ML080500245
| ML080500245 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/2008 |
| From: | Baxter D Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Corp, Duke Power Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML080500245 (109) | |
Text
Duke DAVE BAXTER Duke Vice President MEnergy Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy Corporation ONO1 VP/7800 Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672 864-885-4460 864-885-4208 fax dabaxter@dukeenergy.
com February 13, 2008 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001
Subject:
Duke Power Company LLC d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke)Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Docket Nos. 50-270 Third Ten Year Inservice Inspection Interval Request for Relief No. 04-ON-009, Revision 1 By letter dated September 13, 2004, Duke submitted Request for Relief 04-ON-009 seeking relief pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), from the requirement to examine 100% of the volume specified by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition with no Addenda (as modified by Code Case N-460).Subsequently, Duke recognized that a portion of the justificationfor the relief contained inaccurate wording relative to a method of detecting a leak should it develop at one of the subject welds. Duke communicated to the NRC an intent to submit a revised version of the relief to correct that issue.Duke notes that this request applies to the third Inservice Inspection Interval for Oconee Unit 2, which terminated September 9, 2004. At this time, Duke is submitting the attached request, which is considered Revision 1 and replaces and supersedes the original request in its entirety.
Duke requests NRC review and approval in order to close out the third interval documentation.
The relief would allow Duke Energy to take credit for ten (10) limited ultrasonic examinations on welds associated with various systems and components described in the request.During examination of the subject Unit 2 welds, the ultrasonic examination coverage did not meet the 90% examination requirements of Code Case N-460.The obtainable volume coverage for each weld examination is indicated on the attached request. Achievement of greater examination coverage for these welds was impractical due to piping/valve geometry, interferences, and existing/kY7 www.duke-energy.
com r n-6 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 13, 2008 Page 2 examination technology.
Therefore, Duke Energy requests that the NRC grant relief as authorized under 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i).
If there are any questions or further information is needed you may contact Corey Gray at (864) 886-6325.Very truly yours, Dave, axter Site Vice President Enclosure U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 13, 2008 Page 3 xc w/att: Victor McCree Region II Administrator (Acting)U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth St., SWW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, GA 30303 L. N. Olshan, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 xc(w/o attch): D. W. Rich Senior NRC Resident Inspector Oconee Nuclear Station Susan E. Jenkins, Section Manager, Division of Waste Management Bureau of Land and Waste Management SC Dept. of Health & Environmental Control 2600 Bull St.Columbia, SC 29201 Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 1 of 29 Relief Request 04-ON-009 Proposed Relief in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii)
Inservice Inspection Impracticality Duke Energy Carolinas Oconee Nuclear Station -Unit 2 (EOC-20)Third 10-Year Interval -Inservice Inspection Plan Interval Start Date= 12-16-1994 Interval End Date=9-9-2004 This Relief Request has tell welds for which relief is being sought.The ID's and Item Numbers for the ten welds are as follows: List Number Weld ID Item Number 1. 2-LDCB-INLET-VI B03.150.003
- 2. 2-LDCB-OUTLET-V2 B03.150.004
- 3. 2HP-215-3 B09.011.017
- 4. 2-51A-17-124 C05.021.021
- 5. 2-51A-17-92 C05.021.022
- 6. 2-51A-17-125 C05.021.023
- 7. 2-51A-17-20A C05.021.051
- 8. 2-51A-17-102 C05.021.054
- 9. 2HP-227-11 C05.021.056
- 10. 2-51A-31-50 C05.021.058 Attachment A contains a drawing for item numbers B03.150.003 and B03.150.004 Attachment B contains the inspection data for the 10 welds Note: Items in this relief recluest were inspected during one of the following mnonths: February, March, or April of 2004.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 2 of 29 1 .ASME Code Component Affected Letdown Cooler 2B High Pressure Injection System Inlet Nozzle to Channel Head Weld Weld ID = 2-LDCB-INLET-V I Item Number/Summary Number = B03. 150.003 II. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Section XI Code -1989 Edition with no Addenda III. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Item Number B3.150 Fig. IWB-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J IV. Impracticality of Compliance The Letdown Cooler Inlet Nozzle and Channel Head material is SA 182 Grade T316L.This weld has a diameter of 3.0 inches and a wall thickness of.875 inches.During the ultrasonic examination of the Inlet Nozzle to Channel Head weld, 29%coverage of the required examination volume was obtained for this weld. The percentage of coverage reported represents the aggregate coverage from all scans performed on the weld and adjacent base material.
The coverage from each scan was as follows: 450 scan perpendicular and parallel to the weld covered 28%; 60' scan perpendicular and parallel to the weld covered, 29%. The weld joint geometry.
which is essentially a branch connection arrangement using, a set-on nozzle, prevented scanning from both sides of the weld. In order to scan all of the required surfaces for the inspection of these welds, the inlet nozzle would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.
There were no recordable indications found during the inspection of this weld.The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use-of Code Case N-460, which recquires greater than 90% volumetric coverage of examination volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-l-J:
therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.V. Proposed Alternate Examinations or Testing Radiography as an alternative is not feasible because access is not available for film placement.
No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. 1 Page 3 of 29 VI. Implementation Schedule and Duration No additional examinations were planned for the areas/welds during the third inspection interval.
This request is for the duration of the third inservice inspection interval, which ended on September 9, 2004.VII. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of areas/welds for item number B03.150 were conducted using personnel, qu~alified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix V1H of the 1995 Edition With the 1996 Addenda. The ultrasonic procedures used complied with the requirements of ASME Section V, Article 4, 1989 Edition with no addenda.Duke wil.l use Class I, Examination Category B-P, pressure testing and VT-2 visual examination to compliment the limited scan examinations.
The Code requires that a pressure test be performed after each refueling outage for Class I. These tests require a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing provides adequate assurance of pressure boundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely event that leakage did occur through this weld it would be detected and proper action taken.Specifically, system leak rate limitations imposed by Technical Specifications 3.4. 13,"Reactor Coolant System Leakage." as well as reactor buildCing normal sump rate monitoring, provide additional assurance that any leakage would be detected prior to gross failure of the component.
The weld/component was rigorously inspected by volumetric NDE methods Cduring construction and verified to be flee from unacceptable fabrication defects. Based on the coverage and results of the required volumetric and the pressure testing (VT-2)examinations during this outage, it is Duke's position that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 4 of 29 1. ASME Code Component Affected Letdown Cooler 2B High Pressure Injection System Outlet Nozzle to Channel Head Weld Weld ID = 2-LDCB-OUTLET-V2 Item Number/Summary Number = B03.150.004 II. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Section XI Code -1989 Edition with no Addenda III. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Item Number B3.150 Fig. IWB-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J IV. Impracticality of Compliance The Letdown Cooler Outlet Nozzle and Channel Head material is SA 182 Grade T3 16L.This weld has a diameter of 3.0 inches and a wall thickness of.875 inches.During the ultrasonic examination of the Outlet Nozzle to Channel Head weld, 29 %coverage of the required examination volume was obtained.
The percentage of coverage reported represents the aggregate coverage From all scans performed on the weld and adjacent base material.
The coverage from each scan was as follows: 450 scan perpendicular and parallel to the weld covered 28%; 60' scan perpendicular and pIrallel to the weld covered 29%. The weld joint geometry, which is essentially a branch connection arrangement usingy a set-on nozzle, prevented scanning from both sides of the weld. In order to scan all of the required surfaces for the inspection of these welds, the outlet nozzle would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.
There were no recordable indications found during the inspection of this weld.The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage of examination volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J; therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.V. Proposed Alternate Examinations or Testing Radiography as an alternative is not feasible because access is not available for film placement.
No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 5 of 29 VI. Implementation Schedule and Duration No additional examinations were planned for the areas/welds during the third inspection interval.
This request is for the duration of the third inservice inspection interval, which ended on September 9, 2004.VII. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of areas/welds for item number B03.150 were conducted uising personnel, qualified in accordance with ASME Section Xl, Appendix VII of the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda. The ultrasonic procedures used complied with the requirements of ASME Section V, Article 4, 1989 Edition with no addenda.Duke will use Class 1, Examination Category B-P, pressure testing and VT-2 visual examination to compliment the limited scan examinations.
The Code requires that a pressure test be performed after each refueling outage for Class 1. These tests require a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing provides adequate assurance of pressure boundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely event that leakage did occur through this weld it would be detected and proper action taken.Specifically, system leak rate limitations imposed by Technical Specifications 3.4.13,"Reactor Coolant System Leakage," as well as reactor buiIdlding normal sump rate monitoring, provide additional assurance that any leakage would be detected prior to gross lail ure of the component.
The weld/component was rigorously inspected by volumetric NDE methods during construction and verified to be free flom unacceptable fabrication defects. Based on the coverage and results of the required volumIetric and the pressure testing (VT-2)examinations (luring this outage, it is Duke's position that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. 1 Page 6 of 29 ASME Code Component Affected Class I Piping Weld High Pressure Injection System Tee to Reducer Weld Weld ID = 2HP-215-3 Item Number/Summary Number = B09.011.017 II. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Section XI Code -1989 Edition with no Addenda III. Applicable Code Requirement RVB-2500, Table IWB-2500-l, Examination Category B-J, Item Number B9.l I Fig. IWB-2500-8 (c), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F IV. Impracticality of Compliance The tee and reducer material is SA-403/WP304 or WP3 6 stainless steel. This weld has a diameter of 4.0 inches and a wall thickness of1.531 inches.During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 88% coverage of the required examination volume was obtained.
The percentage of coverage represents the aggregate coverage from all scans performed on the weld and adjacent base material.
The 450 shear wave circumferential scans, both clockwise and counter-clockwise covered 100% of the examination vOlume and the 600 shear wave axial scan covered 77.7% from two directions.
A supplemental 600 refracted longitudinal Wave scan covered 100% of the examination volume in one axial direction from the reducer side. The limitation was 4 inches long on the tee side of the weld caused by the throat of the tee. In order to scan all of the required surfaces for the inspection of this weld, the tee would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.
There were no recordable indications found during the inspection of this weld.The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage of examination vOlunie C-D-E-F; therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.V. Proposed Alternate Examinations or Testing Use of radiography (RT) to achieve more coverage has been evaluated and discarded because RT is less sensitive to service induced cracking and has not been subjected to the performance demonstration requirements in a manner similar to the ultrasonic method.While RT could in most cases provide more coverage the loss of sensitivity and lack of performance demonstration militates against its use.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 7 of 29 VI. Implementation Schedule and Duration No additional examinations were planned for the areas/welds during the third inspection interval.
This request is for the duration of the third inservice inspection interval, which ended on September 9, 2004.VII. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of area/weld for item number B09.011 was conducted using personnel, equipment and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section X1, Appendix V1ll Supplement 2 of the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda as administered by the Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDM). In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on the B09.01 I item and achieved 100% coverage.
The result of the surface examination was acceptable.
Duke does not claim credit for coverage of the far side of austenitic welds when access is limited to one side only. The characteristics of austenitic weld metal attenuate and distort the sound beamn when shear waves pass through the weld. Refracted longitudinal waves provide better penetration but cannot be used beyond the first sound path leg. Duke uses a combination of shear waves and longitudinal waves to examine single sided austenitic welds when the nominal material thickness exceeds 0.5 inch. A 600 refracted longitudinal wave is used to interrogate the far side of the weld when the nominal material thickness is greater than 0.5 inch.The procedures, personnel and eclIpmenit have been quali fied through the PDI.However, although 60' longituldinal wave search units and 700 shear wave search units were used in the qualification and cracks were detected through the weld metal, PDI does not provide a qualification for single sided examination of similar metal austenitic piping welds.Duke will use Class 1, Examination Category B-P, pressure testing and VT-2 visual examination to compliment the limited scan examinations.
The Code reqLuires that a pressure test be performed after each refueling outage for Class 1. These tests require a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing provides adequate assurance of pressure boundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely event that leakage did occur through this weld it would be detected and proper action taken.Specifically, system leak rate limitations imposed .by Technical Specifications 3.4.13,"Reactor Coolant System Leakage," as well as reactor building normal sump rate monitoring, provide additional assurance that any leakage would be detected prior to gross failure of the component.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 8 of 29 The weld/component was rigorously inspected by volumetric NDE methods during construction and verified to be free from unacceptable fabrication defects. Based on the coverage and results of the required volumetric, surface and the pressure testing (VT-2)examinations during this outage, it is Duke's position that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 9 of 29 ASME Code Component Affected Class 2 Piping Weld High Pressure Injection System Pipe to Valve 2HP- 118 Weld Weld ID = 2-51 A- 17-124'Item Number = C05.021.021 II. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Section XI Code -1989 Edition with no Addenda IMl. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-I, Examination Category C-F-1, item Number C5.21 Fig. IWC-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F IV. Impracticality of Compliance The pipe material is SA-376/TP304 or TP316 stainless steel and the valve material is A I82/F316 stainless steel. This weld has a diameter of 4.0 inches and a wall thickness of.531 inches.During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 34.5% coverage of the recluired examination volume was obtained.
The percentage of coverage represents the aggregate coverage from all scans perlormed on the weld and adjacent base material.
The 450 shear wave circLImlerential scans, both clockwise and counter-clockwise covered 50% of the examination volume and the 600 shear wave axial scan covered 38. 1%. A supplemental 600 refracted longitudinal wave scan covered 100% of the examination
\volume in one axial direction from the pipe side. Limitations were caused by the taper on the valve side of the weld which prevented scanning from that side. In order to scan all of the required surfaces for the inspection of this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of tlie weld, which is impractical.
There were no recordable indications found during the inspection of this weld.The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage of examination volume C-D-E-F; therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.V. Proposed Alternate Examinations or Testing Use of radiography (RT) to achieve more coverage has been evaluated and discarded because RT is less sensitive to service induced cracking and has not been subjected to the performance demonstration requirements in a manner similar to the ultrasonic methdd.While RT could in most cases provide more coverage the loss of sensitivity and lack of performance demonstration militates against its use.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 10 of 29 VI. Implementation Schedule and Duration No additional examinations were planned for the areas/welds during the third inspection interval.
This request is for the duration of the third inservice inspection interval, which ended on September 9, 2004.VII. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of areas/welds for the item numbers C05.02 I were conducted using personnel, equipment and procedures Cqualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII Supplement 2 of the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda as administered by the PDI. In addition to the volumetric examinations with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on each of the C05.021 items and achieved 100% coverage.
The results from the surface examinations were acceptable.
In addition to the C05.02 I welds that relief is being recluested for limited scanning, there were 11 additional C05.02 I welds that surface and volumetric examinations were performed on. The examinations didn't identify any recordable indications and 100%coverage was obtained on each of the I I welds. The 1.1 additional welds were from the same system as the C05.02 1 welds of this request.Duke does not claim credit for coverage of the f'ar side of austenitic welds. The characteristics of: austenitic weld metal attenuate and distort the sound beam when shear waves pass through1 the weld. Refracted longitudinal waves provide better penetration but cannot be used beyond the first path leg. Duke uses a combination of shear waves and longitutdinal waves to examine single sided austenitic welds when the nominal material thickness exceeds 0.5 inch. A 700 shear wave angle beam is used to interrogate the far side of the weld when the nominal material thickness is equal to or less than 0.5 inch and a 60' refracted longitudinal wave is used to interrogate the far side of: the weld when the nominal material thickness is greater than 0.5 inch.Duke will use Class 2, Examination Category C-H, pressure testing and VT-2 visual examination to compliment the limited examination coverage.
The Code requires that a pressure test be performed once each period for Class 2 items. These tests require a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing provides adequate assurance of pressure boundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely event that leakage didl occur through this weld it would be detected and proper action taken.Specifically, system leak rate limitations imposed by Technical Specifications 3.4.13,"Reactor Coolant System Leakage," as well as visual observations performed during operator rounds, provide additional assurance that any leakage would be detected prior to gross failure of the component.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 11 of 29 The weld/component was rigorously inspected by volulmetric NDE methods during construction and verified to be free from unacceptable fabrication defects. Based on the coverage and results of the required volumetric, surface and the pressure testing (VT-2)examinations during this outage, it is Duke's position that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 12 of 29 I. ASME Code Component Affected Class 2 Piping Weld High Pressure Injection System Valve 2HP- 115 to Tee Weld Weld ID = 2-5 1 A- 17-92 Item Number = C05.021.022 II. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Section XI Code -1989 Edition with no Addenda III. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F- I, Item Number C5.21 Fig. IWC-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F IV. Impracticality of Compliance The valve material is A I82/F316 stainless steel and the tee material is SA-403/WP304 or WP3 16 stainless steel. This weld has a diameter of 4.0 inches and a wall thickness of .687 inches.DLuring' the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 37.5% coverage of the required examnination vOlLume was obtained.
The percentage of coverage represents the aggregate coverage from all scans performed on the weld and adjacent base material.
The 450 shear wave cilcumnferential and tangential scans, both clockwise and counter-clockwise covered 50% of the examination vOlume and the 600 shear wave axial scan covered 50% of the examination volume from the tee side. A supplemental 60' refracted longitudinal wave scan covered 18.89% of the examination volume in one axial direction from the tee side.The limitation was caused by the taper on the valve side of the weld which prevented scanning from that side. In order to scan all of the required surfaces for the inspection of this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.
There were no recordable indications found during the inspection of this weld.The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage of examination volume C-D-E-F; therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.V. Proposed Alternate Examinations or Testing Use of radiography (RT) to achieve more coverage has been evaluated and discarded because RT is less sensitive to service induced cracking and has not been subjected to the performance demonstration requirements in a manner similar to the ultrasonic method.While RT could in most cases provide more coverage the loss of sensitivity and lack of performance demonstration militates against its use.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. 1 Page 13 of 29 VI. Implementation Schedule and Duration No additional examinations were planned for the areas/welds during the third inspection interval.
This request is for the duration of the third inservice inspection interval, which ended on September 9, 2004.VII. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of areas/welds for the item numbers C05.02 I were conducted using personnel, equipment and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix Villi Supplement 2 of the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda as administered by the PDI. In addition to the volumetric examinations with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on each of the C05.02 I items and achieved 100% coverage.
The results from the surface examinations were acceptable.
In addition to the C05.02 I welds that relief is being requested for limited scanning, there were I I additional C05.02 I welds that surface and volumetric examinations were performed on. The examinations didn't identify any recordable indications and 100%coverage was obtained on each of the I I welds. The I I additional welds were from the same system as the C05.02 I welds of this request.Duke does not claim credit for coverage of the far side of austenitic welds. The characteristics o1f austenitic weld metal attenuate and distort the sound beam when shear waves pass through the weld. Refracted longitudinal waves provide better penetration but cannot be used beyond the first path leg. Duke uses a combination of shear waves and Iong2itudinal .waves to examine single sided austenitic welds when the nominal material thickness exceeds 0.5 inch. A 700 shear wave angle beam is used to interrogate the far side oflthe weld when the nominal material thickness is equal to or less than 0.5 inch and a 60' refracted longitudinal wave is used to interrogate the far side of the weld when the nominal material thickness is greater than 0.5 inch.Duke will use Class 2, Examination Category C-H, pressure testing and VT-2 visual examination to compliment the limited examination coverage.
The Code requires that a pressure test be performed once each period for Class 2 items. These tests require a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing provides adequate assurance of pressure boundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely event that leakage did occur through this weld it would be detected arid proper action taken.Specifically, system leak rate limitations imposed by Technical Specifications 3.4.13,"Reactor Coolant System Leakage," as well as visual observations performed during operator rounds, provide additional assurance that any leakage would be detected prior to gross failure of the component.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 14 of 29 The weld/component was rigorously inspected by volumetric NDE methods during construction and verified to be free from unacceptable fabrication defects. Based on the coverage and results of the required volumetric, surface and the pressure testing (VT-2)examinations during this outage, it is Duke's position that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 15 of 29 1. ASME Code Component Affected Class 2 Piping Weld High Pressure Injection System Valve 2HP- 118 to Elbow Weld Weld I[D = 2-51A-17-125 Item Number = C05.021.023 IL. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Section XI Code -1989 Edition with no Addenda III. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F- 1, Item Number C5.21 Fig. IWC-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F IV. Impracticality of Compliance The valve material is A I 82/F3 16 stainless steel and the elbow material is SA-403/WP304 or WP316 stainless steel. This weld has a diameter of 4.0 inches and a wall thickness of.53 1 inches.During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 34.5% coverage of the reCuired examination volume was obtained.
The percentage of coverage represents the aggregate coverage from all scans perlformed on the weld and adjacent base material.
The 450 shear wave circumferential scans, both clockwise and counter-clockwise covered 50% of the examination v\olume and the 60' shear wave axial scan covered 38. 1 % of the examination volIme from the elbow side. A supplemental 60' refracted longitudinal wave scan covered 100% of the examination volume in one axial direction from the elbow side.. The limitation was caused by the taper on the valve side of the weld which prevented scanning from that side. In order to scan all of the reqluired sLirlaces for the inspection of this weld, the valve woulcd have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.
There were no recordable indications founc1d during the inspection of this weld.The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the LIsC of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volurmetric coverage of examination vohlume C-D-E-F; therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.V. Proposed Alternate Examinations or Testing Use of radiography (RT) to achieve more coverage has been evaliated and discarded because RT is less sensitive to service induced cracking and has not been subjected to the performance demonstration requirCcments in a manner similar to the ultrasonic method. While RT could in most cases provide more coverage the loss of sensitivity and lack of performance demonstration militates against its use.,
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 16 of 29 VI. Implementation Schedule and Duration No additional examinations were planned for the areas/welds during the third inspection interval.
This request is for the duration of the third inservice inspection interval, which ended on September 9, 2004.VII. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of areas/welds for the item numbers C05.02 I were conducted using personnel, equipment and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VII Supplement 2 of the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda as administered by the PDI. In addition to the volumetric examinations with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface'examination (code required) on each of the C05.021 items and achieved 100% coverage.
The results from the surface examinations were acceptable.
In addition to the C05.02 I welds that relief is being requested for limited scanning, there were I I additional C05.021 welds that surface and volumetric examinations were performed on.The examinations didn't identify any recordable indications and 100%coverage was obtained on each of the I I welds. The I I additional welds were from the same system as the C05.02 I welds of this request.Duke does not claim credit for coverage of the far side of auslenitic welds. The characteristics of austenitic weld metal attenuate and distort the sound beam when shear waves pass throuogh the weld. Refracted lonoitudinal waves provide better penetration but cannot be used beyond the first path leg. Duke uses a combination of shear waves and longitudinal waves to examine single sided alstenitic welds when the nominal material thickness exceeds 0.5 inch. A 70' shearwave angle beam is used to interrogate the far side of the weld when the nominal material thickness is equal to or less than 0.5 inch and a 60' refracted longitudinal wave is uLsed to interrogate the far side of the weldwhen the nominal material thickness is greater than 0.5 inch.Duke will use Class 2, Examination Category C-H, pressure testing and VT-2 visual examination to compliment the limited examination coverage.
The Code requires that a pressure test be performed once each period for Class 2 items. These tests require a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing provides adecquate assurance of pressure boundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volimetric and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely event that leakage did occur through this weld it would be detected and proper action taken.Specifically, system leak rate limitations imposed by Technical Specifications 3.4.13,"Reactor Coolant System Leakage," as well as visual observations performed during operator rounds, provide additional assurance that any leakage would be detected prior to gross failure of the component.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. 1 Page 17 of 29 The weld/component was rigorously inspected by volumetric NDE methods during construction and verified to be free from unacceptable fabrication defects. Based on the coverage and results of the required volumetric, surface and the pressure testing (VT-2)examinations during this outage, it is Duke's position that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. 1 Page 18 of 29 1. ASME Code Component Affected Class 2 Piping Weld High Pressure Injection System Pipe to Valve 2LP-56 Weld Weld ID = 2-5 1 A-I 7-20A Item Number = C05.021.051 II. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Section XI Code -1989 Edition with no Addenda III. Applicabie Code Reiuirement 1WC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F- 1, Item Number C5.21 Fig. 1WC-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F IV. Impracticality of Compliance The valve material is A I 82/F3 16 stainless steel and the pipe material is SA-3 12/TP304 stainless steel. This weld has a diameter of 3.0 inches and a wall thickness of .216 inches.During the ultrasonic examination of this weld. 35.2% coverage of the required examination volume was obtained.
The percentage ot coverage represents the aggregate coverage from all scans performed on the weld and adjacent base material.
The 450 shear wave circumferential scans, both clockwise and counter-clockwise covered 50% of the examination volume and the 60W shear wave axial scan covered 40.6%. A supplemental 70' shear wave scan covered 100% of the examination Volume in one axial direction fiom the pipe side. The limitation vWas caused by the taper on the valve side of the weld which prevented scanning from that side. In order to scan Lill of the required surfaces for the inspection of this weld, the valve wOuld have to be redesigned to allow scanning from-both sides of the weld, which is impractical.
There were no recordable indications found during the inspection of this weld.The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage of ex amination volume C-D-E-F; therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.V. Proposed Alternate Examinations or Testin2 Use of radiography (RT) to achieve more coverage has been evaluated and discarded because RT is less sensitive to service induced cracking and has not been subjected to the performance demonstration requirements in a manner similar to the ultrasonic method.While RT could in most cases provide more coverage the loss of sensitivity and lack of performance demonstration militates against its use.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 19 of 29 VI. Implementation Schedule and Duration No additional examinations were planned for the areas/welds during the third inspection interval.
This request is for the duration of the third inservice inspection interval, which ended on September 9, 2004.VII. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of areas/welds for the item numbers C05.021 were conducted using personnel, equipment and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII Supplement 2 of the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda as administered by the PDI. In addition to the volumetric examinations with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on each of the C05.021 items and achieved 100% coverage.
The results from the surface examinations were acceptable.
In addition to the C05.02 I welds that relief is being requested for limited scanning, there were I I additional C05.021 welds that surface and volumetric examinations were performed on. The examinations didn't identify any recordable indications and 100%coverage was obtained on each of the I I welds. The I I additional welds were from the same system as the C05.02 I welds of this recluest.Duke does not claim credit for coverage of the far side of austenitic welds. The characteristics of austenitic weld metal attenuate and distort the sound beam when shear waves pass through the weld. Refracted longitudinal waves provide better penetration but cannot be used beyond the first path le-. Duke uses a combination of shear waves and longitudinal waves to examine single sided austenitic welds when the-nominal material thickness exceeds 0.5 inch. A 70' shear wave angle beam is used to interrogate the far side of the weld when the nominal material thickness is equal to or less than 0.5 inch and a 600 refracted longituclinal wave is uised to interrogate the far side of the weldl when the nominal material thickness is greater than 0.5 inch.Duke will use Class 2, Examination Category C-H, pressure testing and VT-2 visual examination to compliment the limited examination coverage.
The Code requires that a pressure test be performed once each period for Class 2 items. These tests require a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing provides adelquate assurance of pr-essLure boundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely event that leakage did occur through this weld it would be detected and proper action taken.Specifically, system leak rate limitations imposed by Technical Specifications 3.4.13,"Reactor Coolant System Leakage,'
as well as visual observations performed during operator rounds, providle additional assurance that any leakage would be detected prior to gross failure of the component.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. 1 Page 20 of 29 The weld/component was rigorously inspected by volumetric NDE methods during construction and verified to be free from unacceptable fabrication defects. Based on the coverage and results of the required volumetric, surface and the pressure testing (VT-2)examinations during this outage, it is Duke's position that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 21 of 29 1. ASME Code Component Affected Class 2 Piping Weld High Pressure Injection System Tee to Pipe Weld Weld ID = 2-51A-17-102 Itern Number = C05.021.054 II. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Section X1 Code -1989 Edition with no Addenda III. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F- I, Item Number C5.2 I Fig. IWC-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F IV. Impracticality of Compliance The tee material is SA-403/WP304 or WP316 and the pipe material is SA-376/TP304 or TP316 stainless steel. This weld has a diameter of 3.0 inches and a wall thickness of.438 inches.During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 86. 1 % coverage ol the,reqCuired examination volume was obtained.
The percentage of coverage represents the aýigieuate coverage from all scans performed on the weld and adjacent base material.
The 450 shear wave circumferential scans, both clockwise and counter-clockwise covered 100% of the examination volume and the 60' axial scan covered 72.1%. A supplemental 70' shear wave scan covered 100% of the examination volume in one axial direction from the pipe side. The limitation was 4 inches long on the tee side of the weld caused by the throat of the tee. In order to scan all of the required surfaces for the inspection of this weld, the tee would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld. which is impractical.
There were no recordable indications found during the inspection of this weld.The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage.of examination volume C-D-E-F; therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.V. Proposed Alternate Examinations or Testing Use of radiography (RT) to achieve more coverage has been evaluated and discarded because RT is less sensitive to service induced cracking and has not been subjected to the performance demonstration requirements in a manner similar to the ultrasonic method.While RT could in most cases provide more coverage the loss of sensitivity and lack of performance demonstration militates against its use."
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. 1 Page 22 of 29 VI. Implementation Schedule and Duration No additional examinations were planned for the areas/welds cluring the third inspection interval.
This request is for the duration of the third inservice inspection interval, which ended on September 9, 2004.VII. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of areas/welds for the item numbers C05.02 I were conducted using personnel, equipment and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII Supplement 2 of the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda as administered by the PDI. In addition to the volumetric examinations with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on each of the C05.02 I items and achieved 100% coverage.
The results from the surface examinations were acceptable.
In addition to the C05.02 I welds that relief is being requested for limited scanning, there were I I additional C05.021 welds that surface and volumetric examinations were performed on. The examinations didn't identify any recordable indications and 100%coverage was obtained on each of the II welds. The I I additional welds were from the same system as the C05.02 I welds of this request.Duke does not claim credit for coverage of the far side of1 auslenitic welds. The characteristics olf austenitic.weld metal attenuate and distort the sound beam when shear waves pass through the weld. Refracted longitudinal waves provide better penetration but cannot be used beyond the first path leg. Duke uses a combinaiion olfshear waves and longitudinal waves to examine single sided austenitic welds when the nominal material thickness exceeds 0.5 inch. A 700 shear wave angle beam is used to interro-ate the far side of the weld when the nominal material thickness is equal to or less than 0.5 inch and a 600 relfracted longitudinal wave is used to interrogate the far side of the weld when the nominal material thickness is greater than 0.5 inch.Duke will use Class 2, Examination Category C-H, pressure testing and VT-2 visLIal examination to compliment the limited examination coverage.
The Code requires that a pressure test be performed once each period for Class 2 items. These tests require a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing provides adequate assurance of pressure boLundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely event that leakage did occur through this weld it would be detected and proper action taken.Specifically, system leak rate limitations imposed by Technical Specifications 3.4.13,"Reactor Coolant System Leakage," as well as visual observations performed during operator rounds, provide additional assurance that any leakage would be detected prior to gross failure of the component.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 23 of 29 The weld/component was rigorously inspected by volumetric NDE methods during construction and verified to be free from unacceptable fabrication defects. Based on the coverage and results of the required volumetric, surface and the pressure testing (VT-2)examinations during this outage, it is Duke's position that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. !Page 24 of 29 ASME Code Component Affected Class 2 Piping Weld High Pressure Injection System Elbow to Valve 2HP-l114 Weld ID = 2HP-227-11 Item Number = C05.021.056 II. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Section XI Code -1989 Edition with no Addenda III. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F- 1, Item Number C5.21 Fig. IWC-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F IV. Impracticality of Compliance The valve material is A I82/F316 stainless steel and the elbow material is SA-403/WP304 or WP316 stainless steel. This weld has a diameter of13.0 inches and a wall thickness of.438 inches.During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 35.7% coveraCe of the redluired examination volume was obtained.
The percentage o1 coverage represents the agregate coverage from all scans performed on the weld and adjacent base material.
The 450 circumferential scans, both clockwise and counter-clockwise covered 50% of the examination volume and the 60 scan covered 42.9%. A supplemnental 700 shear wave scan covered 100% of the examination volume in one axial direction from the elbow side.The limitation was caused by the taper on the valve side of the weld which prevented scanning on that side. In order to scan all of the required sLIrfaces for the inspection of this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of thie weld, which is impractical.
There were no recordable indications found Cduring the inspection of this weld.The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage of examination volume C-D-E-F; therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.V. Proposed Alternate Examinations or Testing Use of radiography (RT) to achieve more coverage has been evaluated and discarded because RT is less sensitive to service induced cracking and has not been subjected to the performance demonstration requirements in a manner similar to the ultrasonic method.While RT could in most cases provide more coverage the loss of sensitivity and lack of performance demonstration militates against its use.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 25 of 29 VI. Implementation Schedule and Duration No additional examinations were planned for the areas/welds during the third inspection interval.
This request is for the duration of the third inservice inspection interval, which ended on September 9, 2004.VII. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of areas/welds for the item numbers C05.02 I were conducted using personnel, equipment and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII Supplement 2 of the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda as administered by the PDL. In addition to the volumetric examinations with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on each of the C05.02 I items and achieved 100% coverage.
The results from the surface examinations were acceptable.
In addition to the C05.021 welds that relief is being requested for limited scanning, there were I I additional C05.02 I welds that surface and volulmetric examinations were performed on. The examinations didn't identify any recordable indications and 100%coverage was obtained on each of the I I welds. The I I additional welds were from the same system as the C05.02 I welds of this request.Duke does not claim credit for coverage of the far side of austenitic welds. The characteristics of austenitic weld metal attenuate and distort the sound beam when shear waves pass through the weld. Refracted Iongituldinal waves provide better penetration but cannot be used beyond the first path leg. Duke uses a combination of shear waves and longitudinal waves to examine single sided austenitic
\velds when the nominal material thickness exceeds 0.5 inch. A 700 shear wave angle beam is uised to interrogate the far side of the weld when the nominal material thickness is equal to or less than 0.5 inch and a 60' refracted longitudinal wave is used to interrogate the far side of the weld when the nominal material thickness is greater than 0.5 inch.Duke will use Class 2, Examination Category C-I-l, pressure testing and VT-2 visual examination to compliment the limited examination coverage.
The Code requires that a pressure test be performed once each period for Class 2 items. These tests require a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing provides adequate assurance of pressure boundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely event that leakage did occur through this weld it would be detected and proper action taken.Specifically, system leak rate limitations imposed by Technical Specifications 3.4.13,"Reactor Coolant System Leakage," as well as visual observ'ations performed during operator rounds, provide additional assurance that any leakage would be detected prior to gross failure of the component.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 26 of 29 The weld/component was rigorously inspected by volumetric NDE methods during construction and verified to be free from unacceptable fabrication defects. Based on the coverage and results of the required volumetric, surface and the pressure testing (VT-2)examinations during this outage, it is Duke's position that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. 1 Page 27 of 29 ASME Code Component Affected Class 2 Piping Weld High Pressure Injection System Pipe to Valve 2HP-20 Weld ID = 2-5 1 A-31-50 Item Number = C05.021.058 II. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Section Xl Code -1989 Edition with no Addenda III. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table fWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-1, Item Number C5.21 Fig. IWC-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F IV. Impracticality of Compliance The valve material is SA479/TP3 16 stainless steel and the pipe material is SA-376/TP304 stainless steel.. This weld has a diameter of 3.0 inches and a wall thickness of .438 inches.During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 59% coverage of the required examination v\olume was obtained.
The percentage of coverage represents the aggregate coverage from all scans perlformed on the weld and adjacent base material.
The 450 shear wave circumI1ferential scans, both clockwise and counter-clockwise covered 50% of the examination volume and the 600 shear wave axial scan covered 36%. A supplemental 700 shear wave scan covered 100% of the examination volume in one axial direction from the pipe side. The limitation was caused by the taper on the valve side of the weld which prevented scanning from that side. In order to scan all of the required surfaces for the inspection of this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.
There were no recordable indications found during the inspection of this weld.The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage of examination volume C-D-E-F; therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.V. Proposed Alternate Examinations or Testing, Use of radiography (RT) to achieve more coverage has been evaluated and discarded because RT is less sensitive to service induced cracking and has not been subjiected to the performance demonstration requirements in a manner similar to the ultrasonic method.While RT could in most cases provide more coverage the loss of sensitivity and lack of performance demonstration militates against its use.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 28 of 29 VI. Implementation Schedule and Duration No additional examinations were planned for the areas/welds during the third inspection interval.
This request is for the duration of the third inservice inspection interval, which ended on September 9, 2004.VII. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of areas/welds for the item numbers C05.02 I were conducted using personnel, equipment and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section Xl, Appendix V11i Supplement 2 of the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda as administered by the PDI. In addition to the volumetric examinations with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on each of the C05.021 items and achieved 100% coverage.
The results from the surface examinations were acceptable.
In addition to the C05.02 I welds that relief is being requested for limited scanning, there were I I additional C05.02 I welds that surface and volumetric examinations were performed on. The examinations didn't identify any recordable indications and 100%coverage was obtained on each of the I I welds. The I I additional welds were from the same system as the C05.02 I welds of this request.Duke does not claim credit for coverage of the far side of austenitic welds. The characteristics of austenitic weld metal attenuate and distort the sound beamn when shear waves pass through the weld. RefIactedc loneituclinal waves provide better penetration but cannot be used beyond the first path leg. Duke uses a combination of shear waves and longitudinal waves to examine sinlIe sided austenitic welds when the nominal material thickness exceeds 0.5 inch. A 70' shear wave angle beam is used to interrocate the far side of the weld when the nominal material thickness is equal to or less than 0.5 inch and a 60' refracted longitudinal wave is used to interrogate the far side-of the weld when the nominal material thickness is greater than 0.5 inch.Duke will use Class 2, Examination Category C-H, pressure testing and VT-2 visual examination to compliment the limited examination coverage.
The Code requires that a pressure test be performed once each period for Class 2 items. These tests require a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing provides adequate assurance of pressure boundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely event that leakage did occur through this weld it would be dletected and proper action taken.Specifically, system leak rate limitations imposed by Technical Specifications 3.4.13,"Reactor Coolant System Leakage," as well as reactor building normal sump rate monitoring, provide additional assurance that any leakage would be detected prior to gross failure of the component.
Relief Request 04-ON-009 Rev. I Page 29 of 29 The weld/component was rigorously inspected by volumetric NDE methods during construction and verified to be free from unacceptable fabrication defects. Based on the coverage and results of the required volImetric, surface and the pressure testing (VT-2)examinations, during this outage, it is Duke's position that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.
I BILL OF MATERIAL A +4ch oý,oo-f "I'1'AT" QUANTITY I AAATEQCALRPTION ONST. SIZE $CH L ,.,. CILASS I lyP' E A-_C) Bi ~ ,Al2.$I TibliM6A)8
-,L -, I I ii-- i~7ZZ ____I_1 F .. .._ _ i _ _0o 3 P--I +Y:IA(: oydd,?2f2v A Ib ON TIS ' C<-G I'& cI R 6 Sc k~o A--ISO NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION, SEE DESIGN DRAWING NOTES: ALL WELD NUMBERS SHALL BE PRECEDED BY N/-A.LAST WELD NO, ,() REF, LAYOUT DWG. 2'M. 01 ' 1... 00/ .M ,J .tI-! .D ic I) REF. FLOW DWG.--. /A/tI-.2./, l b5zi.- wk-l.) &w .hp?- -WORK REQUEST NO.© -V:J(_1.1 7 TA2Lt) 6;s 0ooe~ 1 I VIII'L'?..~/ILS./
(.)6 Or~1Af0(4
.2/p~/1VA , / dLsrrTe M-6Iy PlLo.. ,°.).i , h .D/e /o &ki / 4,(l "- .x eiiY , 1) e i.,/'-'f ....Hi.V/2/0 I/S OA CONDITION
--> IA 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT-ETPE THE WILL BE A. IENTIFIEO PER THES OME GAWING/5 TF THE IS1 PROG5RAM4.
RENAMEE 6-7ý961 SEE. NOT E t St .ADD LDTLf IA IP&U1F pZ ItL IYYLO1 lol-4/./X c1 ' 7L 9______~~A I I/I~ i~F~~9v 6p;b Co' X-/YI.ID w, 21- Lt2_ f)1,1111 oA 74I'TITLE LETDOWN COOLER SERIAL NUMBER. 34097-2 Sys -s../ LINE NO. "t5 DUKE CLASS L-.CODE CLASS 21r, W1, XI CLASS A PIPING SPEC. If-;01. Ll LOCATION rM-YVAuvbo-..
& I)- t 7.l 1-581 -0)(-)I "; .... , -, :'..i, -____ --II-I ) S ý I' l N. REISO ,NO.REVISION1-3 4 0 9 7-2A REV.NO.A REQUEST RELIEF 04-ON-009 ATTACHMENT B Total Number of Pages = 75 Page Numbers 1 thru 16 17 thru 32 33 thru 37 38 thru 42 43 thru 49 50 thru 54 55 thru 59 60 thru 64 65 thru 69 70 thru 75 Weld ID 2-LDCB-INLET-V1 2-LDCB-OUTLET-V2 2HP-215-3 2-51A-17-124 2-51A-17-92 2-51A-17-125 2-51A-17-20A 2-51A-17-102 2HP-227-11 2-51A-31-50 Item Number B03150.0003 B03.150.0004 B09.011.017 C05.021.021 C05.021.022 C05.021.023 C05.021.051 C05.021.054 C05.021.056 C05.021.058 Attachment B Page I of 75" UT Vessel Examination Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2 Summary No.: B03.150.003 Workscope:
ISl Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-630 2 98603899 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-152 Page: 1 of 2 Code: Asme Section Xl 1989 Cat./Item:
B-D-/B3.150.3 Location:
N/A Drawing No': 1-34097-2
==
Description:==
Nozzle to Channel Body System ID: 51A Component ID: B03.150.003
/2-LDCB-INLET-V1 Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter:
0.875"/3.0" Limitations:
Yes- See attached limitation report. Start Time: 0854 Finish Time: 0950 Examination Surface: Inside [ Outside 7. Surface Condition:
AS GROUND Lo Location:
9.2.2 Wo Location:
Centerline of Weld Couplant:
ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 03125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE32768 Surface Temp.: 59 °F Cal. Report No.: CAL-04-242, CAL-04-243, CAL-04-244, CAL-04-245 Angle Used 0 45 45T 6ORLj 60T 45RL Scanning dB 40.5 40.5 63.5 66.5 Indication(s):
Yes D No W Scan Coverage:
UpstreamW DownstreamDn CWR] CCWI[]Comments: FC 99-02, 03-17, 03-30 Results: Accept [ Reject F] Info FD Scanning db's less than ref.+14 to abtain 2:1 signal to noise ratio.Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No -29.26% Reviewed Previous Data: Yes ]Examiner Level ill Signature.
Date Reviewer *r Date Zimmerman, David K. /-), :L,= 4/5/2004 FZ-A Examiner Level II Si nat he Date Site Review Signature Date Mauldin, Larry E. 4/5/2004, Other Level .Signature Date ANII Re7yv ,.- Sinature Date Attachment B Page 2. of 7 5 Duke Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations
-Vessels Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2 Summary No.: B03.150.003 Workscope:
ISI Procedure:
Procedure Rev-: Work Order No.: NDE-630 2 98603899 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-152 Page: 2 of 2 0 deg Planar Scan% Length X% voltume of length / 100% total for 0 deg 45 deg Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000% Length X% Length X% Length X% Length X 35.900 % volume of length / 100 =15.600 % volume of length / 100 =31.400 % volume of length / 100 =31.400 % volume of length / 100 =35.900 15.600 31.400 31.400% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans =28.575 % total for 45 deg Other deg 60 Scan 1 100.000 % Length X Scan 2 100.000 % Length X Scan 3 100.000 % Length X Scan 4 100.000 % Length X Add-totals and divide by # scans =46.600 % volume of length / 100 =10.400 % volume of length / 100 =31.400 % volume of length / 100 =31.400 % volume of length / 100 =29.950 % total for 60 deg 46.600 10.400 31.400 31.400% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Percent complete coverage Add totals for each angle and scan required and divide by # of angles to determine; 29.263 % Total for complete exam Note: Supplemental coverage may be achieved by use of other angles / methods. When used, the coverage for volume not obtained with angles as noted above shall be calculated and added to the total to provide the percent total for the complete examination.
Site Field Supervisor:
D'a te: ,._ './ q/
Attachment B Page ,, of 75 DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Component/Weld ID: 2-LDCB-INLET-V1 Item No: B03.150.003 remarks: Z NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Due to branch connection
-- LIMITED SCAN El 1 Z 2 2 1 [- 2 E cw Z ccw configuration.
FROM L N/A to L N/A INCHES FROM WO .5" to Beyond ANGLE: Ej 0 Z 45 Z 60 other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG-- NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION F-D LIMITED SCAN 0l1 -2 El1 E -2E cw ccw FROM U to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: El 0 El 45 El 60 other FROM DEG to DEG El NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION DLIMITED SCAN El]1 ]2 E li cw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: F 0 El 45 Fl 60 other 'FROM DEG to DEG El NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION DLIMITED SCAN l1 -- 2 E] 1 2 [-] cw ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to Sketch(s) attached ANGLE: ro 0 El 45 El-,60 other FROM DEG to DEG Z yes El No Prepared By: Larry Mau, S Level: ii Date: 4/05/04 Sheet A-. of Reviewed By: i Date: A u hor 1zed .of Ins ect r: .l , I.. ~p I V5Z_.
Pik, Ae -obnew-Supplemental Report Attachment B Page q of 7 5 Report No.: O HL -I z Summary No.: Examiner: Examiner: Other: F"-ýn 3. i,ý; 0 -a,~J Level:__Level: Level: Reviewer: Site Review: ANII Review: Date: L-A k O Lk Date: Date: _______Comments:
A/LQA C _E Of E V- AKA A- rF" A.-A I A-IL/C4.[.
Ln I,'U VL_ LISEE-c 1 ID_'f AKJt A.C:VLJU A. L,4A Sketch or Photo: t r Z_C- A I1i 6i1 -"t (r itr- A 0 .. -(? 7___ _ __ __ __ __._ __--. , z,.7 , , .& ....<¢* ZZ 6 "i, I.£ 2,- *, .______________
z :-4 I ?7 ci ,.. 't--- I. Lý 0/0 I 7 ~t ~ .4 ~/o 2.- LbtLR -/LILE~t"-
V.I i, Attachment B Page 5" of 75" IW .Aa okriwvy-Supplemen'tal Report Report No.: Uf-T-- 0LA-I1Z-~ of Summary No.: Examiner: Examiner.Other: QPc'ý -I So -Level: Level: Level: Reviewer: Site Review: ANtI Review:./'zi:ci Date: Date: ______Date: yh z/Comnments:
Sketch or Ph'Y X9 /) 4 1?C/?: f}/db = a7- -11. 8 oto: C/ " 7/,5- 0938 ?"TA X ..2,IA/UIs 5 ic0 e'KvýIAL -M 4 eEw ' -.7 3. 'q 3 -' /V,--LODC5 -E ,LF_- V/1 Attachment B Page & of"757 t~ko Supplemenal Report Report No.: n , _L .... ; LL- of IC-4 Summary No.: Examiner: Examiner Other I<.so. -o~Level: Level: Level: Reviewer Site Review: ANII Review:.t-1i-r llIr) -c -~ý Aýt I-Date: Date: Date: ¢///q Comments: -L -L D) L -r4 LL-- \/-/-IV Ini r n t-r-()c-jP Sketch o, Photo: A 1ý'E P r-) 1ý' C--D VC7:-:'g 4 PE~cn?:4 2 A 2I-&4Z l..L-) s 0 -a -ScA I I ru LL Co'A?1JRJE tpju (O,0t"5DY MI Attachment B Page 7 of 7 5" L~*0 Vk5-izrg Supplemental Report Rpon No.: J-T'-AC'L-5*n~a--ýMC Pft go;ofr 1 Summary No.: Examiner: Examiner.Other.~SAc~ cO~/2e~yii6.
-~-tr, Level: Level:----
Level: Reviwer: Site Review-.ANtI Review.A) -t Date: -4L O 'Date: _____D atIe: I7L/(3/o Comments:
2_- L DCB..T_
Commrents:
I LE :2L L- -~V I Sketch or Photo: 0 ~ 1Z~%~.) ~6 FU I-L CovCRz;Y, tJo C-,\t5qýt Attachment B Page 8 of 75^ do Supplemental Report --ReportNo.:
0-4q -VZ Sun mmaryNo.:
_ 03 O.©-'Examiner~
4 2d,--'jr'Examiner_Other.Reviower Level: Level: Level: ANI Review.Date: 4 o Date: Comments: 2.-LZCý- iLCV -V I Sketch of Photo: aVIALC (.Q0CTnti:Z t~(iiA fr~7L.h?~A (no o ~-IA ýrA-Fu LL CO~r-----?,JO CjOtý:R Attachment B Page 7 of 75 t"Ow Supplemental Report R "ot No.: TL)- Oq -I' SZým,4. aqe -7 o(Summary No.: Exam4ner.Revieer: Examrner: Other: Level-Level.._____
Level: Site Review:.ANII Review-./~ P~~c Date: Date:____
__D ate:_____
T Comments: I_ -Ltn __,- 1; L_ " -V I Sketch or Photo: or ~z-.FU L-L_ COX.IC Attachment B Page l0 of 7 5'?LOb %*MWYo-Supplemerwtal Report In4ca--No.:- H -z C Surmmay No.: ExOttrn.It~-E n ' -sn. 3o s Level: , Level: Level: Reviewo Site Review.ANII Roviow.Date:)4 Date: Date:./, _ /~hfi, az (-I Comments:
lee, 130.4M Sketch o, Phoo: 'b .I /L CX.c- >O803)875 '/4.l, A? t- , I.,2¶ lrn.(ýO60C -(---9 I d/o f"ý: 45° < gO'C16ýc.
(3'C.0js C oE)PL / ZE A ¢'reAL , 6 S.L- LDC.9,- IM kLE -1"- 'r~u Li iuLcL r týWA Attachment B Page // of 75'ke Supplemental Report nl Il RepqoriNo.:
JY"-7-L( -I'S-Mr~grv -Paeýe cý Of -- L Summarý No.: i Examiner: Examiner: Other:-:2')o 0 o .I c---- o n ,42 .J Reviewer: Site Review: Level: /Level: Level: Date: o4 Date:-Date: _ /____ANII Review-.I. I ' -6 Comments: T EG I -l" X.'7//1--)Xe.Sketch or Photo: 5- X, -.."T -, a .- , --~.I HI.~3 ~IAf.,- C</4 E X A Y^/)f : 2/"M.z -LDCia -Qu1 r- \ /,
ePk~lk Supplemental.
Report Attachment B Page It of 756 a.,f. No.: I) T- 0f -A4+o-a,mervizrI ,P~o 1 o(Summary No.: Examiner Examiner Olt.r T-Go, .ISo,,o3 Level: Level: Revewemr Sie PRMew.ANII Review:.a3T Date: Date: Date:/ _0 Comments:
2_.-L_ -CHC 0 0N,,./.Sketch or Photo: A_VU " -..,z_," (--("A ( A 7Z6A --L/ rULL, COVERAGCE E:=::
i LoarL R.4.0"Orgy-Supplemental Report Attachment B Page 13 of 75"No.:' -0 q Summary No.: Exaininer J io ico, 03 I-14+achrvier}
-4.'4g..Level. ---Level: Level: Reviewer: She Reviewv ANI I Review.Date: Date: ___ __U/Cvmenmots:
2- -L C) lB -) J- L-C- -r Gt:C Cm 12ý{c~Sketch or Photo: fli~c. -C-A SLL~ -13 C2.LI6so 0\,L -SA ?-oUL CLACR ACtE E~
Attachment B Page / i of 7 5 IWDuko Supplemental Report RýorlNo.:
U-r-o -T"5 Summary No.: Examiner: Examiner: Other: Level: Level: Level:_Reviewer: Sihe Review.ANII Review.R4+/-o~hvv~nA~
4'a94~~_______ c~-L Date: Date: _______Comments: -L( _'-K/1 C I C- -C-0 ý,Xot J2 Rf-t7A rý(- C r7ýKý--Z A(--sýý-Sketch or Phoio: IV h_ _ ,' _ _ _. I ..tS = -' ACV/1-(. flL A1 (00 IvzI /ý ---.-,) .1.FULL CO\1t.RKA.e Q ~tOlAr E:=M11i Attachment B Page 15 of 7 5 t^ Duke 61 WW-Supplemental Report B" No.: -1 A4+a-o'r,-
Summary No.: Examinern Examiner: Other:-R) r- e .,On. o(-)-3/%~,it Lerv: e Level: Level: Reviewer: Site Review:.ANII Review:.L~6LP ~- -s LI Date: Date: Date: Commnrents:
Sketch oi Photo: tqle c-0 (-)(-- --Y 2.2iThv~..ý,oo Avi A L- --A -ý Z-rUILL COVERACA-E
=
PlIrL Puke a -Mew-Supplernee-tal Report Summary No.: Examiner Examiner: Thc3A~%o.
003 Level' -~Level:__Level: Site Review-ANII Review: Attachment B Page Id o0'75" No.: Lr' q- Date: Date: Other.Comments:
K',i \S1-A xj 6 1)#a dIcov (ý Ac-6: citzc~ ..S"X~IS" -Sketch or Photo:.ý3'sI3S N, -.:...14 -/,V, I4LI~~/AJ l~/6eAC-C i&A 0 V,ý: WIs" ý -0 o GCe. (S3)Js r_ OV6_a i~f/c~~A6 A ka S.Ru~~ GO'~Pf~C~E
~Jc cJE~AQt
-1 Attachment B Page 17 of 75 0uke UT Vessel Examination Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2 Summary No.: 603.150.004 Workscope:
ISI Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-630 2 98603899 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-153 Page: 1 of 2 Code: Asme Section X1 1989 Cat./Item:
B-D-/B3.150.4 Location:
N/A Drawing No.:, 1-34097-2
==
Description:==
Nozzle to Channel Body System ID: 51A Component ID: B03.150.004
/2-LDCB-OUTLET-V2 Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter:
0.875"/3.0" Limitations:
Yes- See attached limitation report. Start Time: 0854 Finish Time: 0950 Examination Surface: Inside [ Outside 7. Surface Condition:
AS GROUND Lo Location:
9.2.2 Wo Location:
Centerline of Weld Couplant:
ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 03125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE32768 Surface Temp.: 59 °F Cal. Report No.: CAL-04-242, CAL-04-243, CAL-04-244, CAL-04-245 Angle Used 0 45 45T 60iL- 60T 45RL Scanning dB 40.5 40.5 63.5 66.5 Indication(s):
Yes n No F] Scan Coverage:
UpstreamI.1 DownstreamDE CWE- CCW --Comments:.
FC 99-02, 63-17, 03-30 Results: Accept F] Reject D] Info F] Scanning db's less than ref.+14 to obtain 2:1 signal to noise ratio.Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No-29.26%
Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Level Ill Signature Date Reviewer /Jinature Date Zimmerman, David K. /,4/5/2004
-Examiner Level 11 Sir ur Date Site Review Signature Date Mauldin, Larry E. -4/5/2004 Other Level L. Signature Date ANII Rpview Signature Date A) i"~~
Attachment B Page J8 of 75 PDuke OEnemrgy-Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations
-Vessels Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2 Summary No.: B03.150.004 Workscope:
ISl Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-630 2 98603899 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-153 Page: 2 of 2 0 deg Planar Scan% Length X% volume of length / 100% total for 0 deg 45 deg Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000 % Length X 100.000 % -Length X 100.000 % Length X 100.000 % Length X 35.900 % volume of length / 100 =15.600 % volume of length / 100 =31.400 % volume of length / 100 =31.400 % volume of length / 100 =35.900 15.600 31.400 31.400% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans =28.575 % total for 45 deg Other deg 60 Scan 1 100.000 % Length X Scan 2 100.000 % Length X Scan 3 100.000 % Length X Scan 4 100.000 % Length X Add totals and divide by # scans =46.600 % volume of length / 100 =10.400 % volume of length / 100 =31.400 % volume of length / 100 =31.400 % volume of length / 100 =29.950 % total for 60 deg 46.600 % total for Scan 1 10.400 % total for Scan 2 31.400 % total for Scan 3 31.400 % total for Scan 4 Percent complete coverage Add totals for each angle and scan required and divide by # of angles to determine; 29.263 % Total for complete exam Note: Supplemental coverage may be achieved by use of other angles / methods. When used, the coverage for volume not obtained with angles as noted above shall be calculated and added to the total to provide the percent total for the complete examination.
.....Site Field Supervisor:
Date: L_ ," ,
Attachment B Page 19 of 75" DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Component/Weld ID: 2-LDCB-OUTLET-V2 Item No: B03.150.004 remarks: Zý NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Due to branch connection FD LIMITED SCAN -1 E 2 E 1 -2 Z cw N ocw configuration.
FROM L N/A to L N/A INCHES FROM WO .5" to Beyond ANGLE: Ej 0 [E 45 Z 60 other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG I-] NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION-LIMITED.SCAN 1 [j 2 E- 1 .2 [-1 Cw Lj cCw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: F 0 [] 45 Ij 60 other FROM DEG to DEG] NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM-DIRECTION DLIMITED SCAN D1 [t1 2 - 2 Dl cw F ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: [] 0 D 45 F1 60 other FROM DEG to DEG LI NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION DLIMITED SCAN -1 22 1 -2Ecw ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to Sketch(s) attached ANGLE: FI 0 EI 45 LI 60 other FROM DEG to DEG [ yes -No Prepared BY: Larry 1tviz=Level:
Date: 4/05/04 Sheet of Reviewed By: (i~J <Fr Date: Authorized I etr:-Aic v'o -iDate:
Attachment B Page ;?o of 75 inew Supplementeal Report Report No.: U=&i~44d~rL --Pie- of 1 I Summary No.: Examiner: Examiner: Other: Tj-n !ý ir r-) (-)4 ncl Level: Level: Level: Reviewer: Site Review: ANII Review: Date: Date: ___ /___Date: _______A) (~2t-~£ {Comments: A JL A LfE OF E~-~ VJ'~ A~ Aý1\./LJC A-L(OV 9-~i E- or 5AZN \),Jt-z& _.- Ui&_ AQLA_.z Sketch or Photo:* Z N- .t -?...IT A A 0 V.: r ,z. -o° -
ll .* -" " i , C , .t ,L I, 7 I 1, U 11/0-1 4 -I --I ...I -I ---ý ý ý ý -I A-Lb- --? -- L DC --Poc0U--- -rt - Ve Attachment B Page 41 of 75 PIL ik Supplemerntal Report Retponl No.: OTO-CLA -3 Summary No.: Examiner: Examiner: Other: I~OD1 Level: Level: Level: Reviewer: Site Review: ANII Review: H-tr (-k)MZ.DýL: 0 7ý- V%U Date: Date:______
Date:_ _ _ _Comments: Sketch or Ph oto: 2--1. 0938-").."- .375ZM.E3 .(-H I I I IlDý- ýiAe- M 4 ýeý * ý.3. ý 3 2--LDC---OcUL1LE'-VL Attachment B Page ., 2 of 75 Iwok ýko VtOY*I Supplemenrral Report ReportNo.:
OT .o 15!-I L..- Q 0-Li of I L Summary No.: Examiner: Examiner: Other: 1~3(0- 5C)-L Q~o c14 Level: Level: Level: Reviewer: Site Review-'ANtI Review.(a-'t:[, I" , T rig J L -1ri.~jI~r.
A~ V2 Date: Date: Date: 7/2 Comments.:
L-LDCB,- Oum "- 'Sketch or Photo: 0 12ýý A r-) K -n Vr-zý j7,6 A.1 P(1ot- D c.&., L) S 0 A V IýL -Sý Ak] I Fu L.. C r---tEU. u( cOjtrw Attachment B Page.ý3 of 75 Summary No. C )4,OL Examiner:
.-t2O r_2z "_Examiner Supplemental Report Repcx'No.:
OTF-D'*- i3 crI 4.~9 or I Level: Level: Level: Reviewer: Site Review: ANtI Review:.Date: Date: Date: 10-/-¢ 1 Other:/t16-6 ~Comments:
2.- LDC(l?- -oC>UiEr T- -\I Sketch or Photo: rbLtiL. orc 1 L45 P).Ktt fL-A~7~0 7 Fu LA. Cov&Rt:X6
-PJ -OtfRjC OR Attachment B Page t$4of 757~*e Supplemental Report R&ponlNo.:
0dL--e -\'3 Summary No.:-Examiner: Examiner.o.ther Bo a. !c , ooA Level: Level: Level: Reviewer.Site Review-.ANtI Review.,1c yc4-P91-( of Ij .Date: 4 Date: ___ __Date:__ _ _Comments:
'2.- LiD C-- -0UILJ61 -Q Z AL-:- C ~<Cý4 Sketch or Photo: f'.$S;.. r 7 71"-(-6.Iz I%A cA 0(-O z-A?'Lo --6 t.Attachment B Page Q5of 7 5 Supplemental Report Summary No.: Examiner: Examiner: Other: (D? i COs ) 00 4 Report No.: '-1 oL4 -S 3 Date: Date. __________
Level.-Level: Level: Reviewer: Site Review-.ANII Review.Comments:
1_-LDc_ -OC f-- VJL Sketch or Photo: nli?6ý Or- C tr%/F7LA(,X%
i ~ -t.. _,1 (;-7 G 0 P s,/,1 AL -%c-Ad 7-F L L, --
Attachment B Page .Q6 of 75 L^. -*0 OL-sew-Supplemen-'al Report R"po:lNo.:
t_--oA -ý 3 Summary No.: Exaruner: Examiner: Other.1ýý o --,. ) -S n. c) o ,Alllz L-ýLevel: --Level: Level: Reviewer: Site Review-.ANII Review.A~ *c--_ol Date: Date: Comments: Sketch~ or' Photo: AB Lb,-. 8 75", :.14: /, (0 1#- 1 X.-7" C-, H -- .41"X. q"1 r- " I8,- I7 5 11 Gý o~iWýUC-(4-I I!-3/.1 d~o riý .i ýod o C IV 6Sc'10s C_ OJVZ -/ ,)6-AJ "/ C-. C A ~67)S.L_- LDCt2- Ou<L-_i/ -Z.E L FuLo Co .I----
Attachment B Page. ;.7of 75" ko tW0L-'&W-Supplemental Report Report No.: r L- .5' 3~ Pe~e+ ~Ofj Reviewer 1 Summary No.: Examiner: I- S I F- Il Examiner: Other: Level: /Level: Level: Site Review: ___ANHI Review: ( .Date: 1 Date: Date: I ) i *Comments: Sketch or Photlo: ,!ýd_ "Y A 'I --Y~~~A4 fEi~ 1:'L S"X 87ý" x ,2-2_..I)E_ -, " X.7"-2-513HX -7 lf 1 ..9-ILKq 1_- .*q15 -M.J ft EXA Ym/) fýo: ý. 0 7 2 /'q-2-- L- DCi -cpJ-LC-r
-\j Z-Attachment B Page 4,8 of 75 10; P.4.0 norgy-Supplemental Report Summary No.: Examiner Examiner Other 0c 4 R" o~No.: xg- Lc Date: Date: _______Level: zli Level: Level: Reviower Site Review.ANII Review Commentns:
Z-L W-"&Ctc. I RJ~Sketch o Photo: A f;Z" " 7..1-- i'CDK I~5 I,, qL. fyipi -f._1, t~Ic J~ACrt==:I go=
I Attachment B Page Aclof757?L fluke Suppleme-ntal Report 8" No.: 07--C) W 3 Summary No.: Examiner: Examiner Other: "?o,? E c-, o. © --L4 Lw.el: --Level: Level: Site Review Date: AN Review.1LD Comrmens:
Z _ -(>~r1L6" -C .(-. -Cc-, ',.--obj62 Sketch or Photo: IE (,' r .c 4 -R!'3 c. 2- _ , C-A up( l ,l,."-~Sc4~Z~ ?~.rULL. COVEtRACJI e=:
Attachment B Page.?o of 75'Puke)OW-Supplemerital Report Re,,". No.:.Summary No.: Examiner: Examiner: Other: bc:n 2- 's0- .O Level: -Level: Level: Hi-I-ac Reviewer =Site Review:.ANII Review: /J 1,~~l &~,h ,r'I Z :t LZ 4_: Date: , , I I ,J j J Comments:
"7- LDi? -OLr -V'7-(tRo. Co~)1CMJ2 Sketch or Photo: Abc,k. , -...P,'C.-- z =, ©2., ft C-- C IA1Lv~69o" aylM- -FULL COVEtRAC 1 E Q0o C.Oe~ACrtE sum
?Ouko 0t 'Orgy-Supplemental Report Attachment B Page3 t of 75-R"mo No.: UT-OT' .- .S3 -Summary No.: Examiner.Examiner Other 5o1. J:oQ, oCo Level: Level: A+ackvyiervt+-'go Reviewer:.
Ste Review.ANII Review Iltd Date: Date: D at e: T Fe-L-3 0( _Comments: Sketch or Photo: Riq'e cý 1) r4d B2-S,,.- *._1.': I,- .db-,- "2 , --/i 0 4w.~ M~A 6ý0 ' Iq V I'A C- `ýCA ZCO\1,r nC:Eý 0 oje AcrtM
?kvnak Supplemental Report t Page 3;k of 7 5" B" o~No.: UT-QL -~10 -LL ,k..~Suwnnaty No.: Examiner:?~O3. 150.00L4 I~/f.Reviewmr T-VVIZ L,- -r 44 Examiner: Other Level: -Level.Site Review. =Date: L.\0 A A .Date: _____SDate: /, 6 ANII Review: Ab~ t) 6l YjLk Comments:
j Sketch or Photo: 6d0- MIovTA-g 61Th ~.s"x.j~-IL s 'I-/ .* ;g.&r JVSJ ý 0 C/Ike 6CA)I C_ OV6tC A -6 SO.R-uL.LL CO &RPC: [rdo *coERie .=I- -WCb )L-ofuV I"- %/2 Attachment B Page 33 of 75~UT Base Met,...amination Site/Unit:
Oconee /Summary No.. B0O Workscope:
2 9.011.017 Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-640 2 98604011 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-108 Page: 1 of 2 ISl Code: Asme Section XI 1989 Cat./Item:
B-J-/B9.11.17 Location:
N/A Drawing No.: 2HP-215
Description:
Tee to Reducer System ID: 51A Component ID: B09.011.017
/2HP-215-3 Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter:
0.531 "/4" Limitations:
NONE Start Time: 1050 Finish Time: 1057 Examination Surface: Inside [1 Outside J Surface Condition:
GROUND Lo Location:
9.1.1.1 Wo Location:
Centerline of Weld Couplant:
ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 03125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE32768 Surface Temp.: 71 OF Scanning dB: 55.7 Cal. Report No.: CAL-04-193
% Amplitude Position One Position Max Position Two Ind Loss % Remarks No.Back Wall Full Screen L1 W1 W2 MP LM W1 W2 MP L2 W1 W2 MP NRI Comments:
FC 03-20 Results: Accept [] Reject Info D Initial Section XI Examination Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: NIes-100%
Reviewed Previous Data: No'Examiner Level Sinaur Date Reviewer /Signature Date-Eaton, Jay A. 3/'30/'2004,/.
C4/ _. //0 " Examiner Level ' -
Date Site Review "lSignature Date Other Level Signature Date ANII Review ,- , Signature Date'-
M Duke rEnergy.Summary No.: B09.011.017 Examiner:
Eaton, Jay A.Examiner: Other: Supplemental Report Report No.: Page: V1 Attachment B Page 3i(of 75 UT-04-108 2 of 2 Date: Date: Date:-Level: III Level: Level: Reviewer: Site Review: ANII Review: AITC~~i Comments: Sketch or Photo: C:\Documents and Settings\kbertoc\My Documents\PaintLine4.jpg-rR-i~r-T) (Cý- &Q Attacnment B Page 35 of 75 MDuke 12 Energy.Site/Unit:
Oconee /Sum'mary No.: B10 Workscope:
UT Pipe Weld Examination 2 9.011.017 Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 15 98604011 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-109 Page: 1 of 3 ISI Code: Asme Section Xl 1989 Cat./Item:
B-J-/B9.11.17 Location:
N/A Drawing No.: 2HP-215
Description:
Tee to Reducer System ID: 51A Component ID: B09.011.017
/2HP-215-3 Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter:
0.531 /4" Limitations:
Yes -See attached limitation report Start Time: 1103 Finish Time: 1124 Examination Surface: Inside 7J Outside F] Surface Condition:
AS GROUND Lo Location:
9.1.1.1 Wo Location:
Centerline of Weld Couplant:
ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 03125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE32768 Surface Temp.: 71 °F Cal. Report No.: CAL-04-194, CAL-04-195, CAL-04-196 Angle Used 0 45 45T 60 60L Scanning dB 50.3 54.7 61.5 Indication(s):
Yes _j No{[j Scan Coverage:
Upstream [] Downstream W CW [] CCW []Comments: Results: Accept []1 Reject -I Info [0 Initial Section Xl Examination Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No -88.8% Reviewed Previous Data: No Examiner Level III Signature Date Reviewer Signature Date Eaton, Jay A. Sgau 3/30/2004 Re Si gnatur Examiner Level Signature Date Site Review y Signature Date I i Other Level Signature Date ANII Review Signature Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ % 6 Attachment B Page 36 of 75 DLUke Limitation Record Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2 Summary No.: B09.011.017 Workscope:
IS[Procedure:
NDE-600 Procedure Rev.: 15 Work Order No.: 98604011 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-109 Page: 2 of 3 Description of Limitation:
Limited in the throat of the tee on the 52"side of the weld with the 60' shear wave. Lo + 5.0" to Lo + 9.0" Sketch of Limitation:
Iýrý C.E:z -15 ýI-D-ýk-A E:4Am -xAar-A , 1-7 ,4 1- Z"z Z -ýZ ,< ý ý 7 :: ,~A ~-fcO~C,0,JaAI-Z-I C) C) 07,ý, -H -z , ý-L, 7,, -- S-7 --Z- 0/,, Limitations removal requirements:
Radiation field: I I Examiner Level Q_ n t e Date Reviewer Signature Date Examiner Level SDture Date Site Review Signature bate Other Level Signature Date ANII Review S Sature Date Attachment B Page 3 7 of 75 Itw Duke rrEnrF.3e rg y Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations
-Pipe Site/Unit:
Oconee 2 Summary No.: B09.011.017 Workscope:
IS!Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 15 98604011 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-109 Page: 3 of 3 45 deg Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000 100.000% Length X% Length X% Length X% Length X% volume of length / 100% volume of length / 100 100.000 % volume of length / 100 100.000 % volume of length / 100 100.000 100.000% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans = 100.000 % total for 45 deg Other deg -60 (to be used for supplemental scans)The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.Scan 1 71.600 % Length X Scan 2 71.600 % Length X Scan 1 28.400 % Length X Scan 7 28.400 % Length X 100.000 % volume of length 1100 =100:000 % volume of length /100 =42.800 % volume of length / 100 =0.000 % volume of length / 100 =71.600 71.600 12.155 0.000% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Percent complete coverage Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine; 88.839 % Total for complete exam Site Field Supervisor:
ITT Date: -s1o ,' T CA OS I ,- f ( .,SA 7 )(.(b)<, V- C .L Attachment B UT Base Met.. Lamination Page 38 of 75 Site/Unit:
Oconee /Summary No.: Co 2 Procedure:
NDE-640 5.021.021 Workscope:
IS[Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: 2 98606481 Outage No. ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-013 Page: 1 of 2 Code: Asme Section XI 1989 Cat./Item:
C-F-1/C5.21.21 Location:
N/A Drawing No.: 2-51A-17 (2)
Description:
Pipe to Valve (Valve 2HP-118)System ID: 51A Component ID: C05.021.021
/2-51A-17-124 Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter:
4.0" /.531 Limitations:
None Start Time: 0957 Finish Time: 1000 Examination Surface: Inside D Outside [] Surface Condition:
AS GROUND i Lo Location:
9.1.1.3 Wo Location:
Centerline of Weld Couplant:
ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 01225 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE 27219 Surface Temp.: 97 0 F Scanning dB: 60 Cal. Report No.: CAL-04-019 I .% Amplitude Position One Position Max Position Two Ind.Loss % Remarks No, Back Wall Full Screen Li W1 W2 MP LM WI W2 MP L2 WI W2 MP NRI Comments:
FC 03-20 Results: Accept [] Reject D] Info D Initial Section XI Inspection Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: Yes-100% Reviewed Previous Data: No Examiner Level III Signature Date Review er~j Signature Date Eaton, Jay A. ,.2/9/2004 0/ -.-//- 0'Examiner Level na Date Site Review y/ Signature Date Jordan, Joey 2/9/2004 Other Level N/A Signature Date ANI Rev, Signature Date N/A 7 P Duke oh-Energy-Supplemental Report Report No.: Page: Attactmnent B Page J?of 75" UT-04-013 2 of 2 Date: Date: Date: _______Summary No.: C05.021.021 Examiner:
Eaton, Jay A.Examiner:
Jordan, Joey Other: N/A Level: III Level: II Level: N/A Reviewer: Site Review: ANII Review: Comments: Sketch or Photo: Z\U T\I D DEAL\P rot il eLine2.jpg
~ALxJ~~ 6 119?v~2~ S~L/l-A 19 1'2 I- I I Attachment B Page of 75" WDuke UT Pipe Weld Examination Energy.Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2 Summary No.: C05.021.021 Workscope:
ISI Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: N DE-600 15 98606481 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-016 Page: 1 of 3 Code: Asme Section Xl 1989 Cat./Item:
C-F-1/C5.21.21 Location:
N/A Drawing No.: 2-51A-17 (2)
Description:
Pipe to Valve (Valve 2HP-118)System ID: 51A Component ID: C05.021.021
/2-51A-17-124 Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter:
4.0" /.531 Limitations:
Yes-See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 1000 Finish Time: 1040 Examination Surface: Inside9 Outside []Surface Condition:
AS GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.3 Wo Location: Serial No.: Centerline of Weld Couplant:
ULTRAGEL II Surface Temp.: 97 °F Batch No.: 01225 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER MCNDE 27219 Cal. Report No.: CAL-04-022, CAL-04-026, CAL-04-030 Angle Used 0 45 45T 60 60L Scanning dB 60 60 57 Indication(s):
Yes[] No[ Scan Coverage:
Upstream[
Downstream 0 CW V~ CCW W Comments: Results: Accept [./I Reject [-j Info [] Initial Section Xl Inspection Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No -34.5% Reviewed Previous Data:
Attachment B Page q, of 75 M Duke e*Energy_Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations
-Pipe Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2 Summary No.: C05.021.021 Workscope:
ISI Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 15 98606481 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-016 Page: 2 of 3 45 deg Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4% Length X% Length X 100.000 % Length X 100.000 % Length X% volume of length /100% volume of length / 100 50.000 % volume of length /100 50.000 % volume of length / 100 50.000 50.000% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans = 50.000 % total for 45 deg Other deg -60 (to be used for supplemental scans)The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000 % Length X 100.000 % Length X% Length X% Length X 38.100 % volume of length / 100 =0.000 % volume of lehgth / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =38.100 % total for Scan 1 0.000 % total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Percent complete coverage Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine; 34.525 % Total for complete examj(Site Field Supervisor:
o° L. Date: Z-1 S I -o4 .Thi SC 2 Z[vr(o'2um-ei K)U-V- ( 00 Z iCA --r :~3~j cý -:
Site/Unil:
Oconee I 2 immary No.: C05.021.021 Workscope:
ISI Limitation Record Attachment B Page 14, of 75 Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 15 98606481 Outage .No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-016 Page: 3 of 3 Description of Limitation:
Limited Due to Valve Configuration Sketch of Limitation:
0C)oItZ .,So0 TI ,M -07v&o o° £V,,7EA'L
_ -M ,,' .13 4, ý .V5 'Zi 1ý) Z oZ \ 0,,-z_., -- Nloo 33s,1 %0 C-, \ ( A ..k-,7.1 2..- I -: ,o5/ ,zk Limitations removal requirements:
N/A Radiation field: N/A Examiner Level iiI Signature Date Reviewe-A A Signature Date Eaton, Jay A. 2/9/2004 /-//'oL Examiner Level 11 re Date Site Review V I Signature Date Jordan, Joey 2/9/2004 O)ther Level Z ,"Signature Date ANtI Re Signature Date____________________
1' 2 ,/,;, ...
Attachment B UT Base Me\, Lamination Page V, of 75.. ... .. ....F Site/Unit:
Oconee /Summary No.: CO Workscope:
2 5.021 .022 Procedure:
P Procedure.Rev.:
Work Order No.: NDE-640 2 98606481 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-014 Page: 1 of 2 is]..Code: Asme Section XI 1989 Cat./item:
C-F-1/05.21.22 Location:
N/A Drawing No.: 2-51 A-17.(2) Descriptibon: "Valve (2HP-115) to Tee System ID: 51 A Component ID: C05.021.022/2-51 A-1 7-92 Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter:
4.0"./.531 Limitations:
None Start Time: 0953 Finish Time: 0957 Examination Surface: Inside D Outside [] Surface Condition:
AS GROUND Lo Location:
9.1.1.1 Wo Location:
Centerline of Weld Couptant:
ULTRAGEL If Batch No.: 01225 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: -MCNDE 27219 Surface Temp.: 97 -F Scanning dB: 60 Cal. Report No.: CAL-04-019
% Amplitude Position One Position Max Position Two Ind. "" -Loss % Remarks No.Back Watl Full Screen Lt WI W2 MP LM WIJ W2 MP L2 W1 W2 MP NRI Comments:
FC 03-20 Results: Accept ,f Reject D Info D Initial Section Xl Inspection Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: Yes-1 00% Reviewed Previous Data: No Examiner LveI _Signature Date Signature Date Eaton, Jay A. 2/9204, Examiner Level I ture Dat6ý Site Review Signature Date Jordan, Joey 2/9/2004 Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Revi Signature Date N/A Attactiment B Page 75" Mi Duke? Energy.Summary No.: C05.021.022 Examiner:
Eaton, Jay A.Examiner:
Jordan, Joey Other: N/A Supplemefital Report Report No.: UT-04-014 Page: 2 of 2 Level: -!. .1 Reviewer: Level:, .._____ Site Review: Level: N/A ANII Review: Date: Date: Date: Comments: Sketch or Photo: ZAUT\lDDEAL\ProfileLine2.jpg V ALQ I 'L O'V ~, A V o k9 Attachment B Page 'S4.of 75" 4 Duke CVVEnejVy UT Pipe Weld Examination Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2 Summary No.: C05.021.022 Workscope:
ISf Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 15 98606481 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-017 Page: 1 of 5 Code: Asme Section XI 1989 Cat./Item: , C-F.I/C5.21.22 Location:
N/A Drawing No.: 2-51 A-1 7(2)
Description:
Valve (2HP-1 15) to Tee System ID: 51A Component tD: C05.021.022
/2-51 A-1 7-92 -"" .Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter:
4.0" / .531 Limitations:
Yes-See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 1000 Finish Time: 1040-Examination Surface: Inside -Outside [7 Surface Condition:
AS GROUND Lo. Location: Temp. Tool Mfg.: 9.1.1.1 FISHER Wo. Location: Serial No.: Centerline of Wetd.MCNDE:27219 Couplant:
ULTRAGEL It Surface Temp.: 97 -F Batch No.: 01225 Cat, Report No.: CAL-0.4-022, CAL-04-026, CAL-t04-030 Angle Used 0J45 45T 60 60L Scanning dB 60[ 60 .57 Indication(s):
Yes :v No Scan Coverage:
Upstream Z Downstream rj Comments: CW'7-/ CC W j;Results: Accept v'v Reject Info Ini] #q-Intial Section XI Inspection Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No -_3 ,.5 Reviewed Previous Data: No.,= ~
Attachment B Page V of 75 Puuke Energy.Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2 Summary No.: C05.021.022 Workscope:
ISI Ultrasonic.
Indication Report Procedure:
NDE-600 Procedure Rev.: 15 Wo-k' Order No.: 98606481 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-017 Page: 2 of 5 Search Unit Angle: Wo Location: Lo Location: 60 RL C/L of Weld 9.1.1.1 Piping Welds Q Ferritic Vessels > 2"T 0 Other C:L Airi W2 MP. Metal Path Wmax Distance rom .Wo To S..U. At Maximum Response RBR Remaining Back Reflection Wl Distance From Wo'At. Of Max (Forward)"L Distance From Datum W2 Distance From Wo At Of Max (Forward)Comments:.
L4 Scan Indication
% .W Forward Backw ard .LI L L2 RBR Remarks No. Of Max Of Max Of Max Of Max Of Amp.DAC W MR W1 MP W2 MPR- Max Max S2 1 80% 0.7 1,0" N/A N/A N/A. N/A -360*: 0-1" Int. N/A ID Geometry Examiner Level i nature .Date Reviewer Signature Date Eaton, Jay A. 2/9/2004 y / -, Examiner Level tgn r -Date Site Review Signature Date Jordan, Joey -2/9/2004 Other Level Signature Date ANII Revi, Signature Date CO~nergy.Supplemenltal Report Report No.: Page: Summary No.: C05.021.022 Examiner:
Eaton, Jay A.Examiner:
Jordan, Joey Other:-' tl I Attachment B Page L7 of 75" UT-04-017 3 of 5 Date: Date: Date: ..e l Level: 1 Level:*Level-:-, Reviewer: Site Review: IANti Review: Comments:
Ind. # 1 -60'L is a geometric reflector from the weld root. This _asyverifled by plotting the Indication.
There was no response at this location from the 60' and 700 shear waves.Sketch or Photo: Z: \UniDDE AL\P rofil eline2.ion 75 -L C AfTL4M~Jt l Pc e4 75 svftwalresulfa Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations
-Pipe Site/Unit:
1A'- I 2-Summary No.: 0go../. 0..2 Workscope:
/ 6 *Procedure:
Al YE-6oo Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: .IVY 646 *Y .Outage No.: )Vj2.tf2 , .Zc Report No.: 1lr-VLO/ o/7 Page: 4 of ,5-Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 1,4,9 Scan4 ,/417 0% Length X% Length X% Length X 6_.'% Length X % volume of length / 100 =% volume of length I 100 =% volume of length / 100 = ;-)% volume of length / 100 = .5.- Z)% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans = _____% total for 45 deg Other deo.- 40 (to be used for supplemental scans)The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.Scan 1 /dt_Scan 2 d... 0'Scan 3 Scan 4% Length.X -% volume of length / 100 = % total'for Scan 1% Length X .% volume of length / 100 = 0 % total for Scan 2% Length X % volume of length 1100 = % total for Scan 3% Length X % volume of length/ 100 = % total forScan 4 Percent complete ceverp.qe Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine;
-7, S % Total for .plete exam Site Field Supervisor:
4 Date: g ;>" Additional
-Calculation Pipe <edit from Setup>
ONS 2 C05.021.022 All dimensions are in inches i41 60' shear wave beam covered 50% of the required volume in one axial direction from the Tee side. (Cross hatched area).254 2 =. 127sq.in..127 ÷.254x100
=5%450 shear wave beam covered 50% of the required volume in two circumferential and two tangential directions. (Cross hatched area)600 RL beam covered *0.048 sq. in. on the valve side of the weld. This equates to 18.89% of the required examination volume..048+.254 100= 18.89%This limitation was caused by the valve configuration which prevents scanning on the valve side of the weld. Reported coverage is the aggregate of all scans performed on the weld.)
Attachment B UT Base Met, -amination Page 50 of 75'Site/Unit:
Oconee /Summary No.: CI Workscope:
2 5.021.023 ISI Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-640 2 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.,: UT-04-026 Page: 1 of 2 98606488 Code Asme Section XI 1989 Cat./Item:
C-F-1/C5.21.23 Location:
N/A Drawing No.: 2-51A-17 (3)
Description:
Valve (2HP-118) to Elbow System ID: 51A Component ID: C05.021.023
/2-51A-17-125 Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter.
4.0" /.531 Limitations:
None Start Time: 0905 Finish Time: 0908 Examination Surface: Inside [ Outside [] Surface Condition:
AS GROUND Lo Location:
9.1.1.2 Wo Location:
Centerline of Weld Couplant:
ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 01225 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MONDE 27219 Surface Temp.: 97 0 F Scanning dB: 62 Cal. Report No.: CAL-04-042
% Amplitude Position One Position Max Position Two Ind.Loss % Remarks No.Back Wall Full Screen LI Wt W2 MP LM Wl W2 MP L2 W1 W2 MP NRI Comments:
FC 03-20 Results: Accept [ Reject r] Info E] Initial Section Xl Inspection Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90% Yes-1 00% Reviewed Previous Data: No Examiner Level I Signature Date Reviewer Signature Date Eaton, Jay A. ,. ___,, 2/10/2004 0,,4. //- oq Examiner Level II ature Date Site Review Signature Date Jordan, Joey 2/110/2004 Other Level Signature Date ANII Review , Signature Date N/A A(~~C JT~~t~ Z Attachment B PageS-/ of 75'P Duke 0' Energy.Summary No.: C05.021.023 Examiner:
Eaton, Jay A.Examiner:
Jordan, Joey Other: N/A Supplemental Report Report No.: Page: UT-04-026 2 of 2 Date: Date: Date: Level: III Level: II Level: N/A Reviewer: Site Review: ANII Review: V'Comments: Sketch or Photo: Z:\UT\ D D EA L\Protil eLine2.jpg
'5\- I ALVIC 1ýf,7 r( -rzOL,,D\ o 0 1()V.10 0 0 i i ý -
Attachment B Page 5- of 75 Duke Energy Site/Unit:
Oconee /Summary No.: Co0 Workscope:
UT Pipe Weld Examination 2 5.021.023 2 Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 15 98606488 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-030 Page: 1 of 3 ISl Code: Asme Section Xl 1989 Cat./Item:
C-F-1/C5.21.23 Location:
N/A Drawing No.: 2-51A-17 (3)
Description:
Valve (2HP-118)to Elbow System ID: 51A Component ID: C05.021.023
/2-51 A-1 7-125 Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter:
4.0" /.531 Limitations:
Yes-See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 0925 Finish Time: 0955 Examination Surface: Inside J' Outside Fv] Surface Condition:
AS GROUND Lo Location:
9.1.1.2 Wo Location:
Centerline of Weld Couplant:
ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 01225 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE 27219 Surface Temp.: 97 OF Cal. Report No.: CAL-04-043, CAL-04-045, CAL-04-048 Angle Used 0 45 45T 60 60L Scanning dB 61 62 57 Indication(s):
Yes No Scan Coverage:
Upstream 7 Downstream r CW (i CCW F1 Comments: Results: Accept Fv Reject [7 Info 0 Initial Section Xl Inspection Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No -34.5% Reviewed Previous Data: No Examiner Level III Signature Date Reviewer Signature Date Eaton, JaI A. 2/10/2004
//// -/- ' ,- /-Examiner Level II Si ture Date Site Review Signature bate Jordan, Joey 2/1 0/2004 Other Level NI._ Signature Date ANII Review ýSignature Date~~-74 Attachment B Page 53 of 75 PkDuke Energy Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations
-Pipe Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2 Summary No.: C05.021.023 Workscope:
ISI Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 15 98606488 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-030 Page: 2 of 3 45 deg Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4% Length X% Length X 100.000 % Length X 100.000 % Length X 50.000 50.000% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length /100 =% volume of length /100 =% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2 50.000 % total for Scan 3 50.000 % total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans = 50.000 % total for 45 deg Other deg -60 (to be used for supplemental scans)The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000 100.000% Length X% Length X% Length X% Length X 38.100 % volume of length / 100 =0.000 % volume of length /100 =% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length /100 =38.100 % total for Scan 1 0.000 % total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Percent complete coverage Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to deterr 34.525 % Total for complete xam Site Field Supervisor: .ilT -~or~Y. ( 0 1-'L a3CA3 LL)O I~O-)C- i-, T-Date:-z 0 o r-Q r-z SoJ -CSSa 0~j -z 5-At' ý oý.q vc ,,ge(
Attachment B Page 5'4- of 75 Site/Unit:
Oconee fi 2;mmary No.: C05.021.023 Workscope:
ISI Limitation Record Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 15 98606488 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-030 Page: 3 of 3 Description of Limitation:
Limited due to Valve Configuration.
\/AWCfi S ~XO0Zý 5Z.Sketch of Limitation:
LO 0 1AL 60? T-Co, , r.- A (_, .-TorAtL. E-Avw Pae-A jB V, ý,ýIs ziI) ~Z tooo 64CA.
0, L\ -ýr 0. IS-z_= '36.1%L4 'D cv-Limitations removal requirements:
N/A ,-=- ..% /, z- ,%4.1 S Z.A -"- ,woS/,z. 1 o0 Radiation field: N/A.Examiner Level iII Signature
-7b./ ,,oj Date Reviewer Signature Date Eaton, Jay A.-/ C4 _Y-t Examiner Level II t r Date SiteSignature Date Jordan, Joey Other Level ,-' Sig 5 ature -Date ANII Review/ It,11(7Sign/apure Date Attachment B Page 55 of 75 UT Base Met, ,.amination Site/Unit:
Oconee /2 Procedure:
NDE-640 2 Outage No: ONS2EOC20 Report No: UT-04-015 Summary No.: C05.021.051 Procedure Rev.: Workscope:
ISI Work Order No.: 98606478 Page: 1 of 2 Code: Asme Section Xl 1989 Cat./Item:
C-F-1/C5.21.51 Location:
N/A Drawing No.: 2-51 A-17 (1)
Description:
Pipe to Valve (2LP-56)System ID: 51A Component ID: C05.021.051
/2-51A-17-20A Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter:
3.0" /.216 Limitations:
None Start Time: 0950 Finish Time: 0953 Examination Surface: Inside E] Outside [] Surface Condition:
AS GROUND Lo Location:
9.1.1.1 Wo Location:
Centerline of Weld Couplant:
ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 01225 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE 27219 Surface Temp.: 97 °F Scanning dB: 58 Cal. Report No.: CAL-04-021
% Amplitude Position One Position Max Position Two Ind.Loss % Remarks No.Back Wall Full Screen Li W1 W2 MP LM W1 W2 MP L2 Wi W2 MP NRI Comments:
FC 03-20 Results: Accept 7- Reject ] Info -Initial Section Xl Inspection Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: Yes-1 00% Reviewed Previous Data: No Examiner Level iii Signature Date 4 g Signature Date Eaton, Jay A. L &_2/9/2004 Z%)04 Examiner Level i I ure Date Site Review Signature Date Jordan, Joey 2/9/2004 Other Level N/A 'Signaure Date ANII Review Signature Date N/A.Rviw Attachment B Page S6 of 75 VEnergy.Supplemental Report Report No.: UT-04-015 Page: 2 of 2 Summary No.: C05.021.051 Examiner:
Eaton, Jay A.Examiner:
Jordan, Joey Other: N/A Level: III Level: II Level: N/A Reviewer: Site Review: ANII Review: r,,- ýA) I Y Date: Date: Date:
Comments: Sketch or Photo: Z:\UTh D DEALT rof ileLine2.jpg A) Aj I I Duke SEnergy.Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2 Summary No.: C05.021.051 Workscope:
IS1 Attachment 1i Page 57 of " 7 5 UT Pipe Weld Examination Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 15 98606478 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-018 Page: 1 of 3 Code: Asme Section Xl 1989 Cat./Item:
C-F-1/C5.21.51 Location:
N/A Drawing No.: 2-51A-17 (1)
Description:
Pipe to Valve (2LP-56)System ID: 51A Component ,D: C05.021.051
/2-51A-17-20A Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter:
3.0" /.216 Limitations:
Yes-See Attached Lkimitation Report Start Time: 1010 Finish Time: 1030 Examination Surface: Lo Location: Inside L_]9.1.1.1 Outside []Wo Location: Surface Condition:
AS GROUND Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II np.: 97 -F Batch No.: 01225 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.- MCNDE 27219 Surface Ter Cal. Report No.: CAL-04-024, CAL-04-028, CAL-04-029 Angle Used 0 45 45T ' 60 70 Scanning dB 56 60 63 Indication(s):
Yes L7 No[._j Scan Coverage:
Upstream [] Downstrean Comments: 1W C W L,/ CCW W Results: Accept [i Reject,-7 Info E-J Initial Section XI Inspection No -35.2% Reviewed Previous Data:
Attachment B Page 58 of 75 prDuke OEnie MY Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations
-Pipe Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2 Summary No.: C05.021.051 Workscope:
IS1 Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 15 98606478 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-018 Page: 2 of 3 45 deg Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4% Length X% Length X 100.000 % Length X 100.000 % Length X% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =50.000 % volume of length / 100 =50.000 % volume of length / 100 =% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2 50.000 % total for Scan 3 50.000 % total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans = 50.000 % total for 45 deg Other deg -60 (to be used for supplemental scans)The data to be listed below is for cov'erage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000 100.000% Length X% Length X% Length X% Length X 40.600 0.000% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =40.600 % total for Scan 1 0.000 % total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Percent complete coverage Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine; 35.150 % Total for complete exa Site Field Supervisor:
Date:7 IV I0C -55 Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2 ummary No.: C05.021.051 Workscope:
ISI Description of Limitation:
Limited Due to Valve Configuration Limitation Record Attachment B Page si of 75 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-018 Page: 3 of 3 Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 15 98606478 Sketch of Limitation:
(-1 0 ,ýn A-0o $501AIVZ AQ z >4 7 Limitations removal requirements:
N/A Attachment B UT Base MetL _amination Page *o of 75 Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2 Summary No.: C05.021.054 Workscope:
ISI Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-640 2 98606499 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.. UT-04-027 Page: 1 of 2 Code: Asme Section XI 1989 Cat./Item:
C-F-1/C5.21.54 Location:
N/A Drawing No.: 2-51 A-1 7 (4)
Description:
Tee to Pipe System ID: 51A Component ID: C05.021.054
/2-51 A-1 7-102 Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter:
3.0" / .438 Limitations:
None Start Time: 0913 Finish Time: 0916 Examination Surface: Inside [] Outside [] Surface Condition:
AS GROUND Lo Location:
9.1.1.1 Wo Location:
Centerline of Weld Couplant:
ULTRAGEL IU Batch No.: 01225 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE 27219 Surface Temp.: 97 'F Scanning dB: 62 Cal. Repor No.: CAL-04-031
% Amplitude Position One Position Max Position Two Ind.Loss % -., Remarks No.Back Wall Full Screen L_ W1 W2 MP LM W1 W2 MP L2 W1 W2 MP NRI Comments:
FC 03-20 Results: Accept [] Reject [] Info [] Initial Section Xl Inspection Percent Of Coverage Obtained>
90%: Yes-100% Reviewed Previous Data: No Examiner Level III Signature Date Reviewer Signature Date Eaton, Jay A. 2/10/2004 A 0 .,, 0-//., 0 Examiner Level IIatu Date Site Review Signature Date Jordan, Joey 2/10/2004 Other Level -Signature Date ANII Review Signature " Date Attachment B Page 4I of 7S NO M- Duke ro-Energy-Supplemental Report Report No.: UT-04-027 Page: 2 of 2 Summary No.: C05.021.054 Examiner:
Eaton, Jay A.Examiner:
Jordan, Joey Other: Level: III Level: 1I Level: Reviewer: Site Review: ANII Review: V~Date: 2,.I, Qij-Date: Date: 31-,/h Comments: Sketch or Photo: E:\UT\lID EAL\P rof iIe Line2.jpg-Pý?q,& 6sI 0. Aj7 C-T-OCI Attachment B Page 6 2 of 75".Duke VEnergy-UT Pipe Weld Examination Site/Unit:
Oconee /Summary No.: Co0 Workscope:
2 5.021.054 ISI Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 15 98606499 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-031 Page: 1 of 3 Code: Asme Section XI 1989 Cat./Item:
C-F-1/C5.21.54 Location:
N/A Drawing No.: 2-51A-17 (4)
Description:
Tee to Pipe System ID: 51A Component ID: C05.021.054
/2-51 A-1 7-102 Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter:
3.0" /.438 Limitations:
Yes -See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 0921 Finish Time: 0948 Examination Surface: Inside Ki Outside [ Surface Condition:
AS GROUND Lo Location:
9.1.1.1 Wo Location:
Centerline of Weld Couplant:
ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 01225 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE 27219 Surface Temp.: 97 °F Cal. Report No.: CAL-04-033, CAL-04-044, CAL-04-047 Angle Used 0 45 45T 60 70 Scanning dB 61 62 61 Indication(s):
Yes .I] No V1 Scan Coverage:
Upstream F/ Downstream 7- CW R] CCW /]Comments: Results: Accept []i Reject 0 ^ Info 0 Initial Section XI Inspection Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: 86.1% Reviewed Previous Data: No Examiner Level III Signature Date Reviewer Signature Date Eaton, Jay A., ) 2/10/2004
/J,,,,/( c- Tl ,_ d 7/0 c(Examiner Level 11 / S ure Date Site Review -- Signature.
Date Jordan, Joey 2/10/2004 Other Level N/A Z Signature Date ANII Review Signature Date N/A Z, xr ~ g~
Attachment B Page 63 of 75 Duke 0 Energy.Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations
-Pipe Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2 Summary No.: C05.021.054 Workscope:
ISI Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 15 98606499 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-031 Page: 2 of 3 45 deg Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4% Length X% Length X 100.000 % Length X 100.000 % Length X% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =100.000 % volume of length /100 =100.000 % volume of length /100 =100.000 100.000% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans = 100.000 % total for 45 deg Other deg -60 (to be used for supplemental scans)The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.Scan 1 63.600 % Length X Scan 2 63.600 % Length X Scan/ 36.400 % Length X Scan 36.400 % Length X 100.000 % volume of length / 100 =100.000 % volume of length / 100=46.700 % volume of length / 100 =0.000 % volume of length / 100 =63.600 63.600 16.999 0.000% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Percent complete coverage Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine; 86.050 % Total for complete exam Site Field Supervisor:
Date: O O4 Vo I 0L Attachment BLimitation Record Page 6of 75 Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2-nary No.: C05.021.054 Workscope:
ISI Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: NDE-600 15 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-031 Page: 3 of 3 Work Order No.:' 98606499 Description of Limitation:
Limited in the throat on each side of the tee on the S2 side of the weld. Lo + 1.75" to Lo + 3.75" and Lo + 7.25" to Lo + 9.25".Sketch of Limitation:
Fqy-i_. SIZ_,.fo-0-T-A`
E-4rA A m AP4ý ,1`5 X. Co z Li .W V, , = -',V iý-70 0 SOA C--) Q~f2AL;~V$ -.01 S , --1ý 7z I Limitations removal requirements:
N/A Radiation field: N/A Examiner Level Si-nature Date Re)vi l\r Signature Date Eaton, Jay A. 2/10/2004 0_"o l _OLt.Examiner Level I I ure Date Site Review Signature Date Jordan, Joey , 2/10/2004 Ofher Level -' , ,S"ignzilture Date A N I I R ev i e w S , t- e 1 ,na u r Date Attachment B UT Base Met,. Lamination Page 45of75 Site/Unit:
Oconee /Summary No.: CO Workscope:
2 5.021.056, ISl Procedure:
Procedure Rev.Work Order No.: NDE-640 2 98606501 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-021 Page: 1 of 2 Code: Asme Section XI 1989 Cat./Item:
C-F-1/C5.21.56 Location:
N/A Drawing No.: 2HP-227
Description:
Elbow to Valve (2HP-114)System ID: 51A Component ID: C05.021.056
/2HP-227-11 Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter:
3.0" /.438 Limitations:
None Start Time: 0911 Finish Time: 0916 Examination Surface: Inside D] Outside [] Surface Condition:
AS GROUND Lo Location:
9.1.1.2 Wo Location:
Centerline of Weld Couplant:
ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 01225 Temp. Tool Mfg: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE 27217 Surface Temp.: 81 0 F Scanning dB: 40 Cal. Report No.: CAL-04-038
% Amplitude Position One Position Max Position Two Ind.Loss % Remarks No.Back Wall Full Screen Li W 1 W2 MP LM WI W2 MP L2 Wi W2 MP NRI Comments:
FC 03-20 Results: Accept r] Reject [i Info Li Initial Section XI Inspection Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: Yes-1 00% Reviewed Previous Data: No/Examiner Level iiI kj i g ure Date
/ Signature Date Houser, Gayle E. 7t,. 2/10/2004
/' Examiner Level 11 Si~nature Date Site Review 1, Signature Date Weaver, Marion T. /,2/10/2004 FOther Level N/A Signature Date ANII Reve,- Signature Date N/A g2 Attachment 13 Page 6cof 7 5 POOL Duke Supplemental Report Energy.Report No.: UT-04-021 Page: 2 of 2 Summary No.: C05.021.056 1/Examiner:
Houser, Gayle E. .12a Examiner:
Weaver, Marion T.Other: N/A Level: III Level: II Level: N/A Reviewer: Site Review: ANII Review: Date: ,;2-11-lo,4 Date: Date: 2,/ .7z Comments: Sketch or Photo: Z:\UThlDDEAL\ProtileLine2.jpg Cs12 Z p-11'N 1i)4&30(oj i Attachment B Page C7of 7 5 PkjLrk~e UT Pipe Weld Examination av Energy.Site/Unit:
Oconee /Summary No.: CO Workscope:
2 5.021.056 ISI Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE9600 15 98606501 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-023 Page: 1 of 3 Code: Asme Section XI 1989 Cat./Item:
C-F-1/C5.21.56 Location:
N/A Drawing No.: 2HP-227
Description:
Elbow to Valve (2HP-114)System ID: 51A Component ID: C05.021.056
/2HP-227-11 Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter:
0.438"/3" Limitations:
Yes -See attached limitation report Start-Time:
0916 Finish Time: 0930 Examination Surface: Inside [] Outside [] Surface Condition:
AS GROUND Lo Location:
9.1.1.2 Wo Location:
Centerline of Weld Couplant:
ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 01225 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE 27217 Surface Temp.: 81 0 F Cal. Report No.: CAL-04-039, CAL-04-040, CAL-04-041 Angle Used 0 45 45T 60 70 Scanning dB 45 48 48 Indication(s):
Yes F] No Scan Coverage:
Upstream E) Downstream R] CW [] CCW R]Comments: Results: Accept FJ Reject D7 Info E] Initial Section Xl Inspection Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No -35.7% Reviewed Previous Data: No Examiner Level Ill ignatu Date Review~r Signature Date Houser, Gayle E. -2/10/2004 Examiner Level II Signature Date Site Review Signature Date Weaver, Marion T. -2/10/2004 Oter Level Signature Date A NJII R evi e ý Signature Date Attachment B Page 61 of 75 DuO~ke oEnergy Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations
-Pipe Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2 Summary No.: C05.021.056 Workscope:
ISI Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 15 98606501 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-023 Page:. 2 of 3 45 deg Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000 100.000% Length X% Length X% Length X% Length X 50.000 50.000% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =50.000 50.000% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans 50.000 % total for 45 deg Other deg -60 (to be used for supplemental scans)The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000 % Length X 100.000 % Length X% Length X% Length X 42.900 % volume of length /100 =0.000 % volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =42.900 0.000% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Percent complete coveracue Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine; 35.725 % Total for complete exa Site Field Supervisor:
___.. Date: .ic0t4-0 0 s ! eA, , -- _ _ Ua3 ,&-,,5 CA,) -Lr,, 5 CA, 6 I-WA~eOZ&
Cj Attachment B Page 61 of 75'LyDuke SEnerWgy Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2 ,mmary No.: C05.021.056 Workscope:
ISI Limitation Record Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 15 98606501 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-023 Page: 3 of 3 Description of Limitation:
Partial coverage from S1 CW & CCW -No scan S2 due to valve configuration.
Sketch of Limitation:
~~7QV S\J-QYrC.-7o \15 3..\jA¢---7o0., ,, v__ CL4 O ,J -ACL--L4O Lk' ,<Z'. : 'Z. %Limitations removal requirements:
N/A Radiation field: N/A Examiner Level III /Signatiue Date Reviewer Signature Date Houser, GayleE. .,,., ,-, .2/10/2004 Examiner Level II Sigriature Date Site Review Signature Date Weaver, Marion T. ,_.. 2/10/2004-other Level Signature Date ANII Revi Signature Date___71 Attachment B UT Base Met _amination Page 70 of 75 Site/Unit:
Oconee /2 Summary No.: Workscope:
C05.021.058 ISI Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: 2 98604113 NDE-640 Outage No: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-104 Page: 1 of 2 Code: Asme Section Xi 1989 Cat/Item:
C-F-1/C5.21.58 Location:
N/A Drawing No:: 2-51A-31
Description:
Pipe to Valve (2HP-20)System ID: 51A Component ID: C05.021.058
/2-51 A-31-50 Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter:
.438"/3.0" Limitations:
NONE Start Time: 1103 Finish Time: 1105 Examination Surface: Inside [] Outside [] Surface Condition:
GROUND Lo Location:
9.1.1.1 Wo Location:
Centerline of Weld Couplant:
ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 03125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE32769 Surface Temp.: 63 "F Scanning dB: 45 Cal. Report No.: CAL-04-186
% Amplitude Position One Position Max Position Two Ind.Loss % Remarks No.Back Wall Full Screen L1 WI W2 MP LM W1 W2 MP L2 Wl W2 MP NRI Comments:
FC 03-20 Results: Accept [ Reject D] Info E] Initial Section IX Inspection Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: Yes 100% Reviewed Previous Data: No Examiner Level II Si ature Date Reviewer Signature Date Resor, James H. 3/30/2004 6L Examiner Level II .nature Date Site Review y Signature Date Mauldin, Larry E. 2 a, / 3/30/2004 Other Level (2' Signature Date ANIl Review, Signature Date J~I MkDuke 5PW Energyj.Supplemewal Report Report No.: Page: Attachment B Page 7/of75" UT-04-104 2 of 2 Date: Date: Date: Summary No.: C05.021.058 Examiner:
Resor, James H.Examiner:
Mauldin, Larry E.Other: 7~~~79~a Level: Level: Level: II.Reviewer:
Site Review: ANII Review: fl7e~->--~
/L4i~t&1-2 t% Pi~2~L-~
-Comments: Sketch or Photo: Z:\UT\PERSONEL\JHR9576\PajntLine4.jpg Il-)I I Attachment B Page 7? of 75" PLDuke 4V~nergy-Site/Unit:
Oconee /Summary No.: CO Workscope:
UT Pipe Weid Examination 2 5.021.058 Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 15 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-105 Page: 1 of 4 ISI 98604113 Code: Asme Section Xl 1989 Cat./Item:
C-F-1/C5.21.58 Location:
N/A Drawing No.: 2-51A-31
Description:
Pipe to Valve (2HP-20)System ID: 51A Component ID: C05.021.058
/2-51A-31-50 Size/Length:
N/A Thickness/Diameter:
.438"/3.0" Limitations:
Yes -See attached sheets Start Time: 1114 Finish Time: 1131 Examination Surface: Inside 7- Outside [ Surface Condition:
GROUND Lo Location:
9.1.1.1 Wo Location:
Centerline of Weld Couplant:
ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 03125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE32769 Surface Temp.: 63 0 F Cal. Report No.: CAL-04-187, CAL-04-188, CAL-04-189 Angle Used 0 45 45T 60 70 Scanning dB 43 45 47 Indication(s):
Yes F[ No [ Scan Coverage:
Upstream F] Downstream
[ CW W CCW W Comments:*See attached limitation sheets Results: Accept [] Reject [7 Info _-_Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No* Reviewed Previous Data: No Examiner Level II Signatur Date Reviewer / Signature Date Resor, James H. 3/30/2004
_ // -2,04 Examiner Level 11 Siona, a Date Site Review V Signature Date Mauldin, Larry E. 3/30/2004 Other Level ) Sig-nature Date ANII Review Signature Date Attachment B Page 73of 75 DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Component/Weld ID: )-53// -,3/-5-6 Item-No: G__7. CDJ CZ -remarks: NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Iu 7D YA Ve L-JLIMITED SCAN [ 1 E- 2 D 1 Z] 2 F1 cw -- ccw C. !4 UU1"'oA FROM L M,/ to L INCHES FROM WO (ý to Yt ANGLE: E] 0LI 4 5 Z 60 other ___ FROM () DEG to .J(Q DEG LINO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION LLIMITED SCAN 7i 11F2 FD1i D2 0cw 0ccw FROM L ____to L_____ INCHES FROM WO ____to____
ANGLE: El 0 LI 45 LI 60 other ___ FROM ___DEG to ___DEG LI-NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION DLIMITED SCAN 1i []22 D11 D2DEcw 0 ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: LI 0 LI 45 LI 60 other FROM _ DEG to __o DEG rI NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION L- LIMITED SCAN 1 F- 22 1 0 2L0cw -- ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to Sketch(s) attached ANGLE: LI 0 LI 45 LI 60 other FROM DEG to DEG yes No Prepared By: -Level: Date: Sheet of--'1N SCNSRAC EMDIETO Reviewed By: Date: Authori0 l4nspectoyrý
,,te ate: V ý-'
Attachment B Page 7* of 75 1EWrg Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations
-Pipe Site/Unit:
Oconee / 2 Summary No.: C05.021.058 Workscope:
ISI Procedure:
Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 15 98604113 Outage No.: ONS2EOC20 Report No.: UT-04-105 Page: 3 of 4 45 deg Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4% Length X% Length X 100.000 .% Length X 100.000 % Length X% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =100.000 % volume of length / 100 =100.000 % volume of length / 100 =100.000 100.000% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans = 100.000 % total for 45 deg Other deg -60 (to be used for supplemental scans)The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000 100.000% Length X% Length X% Length X% Length X 0.000 36.000% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =0.000 36.000% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Percent comolete coveraae Add totals for each scan required and divide by f# of scans to determine; 59.000 % Total for complete exam Site Field Supervisor:
Z'('Date: /o C IJOýLz:_10' SAILkM O)JVei So 14/i Iof 1IA/C o~z lbi J.4C(Y/i &/ (ý0,1 (ci'-tAi@7 tý -// tor IJ/ 70 krL&/ 1 jy,4,C o o r/ I C__C)Vt-kAC-(c-_ C) ,e_ A Y/14_ c- Y)f/1_r.1,oii.
Attachment B Page75 of 75 IW DuKe OEwW.Supplemental Report Report No.: Page: Summary No.: ( 0 ,. 2- 1. o 5 6,-Examiner:
LARZ. E. MAULDI,4 .'t !/4b, Level: .2-Examiner:
Level: Other: Level: Reviewer: Site Review: ANII Review: 12 / ,' " of Date: , /5./Oq'Date: Date:_____
j Comments:/-'/'o 'f'aýc '6 e"E-4 /, / " X ./G " -:: .f76 -.18 s 2.a~-.Sketch or Photo: ,2 Q j ( 7 ', 70o M6:-,b 7-A- (,-Z Ve_ -CC 6,e /. -7 o)/L i.1 i \ f*!~lluTffH2¶~
I I I I I I 6 ~ ~ bV (C&V(4-n 0iJ~f 70*h-vo Sý/&.-*z',JL5w
~ ~ A1 M 1 e:-A -4L D ~:Z ý 'S F-LIS 00 '/./C 6-'-1 6n4LcLIýA (:2A Ca LA -r/,34 k")4 .