Text

Rev 1,Vol 1 to, Design Rept for Recirculation & RWCU Sys Evaluations & Repairs Performed During 1988 Refueling Outage at Quad Cities Nuclear Power Plant Unit 2
	ML20155A611
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	05/31/1988
From:	Giannuzzi A, Gustin H, Tang S; STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES, INC.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20155A594	List: ML20155A590; ML20155A611;
References
	SIR-88-018, SIR-88-018-V01-R01, SIR-88-18, SIR-88-18-V1-R1, NUDOCS 8806100153
	Download: ML20155A611 (135)
	v • d • e

.- _. . - . . . .

M M :: '.s t

.%E.VfEci?O.?_r j tDi?.;; '; "J,fft .th. ;2rs,tt' I.L faL ny.'eitl46J

[ '> .

4. .,

INTEGRITY i u . a..n ASSOCEESJC.

o r.--r urstneA,cm.s; ::;l.5 22 l t shyhC%WME'Dit??mli l

l l

3150 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SUITE 226 e SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118 e (408) 978-8200

TELEX 184817 STRUCT m.~ .um s um. u 2m m ngu

,cu7m m mgus m ou ,= r - h - gg m 5__

8806100153 880601 mm osooo_us__ o

[i Report No. SIR-88-018, Vol. 1 Revision 1 Project No. CECO-09Q-1

[ May, 1988 Volume 1 Design Report for Recirculation and Reactor Water Cleanup System Evaluations and Repairs Performed During the 1988 Refueling Outage at the r Quad Cities Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2 Prepared for:

Commonwealth Edison Company Prepared by:

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

San Jose, CA Prepared by:

I N , Date: h ST l

H. L. Gust'n

[ S . S .,_Talig/ ', [,

'~

E --- Date:

l fEA. J.(diannuzzi D)lA $tM t: h'{, --

Date: 5 Y l

1 i

l Reviewed and Approved by: h,-[

J. F.

O '/ M ' d (' b Q6peland Date: I/#[/ '

l i

INTEGRITY ASEMINC t

SI Report No. SIR-88-018 Volume 1 REVISION CONTROL SHEET SECTION PARAGRAPli DATE REVISION COMMENTS

All All 5-24-88 1 Miscellaneous editorial changes Rev. Control il 5-24-88 1 Add (page li)

Page 3.0 3-7, para 1 5-24-88 1 Add that first weld overlay layer on ItWCU will contain 7.5 FN minimum.

Table 3-2, 5-24-88 1 Change last weld no. to page 3-9 12S-F26 AR Table 3 4 5-24-88 1 Giange last weld no. to page 11 12S-F2G All Table 3-6 5-24-88 1 Change weld no. for last over-page 13 lay to 12S-F2G AR and 12S-S2 G R.

I i-l l

t l

1 il l INTEGRITY l ASSOCIATESING L

r Table of Contents Section Pace

1.0 INTRODUCTION

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 2.0 DESIGN CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.1 Flaw Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.2 Weld Overlay Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 3.0 JALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.1 Flaw Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.2 Stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 3.3 Flaw Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 3.4 Weld Overlay Repairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 4.0 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 l 4.1 12 inch Recirculation Riser Welds. . . . . . . . . 4-1 i 4.2 Large Diameter Recirculation Welds . . . . . . . . 4-2 l

5.0 CONCLUSION

S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

6.0 REFERENCES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 APPENDICES:

A -

FLAW CHARACTERIZATION BY ULTRASONIC (UT) EXAMINATION B -

FLAW EVALUATION ANALYSES C -

WELD OVERLAY REPAIR DESIGNS t

1 i

l l

l SIR-88-018 1"1i ASSOCIATESINC

List of Tables Table Pacte 3-1 Flaw Characterization in 28 inch Pipe Locations -

1988 Outage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 3-2 Flaw Characterization in 6 inch and 12 inch Pipe Locations - 1988 Outage. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 3-3 Stress Components for 28 inch Pipe Locations. . . . . 3-10 3-4 Stress Components for 12 inch and 6 inch Pipe Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11 3-5 Flaw Evaluation Summary for 28 inch Pipe Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12 3-6 Weld Overlay Repair Designs - 1988 Outage . . . . . . 3-13 l

l l

l Silt-88-018 iv STRUCTURAI.

! LNTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC t

1.O INTRODUCTION As part of the 1988 refueling outage, Commonwealth Edison Company's Quad Cities Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant performed ultrasonic (UT) examinations of IGSCC susceptible piping welds.

A total of 157 weldments were ultrasonically examined during the current Quad Cities Unit 2 refueling outage. These included:

e 66 welds and 14 weld overlay repairs applied in previous outages which were the initial examination scope, and f e 77 additional welds which were part of the expanded sample or post-MSIP UT examinations.

A total of 47 welds in the core spray, residual heat removal (LPCI), and recirculation systems were stress improved using the I mechanical stress improvement process (MSIP) . Furthermore, all

! new weld overlays in the recirculation system will be surface conditioned and UT examined this outage in accordance with tne EPRI developed techniques.

This report (Volume 1) documents the disposition and repair of flaw indications found by the above examinations (1). In particular, the evaluation of flaw indications and the design of weld overlay repairs are described in detail. All flaw evaluations and weld overlay repair designs were performed by Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. in accordance with NUREG-0313, Revision 2 [2].

A total of six welds in the 28 inch recirculation system piping were evaluated as being acceptable with flaw indications without repair for at least one additional fuel cycle. As-welded l

residual stress distributions [2] were conservatively employed for these flaw growth analyses.

l l

l SIR-88-018 1-1 INTEGMTY ASSOCIATESINC

r Standard design (2), full structural, weld overlay repairs were designed for each of the eleven 12 inch recirculation riser weldments with flaw indications, and for two locations in the 6

' inch RWCU system piping. Commonwealth Edison Company elected to repair all. flaw indications in the 12. inch and 6 inch piping, with the above standard design weld overlay repairs.

In addition to the flaw evaluations and weld overlay repair designs, Structural Integrity Associates investigated the flaw indications found in previously IHSI treated welds. This discussion is also included in Volume 1 of this report.

Volume 2 of this report will be issued after all weld overlay repairs have been completed. It will include as-built weld overlay dimensions and the disposition of any flaw indications in weld overlays. The results of a system shrinkage stress piping

! analysis for the recirculation and RWCU piping, from weld overlay shrinkages, will also be documented in Volume 2. The.results of this shrinkage stress analysis will be compared to the bounding shrinkage stress of 1 ksi assumed in Volume 1 for flaw evaluations in 28 inch recirculation system piping.

i l

l SIR-88-018 1-2 gg INTEGMTY ASSOCIATESINC

2.0 DESIGN CRITERIA The requirements for flaw evaluations and the design of weld overlay repairs are defined in NUREG-0313, Revision 2 (2). Flaw indications are evaluated, and the analytical bases for repairs are in accordance with the requirements of ASME Section XI, IWB-3641 [3] as specified in NUREG-0313.

2.1 Flaw Evaluation Flawed pipe analyses were performed by Structural Integrity Associates on 28 inch pipe weldments with flaw indications.

These evaluations, for disposition of the flaw indications, were done in accordance with NUREG-0313, Revision 2 [2]. Crack growth l in the length and depth directions was treated by the methods of

[2]. For the purpose of predicting crack growth in the depth direction, a 360* circumferential crack was assumed, along with as-welded residual stresses and a bounding weld overlay shrinkage-induced stress of 1 ksi. The time required to frow the flaw from the maximum reported 1988 depth to the allowable size in accordance with IWB-3641 for shielded metal arc welds (SMAW) was calculated, and compared to the duration of a fuel cycle (18 months).

Sustained stresses for the crack growth analyses included pressure, deadweight, thermal, overlay-induced shrinkage and as-welded residual stresses, to be discussed later in this report. Applied primary and secondary stresses for the evaluation of allowable flaw sizes, in accordance with IWB-3641

[3] for SMAWs, included pressure, deadweight, OBE, thermal and overlay-induced shrinkage stresses.

l 2.2 Weld overlay Repair Weld overlay repairs are considered to be acceptable long term

! repairs to IGSCC flawed locations if they meet a conservative set SIR-88-018 2-1 l INTEGUTY f ASSOCIATESINC l

of design assumptions to qualify as standard weld overlays as defined in NUREG-0313 [2]. The two principal design requirements to qualify a weld overlay as a standard weld overlay, and therefore IGSCC Category E, are:

1. The design basis flaw for the repair is a circumferentially oriented flaw which extends 360* around the compenent, and is through the original component wall. This conservative assumption eliminates any potential concern about the reliability of the ultrasonic examination to size flaws. In addition, concerns about the toughness of the original butt weld material are not applicable, since no credit is taken in the design process for the load carrying capability of the remaining component wall ligament.

l

2. Following the repair, the surface finish of the repair must i be sufficiently smooth to allow ultrasonic examination through the overlay material and into a portion of the original wall. The purpose of this examination is, in part, to demonstrate that the repair thickness does not degrade with time due to continued flaw propagation.

In addition to the requirements of Reference 2 , the requirements of the Structural Integrity Associates Technical Specification SIS-88-001, Revision 0 [4] apply to the application of weld overlay repairs at Quad Cities Unit 2. This document defines the technical requirements for the application of weld overlay repairs, and also specifies inspection requirements for the in-process and completed repairs.

As required by ASME Section XI, IWB-3640 (3), pressure, deadweight, and seismic (OBE) components were considered in the evaluation of the weld overlay repairs. Thermal and other secondary stress components were not required to be addressed, SIR-88-018 2-2 INTEGMTY ASSOCIATESINC

o

~

since the toughness of - the original butt weld material is not a concern for a standard weld overlay, and'since no credit is taken for' remaining ligament in the original component wall.

l e

s 0

4 l

i I

l l

l SIR-88-018 2-3 l INTEGMTY i

ASSOCIATESINC

e 3.0 ANALYSIS Flaw characterization (by UT), stresses, flaw evaluation and weld overlay repair design results are presented in this section of the report, for' flaw indications found in piping welds during the 1988 outage, f .' s 3.1 Flaw Characterization During the 1988 augmented stainless steel examination program at Quad Cities Unit 2, flaw indications requiring evaluation (disposition) and repair were identified in the recirculation system 12 inch and 28 inch piping, and in the RWCU 6 inch piping.

These UT examination results are summarized in Tables 3-1 (for 28 inch welds to be evaluated for acceptance without repair) and 3-2 (for 12 inch and 6 inch welds to be repaired by weld overlay) .

t Details [1] and the results of previous UT examinations are given in Appendix A.

The reported flaw indication lengths and depths shown in Table 3-1 were employed as starting crack sizes to be grown to allowable flaw sizes in accordance with NUREG-0313 [2]. The crack depth was assumed as the maximum reported depth for the entire longth. Although the cracks were grown in depth by assuming a 360* circumferential crack, the cracks were also grown in length (in accordance with [2]), from the initial length in Table 3-1, for comparison against IWB-3641 allowable flaw lengths and depths.

The reported flaw indications in Table 3-2 for 12 inch and 6 inch pipes are not relevant to the weld overlay repairs for these pipe welds, since 360* through-wall cracks are conservatively assumed l for the original unrepaired pipe in the standard design basis (2) l overlay.

SIR-88-018 , 3-1 INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC L

r _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

3.2 Stresses Applied stresses for the pipe welds shown in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, were computed from the pressure, forces and moments from the system stress reports [5), conservatively using the minimum wall thicknesses shown in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. The stresses employed in the 28 inch pipe flaw evaluations and the 12 inch and 6 inci.

pipe weld overlay designs are. summarized in Tables 3-3 and 3-4, respectively.

The general equation used to compute deadweight, thermal and seismic (OBE) stresses is:

2 F (M y +M z )1/2 y ,

A x+ Z where:

F = Axial force, local coordinates x

M y, M g' = Bending moments, local coordinates A = Pipe cross sectional area Z = Pipe section modulus Using the above equation, OBE stresses were computed for the x, y and z global coordinate directions, and the maximum stress in either the x or z direction was added to the stress in the y direction absolutely, to obtain the OBE stress in the same manner as in the stress report (5). The effects of stress concentrations (e.g., stress indices or stress intensification factors) are not included in these stresses (2), since the weld locations are considered to be removed from stress concentrations (such as elbow crotches) and are under the influence of nominal pipe stresses.

Several conservative assumptions, aside from using the pipe minimum wall thickness for calculating stresses, were employed in arriving at the stresses for flaw evaluation and weld overlay SIR-88-018 3-2 DfTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

repair design. Axial pressure stresses were computed _using the conservative thin-wall pipe formula:

g P3 2t where:

p = Design pressure, 1250 psig for recirculation discharge and RWCU, and 1150 psig for recirculation suction.

R = Pipe outer radius t = Pipe minimum wall thickness.

Use of a more exact pressure stress equation gives axial stresses significantly lower than above. Furthermore, in advance of the completion of weld overlay application and the corresponding.

shrinkage stress analysis, shrinkage stresses of 1 ksi were conservatively assumed for flaw evaluations in 28 inch recirculation piping. Shrinkage stresses in this piping are likely to be significantly less than this enveloping value, based on the analysis performed after the last outage (6), which gave a maximum repair shrinkage stress of 0.424 ksi in 28 inch pipe.

3.3 Flaw Evaluations A summary of the flaw evaluations performed for 28 inch recirculation system piping welds is given in Table 3-5. All fracture mechanics evaluations were done using Structural Integrity's pc-CRACK computer program (7), and following the procedures of NUREG-0313, Revision 2 (2]. All flaw indications in the six welds evaluated are acceptable without repair for at least another 18-month fuel cycle (13,140 hrs.). The minimum calculated life, to reach the flaw acceptance limit, is approximately 14,000 hrs. for weld 02BD-F8. Details of the flaw evaluations follow, and are given in Appendix B, for the six l

welds of interest.

l SIR-88-018 3-3 DITEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

The circumferential flaws in Table 3-5 were conservatively grown

[7] as 360* cracks with an initial depth corresponding to the maximum shown in Appendix A (summarized in Table 3-1). Crack growth was in accordance with the following law [2):

~

61 da/dt = 3.590 x 10 K

where:

da/dt = crack growth rate, in/hr.

K = stress intensity factor [2,7)

Weld residual stresses were conservatively assumed as "as-welded" and were in accordance with the fourth order polynomial given in (2), but were curve-fit to a third order polynomial for use in pc-CRACK [7). Excellent agreement for this curve-fit is demonstrated by the example in Figure 3-1. Third order polynomial coefficients for both suction (1.203 inch thick) and discharge (1.359 inch thick) 28 inch pipe welds are given with the pc-CRACK runs in Appendix B. As mentioned, bounding repair shrinkage stresses of 1 ksi were assumed for crack growth (and flaw acceptance limits). Pressure, deadweight and thermal stresses from Table 3-3 were added to the above repair shrinkage and weld residual stresses to compute K for the crack growth predictions. Crack length was grown in accordance with NUREG-0313, Revision 2 [2), including multiple crack effects for weld 02BD-F8.

The times predicted for the 360* cracks to grow in depth from the initial size to the final allowable size are summarized in Table 3-5. The allowable sizes are computed by pc-CRACK [7] and are based upon the ASME Section XI IWB-3641 table for SMAW welds.

These allowable flaw size calculation results are also given in Appendix B of this report. It can be seen in Appendix B that the allowable flaw depth depends on the flaw length, as a fraction of the pipe circumference. Growth of the flaw in the length SIR-88-018 3-4 INTEGRrFY ASSOCIATESINC

direction was performed in accordance with [2]. For example, the multiple flaw indications in weld 02BD-F8 are grown in length so-that the flaw aspect ratio increases as a multiple of the increase in predicted flaw depth. This growth in length has the f effect of approximately quadrupling the crack length for each of the three 3 inch to 3.5 inch flaw indication segments. The total flaw length, as grown, is greater than 30% of the pipe f

circumference; thus, a 360* flaw length is required [2] to compute the final allowable flaw depth.

{

For the computation of final allowable flaw sizes in Appendix B, the tabular solutions [7] from IWB-3641 [3] are employed, and are slightly more conservative than the source equation solutions permitted by IWB-3642 [3]. Stresses are taken from Table 3-3, with the primary membrane stress equal to the pressure stress, the primary bending stress equal to the deadweight plus OBE stresses, and the thernal expansion stresses equal to the thermal plus repair shrinkage (1 ksi) stresses.

3.4 Weld Overlay Repairs Volume 1 of this report documents the weld overlay repair designs for the 12 inch recirculation riser and 6 inch RWCU welds, as summarized in Table 3-6. Details of those designs are given in Appendix C. Volume 2 of this report will include "as-built" overlay dimensions, as well as a repair shrinkage analysis to evaluate the influence of these overlay repairs on piping stresses. These repair shrinkage stresses are of particular use in evaluating the flaw indications in 28 inch recirculation pipe welds, which were accepted for another fuel cycle without repair.

As discussed in Section 2.0 of this report, standard design basis (2) weld overlay repairs were designed for flaw indications in eleven 12 inch recirculation risers and for two 6 inch RWCU pipe l locations. As shown in the repair drawings for the 6 inch RWCU piping in Appendix C, in one case a single weld overlay was l

SIR-88-018 3-5 INTEGMTY ASSOCIATESINC

l employed to cover two adjacent butt welds and a plugged location where a sockolet was removed.. The stresses from Table 3-4 were used to design these full structural overlays, with the primary membrane stress equal to the pressure stress, and the primary

( -bending stress equal to the deadweight plus OBE stresses. Again, these designs are in accordance with the methods of NUREG-0313, f Revision 2 [2] and Section XI, IWB-3641 tables [3] using pc-CRACK

[7]. The minimum design width of the 360* overlays exceeds the f dimension 1.5 @ , where R is the original pipe outer radius and t is the original pipe wall thickness, except where piping component geometries justify less width. Details are given in Appendix C.

In accordance with the Structural Integrity technical specification [4], the surface of th( 12 inch recirculation riser welds to be weld overlay repaired will be liquid penetrant (PT) examined and any indications repaired prior to weld overlay application. The first weld overlay layer will contain a minimum delta ferrite content of 7.5 FN. Each of these weld overlays will be surface conditioned to allow for UT examination using the EPRI developed weld overlay examination techniques.

IGSCC-like flaws were evaluated in two 6 inch RWCU system weldments outside of the drywell (see Table 3-2). Several repair options were evaluated and, based on a successful hydrostatic testing of the inaccessible welds, a standard design basis weld overlay in accordance with NUREG-0313, Revision 2 [2]

was chosen. Two differences in these weld overlay repairs have been presented to the NRC staff and found acceptable; these being: application of'a "dry first layer" and the final weld overlay surface finish.

Due to the through-wall axial and other flaws, a first weld overlay layer, not considered in the design thickness, will be applied to the RWCU weldments with the system drained. This SIR-88-018 3-6 INTEGRITY w ASSOCiluEINC

I layer is intended to provide an additional "barrier" against welding problems. This completed layer will contain 7.5 FN minimum, be PT examined and any repairs made prior to refilling the system. The weld overlay will then be applied in the normal manner in accordance with the Structural Integrity technical specification (4).

b The weld overlay repairs applied to the RWCU system will not be surface conditioned for ultrasonic examination at this time for ALARA and other reasons. If the service life of these repairs is intended to be longer than two fuel cycles of operation, the weld overlays will be surface conditioned and UT examined using the EPRI developed weld overlay UT examination techniques.

4 8

SIR-88-018 3-7 DfTEGMTY ASSOCIATESINC

TABLE 3-1 Flaw Characterization in 28 inch Pipe Locations 1988 Outage -

[ PIPE FLAW INDICATION WELD PIPE O.D. THICKNESS ORIENTATION LENGTH DEPTil SIDE NUMBER (INCilES) (INCIIES) (AXIAL OR CIRC) (INCHES) (a/t.%)*

02AD-F12 28 1.359 CIRC 1 17 PIPE 02AD-S6 28 1.359 CIRC 3 7 ELBOW 02AS-F14 28 1.203 CIRC 42.5 12 PIPE f

02AS-S12 28 3.203 UIRC 8 8 PIPE 02BD-F8 28 1.359 CIRC 3 25 ELBOW CIRC 3 26 ELBOW CIRC 3.5 26 ELBOW 02BS-S12 28 1.203 CIRC 36 13 PIPE Flaw depth "a", as % of pipe wall thickness "t" i

l l

l 3-8 SIR-88-018 INTEGRITY ASSOCUMEINC

j .'

( TABLE 3-2 Flaw Characterization in 6 inch and 12 inch Locations

- 1988 Outage -

[ PIPE FLAW INDICATION WELD PIPE O. D. - TIIICKNESS ORIENTATION LENGTH DEPTfi SIDE NUMBER (INCHES) (INCHES) ( AXIAL OR CIRC) (INCHES) (a/t.%)*

f

[

02D-S3 12.75 0.585 CIRC 1.5 41 PIPE l CIRCS(3) 4 26 ELBOW AXIALS(2) ---

41 PIPE AXIAL ---

24 ELBOW 02E-S3 12.75 0.585 AXIALS(2) ---

24 PIPE f- 0.585 CIRC 0.5 48 PIPE 02F-S3 12.75

. CIRC 1 22 PIPE AXIAL ---

38 PIPE AXIALS(4) ---

22 ELBOW 02G-S4 12.75 0.585 AXIALS(2) ---

55 PIPE 02H-S3 12.75 0.585 AXIALS(2) ---

51 PIPE 02J-S3 12.75 0.585 AXIAL ---

17 ELBOW r 02J-S4 12.75 0.585 CIRC 2.5 26 PIPE I 02K F6 12.75 0.585 CIRC 0.4 54 PIPE AXIAL ---

50 PIPE 02L-S3 12.75 0.585 AXIALS(2) ---

17 ELBOW 02L-S4 12.75 0.585 AXIAL ---

43 ELBOW 02M-S4 12.75 0.585 CIRC 1.3 17 ELBOW CIRC 0.7 17 ELBOW 12S-S24 6.625 0.432 CIRC 3.75 51 PIPE CIRC 6.2 49 PIPE AXIALS(2) ---

100 PIPE 12S-F26AR 6.625 0.432 CIRC 0.75 23 UPSTREAM Flaw depth "a", as % of pipe wall thickness "t" 3-9 SIR-88-018 DITEGRITY ASSOCIATEINC

l Table 3-3 Stress Components for 28 inch Pipe Locations Weld Pressure Deadweight Thermal OBE Shrinkage Number (osi) (osi) (psi) (psii (osi)*

02AD-F12' 6439 57 266 1506 1000 02AD-S6 6439 48 226 569 1000 02AS-F14 6692 55 103 246 1000 >

02AS-S12 6692 52 205 249 1000 02BD-F8 6439 26 1687 608 1000 02BS-S12 6692 70 859 92 1000 0 Assumed - Analysis to be done later SIR-88-018 3-10 .

DITEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

3

, Table 3-4 Stress Components for 12 inch and 6 inch Pipe Locations

( Weld Pressure Deadweight .OBE I Number fosi) (osi) JJg.D.

02D-S3 6811 737 813 02E-S3 6811 93 1318 02F-S3 6811 155 1169- i f- 02G-S4 6811 54 1 3 1 t' 02H-S3 6811 20 948 02J-S3 6811 135 795 f

02J-S4 6811 77 1277 02K-F6 6811 211 3649 02L-S3 6811 266 1718 02L-S4 6811 168 1804 02M-S4 6811 867 1371 12S-S24 4793 1589 7352 12S-F26AR 4793 171 6693 SIR-88-018 3-11 DfTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

1 J

Table 3-5

j. Flaw Evaluation Summary for 28 inch Pipe I

l Time to 8

End Reach i Initial Flaw Allowable of Allow.

Weld Orientation Length Depth Depth Cycle Depth i _ Number (nsi) (in.) fa/t %) (a/t %) L/C*(%) (years) i~

1 l '02AD-F12 CIRC 1 17 60 15 4.00 i 02AD-S6 CIRC 3 7 49 100 3.54 i

02AS-F14 CIRC 42.5 12 49 100 3.08 3

02AS-S12 CIRC 8 8 49 100 3.31 i

02BD-F8 CIRC (3) 3 25 49 100 1.61

3 26

3.5 26 !

02BS-S12 CIRC 36 13 49 100 2.63 2

l [

Final flaw length, in accordance with NUREG-0313, Rev. 2, as % of nominal pipe circumference. ,.

t SIR-88-018 3-12 M

S INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

Table 3-6 Weld Overlay Repair Designs L - 1988 Outage -

Weld Design' Length Design Thickness Number _ (inches) (inches) 02D-S3 4.5 0.22 02E-S3 4.5 0.21 02F-S3 4.5 0.21 02G-S4 4.5 0.21

[ 0.21 02H-S3 4.5 02J-S3 4.5 0.21 02J-S4 4.5 0.21

' 02K-F6 Note 1 0.25 02L-S3 4.5 0.22 02L-S4 4.5 0.22 02M-S4 4.5 0.22 12S-S24 2.4 0.23 12S-F26AR Note 2 0.20

(& 12S-S26R)

Note 1: This is a pipe-to-sweepolet weld. On the pipe side, the full thickness design length is 2.5 inch from weld centerline. On the sweepolet side, the design length is 1.5 inch, or blended into the sweepolet transition, whichever occurs first.

Note 2: Two welds (12S-F26AR and 12S-S26R) are less than 1 inch apart. Upstream of 12S-F26AR, a sockolet has been removed and plugged. The overlay is designed to cover both welds and the plug (see Appendix C).

}

4-SIR-88-018 3-13 DrrEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

[ 4.0 DISCUSSION A discussion of the UT flaw indications found during this outage (Appendix A), especially in view of IHSI treatments and prior inspections, is included in this section. During the current f

cxamination program, nine 12 inch welds and one 28 inch weld

]

which were IHSI treated in 1984 were evaluated as containing new f IGSCC-like flaw indications. IGSCC flaw growth was also observed in one 28 inch recirculation weld and in two 12 inch diameter riser Welds. The UT examination data, the IHSI treatment records and the original fabrication history / radiographs were reviewed l for a large majority of these welds, (nine of the eleven 12 inch welds and both of the 28 inch welds). In summary, the observations from this review include the following.

4.1 12 inch Recirculation Riser Welds Six of the nine newly flawed recirculation riser welds contained only a very limited number (1 or 2) of axial IGSCC indications.

The observations related to these welds include:

e the IHSI treatment records showing no evidence that the treatments were outside of the EPRI guidelines, e

e the presence of "flat topped" weld crowns for UT examination which make the examination for shallow axially oriented flaws more difficult, e evidence from the original construction radiographs of wide weld roots and weld crowns, further exacerbating the problems with detecting axially oriented flaws, and a the presence of evidence in the original construct un radiographs that substantial ID grinding was perforrn tn the weld root and counterbore regions of these welds.

SIR-88-018 4-1 STRUCTURE INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

r l

From these observations, it is felt that there are sufficient reasons to believe that shallow axially-oriented IGSCC may have been present in these six weldments or may have initiated in the cold worked ground layer in service. It is also believed that it has been difficult to detect these shallow axial flaws in prior examinations due to the weld contour.

Relatively short circumferential flaws were identified in three 12 inch risers, one also containing axial flaws. Flaw growth was observed in the two 12 inch welds which were previously reported as flawed. Review of the IllSI treatment records and original construction radiographs reveal similar observations of successful IllSI treatments, ID grinding and wide weld roots.

4.2 Large Diameter Recirculation Welds In general, there was no adverse change in the flaw characterization of the previously reported flawed 28 inch weldments. In one case (02BD-F8), flaw growth and new flaws were identified. A short, very shallow (7% through-wall) circumferential flaw was also observed in weld 02AD-S6. The original construction radiographs of this weld showed evidence of ID grinding during construction and root geometry. The IIISI treatment records for these walds showed no evidence that the treatments were outside of the EPRI guidelines.

t In summary, new IGSCC-like flaw indications have been observed in a number of IllSI treated welds previously reported as unflawed.

In addition, flaw growth in a limited number of welds previously ,

1 reported as flawed has also been observed. An initial review of l the IllSI treatment records, original construction radiographs and prior UT examination history indicates that:

e the IllSI treatments were all within the current EPRI guidelines, and SIR-88-018 4-2 gg DITEGRFIT ASSOCIATESINC

j

there is strong evidence of ID grinding and/or wide weld roots in each of these welds.

Additional work is underway to further investigate these observations as part of an indu?try-wide research effort under the auspices of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

SIR-88-018 4-3 STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

5.0 CONCLUSION

S During the 1988 refueling outage at Quad Cities Unit 2, augmented i

l inspection of piping for IGSCC and post-MSIP UT resulted in the UT inspection of 143 welds and 14 previously applied weld l

overlays. This report documents the disposition of the flaw indications found in piping welds during the above inspection.

The disposition of UT inspection results of prior and current weld overlays will be discussed in Volume 2 of this report, along with "as-built" overlay dimensions and a repair shrinkage stress analysis, after the weld overlays are completed.

All flaw evaluations and weld overlay repair designs are in accordance with NUREG-0313, Revision 2 (2). A total of six 28 inch pipe recirculation system welds with UT flaw indications were evaluated as being acceptable without repair for at least one additional 18-month fuel cycle. As-welded resid"-l stress distributions (2) were assumed (although IHSI had been performed in 1984) and repair shrinkage stresses of 1 ksi were conservatively employed to evaluate these flaws.

Standard design (2), full structural weld overlay repairs were designed for each of the eleven 12 inch recirculation riser weldments with flaw indications, and for the two 6 inch piping locations with flaw indications in the RWCU system.

In addition to the above flaw evaluations and weld overlay designs, Structural Integrity Associates investigated the flaw indications found in previously IHSI treated welds.

IHSI treatment records show no evidence that the treatments may have been outside of the EPRI guidelines. However, there is evidence of ID grinding and/or wide weld roots in these welds; therefore, shallow axial cracks may have initiated in this ground layer and been difficult to detect during prior UT examinations due to the weld contour. Additional work is underway to further SIR-88-018 5-1 NCTURAI.

INTEGRITY

' ASSOCIATESINC

investigate these observations as part of an industry-wide research effort under the auspices of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

SIR-88-018 5-2 g INTEGRITY

6.0 REFERENCES

1. Ultrasonic Examination Reports for Quad Cities Unit 2 - 1988 Outage, General Electric Co., May 15, 1988, File No.

CECO-09-202.

2. NUREG-0313, Revision 2, "Technical Report on Material Selection and Processing Guidelines for BWR Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping," Final Report, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 1988.

3. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel (Code,Section XI, 1983 Edition with Addenda through Winter 1985).

4. D. R. Pitcairn and H. L. Gustin, "Application of Weld Overlay Repairs, Quad Cities Station Units 1 & 2," Technical Specification, SIS-88-001, Structural Integrity Associates, Inc., April, 1988.

l S. D. Hudson (Impell Corp.), Portions of Stress Report for Quad Cities Reactor Recirculation Piping, EDS Nuclear, Inc.,

Superpipe Version 11/15/79, Job No. 0590-003 & 013, Analyses done 19980-1981, sent to Structural Integrity Associates, File No. CECO-09-201.

6. N. G. Cofie, et. al., "Evaluation and Disposition of Flaws at Quad Cities Nuclear Power Plant Unit 2 (1986 Outage),"

Nutech Report CEC-73-203, Rev. O, Jan. 1987.

7. S. S. Tang, et. al., "pc-CRACK User's Manua)," Version 1.2, Rev. O, Structural Integrity Associates, March, 1987.

SIR-88-018 6-1 STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY

/ ASSOCUGEINC

l APPENDIX A Flaw Characterization by Ultrasonic (UT) Examination l

I I

l STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY l ASSOCIATESINC l

Flaw Characterization Comparisons Currently and Previously Reported Flawed Welds Quad Cities Unit 2 - 1988 Refueling Outage 6 inch Reactor Water Cleanup (RWCU) Welds Year Length Depth Examined Orientation (inch) (%tw) Side Weld 12S-S24 (6 inch flued head-to-pipe) 1983 -

1986 Not examined 1988 circumferential 3-3/4 51 pipe circumferential 6.2 49 pipe 2 axials -

100 pipe Weld 12S-F26AR (6 inch pipe-to-pipe) 1986 No reportable indications - - -

1988 circumferential 3/4 23 pipe (upstrm.)

SIR-88-018 A-2 M

INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

f Flaw Characterization Comparisons Currently and Previously Reported Flawed Welds Quad Cities Unit 2 - 1988 Refueling Outage

{ 12 inch Recirculation Riser Welds (Note 1) f Year Length Depth Examined Orientation (inchi (%tw) Side Weld 02D-S3 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 circumferential 1/2 25 pipe 1985 circumferential 1/2 26-28 pipe 1986 circumferential 0.6 17 pipe 1988 circumferential 1.5 41 pipe

3 circumferentials 4 26 elbow **

2 axials -

41 pipe axial -

24 elbow

= w/ axial component

- = 2 w/ axial components l

Weld 02E-S3 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 ID and OD geometry 1985 not examined 1986 intermittent root geometry 1988 2 axials -

24 pipe Weld 02F-S3 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 no reportable indications 1985 not examined 1986 no reportable indications 1988 circumferential 1/2 48 pipe circumferential 1 22 pipe I axial -

38 pipe 4 axials -

22 elbow SIR-88-018 A-3 INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

d Flaw Characterization Comparisons Currently and Previously Reported Flawed Welds Quad Cities Unit 2 - 1988 Refuelino Outage 12 inch Recirculation Riser Welds (Note 1)

(continued)

L~

Year Length Depth Examined Orientation (inchi (%tw) Sidq_

Weld 02G-S4 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 OD geometry 1985 ID & OD geometry f 1986 no reportable indications 1988 2iaxials - 55 pipe Weld 02H-S3 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 OD geometry 1985 not examined 1986 OD geometry 1988 2 axials -

51 pipe Weld 02J-S3 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 OD geometry 1985 not examined 1986 no reportable indications 1988 axial -

17 elbow Weld 02J-S4 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 ID geometry 1985 not examined 1986 no reportable indications 1988 circumferential 2-1/2 26 pipe Silt-88-018 A-4 DITEGRITY l ASSOCIATESINC

Flaw Characterization Comparisons Currently and Previously Reported Flawed Welds Quad Cities Unit 2 - 1988 Refueling Outage f 12 inch Recirculation Riser Welds (Note 1)

(continued) f Year Length Depth Examined Orientation (inchi (%tw) Side Weld 02K-F6 (12 inch pipe-to-sweepolet)

['

1983 ID geometry 1985 not examined r 1986 no reportable indications

{.

1988 circumferential 0.4 54 pipe axial -

50 pipe f Weld 02L-S3 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 OD geometry 1985 not examined 1986 no reportable indications 1988 2 axials -

17 elbow .

Weld 02L-S4 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 no reportable indications 1985 not examined 1986 no reportable indications 1988 axial -

43 cibow Wold 02M-S4 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 circumferential 1/2 9 elbow 1985 circumfurential 1/2 15 elbow elbow 1986 circumferential 1/2 12 I 1988 circumferential* 1.3 17 elbow circumferential 0.7 17 clbow

= w/ axial component Notes:

(1) All welds were IHSI treated in 1984 Sill-88-018 A-5 DITEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

Flaw Characterization Comparisons Currently and Previously Reported Flawed Welds Quad Cities Unit 2 - 1988 Refueling Outage

( 28 inch Recirculation Welds - Note 3 t

Year Length Depth Examined Orientation (inch) (%tw) Side Weld 02AS-S6 (28 inch pipe-to-pipe) 1983 circumferential 7-1/2 21 upstrm.

1985 circumferential 8 18 upstrm.

1986 circumferential 8 18 upstrm.

1988 no IGSCC reported Weld 02AS-F14 (28 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 circumferential 43 20 pipe spot - 30 elbow 1985 circumferential 43 13 pipe intermit.

1966 circumferential 43 14 pipe intermit.

i 1988 circumferential 42-1/2 12 pipe (Note 1) intermit.

Weld 02AS-S12 (28 inch elbow-to-pipe) 1983 circumferential 8 14 pipe circumferential 4 11 pipe circumferential 1 8 elbow circumferential 2 9 elbow 1985 circumferential 8 4 pipe circumferential 6-1/2 5 pipe circumferential 2-1/2 15 elbow 1986 circumferential 6 4 pipe circumferential 5 13 pipe circumferential 2 22 elbow l

pipe 1988 circumferential 8 8 SIR-88-018 A-6 DITEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

[ Flaw Characterization Comparisons Currently and Previously Reported Flawed Welds Quad Cities Unit 2 - 1988 Refueling Outage

[ 28 inch Recirculation Welds - Note 3 (continued)

[

Year Length Depth Examined Orientation (inch) (%tw) Side Weld 02AD-F12 (28 inch pump-to-pipe) 1983 circumferential 24 10 pipe

(

t. total 1985 circumferential 1 18 pipe 1986 circumps16ntial 1 17 pipe 1988 circumferential 1 17 pipe

(

(By manual ultrasonic examination - automated ultrasonic examination showed no IGSCC)

Weld 02BD-F8 (28 inch valve-to-elbow) 1983 root geometry 1985 not examined 1986 circumferential 4-1/2 15 elbow total 1988 circumferential 3 25 elbow circumferential 3 26 elbow circumferential 3-1/2 26 elbow root geometry Weld 02BS-S12 (28 inch pipe-to-elbow) - Note 2 1983 cir .:umf erential 32 16 pipe root geometry pipe 1985 circumferential 36 21 pipe root geometry pipe 1986 circumferential 36 13 pipe root geometry pipe 1988 circumferential 36 13 pipe root geometry pipe (By manual ultrasonic examination - automated ultrasonic examination showed no IGSCC)

SIR-88-018 A-7 INTEGIUTY ASSOCIATESINC

Flaw Characterization Comparisons Currently and Previously Reported Flawed Welds Quad Citxes Unit 2 - 1988 Refueling Outage 28 inch Recirculation Welds - Note 3 (continued)

' Length Depth Year Examined Orientation (inchi (%tw) Side Weld 02AD-S6 (28 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 ID geometry 1985 not examined 1986 root geometry 1988 circumferential 3 7 elbow Weld 02BS-F.*.A (28 inch pipe-to-elbow)

I I

1983 circumferential 5-1/4 18 pipe 1985 circumferential 1 10 pipe ID toot geometry 1986 ID root geometry 1988 no IGSCC reported r

Notes:

(1) 42-1/2 inches is the total extent of the flaws with a combined length of 34-1/2 inches.

(2) Weld 02BS-S12 has previously been reported as flawed based on manual ultrasonic examinations. A metallurgical plug sample removed in 1983 showed the presence of a backwelded root and no indication of IGSCC.

(3) All welds were IllSI treated in 1984.

SIR-88-018 A-8 INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

. .--_ __ l

APPENDIX B l

l Flaw Evaluation Analyses I

t i

i s

4 M

INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

[-

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES, INC.

t SAN JOSE, CA (408)378-8200 VERSION 1.2

( ALLOWABLE FLAW SIZE EVALUATION ALLOWABLE FLAW SIZE FOR CIRCUMF. CRACK FLUX WELD f CECO-09Q RECIRC DISCHARGE, WELD 02BD-F8 WALL THICKNESS: 1.3500 MEMBRANE STRESS: 6430.0000

( BENDING STRESS: 634.0000 EXPANSION STRESS: 2687.0000 PIPE OUTSIDE DIAMETER: 28.0000 f- FLUX WELD TYPE-SMAW(1)/SAW(2):1 STRESS BATIO: 0.4935 ALLOWABLE STRESS:16950,0000 FLOW STBESS:50850.0000 l

STRESS RATIO IS LESS THAN 0.6000WHICH WILL BE USED IN THE ANALYSIS.

L/ CIRCUM 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 ALLOWABLE A/T 0.0000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.4900 EdD OF pc-CRACK l

l B-2 m DITEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

e

' tm pc-CRACK

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES, INC.

SAN JOSE, CA (408)978-8200 VERSION 1.2 f

L STRESS CORROSION CRACK GROWTH ANALYSIS f CECO-09Q, RECIRC DISCHARGE, WELD 02BD-F8 WL HI K s S I35

{- MAX.CBACK SIZE FOR SCCG: 1.0872 l

STRESS CORROSION CRACK GROWTH LAW (S)

I LAW ID C N Kthres K1C NBC 3.5900E-08 2.1610 0.0000 200.0000 STRESS COEFFICIENTS CASE ID CO C1 C2 C3 DSCHGRESID 30.1467 -155.3298 150.9371 -17.2023

{

I PRESSURE 6.4390 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 SHRINKAGE 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 DEAD WT 0.0260 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 THERMAL 1.6870 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Kmax CASE ID SCALE FACTOR DSCHGRESID 1.00 PRESSURE 1.00 SHRINKAGE 1.00 DEAD WT 1.00 THERMAL 1.00 TIME PRINT TIME INCREMENT INCREMENT 50000.0 10.0 1000.0 CRACK MODEL:CIRCUMFERENTIAL CRACK IN CYLINDER (T/R:0.1)

CRACK ---------------STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR----------------

DEPTH CASE CASE CASE CASE CASE DSCHGRESID PRESSURE SHRINKAGE DEAD WT THERMAL 0.0217 8.176 1.867 0.290 0.007 0.489 0.0435 10.841 2.652 0.412 0.011 0.695 0.0652 12.418 3.262 0.507 0.013 0.855 0.0870 13.376 3.784 0.588 0.015 0.991 0.1087 13.908 4.249 0.660 0.017 1.113 0.1305 14.123 4.675 0.726 0.019 1.225 0.1522 14.172 5.100 0.792 0.021 1.336 B-3 INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

pc-CRACK VERSION 1.2 PAGE $

(

0.1740 14.045 5.515 0.857 0.022 1.445 0.1957 13.747 5.917 0.919 0.024 1.550

( 0.2174 13.304 6.308 0.980 0.025 1.653 1.753 0.2392 12.734 6.691 1.039 0.027 0.2609 12.055 7.066 1.097 0.028 1.851 0.2827 11.323 7.456 1.158 0.030 1.953

[ 1.221 0.032 2.060 0.3044 10.547 7.863 0.3262 9.603 5.269 1.284 0.033 2.166 0.3479 8.770 8.675 1.347 0.035 2.273

( 0.3696 7.788 9.081 1.410 0.037 2.379 0.3914 6.753 9.487 1.473 0.038 2.486 0.4131 5.744 9.915 1.540 0.040 2.598 f 4.910 10.411 1.617 0.042 2.728 0.4349 i

0.4566 4.055 10.912 1.695 0.044 2.859 0.4784 3.186 11.419 1.773 0.046 2.992 0.5001 2.311 11.932 1.853 0.048 3.126

( 0.5219 1.435 12.449 1.933 0.050 3.362 0.5436 0.566 12.973 2.015 0.052 3.599 0.5653 -0.278 13.530 2.101 0.055 3.540

[

L 0.5871 -1.111 14.094 2.189 0.057 3.692 0.6088 -1.926 14.664 2.277 0.059 3.842 0.6306 -2.715 15.241 2.367 0.061 3.993 0.6523 -3.473 15.824 2.457 0.064 4.146

( 0.6741 -4.192 16.413 2.549 0.066 4.300 0.6958 -4.956 17.045 2.647 0.069 4.466 0.7176 -5.710 17.696 2.748 0.071 4.636

[ 4,809 l 0.7393 -6.421 18.354 2.850 0.074 0.7610 -7.081 19.020 2.954 0.077 4.983 0.7828 -7.682 19.694 3.059 0.079 5.160 0.8045 -8.217 20.375 3.164 0.082 5.338 l -8.384 21.090 3.275 0.085 5.525 0.8263 0.8480 -8.145 21.838 3.392 0.088 5.722 0.8698 -7.776 22.596 3.509 0.091 5.920 0.8915 -7.268 23.361 3.628 0.094 6.121 0.9132 -6.611 24.135 3.748 0.097 6.323 0.9350 -5.798 24.918 3.870 0.101 6.528 0.9567 -5.065 25.727 3.995 0.104 6.740 0.9785 -4.919 26.601 4.131 0.107 6.969 1.0002 -4.621 27.484 4.268 0.111 7.201 1.0220 -4.157 28.378 4.407 0.115 7.435 1.0437 -3.516 29.280 4.547 0.118 7.671 1.0655 -0.684 30.192 4.689 0.122 7.910 1.0872 -1.649 31.114 4.832 0.126 8.152 7

TIME KMAX DA/DT DA A A/THK 1000.0 20.51 2,4569E-05 0.0002 0.3785 0.279 0.4024 0.296 2000.0 20.04 2.3356E-05 0.0002 3000.0 19.77 2.2675E-05 0.0002 0.4254 0.313 4000.0 19.62 2.2327E-05 0.0002 0.4479 0.330 B-4 INTEGRITY ASSOCIATE 31NC

v pc-CRACK VERSION 1.2 FAGE >

5000.0 19.48 2.1963E-05 0.0002 0.4700 0.346 6000.0 19.33 2.1604E-05 0.0002 0.4918 0.362 7000,0 19.19 2.1265E-05 0.0002 0.5132 0.378 8000.0 19.06 2.0961E-05 0.0000 0.5343 0.393 l 9000.0 18.98 2.0766E-05 0.0002 0.5552 0.409 l 10000.0 18.94 2.0671E-05 0.0002 0.5759 0.424 11000.0 18.92 2.0608E-05 0.0000 0.5965 0.439 12000.0 18.93 2.0649E-05 0.0002 0.6172 0.454 13000.0 18.97 2.0749E-05 0.0002 0.6378 0.469 l 14000,0 19.05 2.0942E-05 0.0002 0.6587 0.485 15000.0 19.17 2.1224E-05 0.0000 0.6798 0.500 16000.0 19.31 2.1563E-05 0.0002 0.7011 0.516

[

l 17000.0 19.49 2.2008E-05 0.0002 0.7229 0.532 18000.0 19.74 2.2617E-05 0.0000 0.7452 0.548 19000.0 20.07 2.3432E-05 0.0002 0.7682 0.565 20000.0 20.49 2.4515E-05 0.0002 0.7922 0.583 f 21.24 2.6486E-05 0.0003 0.8175 0.602 21000.0 22000.0 22.75 3.0722E-05 0.0003 0.8459 0.622

[ 23000.0 25.06 3.7854E-05 0.0004 0.8799 0.647 l 24000.0 28.54 5.0167E-05 0.0005 0.9233 0.679 25000.0 33.17 6.9397E-05 0.0007 0.9831 0.723 26000.0 40.37 1.0611E-04 0.0011 1.0678 0.786 CRACK DEPTH EXCEEDED 1.0872 AT TIME 2.6180E+04 END OF pc-CRACK B-5 INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

)

SAN JOSE, CA (408)978-8200 VERSION 1.2 ALLOWABLE FLAW SIZE EVALUATION ALLOWABLE FLAW SIZE FOR CIRCUMF. CRACK FLUX WELD CECO-00Q, WELD 02AD-F12 WALL THICKNESS: 1.3590 '

l MEMBRANE STRESS: 6439.0000 BENDING STRESS: 1563.0000 EXPANSION STRESS: 1266.0000 PIPE OUTSIDE DIAMETER: 28.0000 FLUX WELD TYPE-SMAW(1)/SAW(2):1 STRESS RATIO: 0.5190 ALLOWABLE STRESS:16950.0000 f FLOW STRESS:50850.0000 STRESS RATIO IS LESS THAN 0.6000HHICH WILL BE USED IN THE ANALYSIS.

L/ CIRCUM 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 ALLOWABLE A/T 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.4900 END OF pc-CRACK B-6 DrrBGRITY

tm

SAN JOSE, CA (408)S78-8200

[ VERSION 1.2 LTRESSCORROSIONCRNCKGROWTHANALYSIS

[

CECO-09Q, RECIRC DISCHARGE, WELD 02AD-F12 INITIAL CRACK SIZE: 0.2310 WALL THICKNESS: 1.3590 MAX CRACK SIZE FOR SCCG: 1.0872

(

STRESS CORROSION CRACK GROWTH LAW (S)

LAW ID C N Kthres K1C .

h HRC 3.5900E-08 2.1610 0.0000 200.0000 STRESS COEFFICIENTS

{' CASE ID CO C1 C2 C3 DSCHGRESID 30.1467 -155.3298 150.9371 -17.2023 PRESSURE 6.4390 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i

1 DEAD WT U.0670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 THERMAL 0.2660 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 SHRINKAGE 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Kmax CASE ID SCALE FACTOR DSCHGRESID 1.00 PRESSURE 1.00 DEAD WT 1.00 THERMAL 1.00 SHRINKAGE 1.00 TIME PRINT TIME INCREMENT INCREMENT 50000.0 10.0 1000.0 CRACK MODEL:CIRCUMFERENTIAL CRACK IN CYLINDER (T/R:0.1)

CRACK ---------------STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR----------------

DEPTH CASE CASE CASE CASE CASE DSCHGRESID PRESSURE DEAD WT THERMAL SHRINKAGE 0.0217 8.176 1.867 0.016 0.077 0.290 0.0435 10.841 2.652 0.023 0.109 0.412 0.0652 12.418 3.262 0.029 0.135 0.507 0.0870 13.376 3.784 0.033 0.156 0.588 0.1087 13.908 4."49 u.038 0.175 0.660

- 0.1305 14.123 4.675 0.041 0.193 0.726 0.1522 14.172 5.100 0.045 0.211 0.792 M

B-7 AssocumEINC j

pc-CRACK VERS 80H 1.2 FAGE $

O.1740 14.045 5.515 0.049 0.228 0.857 0.1957 13.747 5.917 0.052 0.244 0.919 0.2174 13.304 6.308 0.056 0.261 0.980 O.2392 12.734 6.691 0.059 0.276 1.039 O.2609 12.055 7.066 0.063 0.292 1.097 0.2827 11.323 7.456 0.066 0.308 1.158 0.3044 10.547 7.863 0.070 0.325 1.221 L 0.3262 9.693 8.269 0.073 0.342 1.284 0.3479 8.770 8.675 0.077 0.358 1.347 0.3696 7.788 9.081 0.080 0.375 1.410 0.3914 6.753 9.487 0.084 0.392 . 1.473

( 0.4131 5.744 9.915 0.088 0.410 1.540 0.4349 4.010 10.411 0.092 0.430 1.617 0.4566 4.055 10.912 0.097 0.451 1.695

{ 0.4784 3.186 11.419 0.101 0.472 1.773 0.5001 2.311 11.932 0.106 0.493 1.853 0.5219 1.435 12.449 0.110 0.514 1.933 0.5436 0.566 12.973 0.115 0.536 2.015

[ 0.5653 -0.278 13.530 0.120 0.559 2.101 0.5871 -1.111 14.094 0.125 0.582 2.189 0.6088 -1.926 14.664 0.130 0.606 2.277

[

1 0.6306 -2.715 15.241 0.135 0.630 2.367 0.6523 -3.473 15.824 0.140 0.654 2.457 0.6741 -4.192 16.413 0.145 0.678 2.549 0.6958 -4.956 17.045 0.151 0.704 2.647 0.7176 -5.710 17.696 0.157 0.731 2.748 0.7393 -6.421 18.354 0.160 0.758 2.850 0.7610 -7.081 19.020 0.168 0.786 2.954 0.7828 -7.682 19.694 0.174 0.814 3.059 0.8045 -8.217 20.375 0.180 0.842 3.164 0.8263 -8.384 21.090 0.187 0.871 3.275 0.8480 -8.145 21.838 0.193 0.902 3.392 0.8698 -7.776 22.596 0.200 0.933 3.509 0.8915 -7.263 23.361 0.207 0.965 3.628 0.9132 -6.611 24.135 0.214 0.997 3.748 0.9350 -5.798 24.918 0.221 1.029 3.870 0.9567 -5.065 25.727 0.228 1.063 3.995 0.9785 -4.919 26.601 0.235 1.099 4.131 1.0002 -4.621 27.484 0.243 1.135 4.268 1.02*O J ~4.167 23.376 0.251 1.172 4.407 1.0437 -3.516 29.280 0.259 1.210 4.547 1.0655 -2.684 30.192 0.267 1.247 4 . 6 't 9 1.0872 -1.649 31.114 0.275 1.285 4.832 TIME KMAX DA/DT DA A A/THK 1000.0 20.62 2.4858E-05 0.0002 0.2562 0.189 2000.0 20.34 2.4118E-05 0.0000 0.2807 0.207

. 3000.0 20.03 2.3333E-05 0.0000 0.3044 0.224 4000.0 19.65 2.2378E-05 0.0002 0.3272 0.241 Il-8 DfTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

pc-CBACK VE3SION 1.2 FAGE 4 b 5000.0 19.21 - 2.1311E 05 0.0002 0.3491 0.257 6000.0 18.73 2.0196E-05 0.0002 0.3698 0.272 7000,0 18.24 1.9070E-05 0.0002 0.3894 0.287 8000.0 17.82 1.8117E-05 0.0002 0.4080 0.300

[ 9000.0 17.56 1.7561E-05 0.0002 0.4258 0.313 10000.0 17.37 1.7146E-05 0.0002 0.4432 0.326 11000.0 17.17 1.6729E-05 0.0002 0.4601 0.339

[ 0.4766 0.351 t 12000.0 16.98 1.6320E-05 0.0002 13000.0 16.78 1.5925E-05 0.0002 0.4927 0.363 14000.0 16.60 1.5549E-05 0.0002 0.5085 0.374 15000.0 16.42 1.5195E-05 0.0002 0.5238 0.385

( 16000.0 16.26 1.4367E-05 0.0001 0.5389 0.397 17000.0 16.13 1.4607E-05 0.0001 0.5536 0.407 18000.0 16.01 1.4307E-05 0.0001 0.5681 0.418

] 0.0001 0.5324 0.429 1 19000.0 15.91 1.41925-05 20000.0 15.82 1.4022E-05 0.0001 0.5965 0.439 21000.0 15.74 1.3871E-05 0.0001 0.6104 0.449 22000.0 15.68 1.3757E-05 0.0001 0.6242 0.459

( 23000.0 15.64 1.3670E-05 0.0001 0.6379 0.469 24000.0 15.60 1.3605E-05 0.0001 0.6516 0.479

[ 25000.0 15.60 1.3591E-05 0.0001 0.6652 0.489 1 26000.0 15.59 1.3583E-05 0.0001 0.6787 0.499 27000.0 15.59 1.3580E-05 0.0001 0.6923 0.509 28000.0 15.60 1.3606E-05 0.0001 0.7059 0.519 29000.0 15.63 1.3650E-05 0.0001 0.7195 0.529

[ 0.0001 0.7332 0.540 30000.0 15.68 1.3749E-05 31000.0 15.75 1.3890E-05 0.0001 0.7471 0.550 32000.0 15.85 1.4066E-05 0.0001 0.7610 0.560 33000.0 15.98 1.4330E-05 0.0001 0.7752 0.570 34000,0 16.15 1.4649E-05 0.0001 0.7897 0.581 35000.0 16.34 1.5035E-05 0.0002 0.8046 0.592 36000.0 16,84 1.6031E-05 0.0002 0.8201 0.603 37000.0 17.58 1.7607E-05 0.0002 0.8368 0.616 38000.0 13.61 1.9907E-05 0.0002 0.8555 0.630 39000.0 19.92 2.3048E-05 0.0002 0.8769 0.645 40000.0 21.65 2.7603E-05 0.0C03 0.9021 0.664 41000.0 24.05 3.4639E-05 0.0003 0.9330 0.687 42000.0 26.78 4.3713E-05 0.0004 0.9723 0.715 43000.0 29.97 5.5754E-05 0.0006 1.0214 0.752 CBACK DEPTH EXCEEDED 1.0872 AT TIME 4.3990E+04 END OF pc-CBACK DITEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES, INC.

[

SAN JOSE, CA (408)378-8200 VERSION 1.2 ALLOWABLE FLAW SIZE EVALUATION

(

f ALLOWABLE FLAW SIZE FOR CIRCUMF. CRACK, FLUX WELD CECO-00Q, WELD 02AD-SS

(

, WALL THICKNESS: 1.3590 .

[

MEMDRANE STRESS: 6430.0000 l- BENDING STRESS: 617.0000 EXPANSION STRESS: 1226.0000 PIPE OUTSIDE DIAMETER- 28.0000 FLUX WELD TYPE-SMAW(1)/SAW(2):1 f STRESS RATIO: 0.4601 ALLOWABLE STRESS:16950.0000 FLOW STRESS:50850.0000 STRESS RATIO IS LESS THAN 0.6000WHICH WILL BE USED IN THE ANALYSIS.

L/ CIRCUM 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 ALLOWABLE A/T 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.4900 END OF pc-CBACK P

B-10 DrfEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

SAN JOSE, CA (408)G78-8200

}- VERSION 1,2 i

STRESS CORROSION CRACK GROWTH ANALYSIS

}

CECO-03Q, RECIRC DISCHARGE, WELD 02AD-S6 INITIAL CRACK SIZE: 0.0951 WALL THICKNESS: 1.3590 MAX CRACK SIZE FOR SCCG: 1.0872 STRESS CORROSION CRACK GROWTH LAW (S)

LAW ID C N Kthres K1C NBC 3.5900E-08 2.1610 0.0000 200.0000

{

STRESS COEFFICIENTS CASE ID CO C1 C2 C3 f 150.9371 -17.2023 DSCHGRESID 30.1467 -155.3298 PRESSURE 6.4390 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 SHRINKAGE 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 l DEAD kT 0.0480 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 THERMAL 0.2260 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Kmax CASE ID SCALE FACTOR DSCHGRESID 1.00 PRESSURE 1.00 SHRINKAGE 1.00 DEAD WT 1.00 THERMAL 1.00 TIME PRINT '

TIME INCREMENT INCREMENT 50000.0 10.0 1000.0 CRACK MODEL:CIRCUMFERENTIAL CRACK IN CYLINDER (T/R=0.1)

CRACK ---------------STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR----------------

DEPTH CASE CASE CASE CASE CASE DSCHGRESID PRESSURE SHRINKAGE DEAD WT THERMAL 0.0217 8.17 6 1.867 0.290 0.014 0.065 0.0435 10.841 2.652 0.412 0.020 0.093 0.0652 12.418 3.262 0.507 0.024 0.114 0.0870 13.376 3.784 0.588 0.028 0.133 0.1087 13.003 4.249 0.660 0.032 0.149

. 0.1305 14.123 4.675 0.726 0.035 0.164 0.1522 14.172 5.100 0.792 0.038 0.179 D-11 INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

pc-CBACK VESSION 1.2 PAGE 2 0.1740 14.045 5.515 0.857 0.041 0.194 0.1957 13.747 5.917 0.919 0.044 0.208 0.2174 13.304 6.308 0.980 0.047 0.221 0.2392 12.734 6.691 1.039 0.050 0.235 0.2609 12.055 7.066 1.097 0.053 0.248 0.2827 11.323 7.456 1.158 0.056 0.262 0.3044 10.547 7.863 1.221 0.059 0.276 0.3262 9.693 8.269 1.284 0.062 0.290 0.3479 8.770 8.675 1.347 0.065 0.304 0.3690 7.788 9.081 1.410 0.068 0.319 0.3914 6.753 9.487 1.473 0.071 0.333 0.4131 5.744 9.915 1.540 0.074 0.348 0.4349 4.010 10.411 1.617 0.078 0.365 0.4566 4.055 10.912 1.695 0.081 0.383 0.4784 3.186 11.419 1.773 0.085 0.401 I 0.5001 2.311 11.932 1.853 0.089 0.A19

! 0.5219 1.435 12.449 1.933 0.093 0.437 l 0.5436 0.566 12.973 2.015 0.097 0.455 0.5653 -0.278 13.530 2.101 0.101 0.475 0.5871 -1.111 14.094 2.189 0.105 0.455 0.6088 -1.926 14.664 2.277 0.109 0.515 0.6306 -2.715 15.241 2.367 0.114 0.535 0.6523 -3.473 15.824 2.457 0.118 0.555 0.6741 -4.192 16.413 2.549 0.122 0.576 0.6958 -4.956 17.045 2.647 0.127 0.598 0.7176 -5.710 17.696 2.748 0.132 0.621 0.7393 -6.421 18.354 2.850 0.137 0.644 0.7610 -7,081 19.020 2.954 0.142 0.668 0.7828 -7.682 19.694 3.059 0.147 0.691 0.8045 -8.217 20.375 3.164 0.152 0.715 0.8263 -8.384 21.090 3.275 0.157 0.740 0.8430 -8.145 21.838 3.392 0.163 0.766 0.3698 -7.776 22.596 3.509 0.168 0.793 0.8915 -7.268 23.361 3.628 0.174 0.800 0.180 0.847 0.9132 -6.611 24.135 3.748

( -5.798 24.918 3.870 0.186 0.875 0.9350 0.9567 -5.065 25.727 3.995 0.192 0.903 0.9785 -4.919 26.601 4.131 0.198 0.934 1.0002 -4.621 27.484 4.268 0.205 0.965 1.0220 -4.157 23.378 4.407 0.211 0.996 1.0437 -3.516 29.280 4.547 0.218 1.028 1.0655 -0.684 30.192 4.689 0.225 1.060 1.0872 -1,649 31.114 4.832 0.232 1.092 TIME KMAX DA/DT DA A A/THK 1000.0 19.22 2.1332E-05 0.0000 0.1154 0.085 2000,0 19.90 2.3012E-05 0.0002 0.1376 0.101 3000.0 20.43 2.4363E-05 0.0002 0.1614 0.119 4000.0 20.75 2.5195E-05 0.0003 0.1862 0.137 B-12 M

INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESBC

PAGE 3

. po-CBACK VERSION L 2 5000.0 20.86 2.5450E-05 0.0003 0.2116 0.156 6000.0 20.76 2.5216E-05 0.0003 0.2370 0.174 7000.0 20.51 2.4560E-05 0.0002 0.2619 0.193 E 8000.0 20.21 2.3797E-05 0.0002 0.2861 0.211 9000.0 19.88 2.2970E-05 0.0000 0.3095 0.228 10000.0 19.49 2.1991E-05 0.0002 0.3320 0.244 11003.0 19.04 2.0916E-05 0.0002 0.3534 0.260

[- 12000.0 18.57 1.9805E-05 0.0002 0.3733 0.275 13000.0 18.08 1.8713E-05 0.0002 0.3930 0.285 14000.0 17.67 1.7792E-05 0.0002 0.4113 0.303 15000.0 17.45 1.7323E-05 0.0000 0.4288 0.316

[ 16000.0 17.25 1.6906E-05 0.0002 0.4450 0.328 17000.0 17.06 1.6490E-05 0.0002 0.4626 0.340 18000.0 16.86 1.6085E-OS 0.0002 0.4789 0.352 29000.0 16.67 1.5690E-05 0.0002 0.4943 0.364 20000.0 16.49 1.5321E-05 0.0002 0.5103 0.375 28000.0 16.31 1.4970E-05 0.0001 0.5254 0.387 22000.0 16.15 1.4645E-05 0.0001 0.5402 0.398 23000.0 16.02 1.4393E-05 0.0001 0.5547 0.408 '

24000.0 15.90 1.4174E-05 0.0001 0.5690 0.419

[ 25000.0 15.80 1.3978E-05 0.0001 0.5831 0.420 l 26000.0 15.71 1.3809E-05 0.0001 0.5970 0.439 27000.0 15.63 1.3656E-05 0.0001 0.6107 0.449 28000.0 15.57 1.3540E-05 0.0001 0.6243 0.459 29000.0 15.52 1.3449E-05 0.0001 0.6378 0.469

[ 1.3381E-05 0.0001 0.6512 0.479 30000.0 15.48 31000.0 15.47 1.3361E-05 0.0001 0.6646 0.489 32000.0 15.47 1.3340E-05 0.0001 0.6779 0.499

{ 33000.0 16.46 1.3340E-05 0.0001 0.6913 0.509 34000.0 15.47 1.3356E-05 0.0001 0.7046 0.518 39000.0 15.49 1.3386E-05 0.0001 0.7180 0.528 36000,0 15.54 1.3476E-05 0.0001 0.7314 0.538 37000.0 15.60 1.3596E-05 0.0001 0.7449 0.548 38000.0 15.69 1.3761E-05 0.0001 0.7586 0.558 39000.0 15.81 1.3995E-05 0.0001 0.7725 0.568 40000.0 15.96 1.4276E-05 0.0001 0.7866 0.579 41000.0 16.14 1.4640E-05 0.0001 0.8011 0.'589 42000.0 16.55 1.5449E-05 0.0002 0.8161 0.600 43000.0 17.17 1.6730E-05 0.'0002 0.8321 0.612 44000.0 18.11 1.8764E-05 0.0002 0.8498 0.625

,40000.0 19.28 2.1494E-05 0.0002 0.8699 0.640 46000,0 20.82 2.5382E-05 0.0003 0.6552 0.657 47000.0 22.93 3.1258E-05 0.0003 0.9214 0.678 40000.0 25.73 4.0097E-05 0.0004 0.9568 0.704 49000.0 28.34 4.9401E-05 0.0005 1.0012 0.737 50000,0 32.83 6.7881E-05 0.0007 1.0583 0.779 END OF pc-CRACK 4

U-13 DfTEGRITY ASSOCUGEINC

- tm pc-CRACK

SAN JOSE, CA (408)970-8200 VERSION 1.2 ALLOWABLE FLAW SIZE EVALUATION

{ CRACK, FLUX WELD ALLOWABLE FLAW SIZE FOR CIRCUMF CECO-00Q, RECIRC SUCTION, WELD 02AS-F14 WALL THICKNESS: 1.2030

( MEMBRANE STRESS: 6692.0000 BENDING STRESS: 301.0000 EXPANSION STRESS: 1103.0000 PIPE OUTSIDE DIAMETER: 28.0000

( FLUX WELD TYPE-SMAW(1)/SAW(2)=1 STRESS RATIO: 0.4535 ALLOWABLE STRESS =16950.0000 FLOW STRESS =50850.0000 STRESS RATIO IS LESS THAN 0.6000WHICH WILL BE USED IN THE ANALYSIS.

L/ CIRCUM ALLOWABLE A/T 0.6b 0.6b 0.6b 0.6b 0. b 0.b END OF pc-CRACK 1

H-14 m INTEGRITY I I

ASSOCIATESINC

w. .

[ SAN JOSE, CA (408)978-8200 VERSION 1.2 STRESS CORROSION CRACK GROWTH ANALYSIS CECO-09Q, RECIRC SUCTION, WELD 02AS-F14 INITIAL CRACK SIZE: 0.1444 WALL THICKNESS: 1.2030 MAX CRACK SIZE FOR SCCG: 0 9624 STRESS CORROSION CRACK GROWTH LAW (S)

LAW ID C N Kthres K10

[ NRC 3.5900E-08 2.1610 0.0000 200.0000 STRESS COEFFICIENTS CASE ID CO C1 C2 C3 SUCRESID 30.1468 -175.4735 192.6252 -24.8033 PRESSURE 6.6920 0.0000 0.0000 0.000n f 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 SHRINKAGE DEAD NT 0.0550 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 THERMAL 0.1030 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

{

Kmax CASE ID SCALE FACTOR SUCRESID 1.00 PRESSURE 1.00 SHRINKAGE 1.00 DEAD WT 1.00 THERMAL 1.00 TIME PRINT TIME INCREMENT INCREMENT 50000.0 10.0 1000.0 CRACK MODEL:CIRCUMFERENTIAL CRACK IN CYLINDER (T/R=0.1)

CRACK ---------------STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR----------------

DEPTH CASE CASE CASE CASE CASE SUCRESID PRESSURE SHRINKAGE DEAD WT THERMAL 0.0192 7.692 1.825 0.273 0.015 0.028 0.0385 10.200 2.593 0.387 0.021 0.040 0.0577 11.684 3.190 0.477 0.026 0.049 0.0770 12.585 3.700 0.553 0.030 0.057

. 0.0962 13.085 4.155 0.621 0.034 0.064 0.1155 13.288 4.572 0.683 0.038 0.070 0.1347 13.333 4.987 0.745 0.041 0.077 STRUCTURAI.

B-15 ASSOCIATESINC

(

pc-CRACK VERSION 1.2 PAGE 2

(

0.1540 13.214 5.393 0.806 0.044 0.083

[ 0.1732 12.934 5.786 0.865 0.048 0.089 L 0.1925 12.517 6.168 0.922 0.051 0.095 0.2117 11.981 6.542 0.978 0.054 0.101 0.2310 11.342 6.909 1.032 0.057 0.106 0.2502 10.653 7.290 1.089 0.060 0.112

[ 0.2695 9.923 7.689 1.149 0.063 0.118 0.2887 9.120 8.086 1.208 0.066 0.124

[ 0.3080 8.252 8.483 1.268 0.070 0.131 L 0.3272 7.327 8.879 1.327 0.073 0.137 0.3465 6.354 9.277 1.386 0.076 0.143 0.3657 5.404 9.695 1.449 0.080 0.149 0.3850 4.620 10.180 1.521 0.084 0.157 0.4042 3.816 10.670 1.594 0.088 0.164 0.4235 2.998 11.166 1.669 0.092 0.172 0.4427 2.174 11.667 1.743 0.096 0.180 0.4620 1.350 12.173 1.819 0.100 0.187 0.4812 0.533 12.685 1.896 0.104 0.195 ,

0.5004 -0.262 13.230 1.977 0.109 0.204 0.5197 13.781 2.059 0.113 0.212

( 0.5389

-1.046

-1.812 14.339 2.145 0.118 0.221 0.5582 -2.555 14.903 2.227 0.122 0.229 0.5774 -3.268 15.473 2.312 0.127 0.238 l

t 0.5967 -1.944 16.049 2.398 0.132 0.247 0.6159 -4.663 16.667 2.490 0.137 0.256 0.6352 -5.373 17.303 2.586 9.142 0.266 0.6544 -6.041 17.947 2.682 .147 0.276 0.6737 -

6.662 18.599 2.779 .153 0.286 0.6929 -7.228 19.257 2.878 J.158 0.296 0.7122 -7.731 19.923 2.977 0.164 0.307 0.7314 -7.888 20.622 3.082 0.169 0.317 0.7507 -7.663 21.354 3.191 0.175 0.329 0.7699 -7.316 22.095 3.302 0.182 0.340 l 0.7892 -6.838 22.843 3.413 0.188 0.352 0.8084 -6.220 23.600 3.527 0.194 0.363 0.8277 -5.455 24.365 3.641 0.200 0.375 0.8469 -4.766 25.156 3.759 0.207 0.387 0.8662 -4.628 26.011 3.887 0.214 0.400 0.8854 -4.347 26.875 4.016 0.221 0.414 0.9047 -3.911 27.748 4.146 0.228 0.427 I

0.9239 -3.308 28.631 4.278 0.235 0.441 l 0.9432 -2.525 29.523 4.412 0.243 0.454 {

0.9624 - 1.551 30.424 4.546 0.250 0.468 TIME KMAX DA/DT DA A A/THK 1000.0 19.66 2.2406E-05 0.0002 0.1665 0.138

- 2000.0 19.75 2.2629E-05 0.0002 0.1891 0.157 3000.0 19.66 2.2407E-05 0.0002 0.2116 0.176 4000.0 19.41 2.1815E-05 0.0002 0.2337 0.194 B-16 INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC p ui u'1 r . _...._._.__r- u a

pc-CRACK VERSION 1.2 PAGE 3 5000.0 19.14 2.1152E-05 0.0002 0.2552 0.212 6000.0 18.83 2.0423E-05 0.0002 0.2760 0.229 7000.0 18.46 1.9555E-05 0.0002 0.2960 0.246 8000.0 18.04 1.8607E-05 0.0002 0.3151 0.262 9000.0 17.59 1.7624E-05 0.0002 0.3332 0.277 0.0002 L 10000.0 17.15 1.6681E-05 0.3503 0.291 11000.0 16.77 1.5894E-05 0.0002 0.3666 0.305 12000.0 16.59 1.5537E-05 0.0002 0.3823 0.318 13000.0 16.41 1.5173E-05 0.0002 0.3977 0.331

( 14000.0 16.23 1.4813E-05 0.0001 0.4127 0.343 15000.0 16.05 1.4461E-05 0.0001 0.4273 0.355 r 16000.0 15.88 1.4121E-05 0.0001 0.4416 0.367 L 17000.0 15.71 1.3802E-05 0.0001 0.4555 0.379 18000.0 15.55 1.3503E-05 0.0001 0.4692 0.390 19000.0 15.40 1.3229E-05 0.0001 0.4826 0.401 20000.0 15.30 1.3032E-05 0.0001 0.4957 0.412

[ 21000.0 15.20 1.2854E-05 0.0001 0.5086 0.423 22000.0 15.11 1.2692E-05 0.0001 0.5214 0.433 23000.0 15.04 1.2559E-05 0.0001 0.5340 0.444 24000.0 14.98 1.2449E-05 0.0001 0.5465 0.454 25000.0 14.93 1.2358E-05 0.0001 0.5589 0.465 26000.0 14.90 1.2307E-05 0.0001 0.5713 0.475 27000.0 14.88 1.2281E-05 0.0001 0.5835 0.485 28000.0 14.88 1.2281E-05 0.0001 0.5958 0.495 29000.0 14.89 1.2287E-05 0.0001 0.6081 0.505 30000.0 14.90 1.2306E-05 0.0001 0.6204 0.516 31000.0 14.92 1.2348E-05 0.0001 0.6327 0.526 32000.0 14.97 1.5436E-05 0.0001 0.6451 0.536 33000.0 15.03 1.2554E-05 0.0001 0.6576 0.547 34000.0 15.13 1.2724E-05 0.0001 0.6702 0.55's l 35000.0 15.25 1.2955E-05 0.0001 0.6831 0.568 36000.0 15.41 1.3236E-05 0.0001 0.6962 0.579 l 37000.0 15.60 1.3597E-05 0.0001 0.7096 0.590 l 38000.0 16.03 1.4412E-05 0.0001 0.7235 0.601 39000.0 16.69 1.5740E-05 0.0002 0.7385 0.614 40000.0 17.66 1.7781E-05 0.0002 0.7552 0.628 41000.0 18.90 2.0586E-05 0.0002 0.7744 0.644 42000.0 20.54 2.4636E-05 0.0002 0.7968 0.662 43000.0 22.82 3.0920E-05 0.0003 0.8244 0.685 44000.0 25.47 3.9220E-05 0.0004 0.8596 0.715 45000.0 28.53 5.0104E-05 0.0005 0.9037 0.751 l

CRACK DEPTH EXCEEDED 0.9624 AT TIME 4.5980E+04 END OF pc-CRACK B-17 STRUCTUIUU.

. INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

i STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES, INC.

SAN JOSE, CA (408)978-8200 VERSION 1.2 ALLOWABLE FLAW SIZE EVALUATION ALLOWABLE FLAW SIZE FOR CIRCUHF. CRACK, FLUX WELD f CECO-09Q, RECIRC SUCTION, WELD 02AS-S12

[ WALL THICKNESS: 1.2030 t MEMBRANE STRESS: 6692.0000 BENDING STRESS: 301.0000 EXPANSION STRESS: 1205.0000 PIPE OUTSIDE DIAMETER = 28.0000

( FLUX WELD TYPF-SMAW(1)/SAW(2)=1 STRESS RATIO: 0.4558 l ALLOWABLE STRESS =16950.0000 t FLOW STRESS =50850.0000 STRESS RATIO IS LESS THAN 0.6000HHICH WILL BE USED IN THE ANALYSIS.

f L/ CIRCUM ALLOWABLE A/T 0. b 0.6b0 0.65 0 0.bb 0.6b0 0. b0 END OF pc-CRACK f

B-18 N ASSOCIATESINC

tm pc-CRACK (C) CCPYRIGHT 1984, 1987 STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES, INC.

SAN JOSE, CA (408)978-8200 VERSION 1.2 i

STRESS CORROSION CRACK GROWTH ANALYSIS CECO-09Q, RECIRC SUCTION, WELD 02AS-S12 l ALL iIKES 20b MAX CRACK SIZE FOR SCCG: 0.9624 STRESS CORROSION CRACK GROHTH LAW (S) l I LAW ID C N Kthres K1C NRC 3.5900E-08 2.1610 0.0000 200.0000

( STRESS COEFFICIENTS CASE ID CO C1 C2 C3 j SUCRESID 30.1468 -175.4735 192.6252 -24.8033 i PRFSSURE 6.6920 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 SHRINKAGE 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 DEAD WT 0.0520 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 THERLAL 0.2050 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 f

Kmax j CASE ID SCALE FACTOR I SUCRESID 1.00 PRESSURE 1.00 SHRINKAGE 1.00 l DEAD WT 1.00 THERMAL 1.00 TIME PRINT TIME INCREMENT IUCREMENT 50000.0 10.0 1000.0 CRACK MODEL:CIRCUMFERENTIAL CRACK IN CYLINDER (T/R=0.1)

CRACK ---------------STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR----------------

DEPTH CASE CASE CASE CASE CASE SUCRESID PRESSURE SHRINKAGE DEAD WT THERMAL 0.0192 7.692 1.825 0.273 0.014 0.056 0.0385 10.200 2.593 0.387 0.020 0.079 0.0577 11.684 3.190 0.477 0.025 0.098 0.0770 12.585 3.700 0.553 0.029 0.113 0.0962 13.085 4.155 0.621 0.032 0.127 0.1155 13.288 4.572 0.683 0.035 0.140 0.1347 13.333 4.987 0.745 0.039 0.153 B-19 NCTURAI.

INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

pc-CRACK VERSION 1.2 PAGE 2 0.1540 13.214 5.393 0.806 0.042 0.165 0.1732 12.934 5.786 0.865 0.045 0.177 0.1925 12.517 6.168 0.922 0.048 0.189 0.2117 11.981 6.542 0.978 0.051 0.230 0.2310 11.342 6.909 1.032 0.054 0.212 0.2502 10.653 7.290 1.089 0.057 0.223

[ 0.060 0.235 0.2695 9.923 7.689 1.149 0.2887 9.120 8.086 1.208 0.063 0.248 0.3080 8.252 8.483 1.268 0.006 0.260 0.3272 7.327 8.879 1.327 0.069 0.272 0.3465 6.354 9.277 1.386 0.072 0.284 0.3657 5.404 9.695 1.449 0.075 0.297 0.3850 , 4.620 10.180 1.521 0.079 0.312 0.4042 3,816 10.670 1.594 0.083 0.327 0.4235 2.998 11.166 1.669 0.087 0.342 0.4427 2.174 11.667 1.743 0.091 0.357 0.4620 1.350 12.173 1.819 0.095 0.373 0.4812 0.533 12.685 1.896 0.099 0.389 0.5004 -0.262 13.230 1.977 0.103 0.405 1 0.5197 -1.046 13.781 2.059 0.107 0.422 l 0.5389 -1.812 14.339 2.143 0.111 0.439 O.5582 -2.555 14.903 2.227 0.116 0.456 0.5774 -3.268 15.473 2.312 0.120 0.474 0.5967 -3.944 16.049 2.398 0.125 0.492 0.6159 -4.663 16.667 2.490 0.129 0.511

} 17.303 2.586 0.134 0.530 l 0.6352 -5.373 0.6544 -6.041 17.947 2.682 0.139 0.550 0.6737 -6.662 18.599 2.779 0.144 0.570 0.6929 -7.228 19.257 2.878 0.150 0.590 r 0.7122 -7.731 19.923 2.977 0.155 0.610

[ 0.7314 -7.888 20.622 3.082 0.160 0.632 0.7507 .-7.663 21.354 3.191 0.166 0.654 0.7699 -7.316 22.095 3.302 0.172 0.677 0.7892 -6.838 22.843 3.413 0.177 0.700 0.8084 -6.220 23.600 3.527 0.183 0.723 0.8277 -5.455 24.365 3.641 0.189 0.746 0.8469 -4.766 25.156 3.759 0.195 0.771 0.8662 -4.628 26.011 3.887 0.202 0.797 0.8854 -4.347 26.875 4.016 0.209 0.823 0.9047 -3.911 27.748 4.146 0.216 0.850 0.9239 '3.308 28.631 4.278 0.222 0.877 0.9432 -2.525 29.523 4.412 0.229 0.904 0.9624 -1.551 30.424 4.546 0.236 0.932 f

TIME KMAX DA/DT DA A A/THK 1000.0 18.71 2.0144E-05 0.0002 0.1155 0.096 2000.0 19.28 2.1500E-05 0.0002 0.1364 0.113 3000.0 19.66 2.2417E-05 0.0002 0.1584 0.132 4000.0 19.82 2.2815E-05 0.0002 0.1810 0.150 B-20 STRUCTURAI.

INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

pc-CRACK VERSION 1.2 PAGE 3 5000.0 19.79 2.2738E-05 0.0002 0.2039 0.169 6000.0 19.60 2.2266E-05 0.0002 0.2264 0.188 "

7000.0 19.34 2.1629E-05 0.0002 0.2483 0.206 8000.0 19.06 2.0955E-05 0.0002 0.2696 0.224

, 9000.0 18.70 2.0113E-05 0.0002 0.2902 0.241 10000.0 18.29 1.9175E-05 0.0002 0.3098 0.258 11000.0 17.85 1.8184E-05 0.0002 0.3285 0.273 12000.0 17.39 1.7187E-05 0.0002 0.3461 0.288 13000.0 16.99 1.6351E-05 0.0002 0.3629 0.302 14000.0 16.78 1.5915E-05 0.0002 0.3790 0.315 15000.0 16.60 1.5554E-05 0.0002 0.3947 0.328 16000.0 16.42 1.5193E-05 0.0002 0.4101 0.341 17000.0 16.24 1.4839E-05 0.0001 0.4251 0.353 18000.0 16.07 1.4496E-05 0.0001 0.4398 0.366 19000.0 15.90 1.4173E-05 0.0001 0.4541 0.377

20000.0 15.74 1.3871E-05 0.0001 0.4681 0.389 i 21000.0 15.60 1.3591E-05 0.0001 0.4819 0.401 22000.0 15.49 1.3396E-05 0.0001 0.4954 0.412 23000.0 15.40 1.3220E-05 0.0001 0.5087 0.423 24000.0 15.31 1.3063E-05 0.0001 0.5218 0.434

( 25000.0 15.24 1.2933E-05 0.0001 0.5348 0.445 26000.0 15.19 1.2832E-05 0.0001 0.5477 0.455 j 27000.0 15.14 1.2751E-05 0.0001 0.5605 0.466 1 28000.0 15.12 1.2708E-05 0.0001 0.5732 0.476 29000.0 15.11 1.2700E-05 0.0001 0.5859 0.487 30000.0 15.12 1.2710E-05 0.0001 0.5986 0.498 31000.0 15.13 1.2729E-05 0.0001 0.6113 0.508

( 32000.0 15.15 1.2771E-05 0.0001 0.6241 0.519 33000.0 15.19 1.2834E-05 0.0001 0.6369 0.529 34000.0 15.25 1.2952E-05 0.0001 0.6497 0.540

[

t 35000.0 15.34 1.3116E-05 0.0001 0.6628 0.551 36000.0 15.45 1.3324E-05 0.0001 0.6760 0.562 37000.0 15.61 1.3609E-05 0.0001 0.6895 0.573 38000.0 15.80 1.3974E-05 0.0001 0.7032 0.585 l 39000.0 16.11 1.4582E-05 0.0001 0.7175 0.596 40000.0 16.66 1.5680E-05 0.0002 0.7326 0.609 41000.0 17.61 1.7662E-05 0.0002 0.7492 0.623 42000.0 18.81 2.0362E-05 0.0002 0.7682 0.639 43000.0 20.37 2.4198E-05 0.0002 0.7904 0.657 44000.0 22.56 3.0186E-05 0.0003 0.8174 0.679 45000.0 25.39 3.8950E-05 0.0004 0.8518 0.708

{ 28.31 4.9270E-05 0.0005 0.8954 0.744 46000.0 47000.0 33.65 7.1587E-05 0.0007 0.9543 0.793 CRACK DEPTH EXCEEDED 0.9624 AT TIME 4.7120E+04 END OF pc-CRACK l

B-21 STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCWESINC b .

SAN JOSE, CA.(408)978-82OO VERSION 1.2 ALLOWABLE FLAW SIZE EVALUATION h

t ALLOWABLE FLAW SIZE FOR CIRCuliF. CRACK, FLUX WELD

. CECO-090, RtCIRC SUCTION, WELD 02BS-512 .

' WALL THICKNESS = 1.2030 MEMBRANE STRESS = 6692.0000 '

BENDING STRESS = 162.0000 f EXPANSION STRESS = 1859.0000 28.0000 PIPE OUTSIDE DIAMETER =

FLUX WELD TYPE-SMAW(1)/SAW(2)=1 STRESS RATIO = 0.4617 i ' ALLOWABLE STRESS =16950.0000 FLOW STRESS =50850.0000 STRESS RATIO IS LESS THAN 0.6000WHICH WILL BE USED IN THE ANALYSIS.

f L/ CIRCUM 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 ALLOWABLE A/T 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.4900 END OF pc-CRACK I

l l

B.22 ASSOCIATESINC

s tm

SAN JOSE, CA (408)978-8200 VERSION 1.2 STRESS CORROSION CRACK GROWTH ANALYSIS CECO-09Q, RECIRC SUCTION, WELD 02BS-S12 INITIAL CRACK SIZE: 0.1564 WALL THICKNESS: 1.2030 MAX CRACK SIZE FOR SCCG: 0.9624 STRESS CORROSION CRACK GROWTH LAW (S)

[ LAW ID C N Kthres K1C NRC 3.5900E-08 2.1610 0.0000 200.0000 STRESS COEFFICIENTS CASE ID CO C1 C2 C3 SUCRESID 30.1468 -175.4735 192.6252 -24.8033

{ PRESSURE 6.6920 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 SHRINKAGE 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 DEAD WT 0.0700 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 THERMAL 0.8590 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Kmay CASE 16 SCALE FACTOR

{ SUCRESID 1.00 PRESSURE 1.00 SHRINKAGE 1.00 DEAD WT 1.00 THERMAL 1.00 TIME PRINT TIME INCREMENT INCREMENT 50000.0 10.0 1000.0 CRACK MODEL:CIRCUMFERENTIAL CRACK IN CYLINDER (T/R=0.1)

CRACK ---------------STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR----------------

DEPTH CASE CASE CASE CASE CASE SUCRESID PRESSURE SHRINKAGE DEAD WT THERMAL 0.0192 7.692 1.825 0.273 0.019 0.234 0.0385 10.200 2.593 0.387 0.027 0.333 0.0577 11.684 3.190 0.477 0.033 0.409 0.0770 12.585 3.700 0.553 0.039 0.475 O.0962 13.085 4.155 0.621 0.043 0.533 0.1155 13.288 4.572 0.683 0.048 0.587 0.1347 13.333 4.987 0.745 0.052 ,0.640 l

STRUCTURlu. l B-23 ASSOCIATESINC

pc-CRACK VERSION 1.2- PAGE 2 0.1540 13.214 5.393 0.806 0.056 0.692 0.1732 12.934 5.786 0.865 0.060 0.743 0.1925 12.517 6.168 0.922 0.064 0.792 0.2117 11.981 6.542 0.978 0.068 0.840 l 0.2310 11.342 6.909 1.032 0.072 0.887 f 1.089 0.076 0.936 l 0.2502 10.653 7.290 0.2695 9.923 7.689 1.149 0.080 0.987 (

0.2887 9.120 8.086 1.208 0.085 1.038 1 0.089 1.089 I 0.3080 8.252 8.483 1.268 0.3272 7.327 8.879 1.327 0.093 1.140 l 0.3465 6.354 9.277 1.386 0.097 1.191 0.3657 5.404 9.695 1.449 0.101 1.244 0.3850 4.620 10.180 1.521 0.106 1.307 0.4042 3.816 10.670 1.594 0.112 1.370 0.4235 2.998 11.166 1.669 0.117 1.433 0.4427 2.174 11.667 1.743 0.122 1.498 0.4620 1.350 12.173 1.819 0.127 1.563 g 0.4812 0.533 12.685 1.896 0.133 1.628 0.5004 -0.262 13.230 1.977 0.138 1.698

[ 0.144 1.769 0.5197 -1.046 13.781 2.059 0.5389 -1.812 14.339 2.143 0.150 1.841 0.5582 -2.555 14.903 2.227 0.156 1.913 0.5774 -3.268 15.473 2.312 0.162 1.986 0.5967 -3.944 16.049 2.398 0.168 2.060 0.6159 -4.663 16.667 2.490 0.174 2.139 0.6352 -5.373 17.303 2.586 0.181 2.221 f 2.682 0.188 2.304 0.6544 -6.041 17.947 0.6737 -6.662 18.599 2.779 0.194 2.387 0.6929 -7.228 19.257 2.878 0.201 2.472

( 0.7122 -7.731 19.923 2.977 0.208 2.557 0.7314 -7.888 20.622 3.082 0.216 2.647 0.7507 -7.663 21.354 3.191 0.223 2.741 0.7699 -7.316 22.095 3.302 0.231 2.836 0.7892 -6.838 22.843 3.413 0.239 2.932 0.8084 -6.220 23.600 3.527 0.247 3.029 0.8277 -5.455 24.365 3.641 0.255 3.128 0.8469 -4.766 25.156 3.759 0.263 3.229 0.8662 -4.628 26.011 3.887 0.272 3.339 0.8854 -4.347 26.875 4.016 0.281 3.450 0.9047 -3.911 27.748 4.146 0.290 3.562 0.9239 -3.308 28.631 4.278 0.299 3.675 0.9432 -2.525 29.523 4.412 0.309 3.790 0.5624 -1.551 30.424 4.546 0.318 3.905 TIME KMAX DA/DT DA A A/THK 1000.0 20.42 2.4318E-05 0.0002 0.1805 0.150 2000.0 20.43 2.4352E-05 0.0002 0.2049 0.170 3000.0 20.26 2.3923E-05 0.0002 0.2290 0.190 4000.0 20.02 7.3311E-05 0.0002 0.2527 0.210 STIU.ICTURAL B_24 ASSOCIATESINC

pc-CRACK VERSION 1.2 PAGE 3 5000.0 13.74 2.26083-05 0.0002 0.2756 0.229 6000.0 19.37 2.1711E-05 0.0002 0.2978 0.248 7000.0 18.95 2.0695E-05 0.0002 0.3190 0.265 8000.0 18.48 1.9619E-05 0.0002 0.3392 0.282 9000.0 18.06 1.8650E-05 0.0002 0.3583 0.298

( 10000,0 17.81 1.8094E-05 0.0002 0.3766 0.313 11000.0 17.65 1.7756T-05 0,0002 0.3945 0.328 l 12000.0 17.49 1. 7 4C9E-05 0.0002 0.4121 0.343 l 13000.0 17.33 1.7067E-05 0.0002 0.4293 0.357 14000.0 17.17 1.6737E-05 0."J002 0.4462 0.371 15000.0 17.03 1.6428E-05 0.0002 0.4628 0.385 16000.0 16.89 1.6150E-U5 0.0002 0.4791 0.398 f 17000.0 16.81 1.5974E-05 0.0002 0.4951 0.412 18000.0 16.74 1.5838E-05 0.0002 0.5110 0.425 19000.0 16.69 1.5734E-05 0.0002 0.5268 0.438

{ 20000.0 16.66 1.5666E-05 0.0002 0.5425 0.451 21000.0 16.64 1.5639E-05 0.0002 0.5582 0.464 22000.0 16.66 1.5674E-05 0.0002 0.5738 0.477 23000.0 16.71 1.5766E-05 0.0002 0.5895 0.490

( 24000.0 16.77 1.5887E-05 0.0002 0.6054 0.503 25000.0 16.84 1.6037E-05 0.0002 0.6213 0.516

[ 26000.0 16.94 1.6239E-05 0.0002 0.6375 0.530 t 27000.0 17.07 1.6524E-05 0.0002 0.6530 0.544 28000.0 17.26 1.6918E-05 0.0002 0.6706 0.557 29000.0 17.50 1.7434E-05 0.0002 0.6877 0.572 30000.0 17.81 1.8101E-05 0.0002 0.7055 0.586

[ 31000.0 18.39 1.9401E-05 0.0002 0.7241 0.602 32000.0 19.47 2.1941E-05 0.0002 0.7447 0.619 33000.0 21.03 2.5937E-05 0.0003 0.7685 0.639 34000.0 23.24 3.2165E-05 0.0003 0.7973 0.663 35000.0 26.48 4.2677E-05 0.0004 0.8343 0.694 36000.0 30.11 5.6306E-05 0.0006 0.8837 0.735 37000.0 36.39 8.4817E-05 0.0008 0.9520 0.791 CRACK DEPTH EXCEEDED 0.9624 AT TIME 3.7120E+04 END OF pc-CRACK B-25 STRUCTURAI.

INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC.

l

(

f L

APPEllDIX C Weld Overlay Repair Designs

(

{

(

l l

sraucrunn INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

k-4 r"

) DESIGN LENGTH L = 4.5' l WELD DVERLAY +U244-U2 +

l TRANSITION ANGLE --

DESIGN THICKNESS 45 DEGREES MAX. ,y T = 0.22' M%'M M###4 : Is3Sgs "

WELD DVERLAY DESIGN SKETCH COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY QUAD CITIES UNIT 2 WELD NUMBER 020-S3 NOTES:

1. THIS SKETCH TO BE WORKED WITH SPECIFICATION SIS-88-001, LATEST REVISION.

2. 0ESIGN LENGTH SHOWN IS FULL THICKNESS LENGTH.

DRAWING NUMBER: CECO-09-001 REVISION:1 PAGE:10F 1 S1 PROJECT NUMBER: CECO-090 PREPAREDBY/DATE MI d -

M/83 REVIEWED BY/DATJ P

Nd GRITY ISSUED BY/DATE E /~ Out [wcl TMdf C-2

~

tm

- STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES, INC.

L SAN JOSE, CA (408)978-8200 VERSION 1.2 STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING EVALUATION

{.

STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING FOR CIRCUMF. CRACK, WROUGHT / CAST STAINLESS CUAD CITIES UNIT 2, WELD 02D-53

(

WALL THICKNESS = 0.5850 MEMBRANE STRESS = 6811.0000

( BENDING STRESS = 1550.0000 STRESS RATIO = 0.4933 ALLOWABLE STRESS =16950.0000

( FLOW STRESS =50850.0000 L/CIRCU:1 0.00 0.10 0.20 0 . .'.0 0.40 0.50

[ F8NAL A/T 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7368 L REINFORCEMENT THICK. 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.2090 END OF pc-CRACK

. I c-3 STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

M E

=

DESIGN LENGTH L=4.5' WELD OVERLAY + U2-*+ v2-*

I TRANSITION ANGLE: DESIGN THICKNESS 45 DEGREES MAX. ,' T = 0.22'

[

t M M % MffM ; $ws

[

[ (

WELD OVERLAY DESIGN SKETCH

{ COMMONWEALTH EDISDN COMPANY QUA0 CITIES UNIT 2 WELD NUMBER 02L-S3 j

1 I NOTES:

1. THIS SKETCH TO BE WORKED WITH SPECIFICATION STS-88-001, LATEST l REVISION.

2. DESIGN LENGTH SHOWN IS FULL THICKNESS LENGTH.

ORAWING NUMBER: CECO-09-002 REVISION:1 PAGE:10F 1 S1 PROJECT NUMBER: CECD-090 PREPAREDBY/DATE V2 M rh/n REVIEWED BY/DATE 8 MU8 IW TSSUED BY/DATE I6 b uNS2kdf C-4

~

(

SAN JOSE, CA (408)978-8200 VERSION 1.2 STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING EVALUATION STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING FOR CIRCUMF. CRACK, WROUGHT / CAST STAINLESS QUAD CITIES UNIT 2, WELD 02L-S3 WALL THICKNESS = 0.5850 MEMBRANE STRESS = 6811.0000 BENDING STRESS = 1985.0000

[ STRESS RATIO = 0.5189 ALLOWABLE STRESS =16950.0000 FLOW STRESS =50850.0000 L/ CIRCUM

( O.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 F8NAL A/T 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7034 REINFORCEMENT THICK. 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.2127 END OF pc-CRACK l

C-5 INTEGMTY ASSOC 1ATESINC

'Eur

=

ung

~

DESIGN LENGTH L=4.5" WELD DVERLAY *-U2 -* -U2-*

TRANSITION ANGLE DESIGN THICKNESS 45 DEGREES MAX. y T = 0.21' 3

[ b\\\\\ !/!/// r HIy8'

=

[

WELD OVERLAY DESIGN SKETCH

[ COMMONWEALTH EDISDN COMPANY WEL N B J-S4 I NOTES:

1. THIS SKETCH TO BE WORKED WITH SPECIFICATION SIS-88-001, LATEST

{ REVISION.

2. DESIGN LENGTH SHOWN IS FULL THICKNESS LENGTH.

I DRAWING NUMBER: CECO-09-003 REVISION: O PAGE: 10F 1 l S1 PROJECT NUMBER: CECO-090 l PREPARED BY/DATE MI O r h h'e REVIEWE0 BY/DATE N MNu NMb bETrsarrY W ?.SSOCWESINC

// fg 1SSUED BY/DATE @h Oxdhs' WIP Y

C-G ,

L r'

F SAN JOSE, CA (400)978-8200 L VERSION 1.2 STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING EVALUATION STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING FOR CIRCUMF. CRACK, WROUGHT / CAST STAINLESS

{

QUAD CITIES UNIT 2, WELD 02J-94 WALL THICKNESS = 0.5850 MEMBRANE STRESS = 6811.0000 BENDING STRESSn 1354.0000

[ STRESS RATIO = 0.4817 ALLOWADLE STRESS =16950.0000 FLOW STRESS =50850.0000 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 F8NAL A/T 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7383 REINFORCEMENT THICK. 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.2074

{

END OF pc-CRACK 1

i l

i staucTunn C-7 ASSOCIATESINC

, DESIGN LENGTH I L = 4.5' WELD DVERLAY + U2-*+ U2 -*.

I TRANSITION ANGLE DESIGN THICKNESS 45 DEGREES MAX. ,r T = 0,22' l / 58 '

l

(

WELD DVERLAY DESIGN SKETCH COMMONWEALTH EDISDN COMPANY

[ QUA0 CITIES UNIT 2 WELD NUMBER 02L-S4

( NOTES:

1. THIS SKETCH TO BE WORKED WITH SPECIFICATION SIS-88-001, LATEST REVISION.

l

2. DESIGN LENGTH SHOWN IS FULL THICKNESS LENGTH.

l DRAWING NUMBER: CECO-09-004 REVISION: O PAGE:10F 1 l SI PROJECT NUMBER: CECD-090 PREPARED BY/DATE MI O E /dN l REVIEWED BY/DATE / e 79/M N ISSUED BY/DATE I 75 L 'M SN 7 C-8

2:

tm

~

L SAN JOSE, CA (408)978-8200 VERSION 1.2 h, STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING EVALUATION

- STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING FOR CIRCUMF. CRACK, WROUGHT / CAST STAINLESG h QUAD CITIES UNIT 2, WELD 02L-94 WALL THICKNESS = 0.5950

' MEMBRANE STRESS = 6911.0000

[ BENDING STRESS = 1973.0000 STRESS RATIO = 0.5182 ALLOWABLE STRESS =16950.0000 f FLOW STRESS =50850.0000 L/ CIRCUM 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0 40 0.50 F8NAL A/T O.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7334

{ REINFORCEMENT THICK. 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.2127 END OF pc-CRACK l

l l

I C-9 INTEGRITY ASSOCIATEINC

W

.=

mw munr

_ DESIGN LENGTH

= L = 4.5' WELD DVERLAY + U2-*+ U2-*

[ TRANSITION ANGLE DESIGN THICKNESS 45 DEGREES MAX. ,' T = 0'22'

[

"I

[ 8'

[

COMM N EALTH EDI ON PANY I QUA0 CITIES UNIT 2 WELD NUMBER 02M-S4

[

{

( NOTES:

1. THIS SKETCH TO BE WORKED WITH SPECIFICATION SIS-88-001, LATEST REVISION.

I 2. DESIGN LENGTH SHOWN IS FULL THICKNESS LENGTH.

ORAWING NUMBER: CECD-09-005 REVISION: 0 PAGE: 10F 1 S1 PROJECT NUMBER: CECO-090 PREPARED BY/DATE N d 5M88 l

REVIEWED BY/DATE ISSUEDsy/DATE

/[ P/EP u 6<rf.J r44F hT

/

l C-10

I I

(

I SAN JOSE, CA (409)978-0200 VERSION 1.2 STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING EVALUATICN

[

STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING FCR CIRCUMF. CRACK, WROUGHT / CAST STAINLESS

[ QUAD CITIES UNIT 2, WELD 00M-54 WALL THICKNESS = 0.5850 MEMBRANE STRESS = 6811.0000

( BENDING STRESS = 2239.0000 STRESS RATIO = 0.5339

[

ALLOWABLE STRESSa16950.0000 t FLOW STRESS =50950.0000 L/ CIRCUM 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 FINAL A/T 0.7500 C.7500 C.7500 0.7500 0.7500 C.7314

{ RESMFORCEMENT THICK. O.1950 0.1950 C.1950 0.1950 0.1950 C.2148 END OF pc-CRACK

{

l' l

l i

I sravervan.

C-11 M ASSOCIATEINC

l l

DESIGN LENGTH

[ L=4.5' WELD DVERLAY +v24U2-

[ TRANSITION ANGLE DESIGN THICKNESS 45 DEGREES MAX. ,r T = 0.21' H "E l i 58 ,S

[

WELD DVERLAY DESIGN SKETCH COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

[

QUA0 CITIES UNIT 2 WELD NUMBER 02E-S3

(

l I NOTES:

1. THIS SKETCH TO BE WORKED WITH SPECIFICATION STS-88-001, LATEST REVISION.

[

2. 0ESIGN LENGTH SHOWN IS FULL THICKNESS LENGTH.

l DRAWING NUMBER: CECO-09-006 REVISION: 0 PAGE:10F 1

( S1 PROJECT NUMBER: CECO-090

[

PREPAREDBY/DATE OI bl 5/v /n REVIEWED BY/DATE /Y2{ N rIN/S# EEo Ym TSSUED BY/DATE M br m#$N C-12

l tm

SAN JOSE, CA (408)978-8200 VERSION 1.2 STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING EVALUATION l

( STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING FOR CIRCUMF. CRACK, WROUGHT / CAST STAINLESS CECO-09Q, QUAD CITIES UNIT 2, WELD 02E-S3 WALL THICKNESS: 0.5850 MEMBRANE STRESS: 6811.0000 BENDING-STRESS: 1441.0000 STRESS RATIO: 0.4868 ALLOWABLE STRESS =18950.0000 FLOW STRESS:50850.0000 L/ CIRCUM 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 FINAL A/T 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7373 REINFORCEMENT THICK. 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.2084 END OF pc-CRACK l

l l

C-13 INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

DESIGN LENGTH I L = 4.5' WELD OVERLAY +v2-,*-U2-*

l TRANSITION ANGLE DESIGN THICKNESS

,' T = 0'21' 45 DEGREES MAX.\

[ 58 WELD DVERLAY DESIGN SKETCH COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY I QUA0 CITIES UNIT 2 WELD NUMBER 02F-S3 l .

l

( NOTES:

1. THIS SKETCH TO BE WORKED WITH SPECIFICATION STS-88-001, LATEST REVISION.

l 2. DESIGN LENGTH SHOWN IS FULL THICKNESS LENGTH.

l DRAWING NUMBER: CECO-09-007 REVISION: 0 PAGE:10F 1 S1 PROJECT NUMBER: CECD-090

[

PREPARED BY/DATE )/ I M r/4/n REVIEWEDBY/DATEN Mk Ed/5/

TSSUED BY/DATE 76 bd b ' M

./

C-14 1

(- SAN JOSE, CA (408)978-8200 VERSION 1.2 STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING EVALUATION STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING FOR CIRCUMF. CRACK, WROUGHT / CAST STAINLESS

( CECO-09Q, QUAD CITIES UNIT 2, WELD 02F-S3 WALL THICKNESS: 0.5850 MEMBRANE STRESS: 6811.0000

( BENDING STRESS: 1325.0000 STRESS RATIO = 0.4800 t

ALLOWABLE STRESS =16950,0000

( FLOW STRESS =50850.0000 L/ CIRCUM 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 FINAL A/T 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7383

( REINFORCEMENT THICK. 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.2074 END OF pc-CRACK C-15 DiTEGRITY l

A e

uniu WELD 0VERLAY DESIGN LENGTH TRANSITION ANGLE SEE NOTE 2

] 45 DEGREES MAX.

[

4- L1 -e*- L2 -+

1.5' 2.5' DESIGN THICKNESS MIN. MIN.

,r T = 0.25'

( 4esisssiss9M&M .

E

\ 7!!h g -

HI "3 585' SWEEP 0LET PlPE

[

WELD DVERLAY DESIGN SKETCH

[ COMMONWEALTH EDISDN COMPANY QUAD CITIES UNIT 2 WELD NUMBER 02K-F6

[

NOTES:

[ 1. THIS SKETCH TO BE WDRKED WITH SPECIFICATION SlS-88-001, LATEST REVISION.

( 2.0ESIGN LENGTH SHOWN IS FULL THICKNESS LENGTH. LENGTH ON THE SWEEP 0LET SIDE IS RESTRICTED BY THE SWEEP 0LET GE0 METRY. THE FULL THICKNESS LENGTH OF THE REPAlR IS TO BE AT LEAST 1.5' ON THE l SWEEPDLET SIDE, UNLESS THE REPAIR CAN BE BLENDED INTO THE SWEEP 0LET TRANSIT 10N PR10R TO ACHIEVING THAT LENGTH. LENGTH 0N THE PIPE SIDE SHALL BE AT LEAST 2.5'.

DRAWING NUMBER: CECD-09-008 REVISION:1 PAGE:10F 1 St PROJECT NUMBER: CECO-090

[

PREPARED BY/DATE Mb1 ' "

REVIEWED BY/DATE

' b f7'S' { M gg ISSUED BY/DATE JEOctdd y /

Cddf -

C-16

W L

SAN JOSE, CA (408)978-8200 VERSION 1.2 STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING EVALUATION STRUCTURAL R3INFORCEMENT SIZING FOR CIRCUMF. CRACK, WROUGHT / CAST STAINLESS CECO-09Q, QUAD CITIES UNIT 2, WELD 02K-F6

[

WALL THICKNESS: 0.5850 MEMBRANE STRESS: 6811.0000 BENDING STRESS: 3860.0000 STRESS RATIO: 0.6296 ALLOWABLE STRESS =16950.0000 FLOW STRESS =50850.0000 L/ CIRCUM 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

[ FINAL A/T 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7070 L REINFORCEMENT THICK. 0.1950 0.1900 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.2424 Et1D OF pc-CRACK l

l l

1 C-17 INTEGRITY ASSOCIATESINC

DESIGN LENGTH I L = 4.5' WELD OVERLAY +v2 +4U2+

l TRANSITION ANGLE DESIGN THICKNESS 45 DEGREES MAX. ,r T = 0.21' t h\\\\\%\ EM/##A : Exy S

(

[

WELD DVERLAY DESIGN SKETCH COMMONWEALTH EDISDN COMPANY I QUA0 CITIES UNIT 2 WELD NUMBER 02J-S3 l

[ NOTES:

1. THIS SKETCH TO BE WORKED WITH SPECIFICATION SIS-88-001, LATEST REVISION.

l 2. DESIGN LENGTH SHOWN IS FULL THICKNESS LENGTH.

[

DRAWING NUMBER: CECO-09-009 REVISION: 0 PAGE:10F 1 S1 PROJECT NUMBER: CECD-090 PREPARED BY/DATE l/ I d rh/78 REVIEWED BY/DATEN5% [#[cp -

f///M ASSCCIATESINC TY 7 .

j TSSUED BY/DATE E b / m/4"v83N 8 '

,l

/

C-18

~

f L

F L.

r L

tm pc-CRACK

SAN JOSE, CA (408)978-8200 VERSION 1.2

(

STRUCTURAL REIt1FORCEMEllT SI7,ING EVALUATION

[

STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING FOR CIRCUMF. CRACK, WROUGHT / CAST STAINLESS CECO-09Q, QUAD CITIES UNIT 2, WELD 02J-S3 THICKNESS: 0.5850 AtlE STRESS: 6811.0000 Bi:,1WitiG STRESS: 930.0000 STRESS BATIO: 0.4567

( ALLOWABLE STRESS =16950.0000 FLOW STRESS =50850.0000

[

L/ CIRCUM l 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 FIFAL A/T 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7422 REINFORCEMEllT THICK. 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.2032 Et1D OF pc-CRACK

(

l l

l naucronar.

C-19 DITEGU1T

{ - - __ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .____ ___________ _

)

b DESIGN LENGTH L=4.5"

[

WELD DVERLAY 4L/2ML/2-M TRANSITION ANGLE DESIGN THICKNESS

[ T = 0.21' 45 DEGREES MAX.\ sr 19#sE4WA9MBA

[

(

\\\\\ /7 HI O8

[

[ WELD DVERLAY DESIGN SKETCH COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY QUA0 CITIES UNIT 2

[

WELD NUMBER 02H-53 l

l 4

NOTES:

l 1. iHIS SKETCH TO BE WORKED WITH SPECIFICATION SIS-88-001, LATEST REVISION.

2. 0ESIGN LENGTH SHOWN IS FULL THICKNESS LENGTH.

l l DRAWING NUMBER: CECO-09-010 REVISION: 0 PAGE: 10F 1 SI PROJECT NUMBER: CECD-090 PREPARED BY/DATE M/ d r/4/n REVIEWED BY/DAT 8/#M MNc ISSUED BY/0 ATE 1/5 MP C-20

[-

tm pc-CRACK

[: (C) CCPYRIGHT 1984. 1987 STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES, INC.

- SAN JOSE, CA (409)978-8200 '

VERSION 1.2'

(~

STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING EVAL'UATION

(. .

STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING FOR CIRCUMF. CRACK, WROUGHT / CAST STAINLESS QUAD CITIES UNIT 2, WELD 02H-53

( WALL THICKNESS = 0.5S50 MEMBRANE STRESS = 6911.0000 BENDING STRESS =

948.0000

. STRESS RATIC= 0.4589 ALLOWAELE STRESS =16950.0000 FLOW STRESS =50850.0000 L/ CIRCUM 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.50 0.40 0.50

~

FINAL A/T 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7412 REINFORCEMENT THICK. O.1950 0.1950 0,1950 0,1950 C.1950 C.2042 hY" 4 %

i

[ .

C-21 EffEG3ITY ASSOCIEfESINC mim m m 3 I ll

l N DESIGN LENGTH WELD DVERLAY TRANSITION ANGLE L = 2.4- 45 DEGREES MAX.

l DESIGN THICKNESS

[ h I = 0.23' WWM#%4W4

% WS////b $ fHkNiS

{ PENETRAT10N PIPE l WELD DVERLAY DESIGN SKETCH

. COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY QUA0 CliiES UNIT 2 l

WELD NUMBER 12S-S24 l

NOTES:

1. THIS SKETCH TO BE WORKED WliH SPECIFICATION SlS-88-001, LATEST REVISION.

2. DESIGN LENGTH SHOWN IS FULL THICKNESS LENGTH FOR REINFORCEMENT.

l ADDITIONAL LENGTH MAY BE REQUIRED FOR INSPECTION.

3. FIRST LAYER TO BE WELDED WITH PIPE EMPTY. DELTA FERRITE MEASUREMENT l AND LIQUID PENETRANT EXAM. 0F COMPLETED FIRST LAYER IS REQUIRED.

4. FIRST LAYER IS NOT CONSIDERED IN DESIGN THICKNESS.

5. SUBSEQUENT LAYERS TO BE WELDEU WITH PIPE FULL.

[

6. WELD TO BE BLENDED SMOUTHLY INTO PENETRATION ,

l DRAWING NUMBER: CECD-09-Oll REVISION: 0 PAGE: 10F 1 l SI PROJECT NUMBER: CECD-090 PREPARED BY/0 ATE / / d r/dsg gg REVIEWED BY/DATE M- Y@8 INC ISSUED BY/DATE Cnf> IIR C-22

x 4

tm pc-CRACK (C) CCPYRIGHT 1984, 1987 STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES, INC.

SAN JOSE, CA (408)978-S200 VERSION 1.2 STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING EVALUATION l

1 STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING FOR CIRCUMF. CRACK, WROUGHT / CAST STAINLESS

--QUAD CITIES UNIT 2, WELD 12S-S24 f WALL THICKNESS = 0.4320- .

MEMBRANE STRESS = 4793.0000 BENDING STRESS = 8942.0000

[ STRESS RATIO = 0.8103 ALLOWABLE STRESS =16950.0000 FLOW STRESS =50850.0000 L/ CIRCUM

[ 0.40 0.50 i 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 FINAL A/T, 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.6616

_ REINFORCEMEN T. THICK. 0.1440 0.1440 0.1440 0.1440 0.1440 0.2009 f_. END OF pc-CRACK l

l .

(

I C-23 sTaucTuma ASSOCUMEINC

r L

F L

[ DESIGN LENGTH = AS REQUIRED

[ 3/4' MIN 3/4' MIN

[ ,y 7 DESIGN THICKNESS = 0.20' ii

/ PIPE W ALL

'l v ll = 0.432' NOM.

IN ELBOW 4 PIPE j

WELD 12S-F26AR PLUG IN LOCAT10N OF (WELD 12S-S26R REMOVED SOCK 0LET (DETAILS A & B) j WELD DVERLAY DESIGN SKETCH

{ t 0MMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY QUA0 CITIES UNIT 2 WELD NUMBERS 125-526R & 12S-F26AR l NOTES:

1. THIS SKETCH TO BE WORKED WlIH SPECIFICAIl0N sis-88-001, LATEST REVISION.

[

2. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON PAGE 4 0F THIS ORAWING l

DRAWING NUMBER: CECO-09-012 REVISION: 1 PAGE: 10F 4 l Si PROJECT NUMBER: CECD-090 l

PREPARED BY/DATE I I.b 1 f /'drr REVIEWE0 BY/0 ATE J 6 hee [~4 9fMr

/

QhN ISSUED BY/0AIE /5/6 bMMd 54VPr

~

C-24

HDLE .

, (DIMENSIONS TO BE DETERMINED IN FIELD)

OUTSIDE i p T\N /7 = 43 ' 0

[ INSIDE j SOCK 0LET I CENTERLINE DETAIL A TAPERED HOLE FOLLOW ING SOCK 0LET REMOVAL

[

ATTACHMENT FOR POSITIONING PLUG, TD BE REMOVED FOLLOWING

[ 4 SEAL WELDING 2 k j

304 STAINLESS STEEL PLUG j

(OlMENSIONS TO BE DETERMlNED IN FIELD)

I DETAIL B TAPERED PLUG FOR SOCK 0LET HOLE l

DRAWING NUMBER: CECO-09-012 REVISION: 1 PAGE: 2 0F 4 Si PROJECT NUMBER: CECD-090 PREPARED BY/DATE bk f[Ibh REVIEWED BY/0AIEM O ASd f4947 STRUCTURAL

C ISSCED BY/DATE (M a' c~/ST49/P/

7 / C-25

[: +

1 f WELD 12S-S26R r / WELO 12S-F26AR

( 7 3/4' SOCK 0LET ( l' 0.0. )

I

.@ # h

[

CONFIGURAT10N BEFORE REPAIR

[

{

[

+

(

WELO OVERLAY REPAIR PLUGGED HOLE FROM REMOVED SOCK 0LET

% 4 CONFIGURATION AFTER REPAlR I

DRAWING NUMBER: CECD-09-012 REV!SION:1 PAGt: 3 0F 4 l-SIPROJECT NUMBER: CEC 0 090 PREPARE 0 BY/DATE NId f!/1!?f REVIEWED BY/DATE 16- MS~M9/fr ISSUED BY/DATE i/, b 4#O {9 C-26

L NOTES:

1. EXISTING SOCKOLET TO BE RE5'OVED (BY GRINDING, ETC.).

- 2. HOLE FROM SOCKOLET REMOVAL TO BE CLEANED BY CUTTING OR GRINDING AND TAPERED - DETAIL A.

3. TAPERED PLUG OF 304 STAINLESS TO BE F ABRICATED FOR INSTALLATION IN TAPERED HOLE. TEMPOR ARY ATTACHMENT TO BE WELDED TO PLUG FOR E ASE OF INST ALLATION - DET AIL B.

4. PLUG TO BE FIT INTO HOLE FLUSH WITH PIPE SURFACE, AND SEAL WELDED FOR 100% OF HOLE CIRCUMFERENCE.

[ 5. TEMPOR ARY ATTACHMENT TO BE GROUND OFF FLUSH WITH PIPE SURFACE.

6. OTHER METHODS OF REMOVAL OF SOCKOLET AND REPAIR OF RESULTING

[ HOLE M AY BE ACCEPTABLE, BUT WILL REQUIRE PRIOR APPROVAL BY COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMP ANY AND STRUCTUR AL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES.

7. WELD OVERL AY IS TO BE AT LE AST 0.20" THICK.

8. WELD OVERLAY SH.4LL EXTEND AT LEAST 3/4" UPSTREAM OF THE PLUG SEAL WELD, AND AT LEAST 3/4" DOWNSTREAM OF THE DOWNSTREAM EDGE

[ OF WELD 12S-S2SR, BOTH AT FULL DESIGN THICKNESS.

9. WELD OVERLAY TR ANSITION ANGLE IS 450 M AX.

(

10.THE FIRST OVERLAY WELD LAYER 15 TO BE M ADE WITH THE PIPE DRAINED, TO MINIMIZE Tile POTENTIAL FOR WELDING PROBLEMS DURING REPAIR.

THE FIRST LAYER IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS P ART OF THE REQUIRED DESIGN THICK N ESS.

DRAW ING NUMBER: CEC 0-09-012 REVISION: 1 PAGE: 4 0F 4 S1 PROJECT NUMBER: CECD-090 PREPARED BY/DATE //I M fl'9 /F 2 REVIEWED BY/0 7 ATE C/ , brW/ fwd Ml M" s'P (h[ASSCC

_ y '

g / _

19911FR RY/n ATF d b_ b wleI b st M/#7 J'P c-27 __ _ ___ _ _ --_--_

SAN JOSE, CA (408)978-8 COO VERSION 1.2 STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING EVALUATION

[

STRUUTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING FOR CIRCUMF. CRACK,WRCUGHT/ CAST STAINLESS QUAD CITIES UNIT 2: WELDS 12S-S26R AND 125-F06AR

( WALL THICKNESS = 0.4320 MEMBRANE STRESS = 4793.0000 BENDING STRESS = 6864.0000

( STRESS RATIO = 0.6877 ALLOWAELE STRESS =16950.0000

[

FLOW STRESS =50850.0000 L/ CIRCUM

[ 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 FINAL A/T 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.6914 REINFORCEMENT THICK. O.1440 0.1440 0.1440 0.1440 0.1440 0.1929

(

END OF pc-CRACK

~

l -

xw C-28 ASSOCIATESINC

sq=f DESIGN LENGTH L=4.5' WELD DVERLAY +L/2-e.e-L/2 -e.

TRANSITION ANGLE DESIGN THICKNESS 45 DEGREES MAX. ,r T = 0.21' M%% /M/##A Ishs WELD DVERLAY DESIGN SKETCH COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY OUA0 CITIES UNIT 2 WELD NUMBER 02G-S4 NOTES:

1. THIS SKETCH TO BE WORKED WIIH SPECIFICAT10N SIS-88-001, LATEST REVISION.

2. DESIGN LENGTH SHOWN IS FULL THICKNESS LENGTH.

DRAWING NUMBER: CECD-09-015 REVISION: 0 PAGE:10F 1 S1 PROJECT NUMBER: CECD-090 PREPARED BY/DATE //Y f//2/8's mum REVIEWED BY/DATE / TMV[ bTINC ISSUED BY/0 ATE I6 W Lu! 2/F C-29

W L

tm pc-CRACK

{

SAN JOSE, CA (408)378-8200 VERSION 1.2

[

STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING EVALUATION f

CRACK, WROUGHT / CAST STAINLESS STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT SIZING FOR CIRCUME CECO-09Q, QUAD CITIES UNIT 2 WELD 02G-S4 WALL THICKNESS = 0.5850 MEMBRANE STRESS: 6811.0000 l BENDING STRESS: 1371.0000

.l STRESS RATIO: 0.4827 ALLOWABLE STRESS =16950.0000 FLOW STRE55:50850.0000 L/ CIRCUM 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 FINAL A/T 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7383 REINFORCEMENT THICK. 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.1950 0.2074 END OF pc-CRACK STRUCTURAI.

C-30 N ASSOCIATESINC

)

-m o

4 ENCLOSURE 1 Ultrasonic Examination of IGSCC Susceptible Stainless Steel Weldments Quad Cities Unit 2 - 1988 Refueling Outage Introduction This enclosure provides a report of the ultrasonic (UT) examinations performed on IGSCC susceptible stainless steel weldments during the Quad Cities Unit 2 1988 refueling outage. Enclosure 2 (Structural Integrity SIR-88-018, Volume

1) provides the detailed report on the analyses and repair activities associated with flawed weldments.

In addition to the UT examination results, this enclosure also provides discussion on:

the "prioritization" study which was used to both select and schedule weldments for UT examinations, e a description and UT examination history of welds which contain IGSCC-like flaw indications, e a comparison of the current UT examination results with those of the 1986 refueling outage for the weld overlay repairs examined during the 1988 refueling outage, and e a description of the repair activities to the end cap-to-header weld overlay repair performed last outage (02A-S10) which was evaluated as containing UT flaw indications.

Discussions on the effectiveness of prior IHSI treatments (1984) and the design of weld overlay repairs in the reactor water cleanup (RWCU) system are described in Enclosure 2.

Examination Scope As shown in Table 1, a total of 157 weldments were ultrasonically (xamined during the current Quad Cities Unit 2 refueling outage. These include:

l

66 welds and 14 weld overlay repairs which were the initial examination I scope, and

77 welds which were part of the expanded sample or post-MSIp UT examinations.

Due to IGSCC-like flaw indications evaluated in the initial examination sample (12 inch recirculation risers and 6 inch RWCU piping), 100% of the 12 inch and larger recirculation system (exclusive of nozzle-to-safe end welds) and 100%

of the accessible Class 1 IGSCC susceptible RWCU piping was examined as an expanded sample.

A total of 47 welds in the core spray, residual heat renoval (LPCI), and recirculation systems were stress improved using the mechanical stress improvement process (MSIP). Of these 47 welds, 33 were not included in either the initial or expanded UT examination scopes.

4 4 Twelve (12) new weldments were idt ,1fiad during the current outage as containing IGSCC-like flaw indicat.1on'. Additionally, seven (7) weldments have previously been reported to the NRC as flawed as a result of UT examinations performed during prior outages. One 28 inch weldment, 02BS-S12, was originally reported as flawed based on UT examination in 1983. A metallurgical plug sample was removed during that outage, as well as a visual examination of the ID surface and single wall radiegraphic examination. These examinations did not reveal the presence of any IGSCC-like indiciations, but rather the presence of a backwelded root condition leading to the UT signal.

In subsequent outages, the same UT signal has bean observed. Conservatively, this evaluation has been treated as an IGSCC flaw. The flaw characteristics and past UT examination history of each of these weldments is shown in Tables 2, 3 and 4 for 6 inch RWCU, 12 inch recirculation and 28 inch recirculation system welds respectively.

l 1297d*-2 l

l l

i -)

E 4-4-

TABLE 1 Ultrasonic Examination Scope Quad Cities Unit 2 - 1988 Refueling Outage (Note 1)-

Examinations Performed New System / Size Welds' Weld Overlays Flaws Recirculation 28 inch 24 6 1 28 inch nozzle- 1 0 0 to-safe end 22 inch 20 2 0 12 inch 34 5 9 12 inch nozzle- 2 0 0 to-safe end Residual Heat Removal 20 inch SDC 3 1 0 16 inch LPCI 23 0 0 Core Sperg 10 inch 21 0 0 Jet Pump Instr.

4 to 12 inch 2 0 0 Small Diameter 6 inch 6 0 2 4 inch 7 0 0 TOTALS 143 14 12 NOTES: (1) Includes initial examination sample, expanded sample and post-MSIP e::aminations.

1297d*-3

~

,5 TABLE 2 Flaw Characterization Comparisons Currently and Previously Reported Flawed Welds Quad Cities Unit 2 - 1988 Refueling Outage 6 inch Reactor Water Cleanup (RWCU) Welds Year Orientation Length Depth Examined inch *4tw Side Weld 12S-S24 (6 inch flued head-to-pipe) 1983 - Not examined 1986 1988 circumferential 3-3/4 51 pipe circumferratial 6.2 49 pipe 2 axials -

100 pipe Weld 12S-F26AR (6 inch pipe-to-pipe) 1986 No reportable indications - - -

1988 circumferential 3/4 23 pipe (upstr.)

~.

i l

l 1297d*-4 l

1 l

l l

4 TABLE 3 Flaw Characterization Comparisons

, Currently and Previously Reported Flawed Welds Quad Cities Unit 2 - 1988 Refueling Outage 12 inch Recirculation Riser Welds (Note 1)

Year Orientation Length Depth Examined inch %tw Side Weld 02D-S3 (12-inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 circumferential 1/2 25 pipe 1985 circumferential 1/2 26-28 pipe 1986 circumferential 0.6 17 pipe 1988 circumferential 1.5 41 pipe

3 circumferentials 4 26 elbow

2 axials -

41 pipe axial -

24 elbow

= w/ axial component

- = 2 w/ axial components Weld 02E-S3 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 ID and OD geometry 1985 not examined 1986 intermittent root geometry 1988 2 axials -

24 pipe Weld 02F-S3 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 no reportable indications 1985 not examined 1986 no reportable indications 1988 circumferential 1/2 48 pipe circumferential 1 22 pipe axial -

38 pipe 4 axials -

22 elbow 4

1297d*-5 a

4 Tablo 3 (cont'd)

Year- -Orientation Length Depth

,_ Examined inch %tw Side Weld 02G-S4 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 OD geometry 1985 ID & OD geometry 1986 no reportable indications 1988 2 axials -

55 pipe Weld 02H-S3 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 OD geometry 1985 not examined 1986 OD geometry 1988 2 axials -

51 pipe Weld 02J-S3 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 OD geometry 1985 not examined 1986 no reportable indications i

l 1988 axial -

17 elbow Weld 02J-S4 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) l 1983 ID geometry 1985 not examined 1986 no reportable indications 1988 circumferential 2% 26 pipe 1297d*-6

4 Ttblo 3 (cont'd)

Year Orientation Length Depth

, Examined inch %tw Side Weld 02K-F6 -(12 inch pape-to-sweepolet) 1983 ID geometry 1985 not examined 1986 no reportable indications 1988 _circumferential 0.4 54 pipe axial -

50 pipe Weld 02L-S3 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 OD geometry 1985 not examined 1986 no reportable indications 1988 2 axials -

17 elbow Weld 02L-S4 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 no reportable indications 1983 not examined 1986 no reportable indications 1988 axial -

43 elbow Weld 02M-S,4 (12 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 circumferential 1/2 9 elbow 1985 circumferential 1/2 15 elbow 1986 circumferential 1/2 12 elbow 1988 circumferential* 1.3 17 elbow circumferential 0.7 17 elbow

= w/ axial component NOTES:

(1) All welds were IHSI treated in 1984 1297d*-7

1 TABLE 4

, Flaw Characterization Comparisons Currently and Previously Reported Flawed Welds Quad Cities Unit 2 - 1988 Refueling Outage 28 inch Recirculation Welds - Note 3 ,

t Year Orientation Length Depth Examined inch %tw Side Weld 02AS-S6 (28 inch pipe-to-pipe) 1983 circumferential 7% 21 upstrm.

1985 circumferential 8 18 upstem.

1986 circumferential 8 18 upstem.

1988 no IGSCC reported Weld 02AS-F14 (28 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 circumferential 43 20 pipe spot -

30 elbow 1985 circumferential 43 13 pipe intermit.

1986 circumferential 43 14 pipe .

intermit.

1988 circumferential 42-1/2 12 pipe intermit.

Weld 02AS-S12 (28 inch elbow-to-pipe) 1983 circumferential 8 14 pipe circumferential 4 11 pipe circumferential 1 8 elbow circumferential 2 9 elbow 1985 circumferential 8 4 pipe l circumferential 6-1/2 5 pipe circumferential 2-1/2 15 elbow 1986 circumferential 6 4 pipe i circumferential 5 13 pipe i

circumferential 2 22 elbow 1988 circumferential 8 8 pipe 1297da-8

Tcble 4 (cont'd)

Year Orientation Length Depth j

., ' Examined inch %tw Side Weld 02AD-F12 (28 inch pump-to-pipe) 1983 circumferential- 24 10 pipe- ,

total 1985 circumfereatial 1 18 pipe ,

1986 circumferential 1 17 pipe 1988 circumferential 1 17 pipe (By manual ultrasonic examination - automated ultrasonic examination showed no IGSCC)

Weld 02BD-F8 (28 inch valve-to-elbow) 1983 root geometry 1985 not examined 1986 circumferential 4-1/2 15 elbow t total .

r 1988 circumferential 3 25 elbow [

circumferential 3 26 elbow !

circumferential 3-1/2 26 elbow root geometry Weld 02BS-S12 (28 inch pipe-to-elbow) - Note 2 1983 circumferential 32 16 pipe root geometry pipe I

1985 circumferential 36 21 pipe root geometry pipe l

l 1980 circumferential 36 13 pipe root geometry pipe 1988 circumferential 36 13 pipe !

root geometry pipe (By manual ultrasonic examination - automated ultrasonic examination showed no IGSCC) ;

f i

1297d*-9 i

i

4 Table 4 (cont'd)

, Year Orientation Length Depth Examined inch %tw Side Weld 02AD-S6 28 inch pipe-to-elbow) ,

1983 ID geometry 1985 not examined 1986 root geometry 1988 circumferential 3 7 elbow Weld 02BS-F14 (28 inch pipe-to-elbow) 1983 circumferential 5-1/4 18 pipe 1985 circumferential 1 10 pipe ID root geometry 1986 ID root geometry 1988 no IGSCC reported Notes:

(1) 42-1/2 inches is the total extent of the flaws with e combined length of 34-1/2 inches.

(2) Weld 02BS-S12 has previously been reported as flawed based on manual ultrasonic examinations. A metallurgical plug sample removed in 1985 showed the presence of a backwelded root and no indication of IGSCC.

l (3) All welds were IIISI treated in 1984, t

1297d*-10

1 Weld Selection and Scheduling

, Intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) of austentic stainless steel piping weldments has been a perceived issue since the mid-1970s and an economic burden on the Utilities. As a result of such flaws, a large number of potentially IGSCC susceptible weldments have been ultrasonically (UT) examined since 1982.

Regulatory guidance (Generic Letters 84-11 and 88-01) require that a reasonably large number of potentially IGSCC susceptible welds be UT examined during each plant refueling outage to augment the normal ASME Section XI inservice inspections. The initial scope of the augmented UT examination program of stainless steel welds is established under this NRC guidelines and requirements. If new IGSCC-like are evaluated or existing flaws propagate such that repairs are required, this initial sample is further expanded.

One of the "lessons learned" from prior Quad Cities outages is that it is important from an outage scheduling standpoint to identify any such flawed welds, and therefore any repairs, early in the outage.

Prior to the current Quad Cities Unic 2 refueling outage, a "weld prioritization" study was performed by Structural Integrity for Commonwealth Edison with the objectives of:

providing a technical basis for weld selection and scheduling for augmented UT examination of IGSCC susceptible welds, e prioritizing by specific weld the IGSCC susceptibility of that weld, and

establishing, by system and size, the recommended priority of scheduling within the overall plan.

The study considered all IGSCC susceptible stainless steel welds four (4) inch and larger.

Using the extensive past industry experience and research, it is possible to subjectivly rank the IGSCC susceptibility of individual weldments by considering several factors. These include:

fabrication history (e.g., review of original construction radiographs, repair records, etc.),

l

prior UT examination history and examination results, e application of any IGSCC remedies (e.g., stress improvement, materials, and water chemistry),

e system considerations (e.g., process fluid flow, temperature, etc.),

and 4

industry experience.

i l

l 1297d*-11 1

v Once the individual weldments have been prioritized within a piping

, system / size, the prior history and economic consequences of IGSCC evaluation (repairs) are considered to schedule the individual welds for examination. By performing such a study, the weldments with the highest "risk" of IGSCC are examined first and any flaws which may require repairs are identified early in the outage.

The outputs of the Structural Integrity study (Attachment 1) were used by Commonwealth Edison to both select the weldments in the initial examination sample and schedule the weld examinations. The result of this approach was that the IGSCC flawed welds were identified early during the outage. This allowed early evaluations and analyses, as well as the design of repairs.

In review, the study considered postweld ID grinding in the prioritization as a relatively strong factor. The welds which were evaluated as containing IGSCC-like flaws confirmed this, especially in the recirculation system which had received stress improvement (IHSI) in 1984. On the other hand, the previous Unit i results in the core spray system were not repeated in Unit 2.

The Quad Cities Unit 2 prioritization study proved to be useful in the selection and scheduling of potentially IGSCC susceptible welds for UT examination. The extent of required evaluations, analyses and, most importantly repairs were identified early in the outage; thereby minimizing outage schedule impact.

The technical "lessona learned" from this study and the examination results confirms the strong causative effect on flaw initiation of postweld ID grinding.

i l

l l

I 1297d*-12 1

1 l

O Flawed Weld Description 1

There are total of nineteen (19) weldments which have not previously been weld overlay repaired which have been evaluated as containing IGSOC-like flaw indications during the current refueling outage's UT examination program. As shown in Table 1, twelve (12) weldments were reported this outage as i containing IGSCC-like flaw indications.

i Seven (7) weldments which are i

reported as flawed have previously been reported.

Two (2) 6 inch reactor water cleanup (RWCU) system welds outside of the drywell were evaluated as flawed during the current examination program.

These are detailed in Table 2.

All of the 12 inch recirculation riser welds not previously weld overlay i repaired were examined this outage. Of these, eight (8) pipe-to-elbow welds and one (1) pipe-to-sweepolet weld were evaluated as containing IGSCC-like indications this outage. Two (2) welds were previously reported as flawed.

The flaw characterization and UT examination history for each of these welds

, is shown in Table 3. All of these flawed welds were IRSI treated in 1984 and it is noted that six (6) of the new flawee welds contained only a very limited nunber (1 or 2) of axial flaws.

All of the 28 inch recirculation pump suction and discharge welds which are i not weld overlay repaired have also been examined this outage. Of these, six (6) welds have been evaluated as containing IGSCC-like flaw indications. Of the previously reported flat 4 welds, significant changes in the flaw characterization have been ,aported in one (1) weld and one (1) neuly flawed weld has been identified this outage. The flaw characterization and UT examination history of each of these welds is shown in Table 4.

4

,i i

4 4

1297d*-13 1

1 4

I e

- - _ _ _ _ _ . ~ _ - . _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ . __- - _ _ - - ,

4 4

UT Examination of Weld Overlav Repairs During the 1986 Quad Cities Unit 2 refueling outage, the fourteen (14) previously applied weld overlay repairs and six (6) new weld overlays were built up to the "standard" steld overlay design basis of NUREG-0313, Revision

2. The twenty (20) weld overlays repairs were surface conditioned and ultrasonically examined in accordance with Commonwealth Edison procedures which complied with the EpRI-developed weld overlay examination techniques.

Examiners, then as well as now, were also trained and "qualified" at the EpRI NDE Center.

Fourteen (14) of these twenty (20) weld overlay repairs were re-examined as part of the augmented stainless steel UT examination program during the current Unit 2 refueling outage.

Table 5 providea a comparison of the UT examination results between the 1986 and the current (1988) examinations for the 14 weld overlay repairs which sere re-examined during the current refueling outage.

Generally, these extminations were performed using manual techniques. (In the cases of the end cap-to-header weld overlay, both automated and manual techniques were used.)

Eleven (11) of the fourteen (14) weld overlay examinations performed during the current outage reported no indications in the weld overlay material.

Specific detailed data comparisons and summaries are included for weld overlay 02B-S9 and 02BS-S3. The investigations during the removal and repair of weld overlay 02A-S10 are discussed elsewhere in this enclosure.

1297da-14

l Table 5 Comparison of Ultrasonic Examination Results Quad Cities Unit 2 Weld Overlay Repairs Weld Examination Results Number 1986 1988 28 inch Recirculation 02AS-S4 No flaws in WOR No flaws in WOR (M) 02AS-S9 No flaws in WOR No flaws in WOR (M) 02BD-S6 No flaws in WOR No flaws in WOR (M)

Note 1 02BS-F2 No flaws in WOR No flaws in WOR (A) 02BS-F7 No flaws in WOR No flaws in WOR (A) 02BS-S3 No flaws in WOR Flaw cl> design thk.

Note 2 (M) 22 inch Recirculation 02B-S9 No flaws in WOR Flaw cl> design thk.

Note 3 (A) 02A-S10 circumferential No significant change multiple axials - Note 4 (A) 12 inch Recirculation 0"' - ra No flaws in WOR No flaws in WOR Note 5 (M) 02F-F6 No flaws in WOR No flaws in WOR (M) 02J-F5 No flaws in WOR No flaws in WOR 02M-F5 No flaws in WOR No flaws in WOR 02M-S3 No flaws in WOR No flaws in WOR (A)

Note 6 20 inch Shutdown Cooling 10S-F5 No flaws in WOR No flaws in WOR (A) = Automated UT Exam (M) = Manual UT Exam 1297d*-15

.j

s i

Notes:

(1) Circumferential flaw 2-3/4" long with r1 = 0.58" reported on pipe side.

] Weld overlay thickness is 0.462 (upstream) and 0.550 (dowastream) inch and design thickness is 0.47 inch.

(2) Two (2) circumf erential indications (1 = 0.3" with r1 = 0.48" and 1 = 0.5" with r1 = 0.44"). The average thickness of weld overlay 02BS-S3 is 0.492 inch. The required mitiimum design thickneas is 0.42 inch.

(3) Eight (8) axial and two (2) circumferential flaws observed in UT examination. The remaining ligaments of all flaws exceed the weld overlay thickness. One (1) axial flaw in low delta ferrite first layer not included in design thickness.

(4) Flawed portion of WOR removed by machining and reapplied during 1988 refueling outage. New UT babeline established.

(5) Axial flaw reported with a r1 = 0.61 inch. As-built weld overlay thickness = 0.329 inch and design thickness = 0.25 inch.

(6) One circumferential flaw on the pipe side (length = 0.6" with r1 = 0.7")

and four (4) axials on the elbow side (el = 0.45" to 0.7") reported.

As-bailt weld overlay thickness = 0.479 inch (pipe) and 0.331 inch (elbow). The design thickness = 0.25 inch.

l l

i I

I 1297d*-16 l

1 l

l l

Weld overlay 02B-S9 (22 inch end cap-to-header) was examined in both 1956 and

- in 1988. Indications, not in the weld overlay material itself, have been observed in both examinations. The details of each examination are shown in Table 6.

With the exception of slight changes in the remaining ligaments reported for two (2) of the axial flaws, the UT examination results reported in 1988 are identical with those reported in 1986.

The average thickness of weld overlay 02B-S9 is 0.448 inches. The observations from the examinations of this weld overlay include:

In general, there is an excellent agreement, both in location and remaining ligament, between the 1986 and the 1988 examinations.

In two cases, the remaining ligament has decreased, but is still greater than the thickness of the deposited weld overlay.

l l

1297d*-17 i

l l

t 1

a Tabis 6 Comparison of Ultrasonic Examination Results

. Weld Overlay 02B-S9 Circumferential Indications 1986 Examination 1988 Examination Location Length Remaining Length Remaining Ligament, in. Ligament, in.

59.5 2.5 0.60 2.5 0.60 30.5 2.5 0.56 2.5 0.56

-Axial Indications 1986 Examination 1988 Examination Location Aemaining Location Remaining Ligament, in. Ligament, in.

60 0.55 60 0.55 61 0.58 61 0.58 44 0.60 44 0.46 3 0.62 3 0.50 3 0.70 3 0.70 3.5 0.58 3.5 0.58 7 0.55 7 0.55 7.5 0.60 7.5 0.60 1297d*-18 l

l

. Weld ovtriay 02BS-S3 (28 inch pipe-to-elbow) was applie,d in the 1983 refueling outage and was surface conditioned and UT examined ir. the 1986 outage. This weld overlay has a design thickness of 0.42 inch and an average as-built thickness of 0.493 inch.

No indications were reported in the 1986 examinations of this weld overlay.

In the carrent examination, two (2) short circumferential indications were reported as follows:

0.3" long x 0.48" remaining ligament and 0.5" long x 0.44" remaining ligament The flaws are not connected or in the same plane and separated by approximately 1/2 inch.

Two (2) circumferential flaws, most likely interbead lack of fusion at the interface or in the first layer, were observed in the current UT examination of weld overlay 02BS-S3. These flaws were not observed in the 1986 UT examination of this weld overlay.

The remaining ligaments of these two very short flaws exceeds the design thickness of this weld overlcy.

Conclusions -

The following conclusions have been drawn from a comparison of the weld overly UT examination data:

Typically, flaws have not been reported in the weld overlay material (or in the base material examined).

In those cases where flaws have been observed both in 1986 and 1988, the data correlates quite well.

i l

In one weld overlay (02BS-S3), two very short circumferential flaws l

i have been observed in the current examination which were not detected l in 1986. The remaining ligament of weld overlay exceeds the full l structural design thickness of this weld overlay. Therefore the i

repair is acceptable for continued service. It is planned to re-examine this weld overlay repair next outage.

12970'-19 l

J

. Flaw Analyses Flawed pipe analyses have been performed by Structural Integrity Associates on all large diameter (28 inch) flawed stainless steel weldments in accordance with NUREG-0313, Revision 2. (SIR-88-018, Volume 1 - Enclosure 2)

Several conservati e assumptions were used in the flawed pipe analyses of the large diameter fit.wed pipe welds, including:

The as-welded residual stress distribution, as shown in NUREG-0313, Revision 2, has been used in all of the analyses of 'arge diameter flawed weldments. (Note that IHSI was applied to t.ese welds in 1984.)

An assumed 1000 psi weld overlay shrinkage stress was used along with pressure, dead weight and thermal stresses in the crack growth calculations. This value is more than twice the maximum value reported in prior analyses.

All large diameter flawed welds were found to be acceptable for continuous service. (See Enclosure 2)

'ommonwealth Edison elected to repair all 6 and 12 inch flawed weldments.

1297d*-20 1

. Repair Description A standard design bases weld overlay repair, in accordance with NUREG-0313, Revision 2, will be applied to each of the 11 flawed 12 inch recirculation riser weldments and the 6 inch RWCU weldments.

In accordance with the technical specification covering the wcld overlay application, the surface of the 12 inch recirculation riser welds to be weld overlay repaired will be liquid penetrant (PT) examined and any indications repaired prior to' weld overlay application. The first weld overlay layer will contain a minimum delta ferrite content of 7.5 FN. Each of these weld overlays will be surface conditioned to allow for UT examination using the EPRI developed weld overlay examination techniques.

The specific RWCU weld overlay repairs are discussed later.

1297d*-21

Weld Overlay 02A-S10 Investigation and Ropair During the last refueling outage (1986), a weld overlay war applied to weld 02A-S10 - a 22 inch recirculation header-to-end cap weld. The UT examination of the completed weld overlay repair detected several axially oriented flaws and a circumferential flaw in the weld overlay. These flaws were demonstrated analytically to be acceptable for continued service. This weld overlay was UT examined before any repair activities this outags and the current results compared with those from last cutage. This comparison showed a generally good correlation of the flaws and no adverse change in the flaw depth (i.e. , no decrease in remaining ligaments).

During the current outage, Commonwealth Edison planned repair activities of -

this weld overlay during the current refueling outage. The repair consisted of the removal by machining of a band of the weid overlay containing the flaws and extending approximately 1/4 inch into.the original component base metal.

The machining operation was stopped at three levels corresponding to the remaining ligaments of the flaws observed by UT examination. No linear indications ware observed in any of the PT examinations corresponding to the deepest flaws, a level approximately at the full structural weld overlay thickness had been removed and at the original base metal outside surface.

Very few small rounded indications were observed, most likely porosity from the SMAN "steam blow out" repairs. At least two of these PT examinations were witnessed by NRC Region 3. Commonwealth Edison is continuing to study these results.

1297d*-22

______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________]

s

- RWCU Weld Overlay Repairs IGSCC-like flaws were evaluated in two 6 inch RWCU system weldments outside of the drywell (See Table 2). Several repair options were evaluated and, based on a successfully hydrostatic testing of the inaccessible welds, a standard

, design basis weld overlay in accordance with NUREG-0313, Revision 2 was chosen. Two differences in these weld overlay repairs have been presented to the NRC Staff and found acceptable. These being application of a "dry first layer" and the final weld overlay surface finish.

Due to repair considerations associated with the through-wall axial and the presence of the other flaws, a first weld overlay layer, not considered in the design thickness, will be applied to the weldment with the system drained.

This layer is intended to provide an additional "barrier" against welding problems. This layer will be PT examined and any repairs made prior to refilling the system. The weld overlay will then be applied in the normal manner in accor(ance with the Structural Integrity technical specification.

The weld overlay repairs applied to the RWCU system will not be surface conditioned for ltrasonic examination at this time for ALARA and other reasons. If the service life of these repairs are intended to be longer than two fuel cycles of operation, the weld overlays will be surface conditioned and UT examined using the EPRI developed weld overlay UT examination techniques.

1297*-23

s.

o

. IHSI Investigation During the current examination program, nine (9) 12 inch welds and one (1) 28 inch weld which were IHSI treated in 1984 wure evaluated as containing IGSCC-like flaw indications. IGSCC flaw growth was also observed in one (1) 28 inch recirculation weld. The UT examination data, the IHSI treatm3nt records and the original fabrication history / radiographs were reviewed for a large number of these welds. The review of this data is documented in Structural Integrity Report SIR-88-018, Volume 1 (Enclosure 2).

An initial review of the IRSI treatment records, original construction radiographs and prior UT examination history indicates that:

the IHSI treatments were all within the current EPRI guidelines, and

there is strong evidence of ID grinding and/or wide weld roots in these welds.

Additional work is planned to further investigate these observations as part of an industry-wide research effort undse the auspices of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

l l

1297d*-24 i

2 l'

. l'3

Attuenm nt 1 0

.q , , ,

to Enclocure 1 I > fi ' i ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATES,INC.

==-

I Fredanch Copeland. Ph D.

Do,TE,"',U$5 January 13, 1988 Anehoor I connun. Ph D . DRP-88-001 Anthony N Weciardt Pb D Dund R. Pstemrn, P E.

Peter C. Ibecardella, Ph D.

Mr. D. G. Wilgus Commonwealth Edison Co.

BWR Engineering P.O. Box '. 67 Chicago, Illinois 60690

Subject:

Quad Cities Unit 2 Prioritization of IGSCC Susceptible Stainless Steel Welds for Ultrasonic Examination 1988 Refueling Outage

Reference:

Letter DRP-87-054 to Mr. R. Bax from D. Pitcairn (SI) dated December 8, 1987

Dear Dan:

Data was collected and a prioritization study conducted of IGSCC susceptible welds for Quad Cities Unit 2 during the week of January 4, 1988. The data collected included inservice inspection history, system considerations and information regarding original construction (radiograph review).

For each of the 2004 welds, the data was reviewed to qualitatively determine the potential for IGSCC flaw detection l (and repairs) during the upcoming 1988 refueling outage. )

Attachment 1 to this letter is a description of the program and l prioritization "criteria." The rest.lts of this study are 1 summarized in this letter (Table One) and are presented in detail in Attachments 2, 3 and 4. The results are listed by system and size, hopefully consistent with the planned examination l categories.

The results are grouped as follows: l l

Priority 1 - Welds with existing or previously reported flaws j (or other concerns) i Priority 2 - Welds whose examination history, fabrication or other data trends make them strong candidates for LGSCC.

3150 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SUITE 226 e SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118 e (408) 978 8200

TEIIX 184817 STRUCT

, , :m Page 2

Priority 3 - Welds whose examination history, fabrication or other data trends make them moderate candidates for IGSCC.

Priority 4 - Welds whose examination history, fabrication or other conditions which make them unlikely candidates for IGSCC.

If you have any questions or require further clarification, please feel free to contact me.

truly yours,

[

Drvid Pitca rn, P.E.

/

cc: P. . Bax (Quad Cities) w/att R. Tamminga/ H. Do (Prod. Services) w/att D. Thayer (Quad' Cities) w/att INTEGRITY ASSOCHTESINC

g' ..-

Page 3 4

Table One Summary of Prioritization Study IGSCC Susceptible Welds Quad Cities Unit 2 Category / Priority System Size 1 2 3 Recirc. 28-inch 7 2 12 Note 1

.22-inch 0 0 4 12-inch 2 4 7 Bypass 0 0 0 Safe End 0 0 0 SDC 20-inch 0 2 3 LPCI 16-inch 0 3 3 Core Spray 19-inch 0 2 6 (approx)

RWCU 6-inch 0 0 1 CRD Return 0 0 1 JPI O O O Head Spray 0 0 0

' Head Vent 0 0 0 Totals 9 13 37 Note 1 - Five flawed welds and two previously reported as flawed J

Page t ATTACHMENT 1 Prioritization of Stainless Steel '.. elds Susceptible to IGSCC for Inservice Inspection Introduction and Backaround Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking (IGSCC) has been an economic and technical issue associated with the stainless steel primary piping of Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) since the mid 1970s. The IGSCC issue has resulted in the requirement to altrasonically (UT) examine large augmented saaples of potentially susceptible stainless steel welds during each refueling outage. These extensive augmented examinations have been performed at each Quad Cities Unit 2 refueling outage since 1983. Currently, Commonwealth Edison (CECO) is in the planning process for the augmented UT examination program for the Spring 1988 refueling outage.

When IGSCC flaw indications are evaluated asacceptability a result of the UTand examinations, they require analysis for potentially repair. The most common "repair" for IGSCC is the weld overlay. If flaw indications are discovered early in the examination program, increased examination samples and weld overlay application can usually be accommodated within the outage schedule. Conversely, flaw indications discovered late in the program have resulted in schedule delays due to required increased sample sizes and repairs. It therefore seems prudent to attempt to prioritize the potentially IGSCC susceptible stainless steel welds by their probability of being flawed and the impact of potential repairs.

This prioritization can be used in two ways - sample selection and examination scheduling.

Sample Selection -

The NRC "regulations" - Generic Letter 84-11 and NUREG-0313-contain the requirements for the number of each "category" of welds which must be examined. The current CECO augmented examination program is based on Generic Letter 84-11 which requires approximately 80 welds (of the approximately 240 IGSCC susceptible velds) to be UT examined as an initial sample. are If flaw indications are detected in this sample, there requirements for sample expansion up to the examination of the all welds. Commonwealth Edison has elected to utilize prioritization approach to select welds for examination in order

Page 5 to have the highest probability of identifying flaws in a timely l fashion and facilitate repairs within the outage schedule.

Examination Scheduling -

'Once the examination sample is selected, the individual welds will be scheduled for examination based on several factors. The prime factors used in scheduling will be the probability of flaw indications as determined by the prioritization process and the probability / duration of repairs. Other factors include the deinsulation of the welds, availability of examination equipment, etc.

Acoroach/Methodoloav The prioritization process is not a precise science or analysis,

-but rather a common sense experience-based approach which considers:

l e Industry research efforts, o Prior examination history, e Fabrication history, i

e Repair duration (i.e. pipe size),

o The application of IGSCC remedies, such as stress improvement, heat sink welding or the use of "conforming" material, and e System operation, most importantly temperature.

Examples of important variables considered include weld ID grinding, past examination results and current examination techniques.

Lessons learned from the recently completed Quad Cities Unit 1 examinations demonstrated the importance of considering the grinding (abusive) of the weld root region during fabrication.

The resultant cold worked inside surface serves as a strong l initiator of IGSCC, even after stress improvement. This l

consideration is further supported by the large number of flawed l

shop welds that have been observed.

l There have been flaw indications identified by the UT exemination organizations contracted by CECO which have been "reversed" by the CECO-SMAD Level IIIs after re-examination. Many of these reversed calls are the result of the re-evaluation of the signal

t t Page 6 9

by then more sophisticated equipment (e.g., ID creeping wave, etc.). These re-evaluations were typically limited to welds originally identified as flawed. The current examination techniques more commonly utilize these sophisticated transducers and the potential then exists for some prior "ID or root geometry" evaluations to be re-evaluated today as flaws.

The state of examiner training and qualification within the nuclear industry has shown dramatic changes since 1983. The current examination personnel are more "tuned in" to identifying IGSCC. This has manifested itself in the identification of more axially-oriented IGSCC, which for most situations requires weld overlay repairs. The use of automated UT equipment compounds this observation. Other than the observation of a large number of axially flawed welds associated with "wide" weld crowns in 12-inch pipe welds, little can be done to predict the occurrence of axial flaws. The only "positive" approach to identifying axial flaws is flush grinding welds prior to examination.

The prioritization has been accomplished by listing all potentially IGSCC susceptible welds, their examination history, available fabrication observations, IGSCC remedy history, etc.

From these observations, the a ranking was developed using the following "criteria."

l

Page 7 Prioritization "Criteria" Larcer diameter welds (> 16 inch diameter) lower risk of unacceptable IGSCC flaws Longer repair duration Risk factor high for 28 inch recirculation welds (shop > field)

Risk factor lowered if:

conforming material stress improvement temperature 16, (RHR) 20 (RHR) and 22 (Recirc) inch welds considered on case-by-case Mid-diameter welds (10 and 12-inch diameter) 12-inch recirc welds - data trends associated with weld width, etc.

High risk of axial IGSCC flaw (s) which dictate repair Repair duration / impact typically minimal 10-inch core spray - history shows little difference with Unit 1, therefore similar problems may be reasonably "expected."

Potential risk for detection of axial flaw (s) which dictate repair Repair duration / impact may be high if several observed along with other actions on same line Small diameter welds (< 10-inch)

Historical crAteria from prior examinations

Page 8 t

A rather straightforward "analysis" considering the probability of IGSCC flaw detection, the probability of the _ flaw requiring repair and the impact of a repair effort was performed. The welds should be scheduled as follows:

Priority 1 "flawed" welds e 02A-S10 (end cap) weld overlay e 12-inch recirculation shop welds

A sample of 10-inch core spray (SI optional) e 28-inch recirculation shop welds e 12-inch recirculation field welds e large diameter welds ("hot systems, no SI),

28-inch recirculation system field welds, and large diameter welds ("hot" systems w/SI) e large diameter welds "cold" systems e nozzle-to-safe end welds e others

e ,

Page 9 ATTACHMENT 2 Discussion Regarding Flawed and IHSI-Mitigated Welds Quad Cities Unit 2 Of the nine (9) flawed and previously reported as flawed welds, seven (7) of the welds at Quad Cities Unit 2 were analyzed in 1986 and found acceptable for service considering the residual stress redistribution from stress improvement (IHSI). Of these welds, two (2) are 12-inch riser welds and six (6) are 28-inch welds.

Some considerations in these analyses were:

The EPRI post-IHSI residual stress distribution was used in all analyses e The flaws were conservatively characterized as 360o by the maximum measured depth.

Actual applied stresses, including weld overlay shrinkage stresses, were utilized in the analyses.

A ]imit load analysis was performed for each flawed weld and demonstrated acceptable margins.

Draft Revision 2 of NUREG-0313 has provided the NRC "position" on the effectiveness of stress improvement (SI) as a "repair" for flawed welds. This position limits the use of SI to flaws which are less than or equal to 10% of the circumference and whose depth is less than or equal to 30% through-wall. Additionally, the NRC has recently questioned IHSI due to field observations at Quad Cities Unit 1 and other plants. As a result, flawed pipe analyses assuming an "as-welded" residual stress distribution have also been "required." A review of ea-h of these flawed welds has been performed with conclusions as fc,:'ows:

02D-S3 The reported flaw length and depth meet the NRC criteria and the flaw has been examined since 1983 with little change in the flaw characteristics. The flaw depth reported in 1985 was 28% though-wall, close to the NRC criteria. An analysis with the as-welded residual stress-pattern would most likely require weld overlay repair.

= e Page 10 Action - Examine early and plan for potential weld overlay.

02M-S4 The reported flaw length and depth meet the NRC criteria and the flaw has been examined since 1983 with little change in the flaw characteristics. The applied stresses,- most notably weld overlay shrinkage, are high for this weld. An analysis with the as-welded residual stress pattern would require weld everlay repair.

Action - Examine early and plan for potential weld overlay repair 02AS-S6 This weld has been examined since 1983 with no significant change in the flaw length or depth. The flaw length is approximately 8% of the pipe circumference, making it "marginal" if the 1988 flaw characteristic is any longer.

Action - Examine earlf O2AS-S12 This weld has been examined since 1983 with no significant changes observed. The flaw length exceeds the NRC criteria. An analysis which considers the relatively low applied stresses and an as-welded residual stress pattern should show the weld to he acceptable for additional service.

Action - Examine early Recommendation - Perform analysis to determine maximum acceptable flaw depth, thereby allowing for "real time" weld overlay repair decisions during outage.

02AS-F14 This weld has been examined since 1983 with no significant changes observed. The flaw length exceeds the NRC criteria. An analysis which considers the relatively low applied stresses and an as-welded residual stress pattern should show the weld to be acceptable for additional service.

Action - Examine early Recommendation - Perform analysis to determine maximum acceptable flaw depth, thereby allowing for "real time" weld overlay repair decisions during outage. 1 i

Page 11 02AD-F12 This weld was identified as flawed and IHSI-treated in 1983, the flaw being characterized as relatively long (24 inches) and shallow (10% maximum through-wall). The 1985 and 1986 UT examinations have evaluated the flaw as short (1 inch) and less than 25% through-wall (16 and 17%). In all likelihood, the 1983 flaw length was due to problems associated with' flaw discrimination from the ID or root geometry present in this weld.

Action - Examine early 02BD-F8 This weld was IFSI treated in 1983 and post-IHSI UT examined. Root geometry (ID) was reported. There was no examination performed on this weldment in 1985. In 1986, a relatively short (4-1/2 inch), shallow (15% maximum through-wall) flaw was evaluated.

Similar observations have been made of flaws in large diameter stress improved welds, most notably during the recent Quad Cities Unit 1 outage.

Action - Examine early The following two (2) welds were not evaluated as flawed based on the 1986 examinations, but have previously been reported as flawed. They are included in this discussion due to their "potential for concern" in the next augmented examinations.

02BS-S12 This weld has been reported as flawed since 1983. The flaw characteristics (flaw length) would exceed the NRC criteria.

A plug sample was removed in 1983 which demonstrated that the "flaw" is a geometric signal from a backwelded root.

Action - Examine early 02BS-F14 This weld was reported as flawed (short, shallow) in 1983 and 1985. In the 1986 examination, the UT signal was evaluated as ID geometry.

Recommendation - Examine this weld as a. Priority 2 this outage.

Conclusions of the eight (8) welds which ha"e been reported as flawed since 1983, no significant changes have been reported. There have been some changes in the NRC pcsition on stress improvement

- . . , , . . . - .-=

0-page 12 effectiveness and analytical techniques over the last year or so which must be addressed for these-welds.

It is recommended that:

e these welds be examined early in the cutage to assess any potential changes in the flaw characteristics.,

e scoping flawed pipe analyses be performed for selected welds to minimize the decision making process in the outage, and e bid designs be prepared for these welds to obtain the "lowest cost" if weld overlay repairs are required.

o O

Page 13 ATTACHMENT 3 Discussion Regarding Prioritization of IGSCC Susceptible Reactor Recirculation System Recirculatica Riser Welds Based on the 1983, 1985 and 1986 ultrasonic examinations, there are twelve (12) flawed 12-inch recirculation riser welds -

ten (10) of which are repaired using weld overlays. The two (2) remaining flawed welds are "repaired" by stress improvement (IHSI) anc' have been observed as not exhibiting any significant change with service. The flaw characteristics in these welds

_(02D-S3 and 02M-S4) are short (<5% circumference) and shallow comply with the NRC position

(<25% through-wall), therefore expressed in Revision 2 of NUREG-0313.

Shop weld radiographs were reviewed for the presence of the weld root (i.e., absence of ID grinding), major repaired areas and the presence of "wide" weld roots / crowns.

The radiographic review data was then compared with the presence of flaws reported in prior examinations. As was noted with the Unit 1 results, all prior flaws were identified in "wide" welds.

The additional wide weld examination history was reviewed for the unflawed and wide welds. Welds with reported ID geometry in at least one prior examination were identified as high priority welds.

Review of a sample of the riser field welds showed the presence of an identified root, scattered wold repairs and "normal" weld fit-up. Specific weld data is not possible at this time.

Priority 1 02D-S3 02M-S4 Priority 2 O2D-S4 02E-S3 02E-S4 02H-S3 l

\

q e e

a a Page 14 Priority 3 02C-S4 02H-S4 02L-S4 O2C-F2 O2D-F2 02F-F2 O2B-F6 (riser to header)

Priority 4 - Remainder Recirculation Header Welds The only flawed 22-inch welds in the recirculation header are the two (2) end caps, both of which have been weld overlay repaired.

It should be noted that while not definitive, it is believed that the eight (8) sweepolet-to- header welds are solution heat treated and therefore not susceptible to IGSCC. !

Priority 1 and 2 - None Priority 3 -

02A-S4 02B-F1 l

02F-1E 02-F2 I

Priority 4 - Remainder Recirculation Pumn Suction /Discharae Thirteen (13) 28-inch welds have been reported as flawed during the 1983, 1985 and 1986 ultrasonic examinations, six (6) of which have been weld overlay repaired. Two (2) welds which have been reported as flawed have been re-evaluated as geometric indications from a "backwelded" root, one by UT and one via a "plug sample." The remaining five (5) welds are "repaired" by stress improvement (IHSI).

Page 15 Of these five (5) welds, four (4) have been examined each outage since 1983 (3 times each) and have shown no significant changes in the flaws. One flawed weld was discovered in the most recent (1986) examinations.

While demonstrated to be acceptable by fracture mechanics in 1986, some large diameter flawed welds do not met the current NRC criteria for the use of stress improvement as a "repair" due to length. This is discussed further in Attachment 2.

The examination priorities therefore are as follows:

Priority 1 -

l 02AS-S6 (flawed)

! 02AS-S12 (flawed) l 02AS-F14 (flawed) l 02AD-F12 (flawed) 02BD-F8 (flawed) 02BS-S12 (previously reported as flawed) 02BS-F14 (previously reported as flawed)

Priority 2 -

02AD-S6 02AS-S3 Priority 3 -

02AD-S2 02AS-S9 02BD-S1A 02BD-S2 02BS-S9 02BS-S5 02AD-F1 02AD-F8 02AD-F9 02AS-F5 02BD-F9 02BS-F14 Priority 4 - Remainder i

6 .

7-

,. e e

. e

$ Page 16

. o Othe* Recirculation System Welds

-r There have been no flawed welds in the 4-inch recirculation bypass lines which were repaired in the mid- and late-1970s.

These have not been shown on previous CECO submittals to the NRC, though they were all.successfully examined in 1983 (one in 1985, none in -1986) . It might be advisable to examine selected bypass welds during the 1988' outage. The recommended se.'.ections might include to end cap-to-pipe and/or terminal ends.

l

{

(

l l t

I w,- ,, ,n--, -

,,-w,

- - - - , w ,,,,-s- ,-r------,,,--g--- , , - . - , - - , , , , e -r-,, ,g- -

Page 17 ATTACHMENT 4 Discussion Regarding Prioritization of IGSCC Susceptible Welds (Systems Other Than Recirculation)

In the past, there has been limited IGSCC remedy application to stainless steel weldments in systems other than the recirculation system at Quad Cities Unit 2. Remedy application has been limited to IHSI application to primary welds (inboard of the first isolation valve) and IHSI and HSSW on the RWCU system.

There has also been material replacement in the RKCU and core spray systems.

The current study has generally been limited to an historical review of ultrasonic (UT) examination results, comparisons with Unit 1 and general review of radiographs for the larger diameter systems (16- and 20-inch). The results are presented by system.

RHR - Shutdown Coolina System (SDC)

IGSCC flaws have been identified in the SCC system inboard and adjacent to the first isolation valve (2 of 4 welds). The remainder of this system is generally lower in temperature as one

. moves upstream from the isolation valve, therefore diminishing IGSCC susceptibility. Both the unflawed welds inboard of the first isolation valve were IHSI treated in 1983 and have not been examined since then.

The general radiographic review indicated a general absence of grinding in field welds and some limited repairs.

The welds have been prioritized as follows:

Priority 1 - None Priority 2 - 10S-S3 and 10S-F4 Priority 3 - 10S-S6, 10S-S7 and 10S-S8 Priority 4 - Remainder RHR - Low Pressure Core Iniection (LPCI)

Historically, IGSCC has not been observed in the LPCI system in either unit at Quad cities (one observation last Unit 1 outage).

L

7 I Page 18 The field weld radiographs indicated limited repays and minimal, if any, grinding. IHSI treatment was applied to a limited number of LPCI welds inboard of the first valve in 1983.

The welds have been prioritized as follows:

Priority 1 - None Priority 2 - 10AD-F1, 10BD-F1 and 10AD-SS Priority 3 - 10AD-74 (or F4), 10AD-F12 and 10BD-S4 (or F4)

Priority 4 - Remainder Core Sorav Tne Quad Cities core spray systems (both units) were found flawed in 1979 and 1980. Many sigaificant (leaking) axial flaws were detected, some traversing the weld. The affected sections were replaced with carbon steel.

As part of the pre-MSIP examinations during the 1987 Unit i refueling outage, IGSCC (mostly axial flaws) were detected by UT in several (6) welds. Based on these observations and the history of tqe core spray system, it is recommended that a sample of these welds are exarined early in the Unit 2 outage.

The welds have been prioritized as follows:

Priority 1 - None Priority 2 - 14A-F2 and 14B-F2 Priority 3 - Remainder inboard of first closed valve (exclusive of 14A-F4R,to F10R and 14B-F4R to F11R)

Priority 4 - Remainder outboard of first closed valve and the clad carbon steel to existing stainless steel welds Jet Pume Instrument Nozzles (JPI)

The jet pump instrument nozzlo welds were all examined in 1985 and no evidence of IGSCC was detected. One weld was re-examined in 1986 and confirmed the 1985 results.

t 3 o

l Pags 19 l

i Based on-the 1.istory of these welds, IGSCC is not expected to be j discovered during the 1988 outage. The most likely welds for IGSCC though muld be the SS and F1 welds in each assembly.

Reactor Water Clef co (RWCU)

The Unit 2 RWCU system has exhibited IGSCC in the past and has mostly been replaced with low carbon material and has been remedied by either heat sink welding or IHSI. Based on this, there is little likelihood of IGSCC in the system other than in the 12S-F1 'or S1) add the 12S-F1R welds. The attachment weld may not be able to be examined due to its configuration (reinforcing plate).

CRD Return The control rod drive return system has historically been free of IGSCC. Current plans include system removal and capping, therefore the weld which would remain (02-S0) is recommended fer examination during the 1988 outage.

Hecd Sori;y and Head . Vent Ti.:.;tead spray and head vent systems have historically been free from IGSCC at Quad Cities. Ultrasonic examination results fror.

prior outages has been reviewed and does not indicL_e any an.malier which would suggest that there are no welds with high priority in either system.

[

f.

4

- en,

ML20155A611

Text

1.0 INTRODUCTION

5.0 CONCLUSION

6.0 REFERENCES

5.0 CONCLUSION

6.0 REFERENCES

=

=

Subject:

Reference:

Dear Dan:

Navigation menu

Search