ML20080F691
| ML20080F691 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1995 |
| From: | Tremblay L VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| BVY-95-08, BVY-95-8, NUDOCS 9501300154 | |
| Download: ML20080F691 (21) | |
Text
.
6 m
VERMONT YANKEE
' NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION C
Ferry Road, Brattleboro, VT 05301-7002 l
REPLY TO ENGINEERING OFFICE 580 MAIN STREET DOLTON, MA 01740 (508) 779-6711 January 19,1995 BVY 95 - 08 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATrN: Document ContmlDesk Washington, DC 20555
References:
- a. License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271)
- c. Letter, VYNPC to USNRC, BVY 94-110, dated November 8,1994
Subject:
Feedwater Nozzle Inspection Relief Request - Supplementary Information 1
Enclosed please find a copy of an EPRI Repon entitled " Demonstration of Techn; ques and Procedures for Examination of Feedwater Inner Radius and Bore Region from the Inside Surface",
i dated January 18,1995.
This interim repon was prepared b representatives of EPRI and summarizes the results to-date in suppon of Vermont Yankee s relie request [ Reference (b), supplemented by Reference (c)] to demonstrate ultrasonic examination techniques as a replacement to NUREG 0619 required liquid penetrant (Irr) examination of the feedwater nozzle inner radius region.
It is our understanding that the information provided in this interim repon represents the majority of the qualification testing to be performed and satisfactorily qualifies the testing metixxi such that your staff can complete review of our previously submitted relief request. As discussed previously, Vermont Yankee considers the completion of this relief request to be a high priority cffort, as our refueling outage plans are based upon relief request approval and utilization of this alternative method ofinspection. Utilization of this improved inspection technique should result in reduced radiation exposure to workers as well as a higher quality level of inspection results.
Vermont Yankee's refueling outage is scheduled to begin in March,1995.
i Should your staff have any additional questions, please contact this office.
Sincerely, VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION k.
N W
Leonard A. Tremblay, Jr., P.E. (
SeniorLicensingingineer Enclosure cc: USNRC Region I Administrator USNRC Resident Inspector-VYNPS l
USNRC Project Manager-VYNPS I
e - Mr, Keg Battige, USNRC, Rockville (via Priority Mail)
L 9501300154 950119 PDR ADDCK 05000271 P
=
EPRI NDE CENTER Electnc Power Research institute Hondestructive Evaluation Center Leadershipin Technology Transfer January 18,1995 Carl Larsen Yankee Atomic Electric Co.
580 Main Street Bolton, MA 01740 Re:
Demonstration of techniques and procedures for examination of feedwater inner radius and bore region from the inside surface.
Dear Carl:
This interim report wa: prepared by myself and Mark Sagstetter and summarizes results to-date on a project to demonstrate ultrasonic examination techniques as a replacement to NUREG 0619 required liquid penetrant (PT) examination of feedwater nozzle inner radius region.
Outside surface examination techniques were initially investigated as a replacement to PT. When small gap examination capabilities were introduced for other examination configurations such as CRDM penetrations this approach was investigated for inside surface examination of nozzles. The Vermont Yankee (VY) feedwater nozzle configuration has sufficient access between the thermal sleeve and nozzle to consider application of inside surface techniques. At this point emphasis switched to investigating inside examination methods. It was anticipated that examination from the inside surface would deliver an improvement in flaw characterization and sizing because of shorter metal paths and less complicated geometry.
VY/ Yankee Atomic contracted B&W Nuclear Services Company to develop inspection equipment and procedures. The NDE Center assisted VY/ Yankee Atomic in developing a demonstration strategy and presenting the proposal to the NRC to obtain relief from PT requirement of NUREG 0619. The proposal was to demonstrate the equipment and procedures in both blind and non-blind phases. Initial detection and flaw sizing was to be performed in a blind fashion. Demonstration of the capability to detect and size flaws in grind-outs would be performed in a non-blind fashion on the same flaws after local grinding.
Several mock-up configurations and flaw manufacturing processe; were discussed.
VY/ Yankee Atomic elected to use a combination of EDM notches and weld implanted cracks in blocks which represented the actual component geometry. In the weld-implanted flaw blocks, the cladding was applied after flaw implantation to produce simulated under-clad cracks. Under-clad cracks produced in this way are not expected to accurately represent service-induced cracks. Service-induced cracks are projected to Telephone. (704) 547-6100 Charlotte, North Carolma 28262 1300 Harris Boulevard FAX:(704) 547 6168 (P.O. Box 217097. Charlotte. North Carolma 28221)
Larsen Page Two grow by fstigue t'vough the clad. The artificial cracks in the mock-ups are not surface connected. VY/ Yankee considers that the under-clad cracks u, therefore, conservative because they are expected to produce less reflected ultrasonic amplitude than a surface connected crack.
The first phase of the demonstration was conducted between 11/28/94 and 12/8/94 at the BS "/ facility in Lynchburg, Virginia. It was B&W's intention to demonstrate both baci
.1-scatter and forward-scatter tip-diffraction techniques on the blind mock-up.
NE
.cnter personnel and VY/ Vermont Yankee personnel served as Performance De_.istration Administmtors (PDA). The PDA's responsibilities were to maintain security of the blind mock-up, verify and record essential variables, and monitor all phases of the demonstration. Monitoring was especially important in this demonstration because the non-blind portion required that the PDA understand the equipment and procedures to the level that they could assess performance.
A formal review of the demonstration protocol and B&W's examination procedure was performed prior to commencement of the demonstration. Essential variables were also reviewed and documented. A copy of the protocol is included as Attachment 1. A copy of the essential variables is included as Attachment 2.
The blind mock-up was kept secure at all times. The inspection vendor was allowed access to the examination surface only when the PDA was present. The outside surface of the mock-up, was inaccessible by des gn. The mock-up was inserted into a larger mock-up and access to the OD surface was not possible. When the mock-up was not in use it was locked up either by a locking mechanism provided by the manufacturer or secured in the inspection tank. The PDA was present during all phases of acquisition and analysis and reserved the right to request clarification of any procedural step.
Detection Results High angle (80 degree) dual element, longitudinal wave, transducers were used for flaw detection. The transducers were arranged in the standard pulse echo mode. Scans were made in segments around the circumference. The major scan axis was j
circumferential, incrementing in the axial direction. Transducers were oriented to detect axially-oriented flaws only. Information obtained from the detection scan was also j
used for flaw length determination and a (phtoks estimate of the flaw through-wall depth.
Detection performance on the blind demonstration block was 100%.
j 1
Larsen 1
Page n ree Flaw Positioning Results i
i Preliminary analysis of the results by the PDA showed an RMS error of 0.29" in the determination of flaw axial position. Additional regression analysis results are shown in Figure 1. Since this error was consistent on every flaw, it was discussed with B&W. -
B&W was then able to identify a systematic position error.
After the error was identified and cormeted the axial positioning error was determined to be 0.19" (Figure 2).
l The RMS error for circumferential flaw positioning was 3.29 degrees. Results are shown in Figure 3.
i Ejaw Death & Insth Sirine Unino the Rackward-Sentter Techninue Sizing scans commenced after the completion of the detection scans and detection analysis. Sizing was performed using (52 degree) longitudinal wave, dual element
~!
transducers in the pulse-echo mode.
B&W calculated the through-wall dimension of the flaw using two methods; 1) locating the diffracted signal from the bottom of the crack and determining its position relative to the clad surface, and 2) locating the bottom tip relative to the clad-to-base metal interface, Results are provided for both. Figure 4 shows a resulting RMS error of 0.09" when the depth is calculated in relation to the clad-to-base metal interface.
Chulation relative to the clad surface resulted in an RMS error of 0.11" as shown m Figure 5, j
Figure 6 shows flaw length sizing results. The resulting RMS error was 0.25".
I Subseauent Demonstration Phnwe i
Final preparation of the mock-up is now underway for the remaining portions of the demonstration. These include demonstration of detection and sizing in localized l
grinding areas and demonstration of the forward-scatter tip diffraction (TOFD) technique. The demonstration of detection and sizing in localized grinding areas will be performed in a non-blind fashion.
i i
p 12rsen Page Four i
Depth sizing using the TOFD technique was attempted during the first phase but was not completed. B&W is currently modifying their equipment and will demonstrate flaw depth sizing with the TOFD method during the next demonstration phase.
Sincerely,
&ffW E. Kim Kietzman EKK:jaa ec:
F. Ammirato, L. Becker, M. Sagstetter, J. Lance, D. Girroir, Vermont i
Yankee, Pat Donnelly, Yankee Atomic, Len Tr-C:J', Yankee Atomic I
h i
?
s I
i
- 4
/
tt FWN / AXIAL LOCATION OF FLAW BLIND MOCK-UP 4.oco
/
/
/
Std Dev =.69
/
/
/
/
3.00o Std Error =.16
/
1-z9 p/
Corr Coef =.98 2
/
v)
/
o
'/
l/
/
N 2.000 RMS =.29 N
/
1 8
/
5
/
- Observed = 5
,-l w
2
/
/
i 1.000
/l t
l
/ j Truth vs. Est.
I
/
Best Fit
/
ideal Line
!/
o.ooo 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 TRUTH AXIAL POSITION (in)
- Before B&W made changes to the axiallocation measurements
FWN / AXIAL LOCATION OF FLAW
~
BLIND MOCK-UP 4.000
/
Std Dev =.69 3.000 Std Error =.16
/
E z9 Corr COef =.98 t-mo D.
J
< 2.000 RMS =.19 5
/-/
O IEa
- Observed =5 i
m 6
I 2
e 1.000 i
-'//
Truth vs. Est. i
-l l
/
Best Fi:
p ideal Line f
i
(
/
O.000 -/
j
~
\\
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 l
TRUTH AXIAL POSITION (in).
- Af ter B&W made changes to the axial location measuremen,-
i
. - _,. _. _,.. - _. _, -. -.. _,. - - - - - - -. _..... -, _ _ -...,,... -, -. -.... - - -. - - - -.. - -.... - - - - -. _ - - - - - - - -.. ~ - - -.. - - - -... - - - - - -.. - - - - - - - -
3
"/
FWN / CIRCUMFERENTIAL LOCATION RESULT BLIND MOCK-UP 4oo.o Std Dev =80.51 8 -
Std Error =3.35 '
W
/
Eo 8
Corr Coef =1.00 z
O P
G 200.0 g
RMS n 3.29 degrees S
5 N
- Observed =5 m
2 l
100.0 Truth vs. Est.
Best Fit Ideal Line 0.0 -
i 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 TRUTH POSITION DEGREES e
u
-- i--+2----w-e >--
d-m w
^- w
---u*--e
--'v-
'ceerv s
wwwe-**
-wee
+w M
=-
e-
-.n---e w
e-e e-we me--e emw-w ww ge-e4-w-=wer e-see-
-iw+ww m
e
-.. m-m
-- + -a
2 A.
/
FWN / FLAW DEPTH SIZING RESULTS FROM THE CLAD / BASE METAL INTERFACE BLIND MOCK-UP 1.0000 Std Dev =.20 o.sooo Std Error =.09 08000
?
Corr Coef =.92
=
8 5
RMS =.09 g
su 2 o.4ooo A ' eserved =5 Truth vs. Est.'
0.2000 Best Fit ideel Line o.oooo o.0000 o.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 TURTH (in) with flaw #5 (contained in the clad metal)
P
/
FWN / FLAW DEPTH SIZING RESULTS FROM THE CLAD SURFACE
~
BLIND MOCK-UP I
1.0000 i
Std Error =.08 0.8000 Std Dev =.19 Corr Coef =.93
- 0.6000
/
w 4
oc RMS =.11 w2 0.4000 1
- Observed = 5
/
Truth vs. Est.
0.2000
/
Best Fit
/
Ideal Line 0.0000 0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 TURTH (in) u.-
!f i.
l
- ;i 5
t s
E e
s n
v it iL F
h la t
t u
se e
r d
T B
i 8
6 9
5 1
6, 1
=
=
=
=
5 d
r e
2 e
f v
o o
v e
r
=
r r
C e
D E
S s
r r
b d
d 0
M O
t t
S S
C R
000 3
00 5
2 ST L
U 0
0 S
0
/
E 2
R G
P N
U IZ K
I
)
S C in
(
HO 00 H TM G
/
5 TU 1
ND R
EN T
LI L WB A
L F
00
/
0
/
1 N
/
W F
00 5
0 0
0 0
l 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 5
0 0
5 0
3 2
2 1
0 0
D$w2 fI l
i l
.l l
l.
4 OR DEMONSTRATING THE PERFORMANCE OF FEEDWATER MINATION PROCEDURE YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY / VERMONT YANKEE l
VY / EPRI NDE Center 10/11/94 l
l i
Prepared by:
Date:
l Reviewed by:
Date:
i i
Approved by:
Date:
}
i f
DRAFT i
e
[
by Mark Sagstetter 10/17/94 a
1 s
l l
-TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 GENERAL t
1.1 Mock-up Description l
1.2 Flaw Description i
i 2.0 EXAMINATION PROCEDURE l
1 2.1 Essential Variables 2.2 Procedure Requirements 1
3.0 ESSENTIAL VARIABLES i
i 3.1 Ultrasonic Essential Variables 4.0 DEMONSTRATION PLAN 5.0 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS 6.0 EXAMINATION GROUP COMPOSITION 6.1 Personnel Functions 7.0 DEMONSTRATION PROCESS Blind 7.1 Detection Phase 7.2 Analysis Phase i
8.0 DEMONSTRATION PROCESS Non-Blind 8.1 Detection Phase 8.2 Analysis Phase l
9.0 RESULTS REPORTING i
9.1 Flaw Detection 9.2 Flaw Location Accuracy 9.3 Flaw Sizing 10.0 RE-TESTING 11.0 DOCUMENTATION 12.0 SECURITY
1.0 GENERAL This document will serve as a guideline for the demonstration of examination processes, procedures and equipment for the in-service inspection Vermont Yankee (VY) feedwater nozzles. This document pertains to both blind, and non-blind demonstrations. For non-blind demonstrations, the truth information will be available to the vender. During the
- blind dernonstration the true flaw size and location will be maintained by the performance demonstration administrator (PDA). The performance demonstration will be conducted in i
a manner that addresses all pertinent exam parameters of the actual ISI. The performance demonstration is intended to assure the reliable detection, location and sizing of flaws during feedwater nozzle examination.
VY, with assistance from the EPRI NDE Center, will serve as the performance demonstration administrator (PDA). Duties in this administrative capacity will include responsibility for both blind and non-blind demonstrations. These responsibilities include:
performance demonstration protocol development, ISI vendor examination procedure l
review, demonstration monitoring, demonstration results reporting, specimen security, and i
maintenance of the documentation generated during the performance demonstration.
In advance of the demonstration, the activities that will be performed to demonstrate the i
designated examination system and procedures will be described in a document developed by the vendor. The document will be referred to as a " Demonstration Plan". The demonstration plauvill address detailed compliance with this document. A copy of the examination procedure and the demonstration plan will be provided to the PDA prior to the commencement of the demonstration.
Acceptance criteria will be as specided in VYs' formal NDE Bid Specification. VY will be responsible to determine whether the ISI procedure is adequate. Flaw detection, location and sizing results will be determined upon completion of data collection and analysis. To insure the credibility of the demonstration process, the Vendor's procedure must contain dermitive steps for identifying flaw signals and sizirig the flaw dimensions which can be monitored and documented during the demonstration. These steps will be discussed with the PDA in detail during both blind and the non-blind demonstrations. The NDE Center will assist in evaluating the results of the demonstration.
1.1 Mock-up Descriptions The blind and non-blind demonstration mockup will be a full-scale representation of the VY design. The mock-ups will be made from production materials and will be mounted in a representative orientation.
i
3.1.3.4 detection and sizing techniques, including:
(a) scan pattern and beam directions; (b) maximum scan speed; (c) minimum and maximum pulse repetition t
rate; (d) minimum sampling rate (automatic recording systems);
(e) extent of scanning and action to be taken for access restrictions; 3.1.3.5 methods of calibration for detection and sizing (e.g. actions required to insure that the sensitivity and accuracy of the signal amplitude and time outputs of the examination system, whether displayed, recorded, or automatically processes, are repeated from one examination to the next examination.
3.1.3.6 inspection and calibration data to be recorded; (a) method of data recording; (b) recording equipment (e.g., strip chart, analog tape, digitizing) when used; 3.1.3.7 method and criteria for the discrimination of indications (e.g., geometric versus flaw indication and for length and depth sizing of flaws);
3.1.3.8 surface condition requirements.
4.0 DEMONSTRATION PLAN The Vendor activities. hat will be performed to demonstrate the capabilities of their designated examination system and procedures will be described in the demonstration plan.
The plan will address in detail, compliaace with this document. A copy of the demonstration plan and the examination procedure will be provided to the PDA for review prior to the commencement of the demonstration.
I
-j 1
1 i
5.0 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS i
i The Vendor will be required to provide documentation of candidate certification and i
training compliant with applicable Codes and the examination procedure. This information l
will be included in the Demonstration Plan document as specified in Section 4.0.
j I
6.0 NXAMINATION GROUP COMPOSITION The Vendor's procedure shall identify the responsibilities and qualification requirements :
for personnel carrying out the following functions 1
f 6.1
' Personnel Functions i
6.1.1 Scan plan development, examination system setup, calibration and data acquisition.
6.1.2 Reviewing acquired data and screening data for detections f
6.1.3 Flaw characterization and sizing.
I 7.0 DEMONSTRATION PROCESS Blind Demonstration I
The Vendor will be required to demonstrate examination effectiveness on appropriate test specimens. The test specimens will consist of two types of mock-ups a non-blind and l
blind. The blind mock-up will contain intentional defects. During the blind demonstration permanent specimen identification and flaw locations obscured at all times. After the blind demonstration with this mock-up, this mock-up will be machined to have the appropriate sized grind outs placed in the mock-up. The grind-out locations will be made available to l
the vendor for demonstration of the vendors capabihties to examine in the grind out areas.
Access to the specimens will be limited to the inside examination surfaces only.
i The demonstration will consist of two phases; detection and analysis No time limit will be imposed. All examinations must be successfully completed prior to disclosure of performance results.
7.1 Detection Phase l
The detection phase will be performed in strict accordance with the Vendor's _
formal procedure as specified in section 2.0. The region to be excmined will be identified by the PDA.
t m
4 7.1.1 Calibration, acquisition, and data review steps will be performed in accordance with the vendor's procedure.
7.1.2 The monitor may at any time during the detection phase, request an explanation or demonstration of a procedural step.
7.1.3 'Upon completion of the detection phase, the detection results, reports will be completed.
7.1.4 A copy of c'etection results and a copy of all acquired data generated will be transferred to the PDA.
7.2 Analysis and Flaw Characterization Phase The analysis and flaw characterization phase will be performed in strict accordance with the Vendor's formal procedure as specified in section 1.0 i
7.2.1 The analysis phase will be performed by the appropriate personnel as identified in section 6.0.
7.2.2 Detection data to be analyzed for sizing will be identified by the PDA. Other pertinent information may be requested ifit is
~
specifically identified in the Vendor's procedure and the demonstration plan.
7.2.3 The vendor will fully explain the steps needed during the analyse phase. The monitor may at any time during the analysis phase, request further explanation or demonstration of a procedural step.
7.2.4 The monitor may at any time during the analysis phase, request an explanation or demonstration of a procedural step.
7.2.5 Upon completion of the analysis phase, formal analysis results report will be completed.
7.2.6 The formal analysis report and all acquired data will be transferred to the PDA.
7.2.7 Re-looks or re-examinations may be performed as specified in the formal procedure.
1 i
l 8.0 Demonstration Process Non-Blind Demonstration During the non-blind portion of the demonstration procedural steps in detection and analysis will be demonstrated. The non-blind mock-up will contain EDM notche type intentional defects and grind out areas representative of the respective nozzles. With the permanent specimen identi0 cation and flaw locations available to the vendor.
The blind demonstration mock-up will becone part of the non-blind ' demonstration process after it has the apropriate grind-outs machined into it, as described in section 1.2.
8.1 Detection Phase l
8.1.1 Calibration, acquisition, and data review steps will be performed in accordance with the vendor's procedure.
8.1.2 The vendor will fully explain the steps needed during the analyse phase. The monitor may at any time during the detection phase, request an explanation or demonstration of a procedural step.
8.1.3 Upon completion of the detection phase, the detection results, reports will be completed.
8.1.4 a copy of detection results and a copy of all acquired data generated will be transferred to the PDA.
8.2 Analysis and flaw Characterization Phase The analysis and flaw characterization phase will be performed in strict accordance with the Vendor's formal procedure as speci6ed in section 1.0.
8.2.1 The analysis phase will be performed by the appropriate personnel as identified in section 6.0.
8.2.2 Detection data to be analyzed for sizing will be Identined by the PDA. Other pertinent information may be requested ifit is L
speci6cally identified in the Vendor's procedure and the demonstration plan
8.2.3 The vendor will fully explain the steps needed during the analyse phase. The monitor may at any time during the analysis phase, request further explanation or demonstration of a procedural step.
8.2.4 The monitor may at any time during the analysis phase, request an explanation or demonstration of a procedural step.
8.2.5 Upon completion of the analysis phase, formal analysis results repon will be completed.
8.2.6 The formal analysis repon and all acquired data will be transfered to the PDA 8.2.7 Re-looks or re-examinations may be performed as specified in the formal procedure.
9.0 RESULTS REPORTING f'
The error in location and sizing of the flaws will be determined and the basis for this
' determination is provided below. VY will be responsible to determine whether the ISI procedure is adequate.
9.1 Detection Detection results will be reported as percentage of flaws detected. To receive credit for detecting a flaw, it must be reported within.50 inch ofits true axial and circumferential position 9.2 Location Accuracy The accuracy oflocating the circumferential and axial position of flaws will be reported as rms error. RMS error is expressed as:
[(True - Measured)2 RMS=
N 9.3 Depth and Length Sizing
RMS error of flaw sizing results will be calculated. Linear regression analysis of the demonstration results may also be performed as an aid in evaluating I
performance.
10.0 RE-TESTING I'
In the event that the results of the demonstration are determined to be inadequate to VY, re-testing will commence upon review and approval by the PDA subject to availability of mock-ups and PDA staff.
11.0 DOCUMENTATION l
Upon completion of the demonstration, a copy of all d -aonstration documentation will be retained by the performance demonstration administrator. This documentation includes as a minimum: all ultrasonic data acquired on the specimens, identification of personnel, NDE procedures, equipment identification, specimen information used during the demonstration, and the results of the performance demonstration. The truth information on the mock-ups will be retained by the PDA however a copy of demonstration results may also be maintained by the vendor.
I l
1 1
12.0 SECURITY VY and the EPRI NDE Center as PDA's will be responsible for controlling the test specimens and maintaining the secrecy of the test specimen details. The PDA will also be responsible for maintaining the test keys during the blind demonstration and ensuring the test samples contain flaws which can be detected.
ONT YANKEE l BABCOCK AND WILCOX NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES RPV Feedwater No"" Nmonstration (Essential Variable, det? (ne ax nizing, AxialFlaws)
Instrument ofSystem ACCU @'.X Data Acquisition and imaging system see section 5.0 for more information Digitization Frequency 50 MHz Procedure Remote Underwater Ultrasonic Examination for Detection and Sizing of Axial Flaws in BWR Feedwater Nozzles.-ISI Procedure NO.116 REV.O Search Units for Detection Search Unitidentification Sigma 80 dualcrystal Center Frequency 2.25 MHz Bandwidth or Wave form duration 50 %
Mode of Propagation Longitudinal Nominal Inspection Angle 80 Probe Center Separation Not Operated in Time of Flight Mode Number of Elements 2
Search Units for Sizing Search UnitIdentification Sigma 52 dualcrystal Center Frequency 2.25 MHz 15.0 MHz Bandwidth or Wave form duration 80 %
Mode of Propagation Longitudinal Nominal Inspection Angle 52 Probe Center Separation 12*
Number of Elements 2
Element Size Detection and Sizing Gize of Elements
.40" x.20" dual Shape of Elements Rectangle Search Unit Cable Type See Section 5.2 for information on all cabling Maximum Length Maximum # of Connectors
VERMONT YANKEE l BABCOCK AND WILCOX NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES RPV Feedwater Nozzle Demonstration (Essential Variable, detection and sizing, Axial Flaws)
Detection and Sizing Technique Scan pattern and beam direction See Scan Plan Maximum scan speed 2' per second Pulse Repetition Rate See 8.6 of the Procedure Extentof Scanning See Scan Plan Methods of Calibration for detection and sizing See Procedure Inspection and Calibration data to be recorded Method of data recording First recorded onto the computers internal hard drive then copied to an optical disk Recording equipment Color printer, optical disk Method and Criteria for the Discrimination See section 9.0in the procedure ofIndications l Surface preparation requirements l none required for demonstration l
i
-