ML20154N114
| ML20154N114 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1986 |
| From: | Wojnarowski J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154N120 | List: |
| References | |
| 1397K, GL-84-11, NUDOCS 8603170204 | |
| Download: ML20154N114 (21) | |
Text
r
'N Commonwealth E'ison
) One Forst NItional Ptna. Chicago, Ilhnois C
Address Reply to: Post Othee Box 767
- Chicago. Ilknois 60690 March 12.-1986 Mr. Harold R.'Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Quad Cities Station Unit 1 IcSCC Weld Inspection Results Spring 1986 Refueling Outage BC_, Docket No. 50-254 Reference (a): Letter from J. R. Wojnarowski to H. R. Denton dated October 7, 1985.
Dear Hr. Denton:
Ultrasonic inspection of stainless steel piping susceptible to intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) has been completed during the Spring 1986 outage at Quad Cities Station Unit 1.
The inspection was conducted in accordance with the plan provided in the reference, as modified by subsequent discussions with your staff. This letter is written to summarize the inspection results and provide conunonwealth Edison's basis for operation of Unit 1 for the next fuel cycle.
In accordance with the guidance in Generic Letter 84-11 and NURgG 1061 (DRAFT), the examination consisted of a total of 58 welds. This total represents an increase of 4 welds from that given in the referenced inspection plan. These additional 28 inch diameter recirculation outlet welds were included in the inspection sample af ter discussion with your staff. The total sample includes 3 welds with circumferential flaw indications which were overlay repaired during the 1984 refueling outage.
Also included was Weld 02BS-S9, which was reported as flawed in 1984 and mitigated with IHSI prior to operation.
The contracter (General Electric) UT personnel making evaluations of indications were roqualified for detection and discrimination of IGSCC by the current EPRI program. Final evaluations of indications were reviewed L
and accepted by Commonwealth Edison Level III UT examiners who have requalified by passing the EPRI practical exam. The depth sizing methodolgy used included dB drop and creek tip diffraction techniques and use of the SLIC-40 transducer.
O k
[9 B603170204 860312 ADOCK 0 % 2 4 l
PDR G
,n.
w.
.w,,c,,-,.,--,,.,,,,.n,_
,.,_new..,,
,.,..,,,4.n., _ _,, m --.,,,_.,,,,,.,,., _
,v,,,,,,n.-pg.mw,_,n
_.,w
H. R. Denton March 12, 1986 The examination results for the welds without an overlay are summarized in Attachment A.
Twenty-six (26) welds, including 12 IHSI-treated welds, were examined in both the current (1986) and the previous (1984) refueling outages. There was excellent agreement between the examination results. The one flawed weld (02BS-39), which was not overlay repaired in 1984, showed no significant change in 1986.
In addition, no IGSCC was observed in 29 welds examined for the first time utilizing the current EPRI NDE Center techniques. None of these welds were treated with INSI. It is noted that the unit operated with excellent water chemistry control during the last fuel cycle. These results were provided to and discussed with your staff on February 13, 1986.
Three weld overlays applied in 1984 to 12-inch pipe-to-elbow recirculation riser welds were ultrasonically examined for the first time.
These examinations were mandated by Generic Letter 84-11 and represent all the overlaid welds with reported circumferential flaw lengths greater than or equal.to 10% of the pipe circumference.
Each of these weld overlays were built-up this outage to accommodate metal removal for surface conditioning; each was built-up sufficiently to assure " full structural" design thickness after surface conditioning. The surface conditioning met the requirements established by CECO for the EPRI-developed weld overlay UT technique. All welds exceeded these surface finish / general contour requirements. All examinations were performed by an EPRI trained and qualified weld overlay examiner in accordance with the recently developed and qualified Cgco UT procedure for weld overlays. This procedure was developed, qualified and demonstrated using the weld overlay mock-ups prepared for this purpose. All results were reviewed by the CgCo UT Level III personnel responsible for the procedure. Attachment B provides a summary of the results.
No circumferential flaws were observed in the weld overlays or in the outer 1/2t of the original pipe wall. The circumferential indications observed in weld 02K-S3 agreed reasonably well with 1984 results although two of the indications were not observed previously.
The examination results for axial flaws compare favorably with the 1984 results and with the steam r
blow-outs during the weld overlay application. Surface conditioning of the overlay required to apply the EPRI technique lead to detection of additional axial indications, not observed in 1984 inspections prior to application of l
the weld overlay. There are several instances where ligament measurements indicated that the axial flaw crack tip is in the dilution zone, i.e.,
that region composed of weld metal and base metal that may not contain sufficient i
delta ferrite and may not have low enough carbon content to arrest IGSCC.
The case (weld 02J-S4) where the axial indications extended into the analyti-i cally defined overlay thickness (by a maximum of.050 inches) was typically l
associated with steam blow-out repairs and an unusually thick first layer.
l This resulted in the likelihood of leaving the crack tip during repair of the steem blow-out. However, two of these indications were not observed in l
1984. These results were discussed with your Staff on March 6,1986.
l L
F H. R. Denton March 12, 1986 All flaws were evaluated against the requirements of Generic Letter 84-11 and ASME Section KI Table IWB-3641-1, as well as the proposed require-ments of ASME Section XI Table IWB-3641-5 to account for the possibility of low toughness weldments. Attachment C summarizes the evaluation results, as well as providing the flaw geometry details and the necessary primary and secondary stress combinations. The results demonstrate that the original design margins inherent in the Code for flawed welds have not been degraded and that those overlay-repaired and IHSI-mitigated welds are acceptable for continued service.
The information provided in this letter and its attachments is intended to confirm and supplement the information transmitted in our telephone conversations with your staff. We understand that based on those discussions, your staf f considers that Quad Cities Unit I can operate for another fuel cycle and intends to document so by letter. Accordingly, startup of Unit 1 is scheduled to commence on March 25, 1986.
One signed original and fifteen (15) copies of this letter and its attachments are provided for your use.
If you have any questions regarding the information provided, please contact this office.
Very truly yours, f
J. R. Wojnarowski Nuclear Licensing Administrator im Attachments cc:
R. Bevan - NRR NRC Resident Inspector - Quad cities 1397K
Attachment A QUAD CITIES STATION - UNIT 1 SPRING 1986 OUTAGE ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION RESULTS FOR IGSCC SUSCEPTIBLE PIPING
J Report 1 - Examination Summary Quad cities Unit 1 - Spring 1986 Outage Examination Sample l
Original sample size 55*
No. of-weld overlays to be examined 3
Increase in sample size.
O Total number of examinations 58 Examination Status ISI and SMAD review complete 55 Weld Overlay Surface / Examination Required 3
In progress.
O Surfacing complete Q
Examination complete 3
i Disposition Status No action required 54 j
Analytical evaluation required 1
Analysis Status one flawed pipe analysis required of non-overlaid weld in 1984 examined this outage.
Analysis complete and acceptable as-is.
I l
Repairs None required The inspection plan submitted in October 7, 1986 to Mr.
H.
R.
Denton identified 54 welds (including 3 weld overlays) for ultrasonic examination according to the requirements of Generic Letter 84-11.
The 58 welds shown as the total number l
of examinations include 4 additional 28-inch recirculation outlet welds as agreed upon with NRR personnel.
i
Unit 1 ISI/IGSCC INSPECTION RESULTS Welds Listed 12 l
l l
l l
l WELD NO.
l 1984 RESULTS l
1986 RESULTS l
REMARKS l
l 1
I I
l l 10AD-S7 (P-E) l ID Geometry l ID Geometry l Geometry confirmed with l
l l
l OD Geometry (weld crown) l WSY-70 (1986's) l l 10AD-S8 (E-P) l Not inspected in 1984 l ID Root Geon (360* int.)
l Geometry confirmed with l
l l
l Low amplitude ID & OD l WSY-70 (1986's) l l
l l geometry on axial scan.
l l
l l
1 l
l 10AD-S15 (P-Pen.)
Not inspected in 1984 NRI l
l 1
1 I
l l 1000-F6 (P-V) l Not inspected in 1984 l NRI l
l l
1 1
I l
l 10BD-S7 (E-P) l Not inspected in 1984 l ID Root Geom (360* int.)
l Geometry confirmed with l
l l
l l WSY-70 (1986's) l l
I I
I l
l 10BD-S17 (P-Pen.)
l Not inspected in 1984 l ID Root Geom (360* int.)
l l
l l
1 l
l l#10BD-F1 (P-Tee) l ID Geom (3608) l ID Root Geom l
l l
l I
I l
l 10S-F6 (V-L) l Not inspected in 1984 l NRI l
l l
l l
1 l
l 10S-S9 (E-P) l Not inspected in 1984 l NRI l
l l
1 I
I l
l 10HS-F10A (P-P) l Not inspected in 1984 l OD Geom (360* Int.)
l l
03-F7 (P-L)
NRI NRI l
l l
l l
lCO2AD-S6 (E-P) l NRI l OD Geom. (finger damp) l Geom. indications in 1986 l
l l
l ID Signal due to beam l probably due to shorter l
l l
l redirection l transducer shoe used.
l l
l l
l l
- Mitigated weld (s)
Page 1 of 5
llIllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllllll
~
)s 3_
e h
d '6 1
t h
u8 i
t t9 w
i i 1 d
S w
l (
e K
d p
5 t
R e
d mm C
s A
m e
ao A
f i
M r) m)
e D
o L
E i s rswG R
f' o
2 i '6 l D 0
s n6 f
d o8 n8 I
5 e
l c9 o9 y g
e 1
c1 l f n
a W
.(
( eo a
P m
m v
h o0 o0il t
e7 e7t a G -
G - an s
Y Yl g s
DS DS ei e
I W I WR s L
llI lllI lllll lI lI lI l1 l1 lI lI lI ll llI ll
)
)
t t
/
np n
m i m i
o a
e
- d G
)
S 0
0 t
T 6 r 6
D n
L 3 e 3
I I
U
( g
(
S n
e E
ni s
d 0
R of) o ud 6
e e
t e 3
6 G
t G
i t
(
8 n
l o 9
t mi t
m pn m
1 oo o
o m
o oe*
o e
ae e
RG0 R
G s
G 6
I I
I I
I I
I I
wi 0D3 D
R R
R R
R R
R D
R oo 0
1 O(
I N
N N
N N
N N
I N
LN 1
ll1 lll1 lllll lI l1 ll l1 ll ll lI l1 ll ll1 ll 4
4 4
4 4
8 8
8 8
8
)
9 9
9 9
9 1
1 1
1 1
S t
T n
n n
n n
n L
i i
i i
i i
US d
d d
d d
E 0
e e
e e
e R
6 t
t t
t t
3 c
c c
c c
S 4
(
e e
e e
e T
8 p
p p
p p
L 9
m s
s s
s s
U 1
o n
n n
n n
S e
i i
i i
i E
G R
I I
t I
I t
t I
t t
I I
D R
R o
R R
o o
R o
o R
R N
I N
N N
N N
N N
_N N
N N
N 0
1 ll1 lll1 lllll l1 ll ll ll ll l1 l1 ll ll ll1 l1 1C E
P S
)
N
)
d
)
I E
)
e
)
)
)
)
)
)
s
)
S P
R p
p p
p p
P
(
C e
e e
e e
e
)
d C
)
e
)
s s
e e
e e
e p
P l
G O.
P T
P z
s s
w w
w w
w e
e S
o o
o S
S S
S S
e d
w I
N E
P E
N r
r w
e
/
(
(
(
(
C C
P P
P P
P S
R d
I D
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
e S
L 4
2 6
1 t
I E
S S
S F
3 4
6 7
8 3
4 6
6 a
W S
S S
S S
S S
F F
g 1
S D
0 S
i A
B 0
B A
A A
A A
8 8
H L
t t
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 i
O O
0 0
O 0
0 0
0 0
0 O
0 M
in M
M M
M M
U lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
?
Unit 1 ISI/IGSCC INSPECTION RESULTS Welds 1.isted _O8_
l l
l l
l l
WELD NO.
l 1984 RESULTS l
1986 RESULTS l
REMARKS l
l l
l l
l l 14A-F2 (P-SE) l ID Root Geom (360* Int.)
l ID Root Geom. (360* Int.)
l l
l l
l I
l l 14A-F7 (E-V) l Not l'nspected in 1984 l NRI l
l l
l 1
I I
l 14A-S8 (P-E) l Not inspected in 1984 l OD Geom (finger damp) l l
l l
l l
l l 148-F7 (E-V) l Not inspected in 1984 l OD Geom (finger damp) l l
l 1
I I
l l 14B-S8 (E-E) l Not inspected in 1984 l OD Geom (finger damp) l l
l l
l l
l l 148-S9 (P-E) l Not inspected in 1984 l ID & OD Geom l
l l
l l
1 l
l 14A-F3R (P-P) l NRI l ID Geom. (360* Int) l ID Geom. (360* Int.) was l
l l
l l reported during 1980 inspection l l
l l
1 l
l0CO2BS-S9 l Pipe Side l Pipe Side l No significant crack growth l
l l A. ID Geom (360* Int.)
l A. ID Geom (360* Int.)
l was observed.
l l
l B.
1,*2" long x 15% TW (Circ.)l B.
1" long x 15% TW (Circ.) l Minor circumferential crack l
l l C. 1-1/2" long x 18% TW l C. 1-1/2" long x 24% TW l (K) was observed on the elbow l l
l (Circ.)
l (Circ.)
l side.
l l
l J.
l J. ID Geom l New techniques of detection l
l l
l l and sizing (WSY-70, SLIC-40 & l l
l Elbow Side l Elbow Side crack tip diffraction) used in l
l D. ID Geom l D. ID Geom 1986 could be the reason for l
l E. ID Geom l E.1" long x 23% TW (Circ.) l minor variation between 1984 l
l l F. ID Geom l F. ID Geon l and 1986 UT results.
l l
l G. ID Geom l G. ID Geom l
l l
l H. Slag or Fusion (UTL) l H. 2-1/2"longx20% TW (Circ.)l l
l l I. ID weld indercut (UTL) l I. 2-1/2"longx20% TW (Circ.)l l
l l K.
l K. 1" long X 15% TW (Circ.) l l
l l
l l
l DWMitigated weld with known cracks.
Page 3 of 5
llIlllllllllllllllllIlllIllllllll p
ir ts 4
g 1
4 n
8 i
9 s e d
S 1
un e
K i
5 t
R n
6h s
A o
8 c f
M 9 a o
i
'L E
d 1 m R
e 4
s t
nT d
o iU e
l n
g e
dd a
W e
ee P
s tt i
ca ot em Nr po a
st 0h nu 1 c I a ll1 l1 lI lI lI ll l1 l1 ll lI ll l1 ll llI llI
)
tn I
)
)
)
t 0
S t
t n
6 T
n n
I 3
L I
I
(
U S
0 E
0 0
m 6
m R
6 6
o e
3 o
3 3
e r
(
e 6
(
(
G o
9 n
n D
r m.
G 8
b t
1 o
o O
e o
o e
e t
e o
G G
n G
R u
I I
I I
I I
I I
D D
D o
R R
R R
R R
R R
D D
I I
I C
N N
N N
N N
N N
I I
lll ll lI l1 l1 ll ll ll ll lI ll l1 ll llI ll1 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
8 8
8 8
8 8
8
)
)
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
S t
t T
n n
n n
n n
n n
n L
I I
i i
i i
i i
i US d
d d
d d
d d
E 0
0 e
e e
e e
e e
R 6
6 t
t t
t t
t t
3 3
c c
c c
c c
c S
4
(
(
e e
e e
e e
e T
8 p
p p
p p
p p
L 9
m n
s s
s s
s s
s U
1 o
o n
n n
n n
n n
S e
e i
i i
i i
i i
E G
G R
t t
t t
I t
t I
t I
I I
D D
o o
o o
R o
o R
o R
R R
N I
I N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N O
I lll ll lI ll l1 ll ll ll ll l1 ll ll ll lll ll1 TC E
P
)
)
S d
g N
e n
I R
)
i
)
P F
)
s C
z g
z d
C o
)
n
)
g d
o
)
)
)
l S
)
)
N E
)
l P
o e
N V
E P
e G
O E
P E
f l
R
)
w I
N E
P
(
E f
(
P E
E P
P
/
P E
S
(
P
(
(
S
(
(
(
d I
D
(
(
(
(
A B
V
(
e S
L 1
I 2
S I
(
8 6
5 t
I E
3 7
1 1
8 S
S S
S 1
2 2
0 a
W S
S F
F r
8 F
F S
g 1
S S
S S
f S
i S
S J
S S
H H
K S
S A
t l
l t
0 0
2 0
0 0l 0l 0
0 3
2 2
2 2
i i
1 1
0 1
1 1
1 1
1 0
0 1
1 0
M n
U lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
l' llllllllllllllllllllll D
I 8
g f
0__
n o
i 60 s e l
57 d
S un a
e K
i n
5 t
R 6h g
l i s
A 9 c i.
pp f
i M
9 a sx mm o
L E
1 m a
AA R
em 5
s nT d
x x d
i U u%
aa e
l t5 MM g
e dd i 5 a
W ee l
P t t p -
mm ca m
oo em a
ee po m
GG st wo nu oe D0 I a LG I0 ll1llIlI l1 llll lI lll llI
)
tn I
)
))
8 0
t t t S
6 n
nn T
3 I
II L
(
U E
m.
0 00 S
6 66 R
o 3
3 3 e
(
((
6 G
8 9
t m
m.
mm 1
o o
o oo o
e e
ee R
G G
GG I
I I
I D
R D
R R
R D
D0 I
N I
N N
N I
I0 lllll1 lI ll llll lI ll1 llI 4
4 4
4 8
8 8
8 9
9 9
9 1
1 1
1 S
T n
n n
r.
L i
i i
i US d
d d
d E
e e
e e
R t
t t
t c
c c
c S
4 e
e e
e T
8 p
p p
p L
9 s
s s
s U
1 n
n n
n S
i i
i i
E R
I t
t t
t I
I I
R o
o o
o R
R R
N N
N N
N N
N N
N O
I T
lllll1 l1 ll ll ll lI lll llI C
E P
SN I
)
)
E
)
E
)
)
)
s C
S z
S E
E d
d C
)
o S
S e
l G
O.
E g
N g
.R
)
e S
n n
g z
P w
I N
P i
E i
n o
E
/
(
F S
F i
N S
E d
I D
(
(
(
F
(
(
(
e S
L 3
(
t 0
I E
S 2
1 2
i 2
4 a
5 W
S S
S 2
F F
S g
8 1
S S
i 2
A A
8 8
A A
S t
7 t
2 6
6 6
7 8
B 0
i
/
0 N
N N
N N
N 1
M g
in M
N d
U lllllllllllllllllllll!
/
February 10, 1986 Examination Notes - Weld 02BS-S9 Background -
Weld 02BS-S9 is a 28-inch pipe-to-elbow weld in the B-loop pump suction piping of the recirculation system.
This weld was examined in June 1984 as part of the augmented ultrasonic examination program during the refueling outage.
The weld was IHSI treated during that outage.
1984 Results -
02BS-S9 was examined by the CECO UT contractor (LMT), CE00 - SMAD UT Level IIIs and the third party UT contractor (UTL).
The evaluation was reported as two circumferential cracks on the pipe side (1/2 inches by 15% and 1-1/2 inch by 18%). A 4 inch long slag or fusion indication was evaluated on the elbow side.
ID geometry was noted on the pipe side of the weld intermittently for 360 degrees of circumference.
Four discrete locations of ID geometry were identified on the elbow side.
These evaluations are detailed in Table One.
1986 Results -
The weld was examined during the current refueling outage by the Ceco UT contractor (GE) and CECO - SMAD UT level III personnel. The evaluations of the data are detailed in Table one and summarized as follows:
Pipe side - 1 inch by 15% and 1-1/2 inch by 24%
Three circumferential flaw indications were reported by GE (1 inch long by 15% from 1 to 2 inches clockwise (cw) 0.75 inch by 30% from 4 to 4.75 inches cw, and 4 inches by 20% from 50 to 54 inches cw).
The SMAD re-examination confirms the first two of these flaws, but sizes the 0.75 inch long flaw as 1-1/2 inches long by 24% of wall in depth. The indication at 50 to 54 inches cw was evaluated as ID geometry.
Elbow side - 1 inch by 23%, 1 inch by 15%, and 2-1/2 inches by 20%
Three circumferential flaw indications were reported by GE (1 inch by 20%
from 9.8 to 10.8 inches cw, 1 inch by 15% from 2 to 3 inches cw, and 2-1/2 inches by 20% from 55 to 57.5 inches cw).
The SMAD re-examination confirms the flaw evaluations, with the final sizing (depth) of the flaw from 9.8 to 10.8 inches cw measured as 23%.
2 0846W
02BS-S9 Page 2 Flaw Sizing Methodology -
Flaw depth sizing reported in 1984 utilized the emplitude (dB) drop technique.
In 1986, depth sizing was performed using the dB drop technique, crack tip diffraction technique and the SLIC-40 transducer.
Reported depths are the results from the crack tip diffraction technique, and in one case the SLIC-40 transducer.
Table One Ultrasoni: Examination Data - Weld 02BS-S9 Indica-Length Start Stop
- Depth, Exam-Final tion in.
iner(s)
Evaluation (1) wall (3)
Pipe Side 1984 A
360 LMT/
ID geom.
degrees SMAD intermit.
B 0.5 1
1.5 15 UTL/
Crack SMAD C
1.5 4
5.5 18 UTL/
Crack SMAD Pipe Side 1986 A
360 CE/
ID geom.
degrees SMAD intermit.
B 1
1 2
15 GE/
Crack SMAD C
1.5 4
5.5 24 GE/
Crack SMAD J
4 50 54 CE/
ID geom.
SMAD 0846W
02BS-S9 Page 3 Table One (Continued)
Ultrasonic Examination Data - Weld 02BS-39 Indica-Length Start Stop Depth.
Exam-Final tion in.
iner(s)
Evaluation (1) wall (3) 1984 - Elbow Side D
1.6 6.6 8.2 LMT ID geom.
E 0.8 10.6 11.4 LMT ID geom.
F 2
62 64 LTM ID geom.
G 0.75 74.1 74.9 LMT ID geom.
H 4
53.7 57.7 (2)
UTL Slag or fusion I
0.8 55.5 56.3 UTL ID weld undercut 19f6, _ Elbow side D
1.5 6
7.5 GE/
ID geom.
SMAD E
1 9.8 10.8 23 CE/
Crack SMAD F
2 62 64 CE/
ID geom.
SMAD H/I 2.5 55 57.5 20 GE/
Crack SMAD K
1 2
3 15 GE/
Crack SMAD (1)
Indication designation for comparison purposes between 1984 and 1986 UT examinations.
(2)
Depth of 12 num starting 3 nun from the ID surface reported in 1984 (3)
Examiner (s) performing UT examinations.
0846W
02BS-S9 page 4 Conclusions -
(1)
The flaw indications on the pipe side compare well with those reported in 1984.
No significant crack growth was observed during the previous fuel cycle.
(2)
Minor circumferential cracking was observed on the elbow side.
Two of the crack indications were evaluated as ID geometry and slag or fusion during the 1984 examinations.
(3)
A shallow, short, circumferential crack indication was evaluated on the elbow side which was not reported in 1984 It is believed this flaw was present in 1984.
It is felt that this flaw was observed in 1986 due to the use of enhanced transducers and additional examiner training.
0846W
e
' 9 AF.tachment B QUAD CITIES STATION.- UNIT 1 SPRING 1986 OUTAGE ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION RESULTS OF WELD OVERLAY REPAIRS O
l l
}
1 1
e 4
e a
.,-.,.,~,.y.,
-m.y_ _....,--,_, _,
_r-,
, _. _,.. ~. - -
Wald overlcy Examinations comparison of Ultrasonic and Visual Observations Weld 02C-S4 (All Indications - Pipe Side) 1984 (w/o Weld overlay) 1986 (w/ Weld overlay)
Indica-Remarks tion
- Length, Depth, Location Length, Ligament Location in, t wall (center) in.
in.
(center)
Circumferential Flaw Indications -
C1 4
44 0
Not observed in 1936 Note 1 Axial Flaw Indications -
Al-A2 1 max.
Note 1 0.5
.48/.49
. Note 1 Note 2 A3 1 max.
Note 1 Not observed in 1986 A4 Not observed in 1984 0.5
.48 12 A5 Not observed in 1984 0.3
.66 20 Note 4 Notes:
(1) Intermittent circumferential flaw over 4 inch length centered over 0" marker with three segments.
Axial flaws associated with the ends of these circumferential flaws.
(2) These two indications observed as through-wall steam blow-outs in weld overlay application.
(3) A 5/16" by 5/8" area of lack of bond at a ligament depth of 0.65 inch was observed.
(4) Intrados region of elbow lim
_________________________________i_t_e_ds_c__an_._______________________________
9
Wald overlay Examinations Comparison of Ultrasonic and visual observations Weld 02J-S4 (All Indications - Pipe Side) i 1984 (w/o Weld overlay) 1986 (w/ Weld overlay)
Indica-Remarks tion Length;
- Depth, Location Length, Ligament Location in.
t wall (center) in.
in.
(center) i Circumferential Flaw Indications -
l-C1 4.25 55 1
Not observed in 1986 C2, 0.6
<30 3.5 Not observed in 1996 C3 2
<30 11 Not observed in,1986 C4 1.8
<30 21 Not observed in 1986 i
C5 1.6
<30 31 Not observed in 1986 i
l C6 3
<30 35 Not observed in 1986 l
i Axial Flaw Indications -
Al-A9 1.1 32-69 Eight (8) observed 2 Blow-
.34 to.46 l
max.
outs l
A10-All Not observed Two (2) obderved Note 1
.34/,44 11 - 12.5 i
i 1
1
Wald Overlcy Examinations Comoarison of Ultrasonic and Visual Observations Weld 02J-S4 (Continued)
(All Indications - Pipe Side) 1984 (w/o Weld overlay) 1986 (w/ Weld overlay)
Indica-Remarks tion
. Length,' Depth, Location Length, Ligament Location in.
% wall (center) in, in.
(center)
Axial Flaw Indications (continued) -
A12 Not observed in 1984
.52 19.2 Note 2 A13-Not observed in 1984
.42 27.5 A14-A17 Two (2) blow +outa 31.5 Four (4) observe.d Note 1
.40.44 observed in 1984 to 33 29.5 - 34 Notes:
(1) These indications observed as through-wall steam blow-outs in weld overlay application.
(2) Intrados region of elbow limited scan.
e n
Wald ovorlay l
EXEminations i
Comparison of Ultrasonic and visual Observations t
Weld 02K-S3 (All Indications - Pipe Side) 4 1984 (w/o Weld overlay) 1986 (w/ Weld overlay)
Indica-Remarks
.. tion
- Length, Depth, Location Length, Ligament Location in.
t wall (center) in.
in.
(center) t i
circumferential Flaw Indications -
C1 1.6 25 3.5 1.5 0.87 4
C2 0.2 25 3
0.87 0.88 2
1 C3 0.8
<l5 21 Not observed in 1986 4
l C4 8
24 28 Not observed in 1986 t
C5 Not observed in 1984 14 0.77 13.4 Note 3 C6 Not observed in 1986 1.4 0.85 0.5 Note 3 i
Axial Flaw Indications -
Al 0.5 25 5
Not observed in 1986
(
l A2 0.6 18 21 Not observed in 1986 1
i A3 0.5 14 24 Not observed in 1986 Note i 1
i A4 0.5 15 26 Not observed in 1986
?
i 1
o-----------------------------------------------------------*
i l
l 1
1 1
4 e
e,-_-,.%,m
+
w--
Wald overlay Extminations Comparison of Ultrasonic and Visual Observations Weld 02K-S3 (All Indications - Pipe Side) 1984 (9/o Weld Overlay) 1986 (w/ Weld Overlay)
Indica-Remarks tion
- Length, Depth, Location Length, Ligament Location in.
t wall (center) in.
in.
_ _ _ - - -- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ -- - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ -( c e n t e A5 0.5 32 Not obcerved in 1986 A6 Not observed in 1984 Not observed in 1986 Note 1 A7 Note 2 28.5 Not observed in 1986 Note 1 A8 I.D. Geometry 0.75 0.42 75 Notes:
(1) These indications observed as through-wall steam blow-outs in weld overlay application.
(2)
Observed but not considered a reportable indication in 1984.
(3)
'It is believed that indications existed but were not observed in 1904 and therefore do not represent new indications.
Since there is good correlation in the sizing of circumferential indicctions observed in 1984 and 1986,.it is apparent that no significant crack growth.ias occurred. This supports the conclusion that these are not new flaws. The depth of all circumferential indications is less than 507. of the pipe wall thicknesa.
t e
e
h 7
Attachment C QUAD CITIES STATION - UNIT 1 SPRING 1986 OUTAGE FLAW EVALUATION / DISPOSITION INFORMATION 9