ML20094H301
| ML20094H301 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1995 |
| From: | Hunger G PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| GL-94-03, GL-94-3, NUDOCS 9511140111 | |
| Download: ML20094H301 (46) | |
Text
.- - - .n .
Ctztisa Support DOzrtrnInt
' GL 9443 t_
PECo Energy Cornpany Nuclear Group Headquarters 965 Chesterbrook Boulevard Wayne, PA 19007 5691 I
i November 3,1995 Docket No. 50-278 License No. DPR-56 !
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3 Supplemental Response to Generic Letter 94-03 Summary of Core Shroud Inspection Results
Dear Str:
In our letters from G. A. Hunger, Jr. (PECO Energy Company) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), dated August 24,1994 and June 16,1995, PECO Energy Company provided inspection plans for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 3 core ,
shroud. These plans were submitted in accordance with Reporting Requirements 1 and 2 of Generic Letter (GL) 9403, "Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking of Core Shrouds in Bolling Water Reactors." By letter dated October 25,1995, the USNRC indicated that the proposed scope of inspections was acceptable. The purpose of this letter is to provide the final summary l report, as requested by Reporting Requirement 3, of the GL l in summary, the overall results of the inspection revealed a moderate amount of Indications.
Less than 12% of the examined weld length was found to contain flaws. The evaluation of the results was performed following the approach outlined in the "BWR Core Shroud Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guldelines," GENE-523-113-8094, Revision 1, dated March 1995. This evaluation, based on the examination data, concludes that there is a substantial marg!n for each of thece welds under conservative, bounding conditions to allow for continued operation of PBAPS, Unit 3.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Very truly yours, Y0Y W G. A. Hunger, Jr., '
Director - Licensing Attachment, Affidavit ec: T. T. Martin, Administrator, Region I, USNRC W. L Schmidt, USNRC Senior Resident inspector, PBAPS 1m- (4' 9511140111 951103 PDR ADDCK 05000278 O PDR 's\
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :
ss.
COUNTY OF CHESTER :
D. B. Fetters, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is Vice President of PECO Energy Company; that he has read the enclosed supplemental response to Generic Letter 94-03, for Peach Bottom Facility Operating License DPR-56 and knows the contents thereof; and that the statements and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge,information and belief.
N A , , T, __
4 A J Vice President Subscribed and sworn to before me this & day of %pM 1995.
&anukl -
o.
o Notary Public Nc'rir Seal WayneH Sngti.NotayPubre Tredyttet ivc . Owter County MyC m e rum May13,1996 Member, PenI,'%i/waat,on ot Notanes l
- m. - . . - 1 a -esue - _a,..
I t i !
I I
j i
l l
ATTACHMENT
PECO ENERGY COMPANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNIT 3 REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL CORE SHROUD INSPECTIONS FINAL REPORT 3R10, October 1995 Docket No. 50-278 In September and October of 1995, during the tenth refueling outage of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 3, the core shroud structure was comprehensively inspected. These inspections were conducted to determine the condition of the shroud welds, relative to the potential for existence of intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking (IGSCC). The effort satisfied the commitments made for PBAPS, Unit 3, in the PECO Energy response to NRC Generic Letter 94-03, dated August 24,1994, and as discussed in our PBAPS, Unit 3 core shroud inspection plan, forwarced to the NRC in our letter dated June 16,1995. The inspections were conducted in accordance with the guidance provided by the Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and internals Project ;
(BWRVIP), as presented in the "BWR Core Shroud inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines",
GENE-523-113-0894, Rev.1, dated March 1995 (Reference 1).
The following describes the overall inspection e* fort and summarizes the results of this effort.
BACKGROUND:
The PBAPS, Unit 3 shroud was fabricated by Rotterdam Drydock Co. LTD., Rotterdam, Holland.
The product forms used for this fabrication included 2" thick ASTM A240, Type 304 stainless steel plate (for shroud cylinders), and ASTM A182, Grade F304 seamless, stainless steel rolled forgings (rings). The plate materials contain relatively high carbon contents (.059% to .062%), while the ring forgings contain lower carbon contents (.030% to .035%). The product forms where joined using the submerged arc welding process. The weld filter metal used was ASTM A371 Type Er308, with low carbon content. Welds H-1 through H-6 were welded from both surf aces, using a double bevel weld prep. Weld H-7 was welded from the inside surface of the shroud using a single bevel weld prep and a backing ring. The H-7 weld was made at the PBAPS site, and it attached the pref abricated shroud structure to the Reactor Pressure Vessel. This weld is a dissimilar metal weld (304 stainless to Alloy 600). The filler metal used for this weld was ASTM B 304, Type ERNiCr-3 (Alloy 82). The process used for this joint was the Shielded Metal Arc Welding process. Attachment .
1 includes a drawing which depicts the shroud configuration, weld locations, and materials of i fabrication.
The PBAPS, Unit 3 shroud has been in service since December 1974. During the first decade of hot operation, PBAPS, Unit 3 operated with relatively high primary water conductivity, Unit 3's arithmetic mean conductivity exceeded 1.0 S/cm during the first few years of operation.
Subsequently, conductivity values were steadily decreased to below current EPRI guidelines.1992 and 1993 values were actually less than 0.1 pSicm. The effects of such early water chemistry history on the susceptibility of the shroud welds to IGSCC are addressed in Reference 1.
The above described factors place the PBAPS, Unit 3 shroud into inspection Category C, as defined by Reference 1. This category has a high potential for some amount of shroud cracking, and, therefore, comprehensive inspec* ions of welds H-1 through H-7 are recommended.
Page 1 of 4
. - - _ . . -. . = . . . . . - . .. .. .-
f f PECO ENERGY COMPANY i PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNIT 3 REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL CORE SHROUD INSPECTIONS FINAL REPORT j 3R10, October 1995 i
Docket No. 50-278 i
INSPECTIONS:
The scope of the core shroud inspections included all of tue shroud circumferential welds (e.g. H-1 through H-7). The method used for inspection of these circumferential welds was Ultrasonic Testing (UT), performed from the outside surf ace of the shroud, using the General Electric Nuclear Energy (GENE) SMART 2000 data acquisition system and the GENE OD Tracker. This shroud inspection equipment was satisfactorily demonstrated at the EPRI NDE Center. The extent of the planned inspections included all portions of the circumferential welds which were accessible for the above described equipment. This scope and extent of planned inspections was identified in PECO Energy's second response to Generic Letter 94-03, dated June 16,1995.
The UT scanning was accomplished using three transducers. These transducers included 45' shear wave,60' longitudinal wave, and creeping wave units. The transducers scanned each Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) of the accessible lengths of each weld. The creeping wave trensducer was used to enable better near-surface detection capabilities.
The purpose of the shroud inspections was to assess the condition of the shroud circumferential welds so that the integrity of the shroud structure could be quantitatively demonstrated. Additionally, the inspection results will be used to establish a baseline of this condition for comparison to future inspection results. This baseline data and subsequent inspection results will also be used to develop schedules for future shroud inspections, evaluations, or repairs.
The extent of shroud weld inspections performed during 3R10 include:
84.5% of the length of Weld H-1, 584" 84.5% of the length of Weld H-2, 584" 89.5% of the length of Weld H-3, 582" 89.2% of the length of Weld H-4, 580" 90.8% of the length of Weld H-5, 591" 80.1% of the length of Weld H-6, 506" 89.6% of the length of Weld H-7. 566" Subtotal 3993" x 2 (HAZ per weld)
Total 7986" The extent of these weld inspections is graphically depicted on the attached weld maps for welds H-1 through H-7, (Attachment 2).
Page 2 of 4
PECO ENERGY COMPANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNIT 3 REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL CORE SHROUD INSPECTIONS FINAL REPORT 3R10, October 1995 j 1
Docket No. 50 278 RESULTS:
A sufficient length of each circumferential weld was inspected to quantifiably demonstrate the condition and, therefore, the structural integrity of these welds.
Some indications were found on welds H-1, H-3, H-4, and H-5. No indications were found on welds H-2, H-6, and H-7. The general location of the indications are depicted on the attached weld maps (Attachment 2). Shroud Weld Indication Data Sheets provide details of the as-found indications, and are included as Appendix 1 of Attachment 3.
l EVALUATIONS:
l All as-found indications were assumed to be through wall. Therefore, depth sizing of the indications was not utilized. Additionally, the weld lengths which were not inspected, due to inaccessibility, were also assumed to be through wallindications.
Inspection results were initially compared against a screening criteria, which had been developed prior to the inspections. Application of this very conservative screening criteria allowed for a rapid assessment of the acceptability of each weld, based on initial examination data. The screening was applied for both the Limit Load and Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Methodology. If the j results of this screening indicated that sufficient unflawed material existed, the weld was considered !'
acceptable. Ultimately, a detailed evaluation was performed for all welds, to determine the margin of safety for each weld (see Tables 2-3 through 2-6 in Attachment 3).
The detailed evaluations were performed by General Electric Nuclear Energy. These evaluations l used the guidance provided in the evaluation portion of Reference 1. The as-found indication I lengths were adjusted for upper bound crack growth, NDE uncertainty (0.4" plus 0.5* each end), l and proximity factors. The resultant indication lengths (as-evaluated indications) were then used to calculate the amount of safety margin remaining in the subject weld, using the limit load methodology. Additionally, for Welds H-3 and H-4, the Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) technique was used, due to the extent of neutron exposure received at these weld locations. The safety factors were calculated against the most limiting design basis loading conditions, derived from the General Electric Nuclear Energy Screening Criteria Document (Reference 2) and the PBAPS, Unit 3 UFSAR. The loadings also considered Power Rerate conditions and updated !
seismic loadings.
A more detailed discussion of the evaluations, including factors utilized for crack growth and NDE uncertainties, is contained in the GENE Evaluation Report GENE-523-A104-0995, (Attachment 3).
CONCLUSIONS:
A 10CFR50.59 determination and safety evaluation has been developed and reviewed by the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC). The conclusion of this evaluation indicates that no unreviewed safety questions exist as a result of the shroud inspection findings.
Page 3 of 4
PECO ENERGY COMPANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNIT 3 REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL CORE SHROUD INSPECTIONS FINAL REPORT 3R10, October 1995 Docket No. 50-278 The results of the inspections and evaluations conclude that the condition of the PBAPS, Unit 3 shroud, projected through the next two operating cycles, will support the required safety margins, specified in the ASME Code and reinforced by the BWRVIP recommendations. Additionally, the results of these UT inspections substantiate the use-as-is disposition of NCR No. 93-00743, Rev. -
1, developed during the PBAPS, Unit 3 Refueling Outage 9 (1993), as a result of shroud visual inspections findings, and the Safety Analysis developed in response to Generic Letter 94-03.
The extent of the shroud inspections provide a comprehensive baseline for comparison to future ,
inspections. PECO Energy will continue to follow the developments of the BWRVIP guidance documents, and will evaluate their applicability to the PBAPS Site. Reinspection of the shroud welds will be determined following resolution of the BWRVIP reinspection recommendations.
REFERENCES:
- 1. BWR Core Shroud inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines, GENE-523-113-0894, Rev.
1, March,1995.
- 2. Screening Criteria and Flaw Evaluation Methodology for the Peach Bottom Unit-3 Shroud, GENE-523-A076-0895, September,1995.
- 3. Evaluation of the Peach Bottom Unit-3 Core Shroud Indications (Refuel 10), GENE-523-A104-0995, Revision 1, October 1995.
- 4. BWR-VIP Core Shroud NDE Uncertainty & Procedure Standard, dated November 21, 1994.
- 5. NRC Safety Evaluation of Referenced Documents 1 and 4, dated June 16,1995.
Page 4 of 4
. . PECO ENERGY COMPANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNIT 3 REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL CORE SHROUD INSPECTIONS FINAL REPORT 3R10, October 1995 Docket No. 50-278 ATTACHMENT 1 REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL - SHROUD PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNIT 2 & 3 WELD NO. { DRYER / SEPARATOR SUPPORT RING N ITEM 7 A182-F 304 0.035 % C H1- /h V1 V2 g ITEM S A240 TP. 304 0.062 %, C (MAX)
H2 wj gT,0P GUIDE SUPPORT RING, bhM ITEM 6 A182-F 304 0.028 % C (UNIT 2) l 0.030 % C (UNIT 3)
ITEM 4 A240 TP. 304 0.060 % C (MAX)
V3 V4 H4 V5 ye l
% ITEM 14 A240 TP.304 0.060 % C (MAX)
H5 g gCORE PLATE SUPPORT RING
/
F/77///A ITEM 13 A182-F 304 0.030 % C (UNI" 2) 0.035 % C (UNIT 3)
% ITEM 12 A240 TP.304 0.059 % C (MAX)
H7 g' V7 V8 i SHROUD U R YLINDER pssssyj 9
'* REF. DWG. M-1-B-26
PECO ENERGY COMPANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNIT 3 REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL CORE SHROUD INSPECTIONS FINAL REPORT 3R10, October 1995 Docket No. 50-278 ATTACHMENT 2 l
l _ _
GE Nuclear Energy Poco Energy Peach Bottom 3R10 Shroud UTProject 1CK5C September 1995
.i Shroud Weld H1 F/MFA Areas Not Examined Azirnuths Areas with Indications A6 4 2 l
0*
< Lug Set Ref. 1 sk pun \n\\\\UUUlllliftttji,,,
- t , 4
\
> y#,x '
- u9,,,I,!,,9, x
n r a :
v e !
. F T L4 -a i R5 E.
Overhead View of Shroud %h5g fr h (-5 y' xa- \ . s %
] {. as r g ~g O e ')
c -
p ,, g ,
s +lf,,
//
.& %' -/////////s7 /
'3 l' ,
\\
j
\# '
- oc /i, la
" onw/aw H'"
5' Y l "I'!!lIIIslutn nn \ttn\nU\* p\&O
.081
[ . 2B
'E v2 4 ,/ [r- r} -'y Page_3_of_/_Z-r
GE NuclearEnergy Peco Energy .
Peach Bottom 3R10 Shroud UT Project 1CK5C September 1995 Shroud Weld H2 F/###J Areas Not Examined 48 f
A6 0* <
< Lug Set Ref.
uk III 9 \n\ \\\\\ IIIIllIlif Ilij17,,
\\\f /#### 'I/ G
@ g9 il s//sms 19 <
y /,
h '
G
+ / 4 -
50 ,
t e s 4
+9_ - / m n- g f Overhead View of Shroud
[ E g
V' 3 h \ dd b At\ ~ f5 %
- Q [/' 1/E
- ,W /
s
%,,( y s Ge #
// /,, // , / \\\\
'!'IlflIIIIIIl\\\ \\\\\ 00 0
.08!
22 92 ,j
- b. I Page 3 of /0
!/
1 GE Nuclear Energy
-~ ~
Peco Energy Peach Bottom 3R10 Shroud UTProject 1CK5C September 1995 Shroud Weld H3 Areas Not Examined M Azimuths Areas with Indications
'S 2 A6 0*
< Lug Set Ref.
36 a wey',1,s gh,gu{uujtilIlliffilifuj,,,,9i, 96R x e
N y / k,
- es . ,
Q ,8 Q .g
%s
=
$ i
-r 5- 2 E ~ N/4 _. 4
~5 .
Overhead View of Shroud $I i 8 8
E 35- '(e[a iLA lu %
E b, ' <e I
/ S'
'Q 3 J ,
eO , \g 4, /J gD
/
') Nib \\ f' &
oc
'N N (I####Y?s"'
i/,,"/""/",l,oa,,ooonn\ah"\"yY #
en
.0S!
22 92 7h F.E'.':.': F. u :---- T.g .g Page 5 of f 2_
7
1 GE Nuclear Energy Poco Energy Peach Bottom 3R10 Shroud UTProject 1CK5C September 1995 Shroud Weld H4 1
F/JF/A Areas Not Examined Azimuths Areas with Indications 1
- B e
A6 l 0* l
< Lug Set Ref. !
sk
\\\\\\\\\\\\\IIIIIlIIIll 1ii,,,,
ye - - e kex :
9 u~
b i l. 9 L v s,.
%,;,,ro,,,
s,71 /
c ,
(
$ hU h e &s 4
,- h
l, Overhead View of Shroud @l g kr q., .g,
\ /
k
'yhe ee u o..+. w .
. et -
9:- -
7e ddt/l - ; 73 Page 5 of /2_
GE Nuclear Energy Peco Energy Peach Bottom 3R10 Shroud UTProject 1CKSC September 1995 i Shroud Weld H5 Areas Not Examined Azimuths Areas with Indications A6
'? 2 0*
< Lug Set Ref.
um \\i 9p\un\
UHjlIIIl up,y,,"U
\\\ f' MMH / / e
, #N # 3,9,1,Il.,9 I ..
& ,/- ' %, %
/ %i '
O - -
)'
S'- '
- i 4 , /- i 5 9 i S E~ 'n
?
,=
g; E- '1 g Overhead View of Shroud
@Ta
-l
) 2
=
- 8 4
l l
\
~
$- c-1 g, -5
- L
- E L* d j aNr ;
, g '% 0';f
$k 5 m
\'%~.a.,.'/""/",/Unin ge.g#
s eg
.,~.
g 92 y'2 y .~
7
.- . . ~ . . . . . - - . - -. -- .
GE Nuclear Energy Poco Energy .
Peach Bottom 3R10 Shroud UTProject 1CK5C September 1995 Shroud Weld H6 VA##A Areas Not Examined I
5 4s y A6 0*
- Lug Set Ref.
uu ye ,
pt\\\\\\\\\lllIltIIIl111,,,,'t W,I,,R
, #x >. -
W,oNf s % ,,,,k,
, , l N
e S ,
. s !
s e ~
4;- s S _
$ i n
y r a
- = i d+5 m R5
~ =- l Overhead View of Shroud j 5g g -
w -
\ .. =
T $ _
0- -5 4
\
s %
v g, \ .
'a 4
- ) fk
+ %;
Oc
/
s .,,lQ
/.
Yk,,,/ /,,,/ '*swo r.9,;/yy / l
\@
//\b l 'II 0 IIIYt:ll\\\\\\\\\\\\
.081 '
-- 92 y2 i.. 7-d.// [..[i [i - g3 Page.jofd
~"['.
l
_ GE Nuclear Energy Poco Energy Peach Bottom 3R10 Shroua UTProject1CKSC September 1995 Shroud Weld H7 F#/#4 ' Areas Not Examined 48 g Ab 0*
< Lug Set Ref.
$h gogi{ltll{ Ill lill/!!IIf fif f,,
& U '
/ c
,,g- beio
/Wf'"b es , .-
/ $ o g .
~
+
/ 6
$ / \ $ ,
R
>4 2' 1
-s-
. F J L4E 4
{] ~
lli Overhead View of Shroud k ~g fr-- -
,~{ {; -5 >
^
\ -
r -
v -
, g '
U"
lII!IIIsngst\ \tttt\do O es
/ .08I 22 95 pg d:! odd Page 3 of M OCT07?5 r
i
i s
PECO ENERGY COMPANY ,
PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNIT 3 REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL CORE SHROUD INSPECTIONS FINAL REPORT 3R10, October 1995 Docket No. 50-278 ATTACHMENT 3 I
i l
1 l
i
i 1
l
, GENE-523-A104-0995 Revision 1 DRF 137-0010-8
)
t i
Evaluation of the Peach Bottom Unit-3 Core Shroud Indications (Refuel Outage 10)
October 1995 i Prepared by: *-
f h -
L Marcos L. Herrera, Principal Engineer Engineering & Licensing Consulting Services !
e Karina Flynshtein, Engineer Engineering & Licensing Consulting Services j
(
C
( GE Nuclear Energy San Jose, CA
(
- GE Nucteur Energy GENE-333vit04-0895 l Revhion ! l l
l l
IMPORTANTNOTICE REGARDING CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT Please Read Carefully. l l
1 The only undertakings of the General Electric Company (GE) respecting information in this document are containedin the contract between PECO Energy Company and GE, and nothing containedin this document shall be construedas changing the contract. The use of this information by anyone other than PECO, orfor anypurpose other than thatfor which it is ;
intended under such contract is not authori:ed; and with respect to any unauthori:ed use, GE i makes no representation or warrany, and assumes no liability as to the completeness, accuracy,
{
ur usefulness of the information contained in this document, or that its use may not infringe l privately owned rights.
I I
i I
l l
J
i GENuclext Energy GENE 523-A1N-0895
~~
Reshion 1 o
Table of Contents
?
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
- 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Flaw Disposition Approach 1 1.2 References 8
- 2. EVALUATION OF UT RESULTS 9 2.1 References 16
- 3.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS 17 s
APPENDIX A UT EXAMINATION RECORDS a
4
- - _ - . . . - . - . . ~ _ - . ~ - - . - . - - . - _ . . ~ . - . . _ . - . - - . _ ,
, , GE Nuclear Energy GENE-583-A1N-0895
, Renion 1. u EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
UT inspection of the H1 through H7 core shroud welds was performed during refuel outage 10 at Peach Bottom Unit-3. Indications were observed in the inspected areas of welds H1, H3, H4, and H5. Indications were not observed at welds H2, H6, and H7. i This report presents the results of the application of the screening criteria and flaw f evaluation calculations for the observed UT detected indications. Structural margm is [
assured if the observed indications meet the screening criteria or if the calculated safety factors, using the flaw evaluation method, exceed the required safety factors. . Screening criteria and flaw evaluation methodology were prepared in a previous analysis. l
> i The flaw evaluation needs to be performed if the flawed condition exceeds the screening l
, criteria. Even if the screening criteria is met, based on assuming that all UT detected flaws are through-wall, it is appropriate to reevaluate the indications using the flaw evaluation methodology to demonstrate the actual structural margin. However, reconciliation using the flaw evaluation methodology is not mandatory to determine the actual structural margin or to justify continued operation.
Both the screening criteria and flaw evaluation methodology use linear elastic fracture l 3 mechanics (LEFM) and limit load concepts to determine the acceptability of the flaws.
The limiting flaw length, based on either LEFM or limit load, was used for the allowable j flaw size at the H3 and H4 welds. i This evaluation used a NDE uncertainty of 0.4 inches plus half a degree which was added to each flaw end. The results of this evaluation indicate that the screening criteria is ;
satisfied at all weld locations. In addition, the flaw evaluation indicates safety factors well in excess of the required safety factors. Thus, structuralintegrity over the next two year operating cycle is demonstrated.
3 0
3 i
6
- GENuclear Energy GENE-323-A104-0893 Revision i
- 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the evaluation of the 1995 outage (Outage 10) ultrasonic test inspedon (UT) results for the Peach Bottom Unit-3 core shroud. Reference 1-1 presented the core shroud screening criteria ar.d flaw evaluation methodology for Peach Bottom Unit-3. The UT detected indications (See report sheets in Appendix A) were evaluated per the methodology and procedures presented in Reference 1-1.
The evaluation presented in this report (Section 1.1.1) uses the initial screening criteria methodology for circumferential welds along with LOCA and updated loads for seismic events. In addition, the flaw evaluation calculation (Section 1.1.2)is presented which can be used if the screening criteria is exceeded or if a closer estimate of the safety margin is desired. Section 1.1 describes the approach to disposition the indications using the two methods.
1.1 Flaw Disposition Approach The approach in dispositioning the flaws in the Peach Bottom Unit 3 core shroud is outlined in this section. This approach is consistent with the approach taken to disposition indications at several other BWR plants since core shroud cracking has been observed and is consistent with the BWR VIP methods in Reference 1-2.
Figure 1-2 shows a flow chart summarizing the process of shroud cracking disposition.
The initial evaluation, based on the conservative screening criteria, is first performed. This conservative evaluation can be used to quickly disposition the indications based on many simplifying assumptions which clearly illustrate the conservative nature of this screening criteria. Two of these significant assumptions, which have been verified as such since 1993, are i) all indications are through-wall even though all detected indications were found to be part through-wall, and ii) all indications after application of the proximity mies are combined into one single indication which is oriented along the axis of minimum moment ofinertia.
A flaw evaluation may be performed if the as-found indications exceed the screening criteria. This flaw evaluation can take into account the actual location and flaw characterization from the UT inspection. Even if the indication meets the screening
(
l
(
l
- GENuclear Energy GENE-523-A104-0395 l Rchion l l l
criteria, it is considered prudent to determine the actual stmetural safety factor for the j flawed condition. This information can also provide additional guidance for future planning and management of core shroud cracking.
l l The UT detected flaw lengths used in the screening criteria and flaw evaluation ,
! l calculations included an uncenainty factor on length sizing. This uncenainty factor !
l includes consideration for NDE technique uncenainty and NDE delivery system uncertainty. NDE length uncertainty values of 0.4 inches for NDE method plus half a j degree for the delivery system (Reference 1-3) were added to each flaw end in this 1 l
evaluation. This is a very conservative approach, considering the basis and the latest uncertainty data available from the BWR-VIP (Reference 1-4). The delivery system ;
uncertainty value of half a degree applies only to longer indications which require i transversing of the tracker delivery device to locate each end of the indication. The uncertainty value for short flaws (not requiring tracker movement) is actually very small.
I The larger uncertainty value was applied to all identified indications, regardless of identified length.
The latest BWR-VIP data for NDE technique uncenainties, which were derived from demonstrations at the EPRI NDE Center, reflect substantially lower values for the techniques utilized during the Peach Bottom Unit 3 examinations. Demonstrations #5 and
- 16 (Reference 1-4) indicate a NDE technique uncertainty value of zero inches.
Nevertheless, the larger NDE uncenainty value was applied to maintain the maximum level of conservatism and to utilize data officially submitted to the NRC.
There are areas which could not be inspected during the UT inspection due to obstmetion i by other components. In the calculations presented in this report, all uninspected areas were assumed to contain through-wall flaws along the entire length of the uninspected zone. The estimated crack growth and uncertainty were added to the assumed through-wall flaws in the uninspected zones. This is hkely a conservative assumption based on the UT results for all welds. All indications were found to be pan-through-wall.
1.1.1 Screening Criteria i
l The guiding parameter used for the selection of the inQations for funher evaluation is the allowable through-wall flaw size, which already includes the structural safety factors. If all of the UT detected indications are assumed to be through-wall, then the longest flaws, or 2
. GENuclear Energy GENE-523-A10M895 Reshion I combination of flaws, would have the limiting margin against the allowable through-wall flaw size. In reality, none of the indications are through-wall, and therefore, the criteria and methods presented for this method are conservative. The through-wall characterization of the indications can be incorporated in the flaw evaluation methodology which is described in Section 1.1.2.
The result of this procedure will be the determination of the effective (limit load) and equivalent (LEFM) flaw lengths which will be used to compare against the allowable flaw sizes and selection ofindications for more detailed evaluation if necessary. The determination of effective flaw lengths is based on ASME Code,Section XI, Subarticle IWA-3300 (1986 Edition) proximity criteria. These criteria provide the basis for the combination of neighboring indications depending on various geometric dimensions. The effective flaw lengths are summed into one single indication. This single indication is compared with the screening criteria allowable flaw size. Crack growth over a subsequent two year operating and power rerate cycle is factored into the criteria.
The selection ofindications for further investigation can be performed by evaluating the resulting effective flaw lengths. Indications with effective flaw lengths greater than the allowable flaw sizes would require more detailed analysis such as the flaw evaluation method. The screening criteria procedure described here is conservative since all of the indications are assumed to be through-wall and are being compared against the allowable through-wall flaw size.
A summary of conservatisms used in the screening criteria analysis is presented in Table 1-1.
ei
. _ _ . _ _ __ . _ _ . _ - . _ _ . . . ___. _ m._..__ __ . . . . . . _ . . . _ . _.._._ ,.__.___.
GENuclect Energy GE.VE-583 AIM-0895
--- Revision 1 a
Table 1-1 Conservatisms Included In Screening Evaluation
- 1. All surface indications were assumed to be through-wall for this analysis.
- 2. Allindications are assumed to be grouped together for the limit load calculation and no credit is taken for the spacing between indications.
- 3. ASME Code primary pressure boundary safety margins were applied even though the shroud is not a primary pressure boundary.
- 4. ASME Code,Section XI proximity rules were applied.
- 5. An additional proximity rule which accounts for fracture mechanics interaction between adjacent flaws was used.
I
, 6. Both LEFM and limit load analysis were applied, even though LEFM underestimates allowable flaw size for austenitic materials and is not required per ASME Code Section XI procedures.
- 7. Fracture toughness measured for similar materials having a higher fluence was used.
s
- 8. The bounding crack growth estimated for the subsequent fuel cycles was included in flaw lengths t: sed for evaluation. -
- 9. A bounding NDE uncertainty factor was included in the flaw lengths used for evaluation.
a D
n he M
e 4
a 4 e
< ' GENuclear Energy GENE-D3-A106-0895 i
. Reskion 1 l I
L 1.1.2 Flaw Evaluation The flaw evaluation method can take into account the indication characterization !
information provided by the UT inspection. Specifically, the azimuthal location and depth l of the indications can be taken into account when determining the structural safety factor. !
Crack growth over an operating cycle of two years and power rerate is factored into these ;
calculations. For purposes of this evaluation, all detected flaws and uninspected areas l, l- were assumed to be through-wall flaws. !
l The flaw evaluation methodology (Reference 1-2) can include the assumption of through-
]
wall or part through-wall indications. Both limit load and LEFM are considered in this :
evaluation. For limit load, analysis can be performed for a random distribution of l indications varying in length and depth. In addition, uncracked ligament can also be I modeled. The limit load allowable flaw length is defined for the given applied loads. The l
net-section stress equals the flow stress of the material at the flawed section (with applicable safety factor).
The LEFM evaluation considers the mteraction of neighboring indications to establish an l l
' i equivalent flaw length. The LEFM allowable flaw length is defined when the applied l
L stress intensity factor equals that of the material fracture toughness. l 1
i l
l l
e 1
5 s
GE Nuclear Energy GENE-523v8104-0395 Rethion 1 Shroud Head Support Ring H1 '
H2~ ; - TOPGuide Support Ring NH3 i
1
-~
'H4 I
I H5
/ _
Core Plate Support Ring
. 1 H6 Shroud Support Plate _
/
H8 _
l Figure 1-1 Schematic of Core Shroud Welds 3
)
6
GENuclear Energy GENE-523-A104-0895 Raision i UT Results Perform Screening Criteria i
i" 1r Is screening Yes Continued l Criteria Met?
- Operation Justified '
l J
l
, No i s ;
, 1 3
Perform Flaw Evaluation )i 1
I if YC8 Safety Factors Met?
<r No Perform Flaw Evaluation to Demonstrate Structural Margin Repair Required i -
Figure 1-2 Flaw Disposition Procedure !
7 4
=
.w n,, -,
. . GE Nuclear Energy GENE-523-A1040395
. Revision 1 1.2 References 1-1 Screenina Criteria and Flaw Evaluation Methodology for the Peach Bottom Unit-3 Shroud Indications, GENE 523-A076-0895, DRF 137-0010-8, August 1995, 1-2 BWR Core Shroud Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines, GENE-113-0894, DRF 137-0010-07, Rev.1, March 1995, Prepared for the BWR Vessel and Internals Project Assessment Subcommittee.
1-3 BWR-VIP Core Shroud NDE Uncertainty & Procedure Standard, November 1994.
1-4 Reactor Pressure Vessel and Internals Examination Guidelines, BWR VIP (Draft) l Proprietary Report, September 1995.
9 8
(
~
- GENuclear Energy GENE 523-A104-0895 j
. Rerbion 1 l l
, 1
- 2. EVALUATION OF UT RESULTS i This section provides the results of the application of the screening criteria and flaw l evaluation methodology for the Peach Bottom Unit-3 core shroud circumferential welds. l
- The evaluation was performed using a conservative approach. All uninspected areas were treated as through-wall flaws. Crack growth for one cycle and NDE technique and delivery system uncertainty were added to the end of each indication. In addition, all indications were treated as being through-wall. UT inspection results indicate that all indications are part through-wall.
Appendix A contains the UT examination reports for welds H1 through H7. Indications were not detected at welds H2, H6, and H7. Thus, welds H2, H6, and H7 were assumed s to have through-wall indications only in the uninspected regions.
All indication lengths, including the uninspected area lengths, were increased by the assumed length uncertainty (0.4 inches plus a half a degree on length at each flaw end) plus two times the annual rate of crack growth for one 24 month operating cycle at each flaw end. l l
The stresses used for the flaw evaluation are shown in Table 2-1 (from Reference 1-1).
Safety factors were calculated using the Distributed Ligament Length (DLL) computer
[
, program (Reference 2-1). The procedure for evaluating the flaws for the screening criteria was:
I
- 1) Add crack growth for one cycle and length uncertainty to each flaw end for l all flaws and uninspected area lengths from the UT examination reports i (Appendix A). j
- 2) Determine if flaws need to be combined based on proximity rules. l
- 3) Sum all effective lengths. '
- 4) Compare length sum to allowable effective length for limit load.
l
- 5) Determine equivalent length for any pair ofindications and compare to LEFM criteria.
D l
Some of the observed indications at welds H1, H3, H4, and H5 were combined for this l evaluation due to the added crack growth and NDE uncertainty and due to the proximity criteria. Table 2-2 shows which indications were combined.
9 w
. . GENuclear Energy GENE-523-A1N-0395
... Revhian i 3
For the flaw evaluation calculations, the first two steps are identical to those for the screening criteria. These flaw lengths (after proximity criteria application) are input into the DLL computer program which accounts for the azimuthal location of the indications (assumed to be through-wall).
o The calculated safety factors for both normal / upset and emergency / faulted conditions are shown in Table 2-3. It can be seen from Table 2-3 that there is a large safety margin between the calculated and the required safety factors. Table 2-4 presents the calculated total flaw lengths for the screening criteria.
Weld H4 was found to contain an indication which is greater than 50% of the wall
, thickness. Through-wall propagation of this indication cannot be ruled out. For an assumed fully circumferential flaw, Reference 2-2 indicates that the flow would occur
- through a gap ofless than 0.002 inches. The estimated flow through such a gap would typically be about 0.05% of total core flow (based on a 0.002 inch gap around the shroud entire circumference and a typical pressure of eight pounds per square inch). Flow of this magnitude will have no impact on plant operation and will not be detectable. l 1
> The observed indication at Peach Bottom Unit 3 at weld H4 which was found to be greater than 50% of the wall thickness is projected to grow to a length of 32 inches after one cycle of operation. This indication would then be 5% of the shroud entire circumference. Peach Bottom Unit 3 operates at a maximum pressure of 14.12I;si (Reference 2-3) during normal operation. Therefore, the expected leakage from a through-wall flaw of this length would be less than 0.005% of the total core flow (this takes into account the higher operating pressure than the Reference 2-2 assumption).
Therefore, the leakage through this indication would not be significant.
l b
l O
p.
5 10 m
1
- GE Nuclear Energy GENE-323-A!04-0893 Reshion 1 Table 2-1. Primary Membrane and Bending Stresses at the Shroud Welds I
W eld Normal / Upset Emergency / Faulted Designation P., (ksi) P6 (ksi) P, (ksi) P6 (ksi)
H1 0.381 0.117 0.837 0.217 H2 0.381 0.159 0.837 0.293 H3 0.359 0.186 0.787 0.340 H4 0.359 0.355 0.787 0.611 H5 0.359 0.535 0.787 0.944 H6 0.624 0.570 1.053 1.005 H7 0.624 0.728 1.053 1.329 P
Table 2-2. Combined Indications H1 Indication #1 and Uninspected area from 340 to 11.20 Indications #5. #6, and #7 H3 Indications #3 and #4 Indication #5 and Uninspected area from 169.75' to 189.20 Indications #8 and #9 Indication #10 and Uninspected area from 352.97 to 11.20' and Indication #1 H4 Indications #2, #3, #4, and #5 Indications #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, and #13
> Indications #19 and #.20 Indications #21 and #22 Indications #23 and #24 Indications #27, #28, #29, #30, #31, and #32 Indications #34, #35, and #36 Indication #1 and Uninspected area from 349.82 to 9.40 H5 Indications #2 and #3 Uninspected area from 351.20' to 9.20 and Indications #4. #5. #6. #7. #8. and #9 e
e 11
k
. s GE Nuclear Energy GENE-523-A104-0895
.. Reshion i 1
Table 2-3. Flaw Evaluation Calculated Safety Factors (Required SF: 2.77 for Normal and Upset,1,39 for Emergency and Faulted)
)
Limit Load LEFM ]
Weld Normal / Upset Emergency / Faulted Designation SF SF SF HI 88.0 41.9 ---
o H2 89.1 42.9 ---
H3 50.5 24.7 4.2 (faulted)") ;
, H4 33.0 17.0 11.6 (upset)(2)
H5 50.3 26.1 ---
H6 36.5 21.3 ---
s i H7 39.5 22.6 --- ;
i U)
Indication #5, Uninspected area from 169.75 to 189.2 , and Indication #6 (2)
Indications #34, #35, #36, Uninspected area from 349.82 to 9.40 , and Indication #1 e Table 2-4. Calculated Flaw Lengths vs. Screening Criteria ,
Calculated Screening Criteria
~
Flaw Length Allowable Flaw Length W eld (in) (in)
Designation Limit Load LEFM Limit Load LEFM H1 177 ---
501 ---
H2 116 --- 498 -
H3 304 144 469 3 /6 H4 362 79 460 310 l H5 131 ---
450 ---
l H6 134 ---
422 ---
= , H7 74 ---
414 ---
+
- e C
- 12
GE Nuclear Energy GENE-323-A101-0393 Reshinn 1 2.1 Consideration of Additional Crack Growth To demonstrate the margin available in the core shroud welds, additional calculations were performed including an additional cycle of crack growth (total of two cycles beyond outage 10 UT results). Thus, calculations were performed by adding [2(2Aa) + U), where Aa is crack growth at each flaw end for one cycle, and U is the length uncenainty. Note 1
that this calculation is for the intent of demonstrating the margin available in the core l shroud welds. This calculation also does not account for any new crack initiation. I Tables 2-5 and 2-6 provide the results for these calculations. These results also indicate that the screening criteria and minimum required flaw evaluation safety factors are met l
with the additional operating cycle of crack growth. Some of the observed indications at welds H1, H3, H4, and H5 were combined for this evaluation due to the added crack growth and NDE uncertainty and due to the proximity criteria. Table 2-7 shows which indications were combined. ,
l
(
13
, , GENuclear Energy GENE-523-A104-0H3
... Re& ion i Table 2-5. Flaw Evaluation Calculated Safety Factors With Crack Growth Assuming Two Operating Cycles 8
(Required SF: 2.77 for Normal and Upset,1.39 for Emergency and Faulted) ,
Limit Load LEFM W eld Normal / Upset Emergency / Faulted Designation SF SF SF HI 86.0 40.9 ---
H2 88.2 42.5 ---
. H3 48.4 23.7 4.1 (faulted)") j H4 28.4 14.7 11.2 (upset)(2)
H5 49.2 25.6 ---
H6 36.I 21.1 ---
H7 39.1 22.4 ---
l l
(1) Indication #5, Uninspected area from 169.75* to 189.20 , and Indication #6 l (2) Indications #34, #35, #36, Uninspected area from 349.82* to 9.40 , and Indication #1
~
l Table 2-6. Calculated Flaw Lengths vs. Screening Criteria !
With Crack Growth Assuming Two Operating Cycles Calculated Screening Criteria
. Flaw Length Allowable Flaw Length Weld (in) (in) !
Designation Limit Load LEFM LEFM Limit Load l H1 186 ---
501 ---
H2 120 --- 498 ---
H3 315 147 469 376 l
H4 394 82 460 310 H5 137 ---
450 ---
H6 137 ---
422 ---
H7 78 ---
414 ---
l O
h 14 m
- - - . . - . . _ - - .. -- . . . . . . -. -.. - . - - = . - . --
1 GE Nuclear Energy GENE-523 A104-0395 Revision 1 i Table 2-7. Combined Indications for Two Operating Cycles i
H1 Indication #1 and Uninspected area from 340.54 to 11.20 Indications #5, #6, and #7 H3 Indications #3 and #4
- Indication #5 and Uninspected area from 169.75 to 189.20 l Indications #8 and #9 Indication #10 and Uninspected area from 352.97 to 11.20 and Indication #1 H4 Indications #2, #3, #4, and #5 Indications #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, and #13 Indications #19 and #20 Indications #21 and #22 Indications #23 and #24 Indications #27, #28, #29, #30, #31, and #32 Indications #34, #35, and #36 Indication #1 and Uninspected area from 349.82 to 9.40' HS Indications #2 and #3 Indications #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and Uninspected area from 351.20' to 9.20*
i i
P 15
3-
- GE Nuclect Energy GENE.523.A104-0895 Reshion 1 3
2.2 References 2-1. BWR Core Shroud Distributed Ligament Length Computer Program, GE-NE-523-113-0894, Supplement 1, September 1994.
2-2. BWR Shroud Cracking Generic Safety Assessment, GE-NE-523-A107P-0794, Revision 1, Class III, August 1994.
2-3 Power Rerate Safety Analysis Report for Peach Bottom 2/3, NEDC-32230P, May 1993.
b P
3 D
i
?
l
- I D
h
[
- 16
GENuclear Energy GENE-323vt1N-N93
, Revision 1
- 3.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS !
This report presents the screening criteria and flaw evaluation results for the core shroud circumferential welds. The screening criteria was calculated using the up-to-date seismic ;
s and LOCA loads. UT inspection of the core shroud welds was performed during the 1995 fall outage (Outage 10).
The evaluation assumes all UT detected indications are through-wall even though UT confirmed that they are only part through-wall. By meeting the screening criteria and exceeding the required safety factors using the flaw evaluation methodology, the ASME
{
Code Section XI safety margins are demonstrated to be satisfied. !
Both the screening criteria and flaw evaluation methods use linear elastic fracture s mechanics (LEFM) and limit load concepts to determine acceptable through-wall indication lengths. The limiting flaw length based on either LEFM or limit load was used i I
for the screening criteria. For the Peach Bottom Unit 3 core shroud, only welds H3 and !
H4 were evaluated using LEFM.
I The screening criteria and flaw evaluation also use the ASME Code Section XI criteria for combining flaws based on the proximity ofindications. In addition, a second method for I including the interaction between neighboring indication tips was considered for the LEFM allowable flaw size calculation. !
Results of the evaluation indicate that the screening criteria is satisfied at all weld locations. In addition, the flaw evaluation indicates safety factors well in excess of the
{
required safety factors. Thus, structuralintegrity over the next two year operating cycle is demonstrated.
l e
B '
W 17
=
GE Nuclear Deergy GENE 523.A104-0395 Reshion 1 APPENDIX A UT Inspection Reports for Welds H1 through H7 1
I
._. . _ . _ . m_.. - ~_ . .. . _.,_.-_ - . ~_- _. _ _ _m . . _
. ' GE Nuclear Energy 1
Poco Energy l Peach Bottom 3R10 Shroud UTProject 1CK5C September 1995 ^
l 3
1 1
Shroud Weld H1 Indication Data I
TotalScan Length (Deg.) 304.10 TotalFlaw Length (Deg.) 14.56 TotalScan Length (In.) 583.83 l
TotalFlaw Length (In.) 27.95 ;
~
Percentage of Weld Length Examined 84.5 Thickness (In.) 2.00 Percentage of Examined Weld Length Flawed 4.8 Circumference (In.) 691.15 '
Percentage of Total Weld Length Flawed 4.0 inches perDegree 1.92 Indication Start End Length Length Max. Depth Max. Depth % of Initiating Length Depth Number Azimuth Azimuth Degrees Inches Inches Pos. (Deg.) Thruwell Surface Transducer Transducer 1 13.44' 16.24 2.80 5.38 0.40 15.38 20.0 ID/Near 45' Shear 60*Long.
2 21.84 23.52 1.68 3.23 0.70 23.22 35.0 ID/Near 45' Shear 60'Long.
3 38.20 39.88 '1.68 3.23 0.36 39.02 18.0 ID/Near 45' Shear 60'Long.
4 107.60 109.84 2.24 4.30 0.42 108.98 21.0 ID/Near 45' Shear 60'Long.
5 259.28 262.08 2.80 5.38 0.42 259.54 21.0 ID/Near 45' Shear 60*Long.
6 264.76 265.88 1.12 2.15 0.57 264.46 28.5 ID/Near 45' Shear 60'Long. ;
- T 268.68 270.92 2.24 4.30 0.73 268.94 36.5 ID/Near 45' Shear 60'Long, q i
- The deepest through.wallindication sized. l l
Areas Not Examined by All3 Transducers 1 0* to 11.2*,167.46' to 192.70* & 340.54' to 0* (Total of 55.90* Not Examined)
Limitations: Core Spray Downcomers and Lifting Lugs r--
j i
. . . . . . .....v.t / C i 0 7 t_o page 2. of fz. l Revision 0
_ - . .. .. . . - - - . .. . . - .__~ -.. - _ = _ _ .
s O M
GE Nuclear Ettergy Poco Energy Peach Bottors 3R10 Shmud UTProject 1CK5C September 1995 1
i Shroud Weld H2 Indication Data ;
Total Sean Length (Deg.) 304.10 TotalFlaw Length (Deg.) 0.00 TotalScan Length (In.) 583.83 TotalFlaw Length (In.) 0.00 Percentage of Weld Length Examined 84.5 Thickness (In.) 2.00 Percentage of Examined Weld Length Flawed 0.0 Circumference (In.) 691.15 \
Percentage of TotalWeldLength Flawed 0.0 laches per Degree 1.92 l Indication Start End Length Length Max. Depth Max. Depth % of Ir?. sting Ler:gth Depth {
Number Azimuth Azimuth Degrees Inches Inches Pos. (Deg.) Thruwall Surface Transducer Transducer j No RelevantIndications Recorded 1
Areas Not Examined by All3 Transducers 0* to 11.4*,167.66* to 192.90* & 340.74* to 0* (Total of 55.90* Not Examined) '
Limitations: Core Spray Downcomers and Lifting Lugs
/
Page 2.- cf /0 Revision 0
n GENuclearEnergy l
Poco Energy l
Peach Bottom 3R10 Shroud UTProject 1CK5C September 1995 '
Shroud Weld H3 Indication Data J
l TotalScan Length (Deg.) 322.32 TotalFlaw Length (Deg.) 112.54 TotalScan Length (In.) 582.57 TotalFlaw Length (In.) 203.41 Percentage of Weld Length Examined 89.5 Thickness (In.) 2.00 Percentage of Examined Weld Length Flawed 34.9 Circumference (In.) 650.67 Percentage of Total Weld Length Flawed 31.3 inches per Degree 1.81 Indication Start End Length Length Max. Depth Max. Depth % of Initiating Length Depth Number Azimuth Azimuth Degrees Inches Inches Pos. (Deg.) Thruwall Surface Transducer Transducer 1 11.20 15.60 4.40 7.95 0.45 10.55 22.5 ID/Near 45' Shear 60* Long.
2 54.20 62.45 8.25 14.91 0.72 57.75 36.0 ID/Near 45' Shear 60'Long.
3 104.70 106.35 1.65 2.98 0.43 106.05 21.5 ID/Near 45' Shear 60'Long.
4 106.90 110.20 3.30 5.96 0.40 108.25 20.0 ID/Near 45' Shear 60'Long.
'5 144.05 169.45 25.40 45.91 0.85 163.10 42.5 ID/Near 45' Shear 60* Long. .
6 203.21 232.65 29.44 53.21 0.78 224.50 39.0 ID/Near 45' Shear 60* Long.
7 240.92 250.32 9.40 16.99 0.64 244.54 32.0 ID/Near 45' Shear 60'Long.
8 298.68 309.33 10.65 19.25 0.60 302.30 30.0 ID/Near 45' Shear 60'Long.
'9 310.bu 325.32 14.44 26.10 0.85 323.90 42.5 ID/Near 45' Shear 60* Lorg.
"10 348.72 354.33 5.61 10.14 0.65 350.10 32.5 ID/Near 45' Shear 60'Long.
i
- The deepest through-wallindication sized.
" Length sizing ofIndication #10 is restricted by the limitation of the core spray downcomer Areas Not Examined by All 3 Transducers O' to 11.2',169.75' to 189.2* & 352.97* to O'(Total of 37.68* Not Examined) i Limitations: Core Spray Downcomers and Lifting Lugs l EU5EE5[53It#d r OCT 07'95 l I
W Page I- of IL Revision 1
- .. ___ . . .. - - . . . =-
. e
^
GE NuclearEnergy Peco Energy Peach Bottom 3R10 Shroud UTProject 1CK5C September 1995 Shroud Weld H4 Indication Data TotalScan Length (Deg.) 321.04 TotalFInw Length (Deg.) 103.30 TotalScan Length (In.) 580.25 TotalFlaw Length (In.) 186.11 Percentage of Weld Length Examined 89.2 Thickness (In.) 2.00 Percentage of Examined Weld Length Flawed 32.2 Circumference (In.) 650.67 Persentage of Total Weld Length Flawed ]
28.7 Inches per Degree 1.81 l l
4 Indication Start End Length Length Max. Depth Atax. Depth % of initiating Length Depth Side of i Number Azimuth Azimuth Degrees Inches Inches Pos. (Deg.) Thruwall Surface Transducer Transducer Weld '
10.32 11.44 " " "
1 1.12 2.02 ID/Near 45' Shear "
Lower 2 23.70 26.50 2.80 " " "
5.06 ID/Near 45' Shear "
Upper 3 24.76 25.88 1.12 " " "
2.02 ID/Near 45* Shear "
Lower 4 27.00 28.68 1.68 3,04 " " **
ID/Near 45* Shear a Lower 5 28.18 29.30 1.12 " " "
2.02 ID/Near 45* Shear "
Upper 8 36.02 37.14 " " "
1.12 2.02 ID/Near 45* Shear "
Upper 7 42.00 45.36 3.36 " " "
6.07 ID/Near 45' Shear "
Lower 8 47.66 51.58 3.92 " " "
7.09 ID/Near 45* Shear "
Upper 9 49.28 54.32 5.04 " " "
9.11 ID/Near 45* Shear "
Lower 10 55.32 57.56 2.24 " " "
4.05 ID/Near 45' Shear a Lower
. 11 62.10 67.70 5.60 10.12 0.13 65.42 6.5 ID/Near 45* Shear 60* Long. Upper
- R 12 63.16 64.28 1.12 2.02 " "
ID/Near 45* Shear "
Lower 13 72.06 73.18 1.12 " " "
2.02 ID/Near 45' Shear "
Upper 14 83.70 84.82 1.12 2.02 " " "
ID/Near 45' Shear "
Upper 15 96 52 99.32 2.80 " " "
5.06 ID/Near 45' Shear "
Lower 16 113.26 114.26 1.00 1.81 " " "
ID/Near 45' Shear "
Upper 17 124.34 125.46- " " "
1.12 2.02 ID/Near 45' Shear "
Upper
- 18
. 135.36 150.36 15.00 27.11 >50% 140.16 > $0% ID/Near 45' Shear 60*Long. Lower 19 201.02 205.38 4.36 7.88 " " **
ID/Near 45' Shear "
Upper 20 202.08 204.32 2.24 4.05 " " "
ID/Near 45* Shear a Lower 21 210.98 213.22 2.24 4.05 " ** "
ID/Near 45' Shear "
Upper 22 216.02 218.82 2.80 5.06 ** " "
ID/Near 45* Shear "
Upper i 23 230.40 232.08 1.68 3.04 " " "
ID/Near 45* Shear "
Lower 24 233.70 235.38 1.68 3.04 " " **
ID/Near 45* Shear "
Upper 25 244.84 247.08 2.24 4.05 " " "
IDINear 45' Shear "
Lower 26 263.70 265.38 1.68 3.04 " " "
(D/Near 45' Shear "
Upper 27 289.96 293.76 3.80 6.87 " " "
ID/Near 45' Shear "
Lower 28 294.32 295.44 1.12 2.02 " ** "
ID/Near 45' Shear "
Lower 29 296.50 297.62 1.12 2.02 " " **
ID/Near 45' Shear "
Upper 30 296.56 297.68 1.12 2.02 " " "
ID/Near 45' Shear "
Lower 31 298.24 301.60 3.36 6.07 ** " "
ID/Near 45' Shear "
Lower 32 306.08 308.76 2.68 4.84 " " "
ID/!4 ear 45* Shear a Lower 33 318 28 319.40 1.12 2.02 " ** "
ID/Near 45' Shear "
Lower 34 324.88 339.18 14.30 25.85 0.14 338.38 7.0 ID/Near 45' Shear 60* Long. Lower 35 325.38 327.06 1.68 3.04 " " "
ID/Near 45' Shear a Upper 36 340.30 341.98 1.68 3.04 " " "
lD/Near 45' Shear "
Lower
- The deepest through.wallindication sized. Upper 34.48 (Deg.)
" Thru. wall dimension not obtained due to flaws being below our sizing threshold. (0.10*) Lower 68.82 (Deg.)
Without Overlapping 93.78 (Deg.)
Areas Not Examined by AII 3 Transducers ;
0* to 9.4*,170.02* to 189.40* & 349.82* to 0* (Total of 38.96* Not Examined) Upper 62.32 (ln.)
Lower 124.39 (In.) l v Limitations: Core Spray Downcomers and Litting Lugs Wtthout Overlapping 169.50 (In.) i Page 1 of b ,
. .. . / $0 b r
1
. .- . - . . . . - . - - .. -_-- .. -. ~ .. . - . .
. e s
GE Nuclear Energy Poco Energy .
Peach Bottom 3R10 Shroud UTPro}ect 1CKSC September 1995 ;
Shroud Weld H5 Indication Data TotalScan Length (Deg.) 326.80 TotalFlaw Length (Deg.) 24.64 Total Scan Length (In.) 590.66 TotalFlaw Length (In.) 44.53 Percentage of WeldLength Examined 90.8 Thickness (In.) 2.00 Percentage of Examined Weld Length Flowed 7.5 Circumference (In.) 650.67 Percentage of Tota: Weld Length Flawed 6.8 Inches perDegree 1.81 Indication Start End Length Length Max. Depth Max. Depth % of Initiating Length Depth Number Azimuth Azimuth Degrees Inches Inches Pos. (Deg.) Thruwell Surface Transducer Transducer 1 141.52 144.88 3.36 6.07 0.11 142.34 5.5 IDINear 45' Shear 60*Long.
2 319.34 324.38 5.04 9.11 0.20 322.34 10.0 IDINear 45' Shear 60*Long.
- 3 325.38 328.18 2.80 5.06 0.23 326.14 11.5 IDINear 45' Shear 60*Long.
4 333.78 336.58 2.80 5.06 0.14 334.M 7.0 IDINear 45' Shear 60*Long. ,
5 338.26 339.38 1.12 2.02 0.20 338.46 10.0 IDINear 45' Shear 60*Long.
6 336.26 338.50 2.24 4.05 0.11 337.02 5.5 IDINear 45' Shear 60*Long. '
7 339.62 341.86 2.24 4.05 0.11 340.38 5.5 IDINear 45' Shear 60*Long. ;
8 344.10 346.90 2.80 5.06 0.18 345.42 9.0 IDINear 45' Shear 60*Long. '
9 348.02 350.26 2.24 4.05 0.10 348.22 5.0 IDINear 45' Shear 60*Long.
- The deepest through-wallindication sized.
Areas Not Examined by All 3 Transducers Areas Not Examined: 0* to 9.20*,174.20* to 189.40* & 351.20* to 0* (Total of 33.20' Not Examined)
Limitations: Core Spray Downcomers and Lifting Lugs 1
)
l 1
l 1
I 1
Page 2. cf /2-6/dd 7 OCTC T5 l'
. . . . .. -~ . . . .. ._
e 0 GE NuclearEnergy Peco Energy Peach Botto:n 3R10 Shroud UTProject 1CK5C September 1995 Shroud Weld H6 Indication Data Total Scan Length (De2.) 288.52 TotalFlaw Length (Deg.) 0.00 Total Scan Length (In.) 506.08 TotalFlaw Length (In.) 0.00 Percentage of Weld Length Examined 80.1 Thickness (In.) 2.00 Percentage of Examined Weld Length Flawed 0.0 Circumference (In.) 631.46 Percentage of Total Weld Length Flawed 0.0 Inches per Degree 1.75 Indication Start End Length Length Max. Depth Max. Depth % of Initiating Length Depth Number Azimuth Azimuth Degrees Inches Inches Pos. (Deg.) Thruwall Surface Transducer Transducer No RelevantIndications Recorded Areas Not Examined by All3 Transducers 0* to 9.2*,166.96* to 219.20* & 349.96* to 0* (Total of 71.48' Not Examined)
Limitations: Core Spray Downcomers and Lifting Lugs e
98 Page 2-of k Revision 0
.i . b GE Nuclear Energy j 1
Poco Energy '
Peach Bottom 3R10 Shroud UTProject 1CKSC September 1995 l
1 Shroud Weld H7 Indication Data i l
TotalScan Length (Oeg.) 322.64 Total Flaw Length (Deg.) 0.00 TotalSean Length (In.) 565.93 TotalFlaw Length (In.) 0.00 1 Percentage of Weld Length Examined 89.6 Thickness (In.) 2.00 ,
Percentage of Examined Weld Length Flawed 0.0 circumference (In.) 631.46 l Percentage of Total WeldLength Flawed 0.0 Inches per Degree 1.75 l Indication Start End Length Length Max. Depth Max. Depth % of Initiating Length Depth l Number Azimuth Azimuth Degrees Inches Inches Pos. (Deg.) Thruwall Surface Transducer Transducer l No RelevantIndications Recorded t
Areas Not Examined by AII 3 Transducers 0* to 9.4*,170.92* to 189.40* & 350.52' to 0* (Total of 37.36' Not Examined) '
Limitations: Core Spray Downcomers and Lifting Lugs }
- W F2.'[:.".- ???J2C. S.!
t.uw uu =- -
dl/ ,
OCT 075 i
e Page E of /0 Revision 0
.