038 INCHES 0 FJS2 30OCT06 MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE TO NEXT PIT, --- NO OTHER FJS2 30OCT06 PITS ON THIS PLATE. FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 30OCT06 THEREFORE THIS PIT IS ACCEPTABLE, FJS2 30OCT06
, FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 30OCT06 PIT 05-P5-01 DATA
- FJS2 300CT06 FIJS2 30OCT06 DEPTH WITH COATING -- 0,090 INCHES FJS2 30OCT06 METAL LOSS -- 0.076 INCHES FJS2 30OCT06 PIT DIAMETER -- 0.025 INCHES FJS2 30OCT06 MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE TO NEXT PIT. -- THERE FJS2 30OCT06 ARE NO ADJACENT PITS AS NOTED ON ATTACHMENT 1. FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 30OCT06 THEREFORE THIS PIT IS ACCEPTABLE. FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 30OCT06 CONCLUSION: FJS2 a0OCT06 THE FOUR PITS HAVE BEEN EVALUATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FJS2 30OCT06 MPR-2974, REVISION 0 AND WERE FOUND TO MEET THE DESIGN FJS2 30OCT06 BASIS ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA. COATING REPAIRS CAN BE Tn I1 c PP.RFORMED FOR THESE PITS IN ACCORDANCR WTTT4 SP-1302-52-120. AR 79Z- o3
REFERENCES:
A4-o4-mc- menP F ,2.-
- ACTION REQUEST *** PAGE: 03 A/R TYPE : EC ECR A/R NUMBER : A2143995 REQUEST ORG : OEDM A/R STATX;S : ROUTED REQUEST DATE:-09JUN06 STATUS DATE: 12JUN06 REQUESTED BY: TAMBURRO, PETE LAST UPDATE: 04NOV06 PRINT DATE : 06NOV06
- 1) MPR-2974, REVISION 0 OYSTER- CREEK GENERATING FJS2 30OCT06 , I STATION TORUS PITTING INSPECTION EVALUATION CRITERIA .FJS2 30OCT06
- 2) SPECIFICATION SP-1302-52-120, REVISION.3 - INSPECTION FJS2 30OCT06 AND LOCALIZED REPAIR OF THE TORUS AND VENT SYSTEM FJS2 30OCT06 COATING FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 30OCT06 ATTACHMENT I - INSPECTION DATA (1 PAGE) FJS2 30OCT06 FJS2 31OCT06
- FJS2 31OCT06 I HAVE PERFORMED AN INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THIS FJS2 31OCT06 TECHNICAL EVALUATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 4.3 OF FJS2 31 CT06 CC-AA-309-101. THE INPUTS WERE CORRECT. THE METHOD AND FJg2 31OCT06 JUDGEMENT, COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGN BASES/CRITERIA, AND FJS2 31OCT06 COMPLIANCE WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS ARE APPROPRIATE, THE FJS2 31OCT06 RESULTS ACCOMPLISH THE STATED PURPOSE. THIS TECHNICAL FJS2 31OCT06 EVALUATION IS ACCEPTABLE FOR APPROVAL, FJS2 31OCT06 FJS2 31OCT06 INDEPENDENT REVIEWER: FRANK STULB 10/31/06 FJS2 31OCT06
- FJS2 31OCT06 RCL4 01NOV06 REVIEWED AND APPROVED: R. LARZO RCL4 01NOV06
..........- END OF ACTION REQUEST==============================
AR 1 0 A~-~cmn 4
AR A4214-5 99S6- b-O4 ATTACH M6At" I ATTACHMENT 2 (CONTINUED).- DATA SHEET QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF METAL LOSS RECORD (Typical) PA6-6. / oF /
1";.m WA X 0.052 0.00o 0.011 0.041 10.250 1 28"fmmPSWS I hi 158' from IWS WA X. W/A IAI 4mr not Usedin rmud al sCatc i5-Pl-C WA x -0.07a 0.026: 0.0do 0.4 020 froni 02J3WS i4n 0!, fm WS -NA W X W _ __ _ _
05-PI-0 WA iX 0.062z 0.010 0.0i1 0.041 0.038 f*oi4/586N A WA X WA W,PfromIWS cat___________
01PSO N14 X 1.090 40008 0.014 0.078ý 0.026 2)- foMiP4dSWS ih 38' horý IWS- WA WAý I ~N A c 2am ntasadinmtln
-Wý aLO -. 25 ar& -" as -,WAXq
.0.000 0 W 0o.m*
0 - a
...... -ii-ia 0000 :.*0.000 __ _ -- .....
a - 0.000
- w000 - a ..- ...i,'
- , , .:,_... :, .*I".: .. :.....
0.00 0.0
,}