ML070600240

IR 553792-03 Torus Structural Integrity Basis from 1R21 Inspections - Draft

ML070600240
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	11/05/2006
From:	Stulb F - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
IR 553792-03
Download: ML070600240 (30)

Text

IR 553792-03, Torus Structural Integrity Basis from 1R21 Inspections , This Technical Evaluation was prepared in accordance with CC-AA-309-101, Revision 7. A technical task pre-job briefing was conducted in accordance with HU-AA-1212, Revision 1. As a result of this briefing the risk rank was determined to be 4, since the I acceptance criteria had already been challenged and approved, therefore a third ,party , review this document is not required.

I I Reason for EvaIuatiodScope: , There is minor pitting of the Torus shell below the waterline known as the immersion area, The coating has been blistered since its application in 1984 and the shell in this area is a wetted surface (i.e.

underwater).

Some of the blisters become fractured during desludging and other torus monitoring activities in preparation of the inspections.

Prior to recoating activities in 1984, weld repairswere performed to repair significant

'pit corrosion that was identified, however some minor pit depths of less than 0.040 inches were allowed to remain. These blisters and the substrate condition underneath continue to be monitored.

The concern with this pitting is minor because the Torus is inerted by a nitrogen atmosphere during the normal operating cycle and since there is a lack of oxygen present, corrosion is minimal. Due to the pitting some local shell thicknesses fall below the nominal wall thickness and because there was no corrosion allowance considered in the original design thickness these pit locations must be evaluated to ensure they meet the allowable membrane stresses in the ASME B&PV Code Section 111, 1977. I I I During the underwater inspections performed in 1R21 per ASME B&PV Code Section XI, Subsection IWE, 1992; seven pits were discovered that were deeper than the , previously evaluated acceptance criteria of .040 inches. These were entered into the Corrective Action Process and Condition Reports IR 548227 and IR 550462 were created in Passport and were evaluated by Engineering. These are being evaluated in this technical evaluation to ensure they meet the allowable membrane stresses in the ASME B&PV Code Section 111, 1977. This technical evaluation will evaluate the condition of the Torus coating and the minor pitting discovered during the 1 R21 inspections and demonstrates that the Torus structural integrity continues to satisfy all Licensing and Design Bases requirements. Detailed Evaluation: Visual inspections performed in 1 R2 1 revealed the condition of the coating in all 20 bays of the Torus was consistent with inspections performed in previous outages. There was no significant change and a similar amount of fractured and cracked blisters were found. Seven pits were discovered that were deeper than the .040 inch preliminary acceptance criteria. These were evaluated in AR A2143995 Evaluations 3 and 4 in PIMS as IR 553792 Assignment 03 1 acceptable to meet the allowable membrane stresses in the ASME B&PV Code Section 111, 1977. Reference 1, evaluated the Torus shell thickness margin and established a general area acceptance criteria of 0.040 inch based on maximum depth of corrosion lefl in the Torus shell after the 1983 repairs. Since a few pits have been discovered that were deeper than .040 inches, a new design analysis had been created to provide a refined local area acceptance criteria (Reference

2) for pitting based on the allowable membrane stresses in the ASME B&PV Code. Finite element analyses of the Torus shell and conservative engineering assumptions were used to determine the acceptance criteria for localized pitting. The pit depth, diameter, and spacing (edge to edge distance) from Table 3-1 of Reference 2 are used in this technical evaluation to evaluate the pits discovered in 1 R21. The criteria from Table 3-1 are tabulated below: Pit Diameter (inches) .25 SO .75 1 .oo 2.00 3.00 4.00 Pit Depth (inches) .173 .173 .173 .173

,173 .173 .173 Minimum Edge to Edge Spacing (inches) .55 .84 1.15 1.45 2.85 4.60 6.70 Conclusions/Findings

Since all of the seven pits discovered during the underwater inspections performed in 1 R2 1 met these criteria, the Torus shell is acceptable and meets the allowable membrane stresses in the ASME B&PV Code Section 111, 1977. The condition of the coating has not significantly degraded since the last inspection four years ago and the number of pits has not increased significantly. Therefore, the Torus shell and associated coating acceptable and continue to satisfy all Licensing and Design Bases requirements.

The coating continues to perform is required hnction until the next scheduled inspections.

References:

1) MPR-953, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Torus Shell Thickness Margin. 2) MPR-2974, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Torus Pitting Inspection Evaluation Criteria. IR 553792 Assignment 03 2 Attachments:

1) UCC Preliminary Inspection Report for 1 R2 1 2) UCC Preliminary Inspection Data Sheets

3) AR548227 4) AR550462 5) AR 2143995 Eval 03 6) AR 2143995 Eval 04 1 I I I Note: The UCC inspection reports are considered preliminary since the Exelon NDE group are processing the final paperwork for administrative requirements.

The NDE group provided oversight and approval of the UCC work.

The NDE department will process the final inspection sheets, An Industry Coatings SME (Jon Caval10 of Corrosion Control Consultants

& Labs) contracted by engineering to perform as an Independent Third Party Reviewer, also provided oversight of the inspections, coating and substrate conditions, and evaluated the results to ensure 911 specification requirements were followed.

He concluded the coating and associate blisters that exist to be sufficiknt until the next scheduled inspections in 1R23. I I ' I Preparer:

Frank Stulb Date: 11/05/06 Independent Reviewer: Pete Tamburro Date: 1 1/6/06 I have reviewed this Tech Eval and find it meets the requirements of CC-AA-309-101, Rev. 7. All inputs are accurate. The results are reasonable and meet the design basis for the Oyster Creek Torus. I have also reviewed manager comments and find them acceptable. Approved for use by: Ray, F.H. Date: 11/06/2006 IR 553792 Assignment 03 3 I "Attachment 1 - UCC "Attachment 2 - UCC Prkliminary Inspedio Preliminary Inspectio "Attachment 4 - AR 55 f' "Attac 54 "Attachment 5 - AR A2,143995 EVAL 03.F "Attachment 6 - AR A2143995 EVAL 04.p I IR 553792 Assignment 03 4 FIRST DRAFT SECTlH Ik IWSMCTIOW plHDIW6S INFORMATION ONLY BAmmeuIlD The interior torus surfaces were coated in 1982 with Mobil 78 Hi-Build epoxy. In some areas, the Mobil78 was applied over a Mobil46X16 Epoxy Filler. Since then, immersion and vapor area inspections have been periodically performed by divers. The 1 R12 and subsequent inspection reports document mechanical damage to substrate, blistering (both intact and fractured, some to substrate), pinpoint rusting, and pitting corrosion.

Pit depths reportedly ranged from less than 5 mils to slightly more than 40 mils. Inspections were performed in accordance with AmerGen Specification SP-1302-52-120, Revision 3. Inspections consisted of a qualitative coating inspection and a qualitative and quantitative assessment of pitting corrosion of the submerged internal surfaces of the torus in all 20 torus bays.

Inspection efforts focused primarily on pressure boundary (Shell) surfaces. The purpose of the qualitative coating inspection was to assess coating degradation and evaluate any affect on pressure boundary base metal corrosion and the emergency core cooling system (ECCS). Qualitative pit assessment was performed to assess corrosion rates and to document any pitting exceeding pit depth acceptance criteria established by the Licensee. Data gathered during the qualitative inspection was also used to assist in defining the scope of coating repair.

Quantitative pit depth measurements were reported to the Licensee.

A VT-3 IWE inspection of the submerged catwalk bracing, downcomers, downcomer bracing, and vent header support columns was conducted and documented in accordance with Exelon Procedure ER-AA-335-016, Revision 3. Results of these inspections were submitted to Martin McAllister, site NDE Level Ill. The internal surfaces of the torus suppression pool are a nuclear safety related Service Level 1 area. As such, all inspections were performed in accordance with the Underwater Construction Corporation Quality Assurance Program under the provisions of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, 10 CFR part 27. Inspections were performed by ASNT/ASME VT-1 and VT-3 certified Level II and Level Ill coating inspectors in accordance with approved procedures.

TORUS IMMERSION AREA ASME Section XI Level II and Level Ill inspectors performed all inspections.

A Level Ill inspector reviewed and checked all critical findings.

Underwater visibility during inspections was acceptable. The areas being inspected were lit by high intensity video lights. For documentation purposes, the shell area in each bay was broken into six segments (see Figure

1) so that relevant indications could be accurately recorded. This system was also used to aid in identifying the location of video sequences. Inspection records are attached.

The qualitative inspection focused on the torus shell.

Sample areas of the ring girders, downcomers and I Figure I - Inspection template for torus M' . i,A,iRJ.i - 1 FIRST DRAFT INFORMATION ONLY structural members were also inspected for coating deterioration, corrosion, or damage. High resolution video was used to document representative conditions. Video footage is annotated and includes audio description.

QWJTATIUE

& QIJMIITA'IM COATIWI 8 COllBOSlON IN8PE@llON QUALITATIVE INSPECTION FINDINGS Torus Pressure Boundary (immersion Area) Extensive blistering of the pressure boundary can be seen throughout the torus immersion area particularly in areas where Mobil46X16 Epoxy Repair Compound was applied under Mobil 78 Series Epoxy. The extent of blistering corresponds generally to the amount of 46 X 16 present. Figure 2 depicts the typical distribution of areas of blistered coating with heaviest blistering near the torus invert. Blister size is No. 2 to No. 6. Degree of frequency is medium to medium dense as rated in accordance with ASTM D 714 "Standard Test Method of Evaluating Degree of Blistering of Paints". Fractured blisters appear to expose 46 X 16 filler or substrate.

Blister size in these areas randomly exceeds ASTM rating (1 12" to 1-1 /4" diameter).

The blistered conditions shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 are typical. Blistering is also found in areas where Mobil 46 X 16 was not applied. Blister size is No. 2 to No. 4 and degree of frequency is medium to dense. Attachment

• contains coating inspection reports documenting the visual inspection.

Lh-t, c, >-c 3 kq?Z> Figure 2 -Typical blister distribution by torus bay The majority of blisters (90%

to 95%) appear to be intact. Intact blisters examined by removing the blister cap expose the substrate. Corrosion attack under non-fractured blisters appears minimal and is generally limited to surface discoloration. Examination of the substrate typically reveals slight discoloration and pitting with pit depths of less than 1 thousandth of an inch. Fractured blisters were observed during the general visual inspection.

No accurate determination can be made when a given fracture occurred.

Nevertheless, it can be assumed that some Figure 3 -Typical blister density at invert fractures are recent while others date to 12R. The condition of fractured blisters varies as has been seen during previous inspections.

Some blisters exhibit hairline cracking across the blister cap but appear otherwise undisturbed.

There is generally no sign of significant corrosion activity (see Figure 19).

A small percentage (less than 1% to 2%) of blisters exhibit open fractures. Substrate beneath fractured blisters exhibits a slightly heavier magnetite (Fe304 ) oxide layer and minor pitting (less than 10 thousandths) of the substrate. The presence of Fe304 suggests that oxygen concentration in the water in contact with exposed substrate has remained low. A higher oxygen content would likely have produced Fe203 causing a red oxide. Figure 4 - typical intact blisters 2

FIRST DRAFT IN FORMAT10 N 0 N LY To characterize changes in blister condition, the one foot test squares established during 1Rl2 in Bays 6 and 7 were reinspected. In addition, twenty, one foot square sample areas were established to assess substrate condition beneath cracked blisters. The results of these inspections are summarized beginning on page 6 and detailed in Attachment

• . Figure 5 - Dense blistering in invert area Figure 6 - NO. 2 - NO. 4 blisters; few to medium Figure 7 -Typical blister conditions showing fractured, cracked (circled) and intact blisters 3

FIRST DRAFT Figure 8 -Typical cracked blister Figure ~- ~ 10 - Fractured blister I exposed substrate Figure 12 -Typical minor staining and pinpoint rusting INFORMATION ONLY Figure 9 - Substrate beneath cracked blister Figure 11 - Minor pitting, 40 mils Figure 13 -Worst case staining and pinpoint rusting Other Coating Deficiencies (Immersion Area) Other coating deficiencies consisted primarily of spot rust, pinpoint rusting, and minor mechanical damage (Figure 12 and Figure 13). Random deficiencies that exposed base metal were identified. They ranged in size from '/IS" to %" diameter.

Some areas contained multiple deficiencies.

Pitting in these areas ranged from less than 10 mils to slightly more than 40 mils in a few isolated cases. 4 FIRST DRAFT INFORMATION ONLY Pinpoint rusting mixed with small areas of mechanical damage was typically found in the invert area in most bays.

In many cases, mechanical damage is not to substrate. Areas such as this are randomly distributed on the pressure boundary. Surface staining of the coating was also noted in some areas on the invert but is not affecting coating integrity.

It appears to have been caused by steel grit remaining from previous coating operations. Coating on the upper portion of the torus shell (below the waterline) appears to be in good condition. Few deficiencies were noted and staining is minimal. Occasional small random patches of No. 2 to No. 8 few to medium blisters were found (see Figure 6). Less than 1

% were fractured.

Qualitative assessment of a sample of the pitting corrosion on the exposed base metal indicates that pit depths overall do not exceed 0.040". Pit diameters ranged from

'1,611 to %". Additional information is contained in the attachments.

It was confirmed that the two bare metal areas previously established as corrosion evaluation test areas had been coated. Area I was located-in Bay 6--in the transition region between the heavily blistered coating system of Mobil46 X 16 and Mobil 78 and the non-blistered coating system of Mobil 78, and Area 2 was located on the Bay 6/7 ring girder in the non-blistered coating system of Mobil 78. Coating conditions on ring girders, downcomers, down comer bracing, vent header support columns, catwalk bracing, and ECCS penetrations are generally consistent with coating conditions found on the pressure boundary.

No significant corrosion or evidence of section loss was identified.

Ring Girders: The coating is generally in good condition.

Blistering and minor mechanical damage with isolated shallow pitting is found on the flange and web.

Most is in the form of edge rusting. There are no visual indications of significant corrosion or loss of section in the flange, web or gusset base metal.

A representative sample was inspected. Catwalk Bracing:

A VT-3 inspection of the catwalk bracing was conducted in accordance with Exelon procedure ER-AA-335-016, Revision 3. Additional information is contained in the attachments. Additional information is contained in the attachments. Vent Header Support Columns:

A VT-3 inspection of the Vent Header Support Columns was conducted in accordance with Exelon procedure ER-AA-335-016, Revision 3. Additional information is contained in the attachments.

Downcomers:

A VT-3 inspection of the downcomers and downcomer bracing was conducted in accordance with Exelon procedure ER-AA-335-016, Revision 3. The coating is generally in good condition. Minor mechanical damage with isolated shallow pitting is found on the structural members and downcomer surfaces. There are no visual indications of significant corrosion or loss of section in the structural members or downcomer base metal. Additional information is contained in the attachments. Suction Strainers:

ECCS Suction Strainers in Bay 4 (at Penetration X-69), Bay 11 (at Penetration X-68B), and Bay 18 (at Penetration X-68A). There was no visual evidence of fibrous debris or foreign material in contact with the strainers that could potentially cause blockage or plugging of the strainer inlets. A trivial accumulation of fine particulate covered the body of the strainers but does not appear to block or plug any of the strainer inlets.

The strainers exhibit no obvious mechanical damage. There are no apparent loose or missing flange bolts. The carbon steel torus-side of the strainer flanges was also visually inspected.

The flange areas exhibit minor coating deficiencies, surface rusting, and shallow pitting. There are no visual indications of significant corrosion or loss of section in the flange base metal.

Corrosion Evaluation Test Areas Torus Components (Immersion Area) 5 FIRST DRAFT INFORMATION ONLY Structural bracing T-Quencher Ring Girder @ VH Support Bolted connection Downcomer

& Bracing QUANTITATIVE INSPECTION FINDINGS Quantitative Blister Evaluation - Torus Pressure Boundary in Immersion The one square foot test areas are designated as Test Patch 1,2, and 3 respectively. The test areas are outlined with an epoxy coating and identified by bay and quadrant number.

An arrow adjacent to each square indicates the direction of the reactor. Vertical and horizontal centerlines divide each test square into four quadrants. Overall condition of the blisters in each square was assessed.

Blisters that fell on the bisecting vertical or horizontal centerlines were numbered, measured, and documented.

Blister counts indicate a general increase in the formation of new and blisters and the occurrence of fractured blisters.

The rates of increase appear to be decreasing with the exception new blisters recorded on the bisecting lines. Blister diameter measurements also suggest that only a few blisters have increased in size. The tables and charts that follow summarize the change in blisters over time.

Figure 14 - Blister evaluation in test patch 6 FIRST DRAFT Table 3 - % fractured: total patch Vs bisecting line Table 1 -Summary of blister condition in test patch.

TOT& m?l- &ST m.GH d 55 3 Figure 17 - Graph of percentage of fractured blisters from Table 3 .. 4;a .Ea I!?$! Z?R Figure 15 -Total count of all blisters in test patch.

INFORMATION ONLY Table 2 - Increase in total and fractured blisters.

Figure 16 - Count of blisters falling on bisecting lines.

The cumulative percentage of fractured blisters in the test patches ranges from 16% in 1990 (1R13) 24% in 1996 (1R16), 28% in 2002 (1R19), to 29% in 2006 (1R21). This is consistent with the rate of change in occurrence of fracturing but appears to be higher than the percentage of fractured blisters observed overall. Investigation of the test areas is documented in Attachment

• and on video tape number *. Images in Attachment

• are a composite view of each test square and include the numbered blisters.

These blisters correlate with the numbered blisters photographed during previous inspections. Drawings that document the location and condition of blisters are also found in Attachment

• . 7 FIRST DRAFT INFORMATION ONLY Blister Evaluation - Torus Pressure Boundary in Immersion The licensee provided the criteria for evaluation and disposition of blisters on the torus immersion coating. The blisters were categorized into three groups as shown in Figure 18. 1. Intact Blisters: Blisters indicated by green arrows which, when viewed with the naked eye, are intact, and exhibit no cracking andlor staining due to corrosion of the underlying substrate.

2. Cracked Blisters:

Blisters indicated by yellow arrows which, when viewed with the naked eye, exhibit cracking andlor light surface staining due to corrosion of the underlying substrate. Although cracked, the cap of a cracked blister remains in place. 3. Fractured Blisters:

Blisters indicated by red arrows which, when viewed with the naked eye, exhibit disbondment of the blister cap and active corrosion of the underlying substrate.

~ ~~ ~ Fractured Blisters Fractured blisters, by definition, exposed the steel substrate and were designated for coating repair. Figure 19 illustrates the typical condition at fractured blister sites before and after the substrate was cleaned for inspection.

Each of the areas was inspected for pitting. With the exception of pits 18-P2-01, 15-P2-01,05-P1-01, 05-P5-01, and 05-P5-02 (see Table 4), all other pitting was less than 0.040". Approximately

• • 400 fractured blisters were identified.

Blister diameters generally range from less than !A to 1-112". They represent less than 1% of the total submerged surface area of the torus shell.

All fractured blister sites were repaired by the application of underwater coating. Figure 19 -Typical condition of substrate at site of fract 'ed blisters.

Pitting is typically e40 mils. 8 FIRST DRAFT Cracked Blisters The substrate condition beneath cracked blisters was evaluated by sampling a one foot square, area in each bav. SamDle areas were selected based on worst case condition of cracked blisters.

INFORMATION ONLY Blister caps weie removed from 10% (or a minimum of

10) of the cracked blisters and the substrate was evaluated for pitting. Typical worst case conditions (see Figure

20) were chosen for evaluation of substrate beneath cracked blisters (yellow arrows). Intact blisters in the sample area are indicated by green arrows.

Blister size and distribution is typical. Coating in the sample areas exhibits medium to dense blistering with a high ratio of cracked blisters. When blister caps are removed from cracked blisters (blue arrows), the substrate typically exhibits light surface rusting with minor (e40 mil) pitting. Coating adjacent to blisters appears to have good adhesion except in areas where epoxy was applied over the 46x1 6 surfacer.

Three pits exceeding 0.040 were identified and reported.

No other pits greater than or equal to 0.040" were found. Sample photographs depicting typical condition of the cracked blisters and underlying substrate are shown in Figure 20. A map of blister locations can be found in Attachment

• . Figure 20 -Typical conditions in cracked blister sample areas.

9 55.79 c lo @F /a FIRST DRAFT rfxd=4%aefl+

INFORMATION ONLY Quantitative Corrosion Evaluation - Torus Pressure Boundary in Immersion Oyster Creek specification SP-1302-52-120, Revision 3 established guidelines for pitting considered reportable. The majority pitting and general corrosion appeared to fall well inside the guidelines for pits requiring quantitative evaluation.

Localized general corrosion and surface rusting was found in randomly scatter areas on torus internal structures and components below the waterline. Visual assessment and selected confirming measurements show no indication that any significant metal loss has occurred.

Minimal corrosion was noted on structures in the vapor area. Seven reportable pit depth measurements were documented on the immersion area of the torus pressure boundary.

Pit depths at these sites are documented in Attachment

• . The following table summarizes the quantitative pit depth measurements.

Table 4 - Reportable pitting indications 05-P5-02 07-P5-01 04-P5-01 04-P5-02 18-P2-01 I N/A I 0.041 10.250 128" from P3 WS lin ~ NIA 0.039 0.025 22 from P5/6 WS in N/A 0.050 0.025 20" from P4/5 WS in 1 0.041 0.125 10.5" from P4/5 WS in 1 0.044 0.125 10"from P4/5 WS in 15-P2-01 I N/A 1 0.044 10.250 (48" from P213 WS lin 05-PI-01 I N/A I0.041 10.038 146" from 4/5 RG lin O~-P~-OI I N/A 1 0.076 10.025 127" from P4/5 WS lin 56" from IWS 6" from IWS ~ 50" from IWS 36" from IWS 34" from IWS 52.5" from IWS 67" from IWS 6l"from IWS NIA I NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Pit 01-GI Pit 02-GI 10 UNDERWATER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION PROCEWRE WlO.09 - OcNGS1R21 I REVISION:

1 ATTACIiMENT 1 QUALITATIVE JNSPEC'MON RECORD PRESERVICE

[ 1 INSERVICE M WORK ORDER NO. R207734Q VT-I [ 1 VT-3 [XJGENERALVISUAL

[ ] RECORDNO.:

1 Pagelof4 DIRECTM REMOTE [ I ILLUMINATION CHECK (TIME): UNSAT [ ] Client: ExelonlAmaGen Facility Location:

Oyster Creek Nuclear Gem Station Project No.:O1-02260.56 Date: lOL28& Description of Vessei: GE. BWR Mark I Containment-Torus Location:

Bays No, 1 - 20 (Shell) INSPECTION IPJFORMAIION:

Submerged Torus Shell (Pressure Boundary)

START- STOP NA ILLUMINATION CHECK: SAT M Principal Torus C-thg: Mob2 78 i- Mobil46 x 16 Surfac er CIassificetion of Coating Deficiencies:

TYPE DESCRIPTION Cracking In Top Coat To Substmtem Location NIA &ea:- NJA Delamination Im Top Coat -To Substrate NfA Lacation N/A Area: NJA Blistering Per D714: No. 2 to 6 Med to Dense Location Invert & near watedhe Area:ltOlOsaft

m. Flaking or Peeling Frac blisters/Iow adhes ion Location Associated with Bfisterhq A1wlt02saff ty~, Mech. Damage domto med dense Location ~rimarih at invert Area:lto2safttM, Tiger Striping N/A Location NfA . Ana:& Discoloration SurfirCe staining Location ~~i~&~atinvert Anxlto10qft tvD, Classification of Substrate Deflcfencies:

Uniform Rustin? Minor Location vatiaus locatiom Area: 4 safi tv~, Corrosion with loss of section NJA Location NJA Area: NfA other Surhe Indications*

None Location NIA Area: NIA Note 1: *Document surhce indications such as discoloration, arc strikes, gouges, dents, pitting, cracks, wear, excessive corrosion, erosion, or other signs of surfice irregularities on the part or component.

Note 2: Show refmnces to continuation sheets when entering data on this sheet. Pinpoint Rusting Random Location van 'ou9 locations Area: <1 Pitting Corrosion

(< threshold dues) 2 to 39 mils Location llrimarilv at invert Area. <Isaft tv& Measuring and Testing Equipment:

+pnp.ob 173919 DryFilmThichesGauge:

SN 181771 SN 4+89W- SN EJO18, SN EJ0241 NIST Cat. Plates: SN IC-84487 SN K-75160 Dial Depth Gauge: SN D-24 SN 177857 Calibration Flat: SPJ 05002 GoJNo-Go Pit Gauge: SN PB- 15 1 - Gauges disposed of on site. --

UNDERWATER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION I PROCEWm oP1O.W - OCNGSiR21 1 RMSION: 1 coated surfaces : Coating defich~y indicati~n~

consist primady of blistering, discoloration, and minor mechanical coating damage in all 20 tom bays. Frequency and distriition of these conditions is as described above. Photographs of typical conditions can be found in the final report. Coating deficiencies exposing base metal were identified and repaired by the application of an underwater coating. Uncoated Seces: Reportable Pitting indications are recorded on the attached quantitative data sheets (attachment 2). Photographs of typicai pMng conditions can be found m the final report. Other localized areas of exposed base metal ehiit only minor corrosion and surfixe rusting. There are no indications of discoloration, arc strikes, gouges, dents, ' pitting, cracks, wear, excessive corrosion, erosion, or other signs of shce irregularities.

ATTACHMENT 1 (CONTINUED)

QUALITATIVE INSPECTION RECORD PRESERVICE 11 INSERVICE

[XI WORK ORDER NO. R207734Q VT-1 [ 3 DIRECT@} REMOTE C I Client: ExelodAmerGen Dste: 10/15/02 Description of Vessel: G.E. BWR /Mark I Co ntainment-Torus Location:

Bays No. 1 - 20 Me111 VT-3 [X]GENERALVISUAL[

] RECORD NO.:L Page 2 of 4 Facility Location:

Oyster Creek Nuclear Gen. Station Project No.: 01-02260.56 l W? of the submerged tom shell @ressure boundary) was inspected in all 20 bays. The surface of the torus shell is coated, however, there are numerous small coathg deficiencies that expose base metal. These consist primarily of fi.actured blisters with minor mechanical damage and spot rusting and typically measure l/lfj" to %" m diameter.

Pitting of the base metal was qualitatively assessed and typically ranged tiom 2 to approximately 40 mils. Biisrering of the pressure boundary coating is found m all 20 bays. The heaviest blistering is generally near the invert. Blister size is No. 2 to No. 6. Degree of fkquency is medium to medium dense as rated m accordance with ASTM D 714 "Standard Test Method of Evaluating Degree of Blistering of Paid"' Fractured blisters appear to exposc undercoat or substrate.

Blister size in these areas randomly exceeds ASTM rating fin" to 1-1/4" diameter).

The balance of the coating in the inspected areas exhibits random moderate to heavy sdace stmining (not to substrate), mechanical damage, and phpomt rusting. r- I ANllRrview Date UNDERWATER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION PROCEDURE:

QP10.09 - OCNGSlR21 PRESERVICE

[I INSERVICE v] REMOTE [I SAT [ X ] UNSAT [ ] VT-1 [ X ]VT-3 [ ] GENERAL VISUAL [ ] STOP NA DIRECT [XI ILLUMINATION CHECK (TIME): START NA ILLUMINATION CHECK REVISION:

1 Client ExelodAmerGen Measure and Test Equipment:

1 1739,9 &6@-0 ' Adj. Zero = Surface roughness measured near pit WORK ORDER NO-C RECORDNO.:

I Page 3 of4 Project No.: 01-02260.56 Avg DFT = Average dry film thickness near pit Facility Location:

Location:

Bay No. - 4.5.7. & 15 Ovster Creek Nuclear Generatin8 Station Metal Loss = Pit Depth - (Adj, Zero f Avg. DFT) DryFilmThicknessGauge:

SN 181771 SN 4%9"9 ' SN EJ018LSN EJ0241 NIST Cal. Plates: SN K-84487 SN IC-75160 Dial Depth Gauge: SN D-24 SN 177857 Calibration Flat: SN 05002 GoMo-Go Pit Gauge: SN PB-I 5 1 - Gauges disposed of on site. I Pit Diameter = Diameter of pit or pit pup across longest dimension) toordinate

= Location measured as an X / Y distance from a structural feature (such as a Ring Girder) OT azimuth & dice from a penetmtion.

Procedure for Determining Metal Low Metal loss values have a higher degree of accuracy when the protective coahg is removed. Shce it is not pra&cal to remove the cording at all measured sites, it is generally perEormed when the metal loss values (obtamed with coathg in place) approach or exwed the maximUm value (MAV) established by the Owner. Metal 10% values (MLV) are obtained by subtracting the sum of the average dry film thickness (ADFT) value and the dial depth gauge adjusted to zero value (AZV) from the pit de@ value (PDV). Thus, MLV = PDV (ADFT + AZV) l?lalnpk:

16-2P-023

= Bay 16, shell plate 2, pit # 023 UNDERWATER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION PROCEDURE:

QP10.09 - OCNGSIR21 I REVISION:

1 is-pz.-oi ospi-01 OS-PSQI ~542 07-PM1 NIA X 0.073 0.026 0.029 0.044 0.250 WS in 6"frornMIS NIA N/A x NIA AdjZeronotusedinmetallosscak N/A X 0.062 0.010 0.021 0.041 0.038 46"from4/5 RG in 50" from IWS NIA N/A x MA AdjZmnotusedinmatellosscak N/A X 0.090 0.006 0.014 0.076 0.025 WS in 36"frmIWS NIA MA x WA AdjZeronotusedinmsEai~calc NIA X 0.055 0.000 0.016 0.039 0.025 WS in 34"fromIWS NIA WA x N/A Adjteronotusedinmetatlosscak NIA X 0.070 0.000 0.020 0.050 0.025 WS in IWS tUA N/A x NIA Adj Zero not used In metal k 27" from P4/5 22" from PW6 20" from P4/5 52.5" from ANI1 Review Date AR - Assignment Report Page 1 of 2 0 Go Back Print I New Search 1 Home AR 00548227 Report ~~ ~~ ~ CR status: APPROVED Aff Fac: Oyster Creek AR Type: Aff Unit: NA Owed To: ACAPALL Due Date: 11f 23f2006 Aff System: 187 Event Date: 10/24/2006 CR LeveUClass:

4/D DISC Date: 10/24/2006 How HO2 Orlg Date: 10/24/2006 Discovered:

WWIMS AR: Component

1. 187 iction Request Details Subject PITS IN TORUS BAYS 5,15, AND 18

Description:

Originator:

PETER TAMBURRO Supv Contacted: Howie Ray Condition Descriptlon

Inspection of the Torus per speclfication SP-1302-32-120 Revision 3 has found 4 pits which are greater than 40 mils deep. Per the requirements SP-1302-32-120 Revlsion 3 these pits shall be evaluated by Engineering.

Data for each pit is as follows Pit 18-P2-01 Data - Bay 18 Metal Loss -- 0.041 inches Pit Diameter

-- 0.25 inches Plt 15-P2-01 Data - Bay IS Metal Loss -- 0.044 inches Pit Diameter -- 0.25 inches Pit 05-P1-01 Data - Bay 05 Metal Loss -- 0.041 inches Plt Diameter

-- 0.038 inches Pit 05-P5-01 Data - Bay 05 Metal Loss -- 0.076 inches Pit Diameter

-- 0.025 inches Opera billty Preliminary Evaluation of these four pits indicates that they are well within design basis acceptance criteria.

Immediate actions taken:

Informed Howle Ray and THe Engineering Control Center Recommended Actions: Perform a Technical Evatuation to disposistion these pits to be minor and this will be confirmed by the en evaluation. Primary containment is not currently required to hpLcl Reportable Basis:

N/A AR - Assignment Report Page 2 of 2 SOC Reviewed by: THOMAS A POWELL 10/26/2006 08:17:51 COT SOC Comments:

10/26/06 TAP - Created PIMS TEch EVAL A2143995 02 to disposition the Issue. Close to PIMS AR A2143995 Trend Codes TC1 TC2 TC3 Proc ow Rank EQM P VSL SCNA ER

• Assignments Assign #: !u Assigned To: status: COMPLETE Aft Fac: Oyster Creek Prim Grp: ACAPALL Due Date: 10/29/2006 Assign Type: TRKG Sec Grp: Orlg Due Date: CICI/II~/IIIICICI Priority:

Schedule Ref: Unit Condltlon:

Subject/Descriptlon:

PITS IN TORUS BAYS 5, 15, AND 18 AR - Assignment Report 0 Go Back Page 1 of 2 Print 1 New Search I Home AR 00550462 Report Oyster Creek AR Type: CR status: APPROVED Aff Fac: Aff Unit: 01 Owed To: A5352CAP Due Date: 11/28/2006 Aff System: 187 Event Date: 10/26/2006 CR LeveUClass:

4/D Disc Date: 10/26/2006 How H02 Orlg Date: 10/29/2006 Dlscovered

WfUPlMS AR: Component

1. TORUS - -~ 4ction Request Details

Description:

THREE PITS FOUND DURING UNDERWATER INSPECTION OF TORUS. Originator:

FRANK STULB Supv Contacted: Howie Ray Condition

==

Description:==

During underwater inspection of the Torus in accordance with SP-1302-52-120, Revlslon 3, three ptts were discovered which are greater than ,040 inches deep. SP-1302-52-120, Revision 3, requires all pits greater than .ON inches deep be entered into the Correctlve Action Program (IR) and shall be evaluated by Engineering.

The following are inspection data for each pit: Bay 7, Plate 5 Metal Loss - ,050 inches Fit Diameter - ,025 inches Adjacent Pits - None Bay 4, Plate 5 Metal Loss - ,041 inches Pit Diameter - .125 inches Adjacent Pits - 6 inches to 04-P5-02 Metal Loss - .OW Inches Pit Diameter - ,125 Inches Adjacent Pits - 6 inches to 04-P5-01 Plt ID: 07-P5-01 Pit ID: 04-P5-01 Plt ID: 04-P5-02 Immediate actions taken: Created Tech Eva1 AR A2143995 Eva1 03 to evaluate the pits against design basis acceptance criteria.

Wrote this IR. Prelimlnary evaluation of the three pits indicates they meet the acceptance criteria in MPR-2974 to meet the membrane stress limits in the B&PV Code, Recommended Actions: Perform Technical Evaluation of pits with AR A2143995 Eva1 03. Prep surface and repair coating. What activities, processes, or procedures were involved?

Torus underwater inspection per SP-1302-52-120, Revision

3. List of knowledgeable indfvfduals:

AQ 553792-03 AR - Assignment Report Howie Ray Repeat or similar condition?

A similar condition was reported in IR 548227 and evaluated In AR A2143995 Eva1 02. Operable Basis: RE6 Preliminary evaluation of the three plts indicates they meet the acceptance criterla in MPR-2974 to meet the membrane stress limits in the B&PV Code. Torus is operable pending completion of engineering's evaluation.

Reportable Basis: N/A SOC Reviewed by: STEVEN E GANSS 10/29/2006 10:00:39 CST SOC Comments:

close to actions taken Page 2 of 2 rrend Codes TC1 TC2 TC3 EQM VSL 5CNA Pcoc ERlOO ow Rank

• P lssignments Assign #: I 01 Assigned To: Status: COMPLETE Aff Fec: Oyster Creek Prim Grp: ACAPALL Due Date: 11/03/2006 Assign Type: TRKG Sec Grp: PIJ/PP/PPVP Priority:

Schedule Rd: Unit Condition:

,\ SubJwt/Descrlptlon:

THREE PITS FOUND DURING UNDERWATER INSPECTION OF TORUS. AR 553792 - 03 At+achmenk 4 Page zoF2

• • • ACTION REQUEST *** PAGE: 01 A/R TYPE : EC ECR A/R NUMBER : A2143995 REQUEST ORG : OEDM A/R STATUS : ROUTED REQUEST DATE: 09JUN06 STATUS DATE:

12JUN06 REQUESTED BY: TAMBURRO, PETE LAST UPDATE: 04NOV06 PRINT DATE : 06NOV06 .............................................................................

EVALUATION NBR: 03 ORIG DATE ASSIGNED:

EVALUATING ORG: OEDM EVAL DUE DATE: 03NOV06 EVAL ASIGND TO:

STULB DATE ASSIGNED:

280CT06 EVAL REQUEST ORG: OEDM EVAL REQUESTOR:

STULB, F EVAL STATUS : RETUJRN EVAL RETURNED BY: RETURN IMPORTANCE CODE:- OEAP:- SCHEDULE CODE:

DATE FIXED:- EVAL DESC:

WALUATE PITS IN BAYS 4 AND 7 OF THE TORUS REASON FOR EVALUATION

/ SCOPE: FJS2 260CT06 FJS2 260CT06 INSPECTION OF THE TORUS PER SPECIFICATION SP-1302 FJS2 260CT06 120, REVISTON 3 HAS FOUND 3 PITS WHICH ARE GREATER THAN FJS2 2 70CT06 40 MILS DEEP. FER THE REOUIREMENTS SP-1302-52-120, FJS2 260CT06 REVISION 3 THESE PITS SHALL BE EVA LUATED BY FJS2 260CT06 ENGINEERING.

THIS TECH EVAL. WILL EVALUATE THESE PITS FJS2 260CT06 IN ACCORDANCE WITH MPR-2974, REVISION 0. FJS2 260CT06 FJSZ 260CT06 THIS TECH EVAL WAS DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CC-AA- FJSZ 260CT06 309-101 REVISION 7. FJS2 260CT06 FJS2 260CT06 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS TECHNICAL EVALUATION WAS REVIEWED FJS2 290CT06 WITH HOWIE RAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH HU-AA-1212.

RISK RANK FJS2 290CT06 WAS ASSESSED AS 4. THEREFORE A THIRD PARTY REVIEW IS NOT FJS2 290CT06 REOUIRED. FJSZ 290CT06 FJSZ 260CT06 BACKGROUND: FJS2 260CT06 FJS2 260CT06 INSPECTION RESULTS FROM TORUS BAYS 4 AND 7 (ATTACHED)

FJS2 260CT06 INDICATE 3 SMALL PITS WHICH MEET THE FURTHER DISPOSITION FJSZ 270CT06 THRESHOLD IN SECTION 4.3.2 OF SPECIFICATION FJSZ 270CT06 FJS2 270CT06 SP-1302-52-120, REVISION 3. nrnq qr~nmnr rua4 LOULI'UO FJS2 260CT06 nr-9 CIrnmmnr THIS TECH EVAL IS CONSIDERED "NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED" ruaL LOULLUO DETAILED EVALUATION:

FJS2 260CT06 INSPECTION RESULTS ARE PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENT

1. SHOWN FJS2 260CT06 BELOW IS THE SPECIFIC EVALUATION FOR EACH PIT. FJS2 260CT06 FJS2 260CT06 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FJS2 260CT06 FJS2 260CT06 iER MPR-2974, REVISION 0, PAGE 3-2, TABLE 3.1 AN FJS2 260CT06 ACCEPTABLE PIT WITH A DIAMETER UP TO 0.25 INCHES MAY HAVE FJS2 270CT06 A DEPTH UP TO 0.173" AS LONG AS THE EDGE TO EDGE DISTANCE FJSZ 270CT06 TO THE NEXT PIT IS NOT LESS THAN 0.55 INCHES IT WILL MEET FJS2 290CT06 FJSZ 290CT06 THE MEMBRANE STRESS LIMITS IN THE ASME B&PV CODE.

RT~CL qr-rrmnr AR c53792 - 05 PIT 07-P5-01 DATA DEPTH WITH COATING 0.070 INCHES Pk-fachmefif 5 METAL LOSS 0.050 INCHES PAGE: 02 *** ACTION REQUEST *** A/R TYPE : EC ECR A/R NUMBER : A2143995 REQUEST ORG : OEDM A/R STATUS : ROUTED REQUEST DATE: 09JUN06 STATUS DATE: 12JUN06 REQUESTED BY: TAMBURRO, PETE LAST UPDATE: 04NOV06 PRINT DATE : 06NOV06 PIT DIAMETER 0.025 INCHES FJSZ 270CT06 MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE TO NEXT FIT - NO OTHER PITS. FJS2 270CT06 FJS2 270CT06 THIS PIT MEETS THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA IN MPR-2974 TO FJS2 270CT06 MEET THE MEMBRANE STRESS LIMITS IN THE ASME B&PV CODE. FJS2 270CTO6 FJS2 270CT06 PIT 04-P5-01 DATA FJS2 270CT06 FJS2 270CTO6 DEPTH WITR COATING 0.058 INCHES FJS2 270CT06 METAL LOSS 0.041 INCHES FJSZ 270CT06 PIT DIAMETER 0.125 INCHES FJS2 270CT06 MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE TO NEXT PIT - 6 INCHES TO 04-P5-02 FJS2 270CT06 FJS2 270CTO6 THIS PIT MEETS THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA IN MPR-2974 TO FJS2 270CT06 MEET THE MEMBRANE STRESS LIMITS IN TEE ASME B&PV CODE. FJS2 270CT06 FJS2 270CT06 PIT 04-P5-02 DATA FJS2 270CT06 FJS2 270CT06 DEPTH WITH COATING 0.062 INCHES FJS2 270CT06 METAL LOSS 0.044 INCHES FJS2 270CTO6 PIT DIAMETER 0.125 INCHES FJS2 270CT06 MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE TO NEXT PIT - 6 INCHES TO 04-P5-01 FJS2 270CT06 FJS2 270CT06 '&IS PIT MEETS THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA IN MPR-2974 TO FJS2 270CT06 MEET THE MEMBRANE STRESS LIMITS IN THE ASME B&PV CODE. FJS2 270CT06 FJS2 270CT06 CONCLUSION: FJS2 270CT06 FJS2 270CT06 THE THREE PITS HAVE BEEN EVALUATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FJS2 270CT06 MPR-2974, REVISION O AND WERE FOUND TO MEET THE DESIGN FJS2 270CT06 BASIS ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA.

COATING REPAIRS CAN BE FJS2 270CT06 PERFORMED FOR THESE PITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FJS2 270CT06 SP-1302-52-120. FJS2 270CT06 FJS2 270CT06

REFERENCES:

FJS2 270CT06 FJS2 270CT06

1) MPR-2974, REVISION O - OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION FJS2 270CT06 TORUS PITTING INSPECTION EVALUATION CRITERIA FJS2 270CT06

2) SPECIFICATION SP-1302-52-120, REVISION 3 - INSPECTION FJS2 270CT06 AND LOCALIZED REPAIR OF THE TORUS AND VEm SYSTEM COATING FJS2 270CT06 FJS2 270CT06 ATTACHIuZENT 1 - INSPECTION DATA (1 PAGE) FJS2 270CT06 INDEPENDENT REVIEW CAS7 290CT06 CAS7 290CT06 I HAVE REVIEWED THIS EVALUATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CAS7 290CT06 CC-AA-309-101 REV 7. THE EVALUATION MEETS EXISTING CAS7 290CT06 DESIGN AND CONFIGURATION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS.

CAS7 290CT06 INPUTS AND THE METHOD USED ARE APPROPRIATE.

THE REFERENCES AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ARE CLEARLY DEFINED. THE RESULTS ARE CLEARLY STATED AND THE FOLLOWUP ACTION IS CLEARLY DEFINED. **k**f**f**X*********X+**f*+*Xt***,++*,X*****************

CAS7 290CT06 b/? 553792-03 A*&mwf- 5

- Fit 0.058 - NA 0.062 - ATTACHMENT 2 (CONTINUED) - DATA SHEXT CrYpiCal)

QUA.NTITA"IVE EVALUATION OF METAL LOSS RECORD 0.025 2o"fmmW5wS in 52.5'fromIWS 0.125 1O.B fram P415 WS kr 87" from IWS 0.125 lVfromP45WS in 61'fromIWS m Nu NIA PltOI-Gl NIA Pit0261 NIA EVALUATION

!JIBR: 04 ORIG DATE ASSIGNED:

EVALUATING ORG: OEDM EVAL DUE DATE: 01NOV06 EVAL ASIGND TO: TAMBURRO, PETE DATE ASSIGNED: 310CT06 EVAL REQUEST ORG: OEDM EVAL REQUESTOR:

TAMBURRO EVAL RETURNED BY: LARZO, R EVAL STATUS : RETURN IMPORTANCE CODE:- OEAP : - SCHEDULE CODE: DATE FIXED:- EVAL DESC: EVALUATE PITS IN BAYS 5, 15, AND 18 OF THE TORUS THIS EVAL WAS PREPARED BY PETER TAMBURRO. HOWEVER PXTO 300CT06 IT WAS ENTERED INTO PIMS BY FRANK STULB PXTO 300CT06 PXTO 300CT06 REASON FOR EVALUATION

/ SCOPE: FJS2 300CT06 FJSZ 300CT06 THIS TECHNICAL EVALUATION SUPERCEDES AR A2143995 EVAL 02 FJSZ 300CT06 TO CORRECT A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR THAT AFFECTED THE FJS2 300CT06 TECHNICAL CONTENT OF THE EVALUATION. FJSZ 300CT06 FJSZ 300CT06 iNSPECT1ON OF THE TORUS PER SPECIFICATION SP-1302 FJS2 300CT06 120, REVISION 3 HAS FOUND 4 PITS WHICH ARE GREATER THAN FJS2 300CT06 40 MILS DEEP. PER THE REQUIREMENTS SP-1302-52-120, FJS2 300CT06 REVISION 3 THESE PITS SHALL BE EVALUATED BY FJS2 300CT06 ENGINEERING.

THIS TECH EVAL. WILL EVALUATE THESE PITS FJS2 300CT06 IN ACCORDANCE WITH MPR-2974, REVISION 0. FJS2 300CT06 FJS2 300CT06 THIS TECH EWAL WAS DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CC-AA- FJSZ 300CT06 309-101 REVISION 7. FJS2 300CT06 FJS2 300CT06 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS TECH EVAL WAS REVIEWED WITH DAN FJS2 300CT06 THOMAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH HU-AA-1212.

THE RISK RANK WAS FJS2 300CT06 ASSESSED AT A 114". THEREFORE A THIRD PARTY REVIEW IS FJS2 300CT06 NOT REQUIRED. FJS2 300CT06 FJSZ 300CT06 BACKGROUND: FJSZ 300CT06 FJS2 300CT06 INSPECTION RESULTS FROM TORUS BAYS 5, 15, AND 18 FJS2 300CT06 (ATTACHED)

INDICATE F OUR SMALL PITS WHICH MEET THE FJS2 300CT06 "FURTHER DISPOSITION1a THRESHOLD IN SECTION 4.3.2 OF FJSZ 300CT06 SPECIFICATION SP-1302-52-120, REVISION 3. FJS2 300CT06

FJSZ 300CT06 THIS TECH EVAL IS CONSIDERED "NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED"" FJS2 300CT06 FJS2 300CT06 DETAILED EVALUATION:

FJS2 300CT06 INSPECTION RESULTS ARE PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENT

1. SHOWN FJSZ 300CT06 BELOW IS THE SPECIFIC EVALUATION FOR EACH PIT. FJSZ 300CT06 ---- ~nnnmnc ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA AP 553 792 03 ;)ER MPR-2974, REVISION 0, PAGE 3-2, TABLE 3.1 AN A++&& VM en+ Q .. - ACCEPTABLE PITWITH A DIAMETER UP TO 0.5 INCHES MAYHAVE- A DEPTH UP 0.173" AS LONG AS THE EDGE TO EDGE DISTANCE kc c Of 4

• • • ACTION REQUEST *** PAGE: 02 A/R TYPE : EC ECR A/R NUMBER : A2143995 REQUEST ORG : OBDM A/R STATUS : ROUTED REQUEST DATE: 09JUN06 STATUS DATE: 12JUN06 REQUESTED BY: TAMBURRO, PETE LAST UPDATE: 04NOV06 PRINT DATE : 06NOV06 .............................................................................

.............................................................................

TO THE NEXT PIT Is NOT LESS THAN 0.84 INCHES IT WILL MEET FJS2 300CT06 THE MEMBRANE STRESS LIMITS IN THE ASME BtPV CODE. FJS2 300CT06 FJS2 300CT06 PIT 18-P2-01 DATA FJS2 300CT06 FJS2 300CT06 0.052 INCHES FJS2 300CT06 DEPTH WITH COATING -- 0.041 INCHES FJSZ 300CT06 METAL LOSS -- 0.25 INCHES FJSZ 300CT06 PIT DIAMETER

-- MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE TO NEXT PIT. -- NO OTHER FJS2 300CTO6 PITS ON THIS PLATE. FJS2 300CT06 FJS2 300CT06 THEREFORE THIS PIT Is ACCEPTABLE.

FJS2 300CT06 FJSZ 300CT06 PIT 15-P2-01 DATA FJS2 300CT06 FJS2 300CT06 0.073 INCHES FJSZ 300CT06 DEPTH WITH COATING -- 0.044 INCHES FJSZ 300CT06 METAL LOSS -- 0.25 INCHES FJSZ 300CT06 PIT DIAMETER -- NO OTHER FJS2 300CT06 MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE TO NEXT PIT. -- FITS ON THIS PLATE.

FJSZ 300CT06 FJS2 300CT06 THEREFORE THIS PIT Is ACCEPTABLE.

FJS2 300CT06 FJS2 300CT06 PIT 05-P1-01 DATA FJS2 300CT06 FJS2 300CT06 0.062 INCHES FJSZ 300CT06 DEPTH WITH COATING

-- METAL LOSS -- 0.041 INCHES FJS2 300C TO6 0.038 INCHES PJS2 300CT06 PIT DIAMJ3TER

-- MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE TO NEXT PIT. -- NO OTHER FJS2 300CTO6 FJSZ 300CT06 PITS ON THIS PLATE. FJSZ 300CT06 THEREFORE THIS PIT IS ACCEPTABLE.

FJS2 300CT06 FJS2 300CT06 FJS2 300CT06 PIT 05-P5-01 DATA FJS2 300 CT06 0.090 INCHES FJSZ 300CT06 DEPTH WITH COATING

-- 0.076 INCHES FJS2 300CT06 METAL LOSS -- 0.025 INCHES FJS2 300CT06 PIT DIAMETER -- MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE TO NEXT PIT. -- THERE FJSZ 300CT06 ARE NO ADJACENT PITS AS NOTED ON ATTACHMENT

1. FJSZ 300CT06 FJS2 300CT06 THEREFORE THIS PIT IS ACCEPTABLE.

FJSZ 300CT06 FJS2 300CT06 CONCLUSION:

FJS2 300CT06 THE FOUR PITS HAVE BEEN EVALUATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FJS2 300CT06 MPR-2974, REVISION O AND WERE FOUND TO MEET THE DESIGN FJS2 300CT06 BASIS ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA.

COATING REPAIRS CAN BE n-rri? 7nnnrnnc AP 553792-03 PERFORMED FOR THESE PITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SP-1302-52-120.

REFERENCES:

A++achmenf 6

• • • ACTION REQUEST A/R TYPE : EC ECR REQUEST ORG : OEDM REQUEST DATE: 09JvN06 REQUESTED BY: TAMBURRO, PETE A'ITACHMENT 2 (CONTINUED) - DATA SJ3EET (Typical)

QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF METAL LOSS RECORD 0.OOO 0.016 0.039 0.025 =from P5/6 WS in 0.000 O.OO0 O.OO0 O.Oo0 O.Oo0 O.Oo0 O.Oo0 O.Oo0 . O.Oo0 O.OO0 O.Oo0 O.Oo0 O.Oo0 0.OOo 0.m O.OO0 O.Oo0 0-0oO O.Oo0 O.Oo0 O.Oo0 0.OOo 0.m O.OO0 O.Oo0 0-0oO O.Oo0 0.OOo I I I I X I N/A lAdj Zero not wd in metal bss calc I I