ML20138F951
| ML20138F951 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1997 |
| From: | Giannuzzi A, Gustin H, Sauby M STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138F939 | List: |
| References | |
| SIR-96-114, SIR-96-114-R01, SIR-96-114-R1, NUDOCS 9705060110 | |
| Download: ML20138F951 (60) | |
Text
. - .
i 1
1 1
1 i
f StructuraHntegrity Associates, Inc.
3315 Almaden Expressway Suite 24 San Jose, CA 95118-1557 PHONE: 408-978-8200 FAX: 408-978-8964 9705060110 970501 PDR ADOCK 05000324 P PDR Akron, OH Silver Spring, MD F1. Lauderdale. FL Talpel, Diwan infomstrics,Inc. W(SI)'
PteJ:216 864-8886 Phone 301589-2323 Phone 305 4841882 Phone: 02 388-5508 Silver Spnng, MO Norcross, GA Phone: 301589 2500 Phone- 404-263-3126
. te, ,
4 Repon No.: SIR-96-114 Revision No.: 1 )
Project No.: CPL-43Q l File No.: CPL-43Q-401 I December 1996 a -
t)
I Evaluation of the Design and Inspection History of Weld Overlay Repairs at e Brunswick Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 1
Preparedfor: l l
! D Carolina Power and Light Company l u
l l ;1 b Prepared by:
7 StmeturalIntegrity Associates,Inc.
San Jose, CA n
t.
Prepared by: Y Date: l 9Y H. L. Gustin, P. E.
l .
Date: '!7b7 M. E. Sauby C i
-, Reviewed by: Date: l 7hY
!'[ A(J. Giannuzzi //
} ,
Approved by; Y - er Date:
I 9I H. L. Gustin, P.E.
O i -l f StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.
.c v
., f. ,
i Table of Contents i Section Eage f
1.0 INTRODUCTION
. . . . ... . .... ... . . . 1-1 l.2 Purpose and Methodology . . . . . ..
.. . . .... 1-2 1.3 Conclusions .. . . .. .. . . . . . . 1-3 i
1 2.0 EVALUATION OF CATEGORY E (WELD OVERLAY REPAIRED)
. INSPECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .... . 2-1 ;
2.1 Regulatory Requirements . . . . .. ..... .... . ... .. .. . 2-1 2.2 Description of Evaluation Methodology . . . .. .......... . .... 2-2 2.3 l Conclusions . . . . . . . . . ... . . ....... . .. .. ... . 2-5
- q .
3.0 EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING WELD OVERLAY REPAIRS . . ... . 3-1 g~ 3.1 Summary of Design Basis Requirements ... . ..... .. . .... 3-1 3.2 Conclusions . . . .. . . . . . .... . . . . .. .... .. 3-6 l 1
4.0 HYD.TOGEN WATER CHEMISTRY AT BRUNSWICK . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 5.0 JUSTIFICATION FOR REVISED INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR CATEGORY E WELD OVERLAY REPAIRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . 5-1
6.0 REFERENCES
....... . . ... ... ... ........... .. . ....... 6-1
._ APPENDIX A Summary ofInspection Records - Unit 1 . . .... .. . A-0 APPENDIX B Summary ofInspection Records - Unit 2 . ..... . . B-0 e
APPENDIX C Weld Overlay As Built Data . . ... . .. .... . C-0
...l ll:
a t
I i
4 I
STR-96-114, Rev.1 i StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.
l l
l l List of Tables l 1
. Table Page .
1 2-1 Summary of Category E (Weld Overlay) Inspections 2-4 1
l l
l e.e i
'i l
-6 J l 1
.! l J
l "1
1
'1 l I' i l
l j ..
1 l
4 SIR-96-114, Rev. I il Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
A
l,
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Bnckground Weld overlays composed oflow carbon austenitic stainless steel weld metal deposited on the outside surface of standard grade austenitic stainless steel piping have been demonstrated to be highly resistant to the propagation ofintergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) in BWRs.
No cases where cracks have propagated significantly into such repairs have been observed at any operating nuclear plant, with some plants having weld overlay repairs which have been in service for 14 or more years. A few cases have been reported where cracking has extended slightly into a
the dilution zone, where crack arrest has occured. Hydrogen water chemistry in place at many plants has been shown to inhibit IGSCC initiation and growth of existing flaws in austenitic stainless steel components, including locations which have been repaired by application of weld
} overlays.
-4 7
j The inspection techniques developed and qualified by EPRI for examining the base metal under such weld overlay repairs have been shown to reliably detect flaws in the outer 25% of the base g
j metal wall and in the weld overlay volume.
Li NUREG-0313 Revision 2, Table 1 [1], which was issued in January 1988 with Generic Letter 88-01, defines an augmented inspection schedule for welds which are potentially susceptible to J
IGSCC. Locations which have been repaired by application of a conforming weld overlay repair are placed in NUREG-0313 Category E. This category requires volumetric inspection of the repair volume of each weld overlay repair every two refueling cycles. Such augmented
'! inspections have a significant impact on both outage schedule and cumulative personnel radiation
'i exposure. i 3
D i d
At the time that this document was issued, weld overlay repairs such as have been applied at Brunswick were not considered to be a Code-approved repair. Such repairs were considered in j
~
many cases to be interim repairs to IGSCC affected locations, with indeterminate service life. I
! I
.g SIR-96-114, Rev.1 1-1 f StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.
4 l 1,*,
L Successive inspections were required consistent with the ASME Section XI approach for i- -
operation with detected flaws which were shown to be acceptable for continued operation; that is, i -
j successive inspections to demonstrate that the flawed location had not degraded due to continued flaw propagation.
i l In the early 1980's, weld overlays were applied as interim repairs, with continued operation i following installation approved on a case by case basis. Since that time, there has been significant
~
. industry research and experience which demonstrates that such repairs can be considered to be permanent repairs, as documented in an EPRI-sponsored study prepared by Structural Integrity
[6]. The application of we overlay repairs on austenitic stainless steel locations was accepted as u
a Code approved repair in 1992, through the issuance of Section XI Code Case N-504 [2]. The I
w NRC participated in the development of the Code Case, and accepted the Code Case in Regulatory Guide 1.147 [5]. Consequently, weld overlay repairs such as have been applied to the
, Category E locations at Brunswick may now be considered to be permanent, Code compliant repairs, rather than temporary repairs.
1.2 Purpose and Methodology i
The purpose of the present report is to demonstrate that existing weld overlays at Brunswick 1
22 Units 1 and 2 have been volumetrically examined consistent with the requirements of the p governing regulatory guidance (NUREG-0313 Rev. 2 [1]) for several Category E augmented k inspection intervals, and that none of those inspections have identified any degradation of the design margins of the weld overlay repairs, due either to IGSCC propagation into the overlay U material or other mechanisms
)
To demonstrate this, inspection records for existing weld overlays were reviewed for each i;! augmented inspection performed subsequent to application of the individual weld overlay repair.
This review is discussed in Section 2, with detailed inspection results tabulated in Appendix A for
{ Unit I and Appendix B for Unit 2.
n.
a SIR-96-114, Rev.1 1-2 f StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.
l I* ,
l l
! 1
(
i The as-built dimensions and data for existing weld overlays were also reviewed. Weld overlays have been in service at Brunswick since 1983. Over the intervening time, the design basis for repair design has changed several times. The purpose of this review is to demonstrate that the existing weld overlays are adequate with regard to structural capability and materials compared to
' current design basis standards (NUREG-0313 Rev. 2 [1] and AShE Section XI Code Case N-504 [2]). In other words, the as-built weld overlay repairs would be acceptable if designed today to current standards.
i The adequacy of the weld overlay repairs compared to current standards is discussed in Section 3 I.) of this repon. l u
ri 3 The added assurance oflGSCC resistance provided by the implementation of a hydrogen water
- . s chemistry program such as is being implemented at Brunswick is discussed briefly in Section 4.
.j 1.3 Conclusions J
The reviews of Brunswick repair and inspection records conducted as a part of the present
] evaluation demonstrate the following:
u i a. The as-built existing weld overlay repairs provide structural adequacy which would meet current standards for such repairs.
P
.l ,
a l
- b. Effective inspections have been performed on existing weld overlay repairs, which demonstrate that the structural adequacy of the repairs has not been degraded over the life of the repair to date.
- c. The inspections also demonstrate that the degradation mechanism which
] a initially led to the repairs (IGSCC) is no longer active at the repaired locations, or at least is not propagating in the weld overlay repairs or in the outer 25% of the underlying base metal. Multiple inspections of each repair generally show no SIR-96-114, Rev.1 1-3 f StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.
.7:
} change from previous inspections. This demonstrates that the repaired locations may be considered to be passive with respect to further structural degradation.
I It is technically reasonable to concluce that a repair which has demonstrated no degradation over e three successive NUREG-0313 inspections, and which otherwise conforms to the requirements of
, the NUREG, can be considered to be static, with minimal risk of degradation or failure over a normal ISI interval. ASME Section XI, paragraph IWB-2420, for example, specifies that a location containing a flaw which has been shown to be acceptable for three successive augmented i_ intervals could be returned to a normalinspection interval. In the case of the weld overlay repairs
_ at Brunswick, the equivalent of a Code acceptable repair (by Coce Case N-504 criteria [3]) was a applied to the flaw, and three or more augmented inspections have been performed.
F l
_ The conclusion of the above is that continued inspections of Category E weld overlay repaired
_ locations on the augmented schedule defined in NUREG-0313 Rev. 2 does not significantly
. enhance the safety of the repaired location. Continued inspection at the standard ASME Section
. XIinterval and extent will provide sufficient assurance of the integrity of these locations, since the a repairs are passive with respect to continued degradation.
3 This conclusion applies only to those Category E locations where a conforming (NUREG-0313 Rev. 2 " Standard" weld overlay) weld overlay repair is in place. Consideration of Category E L locations where mitigation by a stress improvement process (IHSI or MSIP) is in place are outside of the scope of the present review.
F M
F a ;
, SIR-96-114, Rev. I 1-4 h StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.
- 4. 7,e -. '
L, J
i
] 2.0 - EVALUATION OF CATEGORY E (WELD OVERLAY REPAIRED)
- .: INSPECTIONS 4 !' 1
) l The objective of this evaluation is to defme the extent (type of exam, extent, technique) of each L examination performed on weld overlays which are currently in sewice at Brunswick Units 1 and j ;j 2. The evaluation is to confirm that the extent of the examinations would have adequately detected and characterized IGSCC per NUREG-0313 Rev. 2 ['l]. A second objective is to i 4
9 , confirm that no degradation of the weld overlays has been observed. ,
- J . 1 1
l[y Weld overlay repairs were applied to locations in the Recirculation Systems of Brunswick Units 1 l and 2 during several of the outages for these two units between 1983 and 1990. Weld overla'ys were applied to locations in several pipe sizes in the Recirculation Systems, including 4"
~
i recirculation bypass lines,12" risers,22" ring header, and 28" recirculation suction and discharge j 3a piping. The affected 12" riser piping has been replaced on both Units 1 and 2 with corrosion 3
resistant nuclear grade stainless steel, and the weld overlays in such piping are therefore no longer 9 '
j j in service.
l {g { Weld overlay repairs continue in service in the 4" recirculation bypass lines, 22" ring headers, and
,;, - 28" piping on both units. These weld overlays have all received surface improvement to enhance i inspectability, in accordance with EPRI guidelines [3]. There are a total of 10 weld overlays in
!g sewice on Unit 1 piping (four on 4" NPS locations, one on a 22" NPS location, and five on 28"
) ii NPS locations), and 14 weld overlays in sewice on Unit 2 piping (four on 4" NPS locations, two on 22" NPS locations, and eight on 28" NPS locations).
.4 q 2.1 Regulatory Requirements i a
, q The governing regulatory document for such weld overlay repairs is NUREG-0313 Revision 2
. v:a
~
i [1]. This document defines the inspection requirements for such weld overlay repairs as follows:
1
( i
]
4 i
.. I
- SIR-96-114, Rev.1 2-1 h StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.
.. ..4, .
l 4
l "5.3.2.5 Inspection Schedule for IGSCC Category E Weldments i
Repaired and stress improved cracked weldments, IGSCC Category E should be ,
1 inspected at least once every 2 refueling cycles after repair. Approximately 1/2 of them should be inspected during the first refueling outage after repair. Ifit is j desired to operate for more than 2 fuel cycles with weld overlay reinforcement l
repairs, the overlayed weldments should be inspected to ensure that the overlays will continue to provide the necessary safety margin. For standard and designed
]'
overlays meeting the requirements of section 4.0, the inspection method should l provide positive assurance that cracks have not progressed into the overlay. It is l
!J l also desirable that the inspection procedure be capable of detecting cracks that I tci i
originally were deeper that 75% of the original wall thickness, or that have grown l
.A l to be deeper than 75% of the original wall thickness. Ultrasonic inspections I
- 7 should be pe-formed using a procedure that has been demonstrated to be reliable
=
i and effective, and should be performed by personnel that have been trained and 7
j qualified in the specific methods for inspections of overlays."
i j 2.2 Description of Evaluation Methodology
,, Examination records for existing Category E weld overlay repairs were provided by CP&L for
-. review [4]. SI has reviewed the inspection records provided for existing Brunswick weld overlay repairs for inspections performed since weld overlay application.
i In some cases, a thin, two layer weld overlay was initially applied to repair observed axially
] oriented fiaws. Such repairs have been upgraded in most cases by CP&L to meet the requirements for a " Standard" weld overlay as defined in NUREG-0313 Revision 2 [1].
". ]
Following weld overlay application and upgrading, CP&L performed ultrasonic inspections of the
, as-applied weld overlay volume and the outer 25% of the underlying pipe wall to monitor for any evidence of degradation of the weld overlay repair due to continuing IGSCC or other l
1 SIR-96-114, Rev. I 2-2 f StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.
, ,a *.
e j mechanisms. Inspections subsequent to 1986 were conducted using techniques which were j qualified for IGSCC detection and sizing at the EPRI NDE Center. Such inspections were f! consistent with applicable regulatory requirements.
4 C The inspections performed for each weld are summarized in Table 2.1, which lists the welds with i
existing weld overlay repairs, the years in which inspections were conducted, and the results of !
l such inspections. This last column notes that although multiple inspections have been conducted l l .
on each affected weld over the various years of service of each repair (3-5 inspections per weld to I
date is typical), in no case has any evidence of the degradation of the design margins of any weld overlay repair been detected, nor has any evidence of continued IGSCC propagation into the weld overlay repairs been identified. In general, these inspections included examination of the outer 25% of the underlying case metal, on a best effons bases, and identified no new flaws or continued propagation of existing flaws in this base material.
I l
The detailed inspection history of each weld, including identification of the years in which
] inspections were performed, inspection techniques used, and discussion ofall inspection results, is
, provided in Appendix A for Unit I and Appendix B for Unit 2. This data was compiled from j inspection records provided by CP&L [4].
E p
b
'l
.n
- .]
.1.;
p J'
h a
e SIR-96-114, Rev.1 2-3 h StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.
. . 7,7 Table 2-1 Summary of Category E (Weld Overlay) Inspections Weld Number Weld Overlav Inspection Years Weld Overlav IGSCC Indications ?
I B32-RR A- 1 1987,1990,1995. No s
I B32-RR A-10 1987,1988,1993,1996 No
] 1 IB32-RR 22-AM-3 1987,1988,1993,1996 No I B32-RR A-4 1985,1987 (After Rework), 1990,1995 No
{ IB32 RR-28-A-14 1985 (Rework),1987(Rework),1988 No
, 1993,1996 1B32-RR-28-A-15 1985 (Rework),1987 (Rework),1988, No 1990,1995.
a 1 B32-RR-4-B-1 1987,1990,1995, No
} IB32-RR-4 B-10 1987,1988,1993,1996 No
.s I B32-RR-28-B-4 1985,1987(Rework), 1990,1995 No I 1B32-RR-28-B-8 1985 (Rework),1987 (Rework),1988, No v 1993,1996 1 2B32-RR-4-A 1 1986,1989,1994. No
.L 2B32-RR-4-A-11 1986,1988,1991,1996. No
" i 2B32-RR-22AM-5 1986,1989,1994. No .
.]. 1 4
) 2B32-RR A-4 1986,1988.1991,1996. No l 2B32 RR-28-A-8 1986,1989,1994. No l
2;. 2B32-RR-28-A-13 1986,1989.1991,1994 No l l
_ 2B32 RR-4-B-1 1986,1989,1994. No 2B32-RR-4-B-11 1986,1988.1991,1996. No 2B32-RR-22-BM-1 1986,1988,1991,1996. No
,! 2B32-RR-28-B-3 1986,1988,1991,1994,1996. No 2B32-RR-28-B-4 1986.1988,1991,1996. No a., 2B32-RR-28-B-5 1986,1988,1991,1996. No 2B32-RR-28-B-10 1990,1994. No El bd 2B32-RR-28-B-11 1986,1989,1994. No l l
- i j i
- . d 1 l
..I SIR-96-114, Rev,1 2-4 f StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.
- l l
I
,7. ..
~!
-l r f 2.3 Conclusions t t
The conclusion of the review summarized above and reported in detail in Appendices A and B is
{
that each weld overlay-repaired Category E location in service at Brunswick Units 1 and 2 has l
.I ,
been inspected several times over the service life of the repair using ultrasonic techniques and l
} inspection criteria ar.d frequencies which meet the requirements of the governing regulatory ;
'1 I' guidance (NUREG-0313 Revision 2) and applicable EPRI guidance [3]. With only one exception l . (weld 2B32-RR-28-B-10), Category E weld overlay repairs within the scope of this evaluation j have been inspected at least three times using qualified methods. This weld is scheduled for its j
- ] third inspection. None of these inspections have identified any evidence of weld overlay repair l J.
~
degradation due to IGSCC or other mechanisms over the life of the repairs to date.
q it This conclusion supports the further conclusion that any underlying flaws at these repair locations j are passive at present, and the existing repairs may therefore be considered to have permanently mitigated the degradation mechanism at the repaired location.
a a b-5 b.
1 A
!.1 i
I SIR-96-114, Rev.1 2-5 StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.
- i. '
! 3.0 EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING WELD OVERLAY REPAIRS 1
Weld overlay repairs applied to stainless steel piping locations today are expected to meet the
., requirements of ASME Section XI Code Case N-504 [2] and NUREG-0313 Revision 2 [1]. This NUREG and its implementing Generic Letter 88-01, are the governing regulatory documents for such repairs, and the Code Case presents the requirements for the design and installation of such
~
repairs to be met in order to consider such repairs as " Code" repairs. Together these documents
, summarize experience gained by the industry over several years in the repair oflGSCC induced flaws by the weld overlay technique. The NUREG was issued with Generic Letter 88-01 in January 1988. The Code Case was issued in 1992, and has been accepted by the NRC in a
r E
The majority of the weld overlay repairs currently in service on Brunswick piping were applied prior to the issuance of these guidance documents. It is therefore worthwhile to evaluate the weld overlays to the requirements of NUREG-0313 and Code Case, N-504 to demonstrate that the existing repairs meet the intent of the governing documents, even though the repairs pre-date the documents by several years.
d In the following section 3.1, the weld overlay repair design and installation requirements of n NUREG-0313 Revision 2 and Code Case N-504 are summarized, as the basis for evaluation of the existing weld overlay repairs. Inspection requirements which are applicable subsequent to 7
c repair application are discussed in Section 2.0 of the present report, and are not repeated here.
3.1 Summary of Design Basis Requirements The design requirements applicable to weld overlay design contained in Code Case N-504 are q summarized below. Although the weld overlays currently in service at Brunswick were not u"
designed using the Code Case as the design basis, the design of these overlays will be compared to the Code Case requirements, to assess the adequacy of the repairs under current standards.
5l I
, STR-96-114, Rev.1 3-1 h StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.
- j. ,
The pertinent paragraphs from N-504, and, where applicable, NUREG-0313 Rev. 2 are referenced following each requirement.
- 1. Design Basis: Weld overlay repairs are to be designed (with regard to thickness) in accordance with the requirements of ASME Section XI, IWB-3640. [N-504:(f)(1);
NUREG-0313: 4.1].
- \
Compliance: Weld overlays currently in service at Brunswick were either designed initially using
^ IWB-3640 Tables, or were upgraded subsequent to initial installation v::ing IWB-3640 as the design basis. NUREG-0313 Revision 2 endorses IWB-3640 as the appropriate basis for weld l u
overlay design. The NUREG endorses the 1983 Edition with Addenda through Winter 1985, and I the 1986 or later Editions as the appropriate design basis for weld overlay repairs. Some weld
.c overlays at Brunswick were designed to the Winter 1983 Addenda. The principal difference
] between Winter 83 and Winter 85 Addenda was the addition of tables to address low toughness weldments in Winter 85. This does not apply to repairs performed at Brunswick, so for evaluation of design bases, the two addenda are equivalent.
, stainless steel applied 360 degrees around the circumference of the pipe, and shall be i o deposited in accordance with a qualified welding procedure specification.. " [N-504:(b);
n NUREG-0313; 2.1.l(2)].
u
- Compliance
- The modification records provided by CP&L [4] indicate that weld overlay material 4
was specified as 308L weld material, which would meet the above recuirement. The purpose of this requirement is to insure that the weld overlay repair is of a material which is highly resistant to continued crack propagation by an IGSCC mechanism. NUREG-0313 identifies 308L material y as highly resistant. Weld overlay repairs were applied using a qualified welding procedure a"
specification.
b
, SIR-96-114, Rev.1 3-2 h StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.
l I 3. Initial Surface Examination: Prior to weld overlay application, the pipe surface is to be i examined by the dye penetrant method, and any unacceptable indications repaired. [N- 4 504:(c); NUREG-0313; 4.4.2 para. 3].
Cor.ipliance: The purpose of this requirement is to identify end repair any through wall cracks
.! which could produce a steam blow-out during the repair welding. Such blow-outs could produce l
porosity in the weld overlay repair until they were sealed, possibly reducing the integrity of the
~I weld overlay repair. Data provided by CP&L indicates that such examinations were generally performed, although detailed descriptions of such examinations, especially on older repairs, are ,
1 not available. Such examinations may not have been performed on every early repair. However, )
the performance or lack thereof of a base metal PT examination does not affect the current *
- 3. ,
adequacy of the repairs.
7 4.
i
.. g Delta ferrite content: An effective weld overlay consists of at least two welded layers i having as-deposited delta ferrite content of at least 7.5 FN. [N-504:(e), NUREG-0313:
4.4.2 para. 3].
t d Compliance: The purpose of this requirement is to assure that weld overlay material which is considered as structural is also highly resistant to IGSCC, so that degradation of the repair design
- j adequacy due to continued crack propagation is not expected. When delta ferrite of the first r welded layer did not meet the 7.5 FN requirement, that layer was not considered to be part of the design thickness of the overlay. Weld overlay repairs at Brunswick have included measurement of delta ferrite in accordance with this requirement.
I 5. Design Basis: The repair is to be designed to repair an underlying defect which extends
.1 d
360 degrees around the pipe circumference and through the original pipe wall. (See also "j_, item 8 below). [N-504:(f)(1); NUREG-0313:4.4.1].
T 4
I
,J SIR-96-114, Rev.1 3-3 h StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.
. m.' .
i i
Compliance: Most repairs at Bmnswick were either initially designed or subsequently upgraded to this design basis. Existing weld overlay repairs are consistent with the design assumption of an initial 360* through-wall flaw except as noted in item 8 below. No credit for underlying base metal is required in any of these weld overlay repairs.
r;
} 6. Design length and repair transition angle: The repair is to extend at least 0.75 4t
.I beyond the ends of the underlying flaws in each direction. The transition angle of the repair to the base metal is to be no greater than 45 degrees. [N-504:(f)(1); NUREG-0313:
]' '
, not specifically addressed].
i~
u Compliance: The purpose of this requirement is to assure that the repair is of sufficient length to ,
e 1 allow for effective load transfer between the base metal and the weld overlay. The transition angle limitation is to prevent the introduction of a stress concentration at the toe of the weld 1 overlay. The Brunswick repair lengths meet this requirement. Representative design sketches for the repairs include the 45 degree transition angle limit, but detailed information for each repair was not available. However, it has been common practice to provide a 45' transition angle to the base material since 1982. This angle does not affect inspection requirements for Category E welds. l l
a 7. Welding Process: Flux shielded processes should not be used for the weld overlay repairs.
- 1 [N-504:(g)(2); NUREG-0303: 4.1 para.4].
L 3 Compliance: This requirement insures that the as-deposited weld metal has adequate toughness.
Weld overlay repairs at Brunswick were applied using the automatic gas tungsten arc welding
! (GTAW) process, which has been shown to produce a high toughness weldment, and is in compliance with the governing documents.
ily
- 8. Repair of axial flaws: Where four or fewer axially oriented flaws are identified, the required minimum reinforcement consists of two welded layers with delta ferrite content of at least 7.5 FN. [N-504:(f)(3); NUREG-0313:4.4.2].
SIR-96-114, Rev.1 3-4 f StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.
Compliance: This alternate design approach applies to four weld overlay repairs on Brunswick Unit 2. No degradation of these repairs due to continued crack propagation or other mechanism has been observed.
- 9. Residual stress calculation: Residual stresses due to weld overlay application are to be j j considered in flaw growth calculations associated with design life predictions for weld overlay repairs. [N-504:(g)(2); NUGEG-0313: Appendix A].
1q '
Compliance: Flaw growth calculations are included in the design life predictions when some portion of the original pipe material is considered in demonstrating stmetural adequacy, since the original piping material is susceptible to IGSCC. Such calculations may also be performed if the r
weld overlay material is not inherently resistant to IGSCC, such as would be the case for overlays applied using some nickel based alloys, for example. Neither of these cases applies to weld I
I overlay repairs at Brunswick.
~i
- j 10. Weld shrinkage evaluation
- Application of weld overlays will induce shrinkage at the repaired location, which can produce steady state secondary stresses at other, unrepaired
- j locatior.s. Such stresses are to be considered in evaluation of flaws in such unrepaired locations. [N-504:(g)(3); NUREG-0313: not specifically addressed).
Li e Compliance: Because Category E weld overlays at Brunswick were applied with the gas tungsten 3 arc welding (GTAW) process using high toughness weld material, no secondary stresses are required to be considered in the weld overlay design, consistent with the requirements of ASME Section XI, IWB-3640. Evaluation of unrepaired welds is outside the scope of the present report.
i l
- 11. Pressure tests: Completed repairs are to be pressure tested in accordance with the ci requirements ofIWA-5000. [N-504:(h); NUREG-0313: not specifically addressed).
_3 Compliance: Such tests have been performed several times over the life of the existing repairs at Brunswick, according to plant personnel.
. SIR-96-114, Rev.1 3-5 h StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.
- 12. Preservice examination: The Code Case requires that completed repairs be examined by i dye penetrant and ultrasonic methods. [N-504:(i); NUREG-0313: 5.2].
Compliance: Multiple ultrasonic examinations of these repairs (both preservice and inservice) have been performed, as discussed in Section 2 of this report. PT examination of the completed i surface of the repair may not have been performed in all cases, since such examination was generally not a requirement at the time of the repair. The performance or omission of a preservice j ,
PT does not have any effect on the acceptability of repairs which have been in service for several i
years as of the date of this report, and this information is included for completeness only.
i~
3.2 Conclusions F
Detailed repair histories for each weld overlay in service are shown in Appendix C, Table C-1 for Unit 1, and Table C-2 for Unit 2. These tables show design and as-built dimensions, delta ferrite measurement results, and repair upgrading activities for each weld overlay repair. For a typical
, Standard weld overlay repair (as defined in the previous section, item 5), the typical weld overlay
. , thickness is about 1/3 of the component wall thickness (based upon the minimum acceptable wall
_.c thickness from Table IWB-364! 1 of Section XI), and the typical length is taken as 1.5 [Rt ,
. consistent with Code Case N-504. These tables show that Category E weld overlays (except for d the four two layer leakage barrier overlays on Unit 2) meet the typical dimensions which would p result from application ofN-504. The four leakage barrier overlays meet the two layer criterion 3 of N-504 for this type of overlay.
The discussion in this section shows that the existing repairs at Brunswick Units 1 and 2 meet the intent of the design requirements and most of the supplemental testing requirements of Code Case N-504, even though that Code Case was not in existence at the time of repair application. In other words, if repairs for these locations were to be designed today, the designs would not differ
^
appreciably from the as-built repairs currently in service.
- SIR-96-114, Rev.1 3-6 h StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.
. 7, . - . ,
4.0 HYDROGEN WATER CHEMISTRY AT BRUNSWICK NUREG-0313 Rev. 2 recognizes that the potential for contmued degradation of a location with an IGSCC defect is significantly reduced where an effective hydrogen water chemistry program is cb maintained. This acknowledgment results in allowing the possibility for reduced inspection frequency compared to the standard inspection frequencies for various weld categories, where ,
HWC is maintained. The NUREG states that:
r3 -
1 J
"5.3.3 Inspection Schedules 'with HWC 4
e4 Ifimproved water chemistry control, including hydrogen additions is implemented, f the time schedule for inspections may be extended. Although specific details of such extensions will be evaluated on a case by case basis, it is anticipated that 4 periods between inspections could be lengthened by about a factor of two for category B, C, D, and E weldments." I ij The fact tha.t Bmnswick has initiated and is maintaining an HWC program qualitatively supports the position that degradation of the existing weld overlay repairs is not likely to occur as a result oflGSCC propagation into the weld overlay. Effective HWC inspection has been demonstrated a
d to arrest or greatly retard crack propagation in susceptible Type 304 stainless steel in the BWR.
p IGSCC resistant material such as the Type 308L weld metal used in the weld overlay repairs at
" Brunswick Units 1 and 2 will be even more resistant in the presence of HWC.
I m
ra
- SIR-96-II4, Rev.1 4-1 h StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.
1 i, . *
- j l
l J
5.0 JUSTIFICATION FOR REVISED INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR CATEGORY E WELD OVERLAY REPAIRS i
The above discussion demonstrates that the identified Category E weld overlay repairs (in their i d
as-built condition) currently in service on Brunswick Unit I and 2 recirculation piping meet the _
]
requirements for classification as " Standard Weld Overlays" as defined in Section 4.4.1 of j
,l NUREG-0313 Revision 2 (except for four repairs on Unit 2, which meet Section 4.4.2 " Design i
. Overlays" for repair of axial flaws). Although NUREG-0313 Rev. 2 may not have been the basis for initial weld overlay design, weld overlays have been upgraded to this level during their service life. The design basis flaw associated with the " Standard Weld Overlay"is a 360 degree j circumferentially oriented IGSCC flaw extending through the original pipe wa!! thickness. This M
ij type of weld overlay takes no credit for structural adequacy of the original pipe wall in the repair location. Existing Category E weld overlay repairs at Brunswick in their as-built condition, would j generally meet the design and material requirements of Code Case N-504 [2], if they were being ,
designed today.
I d
.. The materials used for the Category E weld overlay repairs (308 L weld material with 0.035%
3 carbon max and high as deposited delta ferrite) at Brunswick are considered to be highly resistant j to IGSCC, according to NUREG-0313 Revision 2, paragraph 2.2.l(2). The delta ferrite content d of the first layer of each weld overlay was measured following application and confirmed to be a greater than 7.5 FN before the layer was considered to contribute to the design thickness of the repair.
4 The material data for the weld overlays confirms the IGSCC resistance of the repairs, and demonstrates that the design basis thickness of these repairs will not be degraded over the life of
.I '
the repair due to IGSCC propagation into the weld overlay material. The implementation of a
. hydrogen water chemistry system on both Brunswick units adds assurance to this conclusion.
HWC has been demonstrated to be effective in mitigating crack growth even in susceptible weld sensitized Type 304 stainless steel.
i SIR-96-114, Rev.1 5-1 { StructurallategrityAssociates,Inc.
..-. ~ . _ . _ - _ . _ _ _. _ ___. _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _.
,,~, .
4 ,
i
- Volumetnc exammation of each weld overlay volume and a portion of the underlying piping l material has been performed using ultrasonic techniques which have been qualified for detection ofIGSCC. Each weld overlay has been examined multiple times, on an inspection frequency l .
consistent with the requirements of NUREG-0313 Revision 2 for Category E welds. Individual j welds have generally been examined three or more times over the life of the individual repair to date. None of the examinations have revealed any indication of flaw propagation into the weld a '
1 overlay repair or within the outer 25% of the component base metal. Some of the repairs have s
] '
. been in service for in excess of twelve years, with no indication of weld overlay degradation.
t
! r
.' The conclusion of the above discussion is that them is no active mechanism present which is likely l to lead to degradation of the weld overlay structural margin in the future. Therefore, l .q{] consideration of these repairs as permanent mitigation of the original mechanism (IGSCC) at the repair locations isjustified. Such credit is afforded to nuclear grade replacement materials. Weld
, NG materials in the BWR environment. Augmented inspection of these locations therefore adds i - little further assurance of the integrity of these repairs after several such inspections have been 4
i
! , completed. Returning these Category E welds to the original .ISI program with regard to 4
5
)3 T
inspection frequency and extent is technicallyjustified, and does not result in a reduction in plant j l
j 3 safety.
i 1
l
. O i e
- Q j ,
j 1
e L
.)
! l.,
- u i
j 4 1
StructuralIntegr!!y Associates, Inc.
. SIR-96-114, Rev.1 5-2
. . . ~ - . . . - .
- -). ,
]. .
1
6.0 REFERENCES
-1. NUREG-0313 Revision 2 " Technical Report on Material Selection and Processing ,
Guidelines for BWR Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping", January,1988.
4 ij
- 2. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, Code Case N-504, " Alternative Rules for Repair of Class 1,2 and 3 Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping", April 1992.
, I
Report, August 1986.
I
. 4.. Carolina Power & Light Inspection and Fabrication records for weld overlay repairs
~
applied on Brunswick Units 1 and 2 Recirculation Piping, 1983 - 96.
n U 5. Regulatory Guide 1.147. " Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability" Revision 11, October 1994.
F
- 6. StructuralIntegrity Associates," Justification for Extended Weld-Overlay Design Life",
y EPRI NP-7103-D Topical Report, January 1991.
ib 7 '
d a
d R
.I-:
t 4
l,
.A
'i l'
I STR-96-114, Rev.1 6-1 f StructuralIntegrityAssociates,Inc.
l l
4 4
~?
l i
)
APPENDIX A
... Summary ofInspection Records - Unit I
.s.
j 4
n-j t' t
1 d
d J
7 ..
J
'l 4 .!
,f
.t.
'.A.}
1
, SIR-96-114, Rev.1 A-0 i
?
E
/
c-
~
ce; _J l' . P * ~1 "M W i_, I 9 I' (1 ___ .; _.m :
_ . ,J Table A-1 .
I' ISI Results for Weld Overlays in Brunswick Unit 1 Weld ID Year Inspec- Inspection Method Results Comments Overlay tion Applied Year iB32-RR-4-A-1 1987 1987 PT No Recordable Indications Performed on stuface after wcld overlay reduction, prior to UT examination Pipe to Weld-o-let UT No indications associated with . Examination only from downstream CPL-43Q-203
- Manual using 60* RL, IGSCC were recorded (pipe) side of weld due to cordiguration OD Creeping Wave, of the weld-o-let and 0* L , Thickness measurement:
Pipe wall 0.32", pipe plus overlay 0.64*
Weld overlay length 1.65*
1990 UT No indications associated with - Axial and circ scans done in both
. Manual using 60* RL IGSCC were recorded directions on each side of original weld and OD Creeping = Previous data reviewed-no significant Wave change noted 1995 UT No indications associated with . Axial and circ scans done in both
- Manual using 60* RL IGSCC were recorded directions on each side of original weld and OD Creepng Wave . Previous data reviewed-no significant change noted SIR-96-114, Rev.1 A-1
. 1
. .. , ,, . , .:-, .. r . , t
, m._
r
- t. ...= u_ . .
w > ~ -.i -
._. - - . _ . ._. .. .a Table A-1 Unit 1(continued) . .,
Weld ID Year inspec- Inspection Method Results Comments Overlay tion Applied Year 1 B32-RR-4-A-IU 1984 1984 PT Acceptable First layer, as welded Pipe to Weld-o-Ict UT No Recordable Indications Axial scans both directions, no circ scans
- Manual by 45* Shear performed CPL-13Q-204 1987 PT No Recordable Indications Perfonned on surface after weld overlay reduction, prior to UT examination UT No indications associated with Axial scan only on upstream (pipe) side of
- Manual using 60* RL IGSCC were recorded weld due to configuration of weld-o-let and OD Creeping Wave 1988 UT No indications associated with - Axial and circumferential scans, both
. Manual using 60* RL IGSCC were recorded directions and OD Creeping Previous data reviewed Wave . Weld dimensions Pipe wall 0.35", pipe plus overlay 0.75*
Weld overlay length 1.5" 1993 UT No Recordable Indications Axial and circumferential scans, both Manual using 60* RL directions and OD Creeping Wave 1996 UT No recordable Indications - Axial and circumferential scans, both
- Manual using 60* and directions 70* RL - Previous data was reviewed prior to examination
. No changes noted StR-96-114, Rev.1 A-2
um.
- n. w , s.u
- / :
c,.
e.
w d .a. .. 9.ma u_ . .u--. . . .
.,=.
Table A-1 Unit 1(continued) ,
Weld ID Year Inspec- Inspection Method Results Comments Oserlay tion Applied Year iB32-RR-22-AM-3 1987 1985 UT No Recordable Indications ID geometry, roe mnd counterbore, reported Manual using 45* Shear above recordable evel. Prior UT data and Valve to pipe Prior to radiographs reviewed for resolution. No scan of overlay valve side due to configuration.
CPL-43Q-205 1987 PT No Recordable Indications Performed on surface aDer wrld crown March reduction, prior to UT examination Prior to Overlay UT IGSCC type indication,3.7* tong, .
- Smart UT"also showed inside surface root
. " Smart UT"and manus! 30% thru wall, upstream of wrid and counterbore geometry on upstream side sizing and confirmation about 0.25*. Circumferential with of weld.
using 60* end 70* RL axial components. . No examination on downstream side of and 45* Shear weld.
1987, PT No Recordable Indications Performed on surface afler weld overlay April reduction, prior to UT examination UT No indications associated with . Axial and cire scans both directions on both
. " Smart UT"using 60* IGSCC were recorded sides of the wrid RL and OD Creeper . " Smart UT"showed non-relevant
. Manual using 0* L indications both sides ofori8inal weld
. Wall thickness profile report Pipe wall 1.l", Pipe plus overlay 2.0" Wcld overlay length 6 625" 1988 UT No indications associated with Previous data was reviewed
. Manual using 60* RL IGSCC were recorded and OD Creeping Wave 1993 UT No indications associated with Non-relevant in(ications observed with tv th
. " Smart 2000" using 60* IGSCC were recorded scarch units.
RL and OD Creeper 1996 UT No indications associated with - Non-relevant indications observed with
.
- Smart 2000* using 60* IGSCC were recorded ' both search units RL and OD Creeping - Previous data was reviewed prior Wave to examination
. No changes noted SIR-96-114, Rev.1 A-3
L. d C3 [.. ..j
~
. b1_2.3 k.] I .-- U 'M , ~ . . . . E" .
Tr:ble A-1 Unit 1(continued) ,
Wekt ID Year inspec- Inspectica Method Results Comments Ov triey tion A ptslied Year I B32-RR-28-A-4 1985 1985 UT . . " Smart UT" detected 13 . Circumferentialindications estimated to be
. " Smart UT"using 45* indications associated with 20 to 30% thru wall. Allindications on Elbow to Pipe Prior to Shear IGSCC ( 5-cire,8-axial) upstream (elbow) side of weld overlay . Manual using 45* Shear . 7 of theindications also found . Some upstream inspections limited due to CPL-43Q-206 by manualinspection pipe restraints
. Counterbore and root geometry, and non-relevant indications attributed to fill off also recorded
}
. Previous examination data and radiography reviewed prior to fmal resolution 1985 PT No Recordable Indications . First layer - as welded (weld data sheet)
. PT performed on surface after weld overlay After reduction, prior to lit overlay UT No Recordable Indications . Axial and cire scans in both directions on
. Manual using 45' RL cach side of the weld and 60* RL, and O' L . Thickness data same as weld data sheet, Overlay length 3.5*
1987 1987 PT No Recordable Indications Performed on surface aller weld overlay Rework reduction, prior to UT examination UT . No indications associated with a Non-relevant indications observed on both
. " Smart UT" using 60* IGSCC were recorded sides oforiginal ueld RL and OD Creeping
- Manual exam detected threc . Wall thickness profile report:
Wave laminar indications,0.7S to Pipe wall I.22*, pipe plus overlay I .85*
cibow side of weld, attributed to lack of bond 1990 UT No indications associated with . Non-relevant indecations observed on both
. " Smart UT"using 60* IGSCC were recorded sides of original utid RL and OD Creeping - Previous data reviewed - no significant Wave changes noted 1996 UT No indications associated with . Non-relevant indications observed on both
. " Smart UT" using 60* IGSCC were recorded sides of original weld RL and OD Creeping . Previous data reviewed prior to examination Wave . No changes noted SIR-96-114, Rev.1 ,
A-4
.%. ~ , ,-. .., -
- r. , ,. , , .,
Qr y ., 3- .- r .i se .. a .
..u; _ c.. .L w - w w - - - . e-Table A-1 Unit 1(Continued) .
Weld ID Year Inspec. Inspection 141ethod Results Conuments Overlay thm Applied Year I D32-RR-28-A-14 1983 1983 PT No Test Report -
Valve to Elbow UT No Test Report
)
CPI 43Q-207 1985 1985 PT 5 crack-like indications, spaced by less Acceptable PT aller welJ repair Rework than 1/16*,totallength 1.l*
IJT No recordable indications . Recorded ID surface and overlay edge geon. !
. " Smart tT using 45' RL and non<elevant indications attributed to lift - i and 60* RL and couplant noise.
. klanual using O' L - No exams from overlay CL to the upstream side of the overlay due to track and scanner limitations j
. Wali thickness data: >
Elbow wall 1.915"(ave), overlay 0.34"(ave),
ove lay length 5.0" i 1987 1987 PT No recordable indications Performed on surface aller weld overlay reduction, Rework prior to UT examination tTF . No indications associated with . Region not inspectable by automatic system near
. " Smart IT using 60* RL IGSCC were recorded 4" hne, inspected by manual techniques and OD Creeping Wave . Indication interpreted as " inner bead . laminar indication found by manual O' L ,
. klanual using 45* RL and lack of fusion"found( 20"long, inspection 60* RI, OD Creeping 0.15" tlns wall) . Wall thickness profile report: '
Wave, and O' L . Two "liminar" indications, about Elbow wall 1.50", overlay plus elbow 235*, overlay 0.5* from OD surface, interpreted as length 53" lack of bond.
1983 UT . No indications associated with . Previous examination data reviewed
. hianual using 45' and 60* IGSCC were recorded . Imk of fusion indication has exhibited no growth RL and OD Creeping . Indication interpreted as " inner head i Wave lack of fusion" (20"long and remainingligament 0.42")
i 1993 iTF = No indications associated with " Smart 2000" also recorded non-relevant indicatims
. ' Smart 2000" using 60* IGSCC were recorded RL and OD Creeping . Dree previously recorded ncn- 1 Wave Ceometric indications recor&d
. Elanual using 60* RL and ,
OD Creeping Wave t
1996 UT . No indications associated with . Non-relevant indications observed with Imth imits
. ' Smart 2000" using 60* IGSCC were recorded . He two indication exhibited no significant
- RL and OD Creeping . Two previously recorded non- changes Wave geometric indications recerded . Previous data was reviewed prior to examination
- klanual using 60' RL an!
OD Creeping V are t
i t
l SIR-96-114, Rev. I A-5 !
. , ihi E T ?.1 ; I L_ ] _. L2J m..
- . - y!
Table A-1 Unit 1(continued) .
Weld ID Year Inspec- Inspection Method Results Comments Overlay tion Applied Year iIl32-RR-28-A-15 1983 1983 PT No test report Elbow to pipe UT No test report 1985 1985 PT No Recordable Indications Performed on surface aner wild overlay CPI 43Q-208 Rework reduction, prior to UT UT No Recordable Indications . Recorded ID surface geometry and non-
. " Smart UT" using 45* relevant indications attrauted to lift oft and RL and 60* RL couplant noise.
. Manual using 45' RL = Previous examination data reviewed and 60* RL, and O' L . Wall thickness profile report:
Elbow 1.505*, cibow plus overlay 1.905" Pipe 1.412", pipe plus overlay 1.824" Weld overlay length 6*
1987 1987 PT No Recordable Indications Petformed on surface aner weld overlay Rework reduction, prior to UT examination UT No indications associated with - Non-relevant indications recorded both sides
. " Smart UT" using 60* IGSCC were recorded oforiginal weld RL and OD Creeping . Wall thickness profile report Wave Elbow 1.505*(ave), cibow plus overlay 1.8"(ave)
Pipe 1.412*(ave), pipe plus overlay 1.85*(ave)
Overlay length 7.75" total'6.25" wan dist L
1988 UT Ne indications associated with No indications were recorded during presious
. Manual using 60* RL IGSCC were recorded outage and OD Creeping Wave 1990 UT No indications associated with . Compared to previous data - no significant
. " Smart UT' using 60* IGSCC were recorded changes noted. ,
RL and OD Creeping - Non-relevant indications noted Wave . Overlay length noted as 5.2*
1995 UT No indications associated with . Non-relevant indications noted
. " Smart 2000" using 60* IGSCC were recorded - Manual 45' shear examination of RL and OD Creeping longitudinal seams Wave SIR-96-114, Rev.1 A-6
u.u _ .M. u_. LQ 12_. L- '
- J 'l .J -- L --
-e i Table A-1 Unit 1(continued) .
Weld ID Year Inspec- Inspection Method Results Comments Overlay tion Applied Year i B32-RR-4-B-I 1987 1987 PT No Recordable Indications Performed on surface after weld overlay reduction, prior to UT examination Weld-o-Ict to pipe UT One indication associated with . Additional examinations made using CPL-43Q-209 Manual using 60* RL, IGSCC recorded using 60* RL OD Creeping Wave and O' L search OD Creeping Wave, on downstream (pipe) side of units.
and 0* L weld (2* long,0.56" remaining . Indication is circumferential and is not ligament) within the overlay material or the top 25% of the base material.
. Wall thickness profile report:
Pipe 0.35", pipe and overlay 0.75" Overlay length 1.75" 1990 UT One indication associated with . Indication identified in previous weld
. Manual using 60* RL IGSCC recorded using 60* RL overlay examination. No apparent and OD Creeping or. downstream (pipe) side of growth.
Wave weld . Indication is not within the overlay material or the top 25% of the basc material.
1995 UT No indications associated with The previously recorded planar indication
. Manual using 60 RI, IGSCC were recorded was not obseived during this examination OD Creeping Wave, and O' L SIR-96-i l4, Rev.1 A-7
_ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _-____g._
' " " d CO
~ '
La T. . T.haiu tOJ F' 'M M L ^I ' '
Table A-1 Unit 1(continued) -
S -l Weld ID Year Inspee- Inspection Method Results Comments Overlay tion Applied Year I B32-RR-4-B-10 1987 I987 PT No Recordable Indications Performed on surface after weld overlay reduction, prior to UT examination Weld-o-let to pipe UT One indication associated with . Additional examinations made using
- Manual using 60* RL, IGSCC recorded using 60* RL OD Creeping Wave and O' L search CPL-43Q-210 OD Creeping Wave, on upstream (weld-o-let) side of units.
and 0* L weld (0.75" long, remaining . Indication is circumferential and is not ligament 0.55") within the overlay material or the top 25% of the base material. i
. Wall thickness profile report Pipe 0.35", pipe and overlay 0.65" Overlay length I.5" 1988 UT One indication associated with - Indication was identified in previous
- Manual using 60* RL IGSCC recorded using 60* RL weld overlay examination. No apparent and OD Creeping on upstream (weld-o-let) side of growth.
Wave weld .
Indication is not within the overlay material or the top 25% of the base
. material.
1993 UT No Recordable Indications The previous recorded indication was Manual using 60* RL observed and not recordable per GE-UT-and OD Creeping 103, Rev.1. Previous data reviewed, no Wave significant changes.
1996 UT- No Recordable Indications Axial and Circumferential scans, both Manual using 60* RL directions and 70* RL - Previous data was reviewed prior to examination
- No changes noted !
i r
i l
SIR-96-114, Rev.1 A-8
. .-._.___._m._-. .. _ _ _ .. _ .._.._ . _ . _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ - .
r- ~-
'------1 r-' ' 9
- r. ._,- --
t t
- u. '
- ^
- i
' ,*'i .
Table A-1 Unit 1(continued) -
Weld ID Year Inspec- Inspection Method Results Comments Overlay tion Applied Year 1 B32-RR-28-B-4 1985 1985 PT No Recordable Indications PT was performed on suiface aller weld overlay reduction, prior to UT examination Elbow to pipe I UT No Recordable Indications CPL-43Q-211
- Manualusing45* and Wall thickness data same as overlay data 60* RL and 0* L sheet, overlay length 3.5*
1987 1987 PT No Recordable Indications Pedormed on sudace aller weld overlay .
Rewoik reduction, prior to UT examination UT - No indications associated - Recorded non-relevant indications on
. " Smart UT" using 60* with IGSCC were recorded both sides oforiginal weld.
RL and OD Creeping - One laminar indication - No indications were recorded within the !
Wave recorded with 0* L almut overlay material or the top 25% of the
- Manual using0* L 1.3* frem OD sudace base material. !
- Wall thickness profile report !
Pipe plus overlay (Ave) 1.85*
Elbow plus overlay (Ave) 2.062*
Overlay length 9.25" 1990 UT No indications associated with - Recorded non-relevant indications on
- " Smart UT" wing 60* IGSCC were recorded both sides oforiginal weld.
RL and OD Creeping a Previous data reviewed, no significant Wave changes noted.
- Wall thickness profile ;
l Pipe 1.2", pipe plus overlay 1.85*
Elbow 1.325", elbow plus overlay 2.0" i Overlay length 7.l*
1996 UT No indications associated with - Non-relevant indications observed with i
. " Smart UT" using 60* IGSCC were recorded both units I RL and OD Creeping - Previous data was reviewed prior to I Wave examination
. No changes noted. t i
i 6
f i
SIR-96-i l4, Rev.1 A-9 l
, rr .
....; .d m w L' "y
Table A-1 Unit 1(continued) .
b Weld ID Year Inspec- Inspection Method Results Comments Overlay tion Applied Year I B32-RR-28-B-B 1983 1983 P' No test report Valve to cibow UT No test report 1985 1985 PT No Recordable Indications PT was performed on surface afict weld overlay CPIA3Q-211 Rewo:L reduction. prior to uT UT . No recordabic indications by . Recorded ID surface and overlay edge
. " Smart UT"using 45* " Smart UT" geometry and non-relevant indications and 60* RL . One indication detected by 0* L- attri'auted to hil ofTand couplant noise.
. Manual using 0* L wave was interpreted as an . No exams with " Smart UT" from overlay inclusion in the base metal CL to the downstream side of the overlay inlow the overlay on the c! bow. due to track and scanner limitations
. Thickness measurement Elbow plus overlay 1.88*
Overlay length 5* (suitable to scan) 1987 1987 PT No Recordable Indications Performed on surface afler weld overlay Rewoik reduction, prior to UT examination UT No indications associated with . " Smart UT' recorded non-relevant
. "Smar1 UT" using 60* IGSCC were recorded indications on both sides oforiginal weld.
RL and OD Creeping . Wall thickness profile report:
Wave Elbow I A5*, elbow plus overlay 2.l*
. Manual using 0* L Overlay length 7.35*
1988 UT No indications associated with No indications reported in previous outage
. Manual using 60* RL IGSCC were recorded and OD Creeping Wave 1993 UT No indications associakd with Non-relevant inCications recorded with loth
. " Smart 2000* using 60* IGSCC were recorded scarch units ;
RL and OD Creeping Wave 19 % UT No indications associak-d with . Non-relevant indications observed with both
. " Smart 2000* using 60* IGSCC were recorded units RL and OD Creeping . Previous data was reviewed Wave . No changes noted SIR-96-114, Rev.1 A-10
. 'I . .
i i
i i
i 1
.a i
. . , 1 14 l
1 I
g APPENDIX B y Summary ofInspection Records - Unit 2
- ..e
'l.J 14' O
IJJ n
v; a
.2
.j eY SIR-96-114, Rev.1 B-0
-. ,-..., .... . . , . . . . . r .
. u..e .m.. - - a -
m -
Table B-1 .
ISI Results For Weld Overlays In Bainswick Unit 2 Weld ID Year Inspection Inspection Method Results Comments Overlay Year Applied 2B32-RR-4-A-1 1986 1986 PT Two "thru-wall" IGSCC Prior to indications were detected Pipe to Weld-o-let overlay UT No Recordable Indications locations and lengths of the "thru-wall" CPL-43Q-216
- Manual using 45* shear llaws could not be determined 1986 PT No Recordable Indications First layer - as welded (weld data sheet)
After overlay No Recordable Indications PT performed on surface after weld overlay reduction, prior to UT UT No indications associated with - No indications were recorded in the
- Manual using 60* RL, OD Creeping IGSCC were recorded overlay material or in the outer 25% of Wave and O* L the base metal.
Wall thickness profile report:
Pipeplusoverlay 0.768*(ave)
Weld overlay length 1.875" 1989 UT : ': cations associated with Previous data reviewed
- Manual using 60* RL and OD 10 were recorded - Wall thickness profile repent:
Creeping Wave Pipe wall-0.35", pipe plus oveilay 0 66" Weld oveslay length 2.0" 1994 UT No recordable indications were
- Manual using 60* RL and OD detected Creeping Wave SIR-96-ll4, Rev. I B-1
, , , .. , .. ., .. .- , . , , , , . . . ,.q , c:.
u .a *
- e.i
. . . . _ 44 6w.4J a %.= w.- -
Wrld ID Year Inspection Inspection Method Results Comments Overlay Yesr A pplied 21132-RR4A.11 1986 1986 Visual Leak was observed on the wrld- Visual about 0.625" long Prior to o-let side of this wcld Pipe to Weld +Ict overlay i
- Manual by 45* Shear and other attempt to size flaw CPL-43Q-226 transducers ,
1986 PT Multiple indications recorded in From wcld data sheets Aller second layer ofoverlay. Arca overlay acceptable afler repair No Recardable Indications PT performed on surface aner wcld overlay reduction, prior to UT UT No Recordable Indications
- Previously recorded IGSCC andicati,r. .us
. Manual using 60* RL,OD Creeping Wave not observed aner overlay and0*L - No indications were recorded in the overlay material or in the outer 25% of the base metal.
- ThicLness measurement:
Pipe plus overlay 0.848"(ave)
Wcld overlay length I.5*
1988 UT No Recordable Indications - Previous data reviewed, no changes
. Manual using 60* RL and OD Creeping a Wcld ihickness profde report Wave Pipe wall 0.36*, pipe plus overlay 0.71*
Weld overlay length 1.5" 1991 UT No Recordabic Indications Presious data reticurd, no signiGennt changes
- Manual using 60* RL and OD Ci:cping Wave 1996 UT No Recordable Indications Previous data reviewrd
. Manual using 60* RL and OD Creeping Wave l
l l
\
SIR-96-Il4, Rev. I B-2
. _. _ .- . . . _ . . _ _ . _.m - _ .. . _ . .
., r. ... i-- .
e e- .,
I
- s. . . . . . . . .s w__ -~4 L ---a ~- J - - - +
~
Weld ID Year Inspecth>n Inspection Method itesults Comments Overlay Year A pplied 2 B32-R R-22-Akt-5 1986 1984 UT One Recordable Indication,0.5* long,14%
Prior to kIanual using 45
- and 60* shear deep Cross (Tee) to pipe overlay CPI 43Q-217 1986 UT 11 wee indications associated with IGSCC - Inside surface geometry, root of weld and non-Prior to . " Smart UT"using 45* Shear detected on the dowmtream side,0.5 to relevant indications detected.
overlay . Alanual siring using 45'and 60* Shear 0.75" long, I 8 to 20% thru wall, a!I . Exa,nination only from pipe side ofweld due to circumferential cross configuration.
. One of the indicaricas was detected in 1984.
1986 PT No Recordable Indications PT performed on surface after weld overlay After reduction, prior to UT overlay IIT
- No ind: cations associated with IGSCC . Axial and circ scans both directions on both si&s
. klanual using 60* RI, OD Creeping were recorded of the weld Wave and O' L . Six " lack of bond irufications were . No indications were recor&d in the overlay detected cn the downstream side. Flaws material or in the outer 25% of the base metal were not detected again after repair to . He three previously recor&d IGSCC indications overlay were not detected 1989 LTT . No indications associated with IGSCC
- Axial and circ scans both directions on both sides
. " Smart tJIusing 60* RL and OD were recorded of the weld.
Creeping Wave . Twenty four (24) areas of"interbead . Previous data was reviewed lack of fusion" were detected in the . Lack of bond indications not recorded during the overlay material previous, manual, pre-service inspection
. All lack of bond indications are planar in nature, three have thru-wail dimension greater than 0.10"
. Wall thittness profile report:
Pipe wall 1.05", pipe plus overlay I 80" Weld overlay length 3.0*
1994 tTF . No inchcations associated with IGSCC Non. relevant indications were recor&d during the
- " Smart 2000"using 60* RI,and OD w.re recor&d examination Creeper .
Four(4) areas of"intertwad lack of ft+sion"were recor&d in the overlay material. Dese were previously recorded.
- Twenty (20) of the previously recorded indications were atuerved at low amplitudes and caibited no significant change I
SIR-96-i l4, Rev,1 B-3
_ m .. . -__ _
- +
, q, , , , s .-e y, . , .
- ., s..I ww u.- -J . _ . v " w d~ . . ~~. '- *l Weld ID Year Inspection Inspection Method Results Conunents Overlay Year A pplied 2B32-RR-28-A-4 1986 1984 trr Two lGSCC type indications,0.625 Prior to Alanual to 0.75"long,12 to 14% deep Elbow to Pipe overlay CPI 43Q-220 1985-R6 UT
- Two previously i&ntified circ . Axial indication not presiously reported Pria to . " Smart (Tr" using 45' IGSCC indications recor&d and . Some upstream inspections limited due to pipe restraints overlay Shear and 60* RI, and resized - Countertwe and ID geometry, and non-relevant indications also runr&J WSY-70-2 . tipstree n(elhow) side I.l*
long,24% thru-wall
. Downstream (pipe) side I.25"long,20% t!ru wall
. Third IGSCC type indication recorded, axialin orientation. no sizing, upstream side 1986 ITF
- Two IGSCC indications, axial,on ieak Barrier" overlay arg&d, no weld data sheets Prior to = " Smart ITF" using 45
- upstream side ofweld 0.4 to evalay, Stwar 0.45" long, no depth sizing whip - One of the axial IGSCC restraint indications appears to he in sanw removed location as one of the circ indications repurted in 1985-86 1986 PT No Recordable Indications Alla overlay trr . 'Ihree IGSCC type indications . Indications not reported previously
- " Smart LII" using O' l. were recurded . Previously recorded IGSCC indications were not chsaved after the 60* ML and OD Creeping . Two circ, upstream side 0.6 overlay Wave to I.3"long,1.2 to 1.3" . Counterhore and ID geometry, and non-relevant indications also recorded remaining liganwnt - Wall thickness profile report
. One axial, doumtream side, Pipe plus overlay I.345"(ave) 0.5" long. 0.6" remaining Weld overlay length 8.9" liganus 1987 1988 PT No Recordable trufications PT perfonned on smface after weld ovalay reantion, prior to I rr Rework tTF . One axial indication associated . lhe indicatiaa is within the outer 25% of the base metal, but does not
- " Smart trr"using 0* I, with IGSCC was recor&d on the extend into t~. verlay material 60* Rt.and OD Creeping downstream side of the weld, . Non-relevant indications observed on both sides oforiginal weld Wave 0.50" long arul 0.95" remaining . The two cire indications recor&d in 1986 were not recor&d ligament. Identified as the axial . Wall thickness profile report:
indication recorded in the 1986 Pipe wall I.20", pipe plus overlay I.90" examination Elbow wall I A0", elbow plus overlay 2.2*
Weld overlay length 6.7" SIR-96-114, Rev. I B-4
s~- -
-W t
. . . w.. s ., .,
s a ..x mz k ~:
L.~..a, 5':'.au-w, b
. {.. ?~..?.3 '. . bab.. . - Wu N . :. ,%e GM 4 s.l 2 s - ~ ~ s" a '
~.s Weld ID Year Inspection Inspection hiethod Results Comments Overlay Year A pplied 2il32-R R-28-A-4 1991 IJT - One axial indication associated . The indication is within the outer 25*4 of the base nwtal, but does not
. " Smart 2000" using 60* with IGSCC was recorded. Same extend into the overlay material Ethou to ripe RL and OD Creeping Wave indication recorded in 1985-86 . Previous data reviewed no significant changes noted and 1988 CPIA F*220 (conikmed) 1996 LTT . One axial indication associated Presious data reviewed . no significant changes noted
. "Smar12000" using 60* with IGSCC was recorded. Same . Non<elevant indications observed on both sides of original weld RL and OD Creeping Wave indication recorded in 1985-86, 1988 and 199I
. De indication was not sired SIR-96-ll4, Rev. I B-5
- 4 _ _ _ . . . .
. . . . e m. .
t, s ..
n . . L.L ' s l. J w~ -. wa ~~~ uvM L =' d-- G -. ~
y Weld ID Year inspection Inspection Method Etesults Conunents (h erlay Year Applied 2032-R R-28-A-8 1986 1984 IIT One indication associated with Prior to . ILlanual IGSCC,0.625* tong,13% deep Valve to Elimw g overlay CPir43Q-228 1986 LIT Two axial indicatiens associated . Inspection from ellmw side only due to conGgurathm Prior to - Manual using 45* shear with IGSCC detected on overlay upstream (ellow) side of weld.
0.3-0.75" long, no depth sizing 1986 PT No recordable indications First layer (weld data sheets)
After overlay No recordable indications PT perfornwd on surface after weld overlay reduction, prior to UT UT No recordable indications . IGSCC indications previously reported were not else ved again
. Manual using 45' RL and
- No indication were detected in the overlay material or the top 25% of the base 60" R1, OD Creeping nuterial Wave, and O' L - Wall thickness profile report:
E! bow plus overlay 1.488"(ave), overlay length 5.125" 1989 trr . No indications associated - Region not inspectable by automatic s>Sem near 4" line, inspected by manual
- "Sma.t (J1' using 60* RL with IGSCC were recorded techniques and OD Creeping Wave . Indication interpreted as = Non relevant indications recorded
" inner Iwad lack of fusion" detected ( 0.3' long 0.05" tivu-wall dimension) 1994 Lrr . No indications associated . Previous exambsation data resiewed
- " Smart 2000" using 60* with IGSCC were recorded . Wall thidness prolite report:
RL and OD Creeping . Previously reported lack of Elbow wall I .26", eIInw plus overlay 1.40" Wave fusion indication olserved at Overlay length 5.0" low amplitude and edibits no significant change fawn previous investientions SIR-96-114, Rev. I B-6
. _ . . - __m . -. .__ . _._ .., ,._
..... . ~..,.. ,.- . t cve -- ~1 e- .
- a.
i.
L.J2 . . . tS em ~w sw ?----=
" L." -- a, ~ "- ' ~ ---
Weld ID Year Inspection Inspectlan hiethod Results Comments Oserlay Year Applied 21132-RR-28-A-13 1986 1984 LTT One lGSCC type indication,0.9" long, Prior to . kfanual using 4 $
- and 60* 13*6 thna wall, circumferential Valve to pipe overlay s! war CPleOQ-225 1986 LTT One IGSCC type indication detected on 1%w to . " Smart tfr" using 45' upstream (pipe) ude, l .2* long, 0. I 5*
overlay siwar tlau wall, circtmsferential with an axial
. klanual using 45* shear component and ottwr transducers 1986 PT No Recordable Indications First layer (weld data sheets)
No Recordable Indications PT performed on surface after weld overlay reduction. prior to ITT tTF No Recordable Indications . Previously recorded IGSCC indication was not olmerved after overlay
. hianualusing60* RI,OD - No indications were recorded within the overlay material or the top 25%
Creeping Wave and O' L of the base material
. Wall thickness profde report:
Pipe rius overlay 1.575*
Wcld overlay length 6.5" 1989 iTF No indications associated with IGSCC . Non-relevant indications recorded both sides of original weld
. " Smart tTI"using 60* RL were recorded . Wall thickness profde report ami OD Creeping Wave Pipe 1.34", pipe plus overlay 1.52" Overlay length 5.5" 1994 tTF No indications associated with IGSCC - Compared to previous data - no significant (-hanges emted.
. " Smart tTI'* using 60* RL were recorded . Non-relevant indications recorded and OD Creeping Wave t
{
I SIR-96-114, Rev.1 B-7
_ . _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______.._______,___m_ _ _ . _ - _ - _ _ ___ _ . _ _ . _ n._.-__ _ _ _ __ __ __ . _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ - _ _ ._-___o_._______-_.____m_ ______ . _ _ _ _
, ,,,.... ,_ .m . ~ , .-. r 5
- rw-- - i e u.. ,
... a- s,nJ2
_ :_~ %x, d Lw -a u- a L. .4hJ 4 . GLJ .- r.- . . - p.) .
Weld ID Year Inspection Inspection Method Results Comments Overlay Year Applied 21332-RR-4-B-l 1986 1986 PT One thru-wallIGSCC indication Flaw was leaLing aner 11ISI Prior to was detected,about 0 25"long Weld-o-Ict to pipe overlay UT No meaningful results were CPI 43Q-224
- Manual using 45'sherr and obtained from the flaw WSY70 1986 PT No Recordable Indications PT performed on surface a!)er weld overlay reduction, prior Aller to UT overlay UT No Recordable Indications . ' Prior, leaking flaw not detected
. Manual using 60* RL,OD = No indication were detected in the overlay material or Creeping Wave, and 0* I, the top 25% of the base material
. Wall thickness profile report Pipe plus overlay 0.805* (ave)
Overlay length 1.875" 1989 UT No indications associated with No indication were reported during previous outages Manual using 60" RL, and OD IGSCC were recorded . Previous data was reviewed Creeping Wave . Wall thickness profile report Pipe 035*, pipe plus overlay 0.65" Oycrisy length 2.2" 1994 UT No recordable indications were
- Manual using 60* RI,and OD detected Creeping Wave i
t t
a SIR-96-114, Rev. I B-8 t
=__m._. m _..__. ._ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - - . _ . .
~
_ [f. l . I.E5 .> F3 N L LJ - M C3 u.. . P. _ ... . * [j Wekt ID Year Inspection Inspectiou Method Results Comments Overlay - Year Applied 2B32-RR4B-11 1986 1986 UT No recordable indications Prior to . Manual using 45* shear associated with IGSCC were Weld-o-let to pipe overlay recorded CPL 43Q-221 1986 PT No Recordable Indications UT No Recordable Indications - No indications were recorded within the overlay material or
. Manual using 0* 1,60* RL, the top 25% of the base material OD Creeping Wave = Wall thickness profile report:
Pipe and overlay 0.783* (ave)
Overlay length 1.5" 1988 UT No recordable indications Previous data was reviewed
. Manualusing60* RLand associated with IGSCC were OD Creeping Wave recorded 1991 UT No recordabte indications - Previous data was reviewed with no significant changes
. Manual using 60* RI. and associated with IGSCC were . Wall thickness profile report OD Creeping Wave recorded Pipe 032*, pipe plus overlay 0.69" Overlay length I.5" 1996 UT No Recordable Indications Previous data was reviewed
- Manual using 60* RI, and OD Creeping Wave SIR-96-Il4, Rev. I B-9
,, . - - , , s -
-v .-
c; a ?
r: * -
-tj
, 1 , . - - ,
w ' ,
s . L_ L. .- . . $_c 4 L di.- J "s ~~ "" -
i Weld ID Year Inspection Inspection Alethod Results Comments Overlay Year Applied 2B32-RR-22-BM-1 1986 1984 LTF One IGSCC type indication,1.75" long.
Prior to . Manual sizing using 45* 21% thru wall, circumferential Pipe to end cap overlay shear ,
CPI-43Q-218 1986 UT Three indications associated with Countertwre, weld root, ID geometry, and non-relevant indications also i Prior to - " Smart ITP' using 45' IGSCC,0.25 to 4.0"long,23 to 58% recorded overlay shear thru wall, circumferential with axial
. Manuat using 45* shear, - - - - - - - - '
WSY 70,SLIC-40 1986 PT No Recordabfe Indications PT performed on surface after weld overlay reduction, prior to iTT
[
After overlay LIT No recordable indications and no - Three previously recorded IGSCC indications were detected after overlay
. Manualusing0* I,60* RL indications associated with IGSCC were . No indications were recorded within the overlay material or the top 25% i and OD Creeping Wave detected of the base material.
. Wall thickness geofile report Pipe plus overlay 1.66* (ave), Cap plus overlay 1.84* (ave), Overlay length 7" ,
1988 tJT No indications associated with IGSCC - Recorded non<elevant indications on both sides oforiginal meld. ,
. " Smart LIT"using 60* RL were recorded . Wall thickness profile report ,
and OD Creeping Wave Pipe 1.1* pipe plus overlay 1.6*
- Manualusing60* RLand Cap side 1.25*, cap plus overlay 1.8" OD Creeping Wave Oveslay length 7.0*
i 1991 LTT No Recordable Indications Previous data reviewed, no significant changes noted.
. " Smart 2000" using 60* ;
RL and OD Creeping Wave :
. Manual using 60* R L aml OD Creeping Wave t 1996 LTf No indications associated with IGSCC . Recorded non-relevant indications on Imth sides oforiginal weld. {
. " Smart 2000" using 60* were recorded . Previous data reviewed, no significant thanges noted RI.aml OD Creeping Wave 9
= Manual using 60* RL aml OD Creeping Wave I
I l
I SIR-96-114, Rev.1 B-10 l I-
m
.. , r a e4 , w - .- .
,. t.... s
. . _ . _ G: J wi ~. ~ . . . wL 4.2; ....e - L. . . ..,t
! =
Weld ID Year Inspection Inspection A!cthod Results Conunents Ovesley Year A pplied 2B32 RR-28-B-3 1986 1984 LTT Two indications associated with Prior to . klanual using 45*stwar IGSCC,0.75 to 4.5"long. 5 to ;4?h Pipe to ellow overlay tlwu wall COK043QO229 1986 UT Five indications associated with Recorded non4clevant indications on Imth sides oforiginal weld.
Prior to . " Smart (JF" using 4 5' shear IGSCC detected on downtream side Overtay (elbow) side of weld
- 1. Four (4) cire,1.5 to 2.5" long. 0.15 to .24" wall
- 2. One axial,0.4"long, no depth sizing 1986 PT No Recordabic Indications PT paformed on surface after uvid overlay reduction, prior to ITF eMer overlay i
LTT Eighteen (1 E) IGSCC type indications . None of the indications detected penetrate into the overlay
. " Smart 17I"using 60* RL detected on downstream side of weld material.
and OD Creeping Wave . Five Cire,1.5 to 4.5* tong, l.I to . Recorded non-relevant indications on both sides oforig nal weld. .
. klanual using O' L 1.25" remaining ligament . Wall thickness profile report
. Hirteen (13) Axial. 0.4-0.7" long. Pipe plus overlay 1.378"(ave) 0.4-0.6* remaining ligament Overlay length 9" 1987-Es 1988 PT No Recordable Indications PT performed on surface after weld overlay reduction, prior to (JF Rework tJr . Nine (9) axial IGSCC type . De nine indications are contained within alw top 25?.ofilw base
. " Smart UT"using 60* RL indications detected on downstream metal but do not extend into ilw ovolay material.
am! OI) Creeping Wave side,0.42 to I.26* tong.0.75 to . Recorded norwetevant imhcations on both sides of original welJ.
. klanual using 0* I. 0.97* remaining liganwnt . Wall thickness profile report
. Some previously recorded cire (5) Pipe 1.20", pipe plus overlay I.90*
and axial (4) indications not l'Itew I.35", ellow plus overlay I 93" recorded during this outage Overlay length 7"
. Two indications associated with lack ofImnd amt intertwad lad of 1 fusion detected within the added overlay material SIR-96-il4, Rev. I B-l l
? ** V
. . ' I . .
- i. .'. ' i.a .-, l} - r D) ..A . w. . . . . -
.y
- .=
Weld ID Year inspection Inspection nicthod llesults Comments Overlay Year A pplied 2102-R R-28-B-3 1987-88 1991 tJT . Thirteen (13) IGSCC type . Nine of the axial indications previously recor&d in 1988 Rework - " Smart 2000"using 60* RL indications detected . Cire indscation identined in 1988, but not reported since below Pipe to elbow arul OD Creeping Wave . Downstream side, twelve axial, threshold level 0.42 to I.26" long.0 75 to . All of the indications, except the lack of fusion indication, are CPI 43Q-229 C 97" remaining ligament contained within the top 25% of the base metal but do not extend (continued)
- Upstream side, one cire, l.90" into the overlay material.
long 0.75"remainingligament . Recor&J non-relevant indications on both sides oforiginal welJ.
. Four of the axial indications had . Previous data reported, no signiGcant changes were noted between been previously recor&d in 1986, this esamination and the 1986 and 1988 esaminations tmt were not reported in 1988
. One indication associated with interbead lack of fusion detected 1994 IJF . Nine (9) axial IGSCC type . The ten IGSCC indications are contained within the top 25% of
= " Smart 2000"using 60* RI, indications detected.0.3* tong, the base metal but do not extend into the overlay material, and OD C eeping Wave 0.621 to 0.93 I" depth from OD . Recorded non-relevant i,wlications on both si&s of original weld.
. One circ IGSCC indication detected. 0.5" long. 0.667" depth from OD
= One previously detected indication associated with interhead lack of fusion observed at low amplitude 1996 (TT . Four axial IGSCC type indications
- The five indications are contained within the top 25% of the base
. " Smart 2000"using60* RL detected on downstream side.0.30" metal but do not extend into the overlay material.
and OD Creeping Wave long. 0.860 to 0.995" depth from . The five IGSCC indications were previously reported OD . Slight variations in dineisioning of the indications due to
. One circ IGSCC indication dMerences in equipment and initial scanner position. There were detected,0.5"long,0 692" &pth no signincant changes.
from OD + Recorded non-relevant imlications on Imth sides oforirinal weld.
SIR-96-i l4, Rev,1 B-12
_ _. - m .
I * '$ b bE. h, 4 14. $
_.._: + . , _ . -. . ~-%.
4 a
- Weld ID Tear lespeettaa Inspectten Method Reselis Camimware Overlay Year Appmed 2B32-R R-28-B-4 1986 t984 tR One lGSCC type mdication,8 873* kwig.17 5%
Pnor to . Manualinseg 43* shear thru wa5,cucumfereneal E'lhow to pipe overlay CPL-4)Q 227 19a5 86 tR Four IGSCC type uwhcanons on upseewa (enmow)
- One cet mancanon same as immd m 1984 Pnos to e
- Smart tfT~ using as'slicar side of weld
- Inspecean kmned due to pipe whsp resement ovesley
- ntanual using 45* sheer and
- Three cuc,9 42 3* kmg,17 24% avu-wal othen kansdiscers
- One amal,no suzng r9so tJT Total of su IGSCC type edicanims on upsacam Four of the subcation are the same as seperted a prenous1985 86 Prms to . -Smart (JT"ussig 45" sheer sede inspecaim ovatey,
- ntamselianug 45* sheer and 60*
- Three Circ,0 4-1 l* kmg. ll 24*. duwwa3
= tup RL
- Three CuctAmal,0 6-21* kmg. E-22% deu-resument waB semoved t9se PT No Recordable Indicanons Fuse inya tweld data sheets)
A Ret overt *F No Receedabic Indicatums PT performed on samface mRet meld overlay eeduction, pner to tfT tJT lhree IGSCC type indicaeons on upsteam sede
- Fein of she ongmal sa h3 SCC uwhcanons peviously socceded on
= -Smart tff assig 60* RL and
- One Cire, l' kmg. 0 9" remassig kgamene wae nos observed ance overlay 00 Creepag Wave e Two Axsal,0 $4 4* kmg 8 S-8 55* semaines
- No mecanons were secorded wittun the overisy sneecnal e the any
. ktamial ennig 0* L kgament 23% of the base matenal
. Itecorded non-relevant subconons on both sides of ongmal weld
. WaB thedness pro 61e report Pipe plus overlay 140* (ave)
Overiny inigih 9 3*
toBS lukt PT No Record tdc huncasmwis PT performed on surface eRes weld ovestoy rediactiost pnos to tff RewosL tff Two smal umhcanons assaiweed with IGSCC
- Reported that du axial awbom showed no apparent chaste
- Smart LJT"esseng o0* R L,OD detected noen pewmms meage Cseeping Wave aswl 0* L . Downstream side 0 7" kmg. 0 98* semaanmg . Prewmuesty seemeded cue swheation not eecaded
= Elminalinseng 0* L bganeesis . Ne outschwis wree va.eded mithat ese oweday masend as the hip
- 4 Ip.hemes si.le 0 eV hmg. t l* m:nummig 23** 4 die b.se masenJ bganicia . Resunded mweacleveeit endnermwis en tmich sides of onepnal wekt
. Wat dmLness profile ecport Pipe 120*, pipe plus overlay i RT*
Overlay length 7 9' t**t Irf Two asial sista seums asesunted with TG5CC
- No suticaimms were reuwded usthen die evalay materiJ ce die tap
= "Securt 20ile'u. mag 00* RL and detected, senee emisah.wis a segwwd pmenly. IS% of the t=ame uutetul 00Ovepmg Wave dimenseceis eushmiged
- Reswwed pewmues data. no sigiufkans changes 19eo tJT Two pewtously recorded wwhenemms toen tool e No swhcae.ms were secorded withm the overlay masenalor the top
= "Smaet 2000"using e0* RL and were observed allow emphhutes and extwhered no 23% of she base snatenal OD Creepiene Wave sipwfu ans chaeaye e R eviewest pcviosas d.ts SIR-96-i l4, Rev.1 B-13
G
.._L._..
,4..~.
M
.r .
tu~
w
+-
L .J ..s . ~ . . . 2. - .. . 3.;
V WelJ ID Year inspection inspection Method itesults Comments (herlay Year A pplied 2fl32-R R-28-Il-5 1986 1984 1TT Tluce IGSCC type indications recor&d, Prior to = Angle beam technique, 1.75 to 3.5* long,15 to 20*6 thru wall Pipe to pipe Overlay transducers not identified 1985-86 tJT rour IGSCC type indications detected, All on upstream side of weld CPL-43Q.219 Prior to . " Smart (TI'" 0.75 to 3.0"long,17 to 2754 thru wall, Overlay . Manual circumferential with axial components SLIC-40,3/8" 1.5 Mill, WSY.
70-2, & 60*RL 1986 PT No Recordable hidecations PT performed on surface after weld overlay After Overlay reduction, prior to ITT tTF Two IGSCC type indications . Two other IGSCC indications previously
. " Smart irr" using 60* RI.and . Ilpstream side, Circ,3" long, I" recor&d on upstream side of weld not olnerved OD Creeping Wave remainingligament this inspection
. Manual using 0* L . Doumtream side, Asial. 0.8"long, . No indications were recorded within the overlay 0.9" remaining ligament material or the top 25?i of the base material.
. Recorded non-relevant indications on both sides of original weld.
. Wall tl&Lness proGle report Pipe plus overlay 1.39" ( Ave) '
Overlay length 9.25*
1988 tTT Two IGSCC type indications recor&d, . Recor&d non-relevant indications on both sides
. " Smart tTr" using 60* RL arid same hications amt sires as reported in of original weld.
OD Creeping Wave 1986 examination . No indications were recorded within the overlay material or the top 25?& of tie base nuterial.
- Previous data was reviewed, no apparcnt change in the indications
. Wall thickness proGle report I fpstream pipe 1.18", pipe plus overlay 1.34" Dounsreu pipe 1 22", pipe plus overlay 1.36" Overlay length 9 25" ,
199I trr Two IGSCC type imficatims recorded. . No indications were recorded within alw overlay
. " Smart 2000"using60* RL sane krations and sires as reported in material or the top 25?e of the base nuterial.
and OD Creeping Wave 1986 amt 1988 examinations . Previous data was reviewed, no apparent change in the indications 1996 iTr Tuo IGSCC type indications recorded.
- No indications were recor&d within alw overlay
. " Smart 2000"using 60* RL sanw locations ami sires as reported in material or the top 25?6 of the base material.
and OD Creeping Wave 1986,1988, and 1991 examinations. . Non-relevant indications also recor&d Observed at low signal to noise ratio and . Previous data was revieurd, no significant not sired. changes in the indications SIR-96-114, Rev. I B-14
. 3 I
- t. . . . . * 'b (
, ~_2 I3 bw 1- ---- - - - - - ' 8 -
a *p ;
Weld ID Year Inspection inspr-etion Method Results Counments
- Overlay Year Applied r 21332-RR-28-B-10 1990 1986 UT No indications associated with IGSCC were Courdenbore and ID geometry, and norwelevant Prior to - " Smart tTr using 45
- recorded indications also recorded Pipe to elbow overlay shear and 0* L -
- Manual using 45* shear CPle43Q-222 and O' L i r
1989 UT Eight (8) axial indications associated with IGSCC . Counterbore and ID geometry, and non-relevant Prior to . "Snurt tTF using 45* were recorded on downstream (elbow) side of weld, indications also recorded overlay shear 0.25 to 0.55* tong,13% to 20% thru-wall . Previous data reviewed for resolution !
. klanual using 45' shear, t 45*RI, and 60* RL I 1990 PT No Recordable Indications PT performed on surface after weld overlay reduction.
After prior to (IT overlay {
tTT = One axial iemlication associated with IGSCC was . "Hw IGSCC indication was ccadmined within IIw j
. " Smart ITf" using 60* RL recorded on the downstream side,0.30"long, top 25*4 of the base material but did not extend ,
and OD Creeping wave 0.84* remaining liganwns into the overlay material .
. Etanual using 0* L
- One indication associated with interbead lack of . Recorded non-relevant indications on both sides of fusion original weld.
. Wall thickness profile report !
Pipe 1.2*, pipe plus overlay 1.7*
Overlay length 6.5" 1994 1TT . One indication associated with IGSCC was . He IGSCC indication was contained within Llw
. " Smart tTI' using 60* RL recor&d, same indication recurded in 1990 top 25*6 ofilw base materialist did end extend -
and OD Creeping wave . One italication associated with interbead lack of into ilw overlay material
. Manual using OD Creeping fission also recorded at low amphtudes, same . Recurded inweelevant irklications on luith sides of wave indication recorded in 1990 oririnal weld.
i A
t e
SIR-96-Il4, Rev. I B-15 l
~
. . . . . . . o t_,. _, s -. - u..- -. a us-' .. u . V l
. o 4
Weld ID Year inspection Inspection Method Results Coenenents Overlay Year Applied 21132-P R-28-B-11 1986 1986 UT One indication associated with IGSCC was inspected from elbow side only due to Prior to . klanual using 45' shear and WSY70 and reended on the upstream (elbow) side, circ with configuration of the pump Elbow to purnp ow: lay SLIC-40 axial cornponents,1.4* long,18% thru.w all CPI,43Q-224 1986 PT NoRecordableIndi ti-a PT performed on surface after weld overlay After reduction, prior to UT overlay IIT No indications associa*-1 with IGSCC were . He previously identified IGSCC
- klanual using 0* I, 60* RL and OD recorded indication was not observed after Creeping Wase overlay
. No indications were recorded within the i
overlay material or the top 25% of the base material.
. Wall thickness profile report Ellww plus overlay (Ave) 1.41' Overlay length 5.3*
1989 UT No indications associated with IGSCC were . Previous data was reviewed
. klanualusing 60* RLandODCreeping recorded . Wall thickness profile report wave Elbow I.24" elbow plus overlay 1.36*,
Overlay length 6*
1994 PT No Recordable Indications
, UT No indications associated 6th IGSCC were Previous data was reviewed
. klanualusing 60* RLandODCreeping recorded waw 4
SIR-96-i l4, Rev. I B-16
a
~]. * . f.
l 1
a
. .i 1
APPENDIX C 1
Weld Overlay As Built Data f.'
- s a--
ts!
L fT
..)
c1 a
4 1
-j i
3 SIR-96-114, Rev.1 C-0 s
3
. ~, . . _ . .. SAL E ~~. - M s- b "g'
~>
Table C-1 Brunswick Unit i Weld Overlay Dimensional and Delta Ferrite Information From Weld Data Sheets Year Total Average Wall Thidness Average Overlay Thickness Overlay Length l Overlay Prior to Base Final Final Min. Effective Design Avg Avg Min. Delta Ferrite Weld ID. Applied Overlay Layer (1) Layer Data (2) Design Final (3) Min Final Shrinkage Ist Layer Last Layer Notes I B32-RR-4-A-1 1987 0375 0.495 0.715 0.715 0.130 0340 0.220 NR I.762 NR < 7.5 > 7.5 4 t il32-RR-4-A-10 1984 0362 0.443 0848 0848 NR 0.486 0.405 NR 1.5 NR NR NR 4,7 I H32-R R-22-AM-3 1987 1.000 1.280 2.063 2.063 0.700 1.063 0.783 NR 6 625 0 050 <7.5 >7.5 5,7 I B32-R R-28-A-1 1985 - - - - - - -
3 200 3.525 0 012 <7.5 >7.5 Elbow - 1370 1.490 1.515 1.515 NR 0.145 ND (Jpstream Pipe - 1.220 1300 1355 1355 NR 0.135 ND Downstream 1987 Rework - - - - - - - NR 9.75 NR NR NR 7, A Elbow - 1370 1.585 2.088 2.088 0380 0.718 0.503 tipstream 0.6I 8 Final -
0.100 Pipe - I.220 1.400 1.850 1.850 0380 0.630 0.450 Downstream 0.530 Final -
0.100 ill32-RR-28-A-14 1983 1.456 NR I.948 ? !"8 NR 0.492 ND NR 5.179 0 062 >7.5 NR I 1985 Rework I.520 1.850 2.0? 5 1.990 0.420 .470 ND 5.000 5350 0 060 NR NR 11.1 1987 RewurL 1.520 1.925 2330 2330 0.520 0.810 ND 4.125 5.775 0 073 NR NR 13.C.I 0.710 1'inal -
J.100 ll!32-RR-28-A-15 1983 - - - - - - - 6.600 6.031 NR >7.5 >7.5 Elbow - 1.517 NR NR 2.025 NR 0.508 ND IJpstream Pipe - 1397 NR NR 1.866 NR 0.469 ND Downstream 1985 Reweik - - - - - - - 6 n00 6300 0.040 NR NR D Elbw - i.500 1.865 1.908 i** . s300 0.408 ND IJpstream l SlR-96-114, Rev. I C-1
m . . . _ . _. ._-
. . ...-._ i. '.05 .'-...
LEA I --A A '=
- - - - - -- a - - '
~
5 Year Total Average Wall Thickness Average Overlay Thickness Overlay length l Overlay Prior to Ilase -( Cinal Final Min. Effective Design Avg Avg Min. Delta Ferrite Weld ID. Applied Overlay I.ayer ( ' .ayer Data (2) Design Final (3) Min Final Shrinlage 1st Lagr Last Layer Notes Pipe- 1380 1.750 1.828 1.828 0300 0.448 ND Downstream 1987 Rework - - - - - - -
NR 6.25 NR NR NR 7, D Elbow - 1.500 1.938 1.800 1.800 0300 0300 ND IJpstream Pipe - I.380 1.900 1.850 1.850 0300 0.470 ND Downstream Ill32-RR-4.I3-1 1987 0340 0.413 0.725 0.725 0.130 0385 0313 1.750 1.906 NR >7.5 NR 4, E ll332-RR-4-Il-10 1987 0350 0.500 0.663 0.663 0.130 0313 0.163 1.750 1.812 NR >7.5 NR 4 t il32-RR-28-13-4 1985 - - - - - - - 3.000 3.720 0.077 <7.5 >7.5 Elbow - 1358 1.466 1.540 1.540 NR 0.183 ND IJpstream i Pipe- 1.226 1346 1370 1370 NR 0.144 ND Downstream 1987 Rewuk - - - - - -
NR 7.1 NR NR NR 7, l' Elbow - 1358 1.565 2.063 2.063 0390 0.705 U.498 Final -
Upstream Dase 0.595 Final -
0.110 Pipe - I.226 1.420 1.850 1.850 0390 0.624 0.430 Final -
Ihwnstream Ilase 0.514 Final -
0.110 _
[
5,I li132-RR-28 IM 1983 1364 NR 1.833 1.833 NR 0.470 ND NR 5375 0.093 <7.5 >7.5 1985 ReuwL 1360 1.790 1.915 I.915 0 420 0.555 ND 5.000 5.625 0.299 NR NR 5.G.IJ 1987 Rework 1360 1.855 2.101 2.101 0.410 0.741 ND NR 7.500 0.037 NR NR 5.113 I 0.641 Final -
0.100 sir-96-114, Rev.1 C-2
.a. s ;; r- <
t . .
- q. r
- m r. ,ij .
r .-.~s
. n..- , +_ _ . .. m - -
~~ -, s-.-
a y
General Notes 1.13ase layer for original oveilay or intermediate layer for rework.
- 2. Final value is last reported dimension. It may include finishing of the weld surface.
- 3. Average effective thickness equals the total overlay thickness minus first (base) layer thickness or dimension assumed for first layer (usually 0.100").
13ase layer thickness defined as being equr4 to thickness up to and including first layer that passes PT without subsequent through wallindication.
ND - Not Determinable since the first layer thickness is not well defined.
- 4. Pipe to weldolet, dimensions on pipe side of wrld
- 5. Assumed that dimensions given are from the pipe side of the urld.
- 6. NR = Not Reported
- 7. Ove: lay length obtained from ISI-UT test reports.
Weld Specific Notes A. Total weld thickness is minimum design thickness of the overlay (0380") plus 0.100" for Ist layer.
- 11. Wall thickness without overlay appears to be equal to the max reported for the 1983 report.
C. Total weld thickness is minimum design thickness of the overlay (0.520") plus 0.100* for Ist layer.
D. Existing overlay thickness and length are both reported to be less than average calculated with data reported in 1983 report E. Final and clTective thickness vahics do not agree with Data Sheet. Error in thickness values used (0.80 value not included in average calculation).
F. Total weld thickness is minimum design thickness of the overlay (0390") plus 0.110" for Ist layer.
G. " Existing overlay" length on Data Sheet for 1985 Rework is longer than on 1983 Data Sheets (5.900 to 6.105 in.).
II. Total weld thicLness is minimum design thickness of the overlay (0.410") plus 0.I00" for ist layer.
I. Valve to cibow weld. Dimensions on c! bow side of wrld.
J. Average wall thickness prior to overlay (1360)is smslier than average for 1983 data sheets (1364).
SIR-96-114, Rev.1 C-3
L.1. i-. ~?T.] 1.. RI E. d L- ! A C L e --- C -
-- --f I
. 'r Table C-2 Brunswick IJnit 2 Weld Overlay Dimensional and Delta Ferrite Information From Weld Data Sheets Year Total Average Wall Thickness Average Overlay Thickness Overlay Length l Overlay Prior to Base Final l Final Min. EITective Design Avg Avg Min. Detta Fernte Weld ID. Applied Overlay La>rr(l) La>rr Data (2) Design Final (3) Min Final Shrinlage 1st Layer Last La>rr Notes 2 B 32-R R-4 1986 0320 0.538 0.755 0 755 0.133 0.435 0.218 1.750 1.734 NR > 7.5 NR 4, A A-1 As Huilt Summary 0.335 0.217 1.734 NR (6) . 5 21332-RR 1986 0360 0.573 0.770 0.770 G133 0.410 0.198 1.750 1.771 NR > 7.5 NR 4, A A-Il As Built Summary 0.410 0.198 1.771 NR (6) 5 21132-RR 1986 1.075 1.200 1.810 1.810 0.420 -1.735 0.610 4.400 4349 0.193 > 7.5 - NR 7, B AM-5 As Huilt Summary 0.735 0.610 4349 0.193 5 21132-R R 1986 8.000 8 600 0.080 > 7.5 NR C.D.E A-4 Elbow- 1.393 1.528 1.540 1.540 0.125 0.148 NA Upstream Pipe- I.193 1.295 1345 1345 0.125 0.153 NA Down-stream Average 0.150 NA As Huilt Summary 0.150 NA 8 600 0 080 5 1987 ReuvrL 6.2 6.786 0 037 NR NR F Elbow- 1393 1.486 2F15 2F15 0.431 0.703 0.584 Upstream Pipe- 1.193 1.338 1.890 1.890 0.431 0.698 0.579 Down-stream Average 0.700 0.581
[Il32-RR 1986 4 25 5fr>9 0.066 > 7.5 NR D.E.I A-8 Upstream 1345 1.465 1.488 1.488 0.125 0.143 NA SIR-96-114, Rev.1 C-4
o c -
s ._, . ;.
.. . . ~_. . . . . -
- r. - _ - - .. La - - . - . _ - 2_ - >
4.e e
't Year Total Average Wall Thickness Average Overlay Thickness Overlay Length l Overlay Prior to Hase Final Final Min. EfTective Design Avg Avg Min. Delta Ferrite Weld ID. Applied Overlay Lagr(1) Layer Data (2) Design Final (3) Min Final Shrinlage 1st Layer LastLayer Notes Down- NA 1.490 1395 1395 0.125 ND NA stream As Built Summary 0.143 NA 5 099 0 066 5 2tl32-RR 1986 1370 1.495 1.575 I.575 0.146 0.205 NA 4.500 6.225 0.048 > 7.5 NR 8, E,G A-13 As Built Summary 0.185 NA 6.225 0.048 5 2 H 3 2-R R 1986 0360 0.508 0.805 0.805 0.146 0.44s 0.298 1.750 1.964 NR > 7.5 NR 4A 13-1 As Built Summary 0445 0.298 1.964 ND(6) 5 21132-R R 1986 0 330 0.466 0.673 0.673 0.133 0343 0207 1.750 1.741 NR > 7.5 NR 4, A 11-1 1 As lluilt Summary 0343 0207 1.741 ND(6) 5 2il32 RR 1986 7.orX) 7.199 0.234 > 7.5 NR C llM-1 Pipe- 1.113 1.243 1.660 1660 0.400 0.548 0.418 Upstream End Cap- 1.169 1320 1.840 1.840 0 400 0.671 0.520 lbwn-stream Average 0609 0.469 As Huilt Summary 0609 0.468 7.199 0.235 5 2 H32-R R-28 1986 8.500 8 845 0.102 > 7.5 NR C,D,E 11-3 lipstream I.165 1320 1375 1.375 0.125 0.210 NA Down- 1.383 1.518 1.580 1.580 0.125 0.198 NA stream Average 0204 NA As Huilt Summary 0204 NA 8 845 0.102 5 b87 Rewo L 62 7.050 0.030 NR NR Upstream l 1.165 '
1325 1.883 1883 0445 0.718 0.573 l SIR-96-114, Rev. I C-5
. - ..,, .- - , .- ., y-. ,
, J.- . .i . . L_. ,c- _J w. -. - L.; $ _ _ - - . - . . .. e u .
g.-
a Year Total Average Wall Thickness Average Overlay Thickness Overlaylength l Overlay Prior to Base Final Final Min. Effective Design Avg Avg Min. Delta Ferrite Weld ID. Applied Overlay Layer (1) Layer Data (2) Design Final (3) Min Final Shrinlage Ist Layer last Layer Notes Down- 1383 1330 1.978 1.978 0.445 0.595 0.450 stream Average 0.656 0.511 2B32-RR 1986 8.500 9340 0.068 > 7.5 NR C.D,E 11-4 Upstream 1388 1.520 1.610 1.610 0.125 0323 NA Down- 1.200 1310 L400 1.400 0.125 0.200 NA stream Average 0.21i NA As 13uilt Summary 0.21I NA 9340 0.068 5 1987 62 8.150 0.008 NR NR 11 Upstream 1388 1.595 2.010 2.010 0.429 0.623 0.502 Down- 1.200 1385 1.848 1.848 0.429 0.618 0.527 stream Average 0.635 0.514 2il32-RR 1986 8.500 9210 0.082 > 7.5 NR C,D,E 11-5 Upstream I.255 1335 1383 1383 0.125 0.128 NA Down- 1380 1.350 1390 1.390 0.125 0.110 NA stream Average 0.119 NA As lluilt Summary 0.119 NA 9.210 0.083 5 21132-RR 1990 6200 6367 -0.070 > 7.5 NR K Il-10 Upstream I.170 NA 1.700 1.700 0.440 0.530 NA Down- 1.195 NA 1.813 1.813 0.440 0.618 NA -
stream Average 0.574 NA SIR-96-114, Re . 1 C-6
M
~
C C kM M C- O.
ul Ia. L.' 'I9 h'ac_ o ~ - -L --- -
D Year Total Average Wall Thickness Average Overlay Thickness Overlay length l Overlay Prior to Base Final Final Min. EITective Design Avg Avg Min. Delta Ferrite Weld ID. Applied Overlay Layer (1) Layer Data (2) Design Final (3) Min Final Shrinlage Ist Layer Last La>rr Notes 2D32-RR 1986 I.240 1.308 1.410 1.410 0.125 0.170 NA 4.250 5.269 0.085 > 7.5 NA 8.D.E,0 13-1 1 As 13uilt Summarv 0.I70 NA 5.269 0 085 5 s
SIR-96-114, Rev. I C-7
r~- 7' -+ .~* ~r- e
- a. . :
- n. +- . . . - .~ -- 1w . - . _ . . s. - .
. y.:
O D
General Notes
- 1. Ilase layer for original overlay or intermediate layer for rewurk.
- 2. Final value is last reported dimension. It may include finishing of the weld surface.
- 3. Average c!fective thickness equals the total overlay thickness minus Grst (base) layer thickness or dimension assumed for lirst layer (usually 0.100").
13ax layer thicLnos defined as being equal to thickness up to and including first layer that passes PT without subsequent through wall indicatien.
ND = Not Determinable since the first layer thickness is not well defined.
- 4. Pipe to weldolet, dimensions on pipe side of weld
- 5. Unit 2 Weld Overlays.1985/1986, Weld Over!ay As-lluilt Dimensions, Calculated Average Values, CPL-43Q-215
- 6. Shrinkage data not taken due to weld joint configuration (CPL-43Q-215)
- 7. Measured downstream pipe side
- 8. Measured upstream pipe side
- 9. NR - Not Reported, NA - Not Applicable Weld Specilic Notes A. Futi overlay shall extend 1.0" min onto pipe side from existing weld CL and shall blend smooth!y into the contour of weld-o-let.
H. Full overlay shall extend 3.5" min onto pipe side from existing weld CL and shall blend smoothly intn the contour of eross.
C. Overlay shall be centered on CL of original weld D. Design thickness given as 0.125'(min) to 0.160"(max) for 2 laprs E. On data sheet average elTective overlay thickness - final thickness rninus thickness prior to overlay, does not factor out base layer.
F. Total weld thickness is minimum design thicLness of the overlay (0.431") plus 0.119" for I st layer = 0.550".
Ellbctive average thicLness - Final overlay average thickness - 0.119*.
G. Toe ofoverlay shall to remain min oro.25" from butt wcld at pump.
II. Total wcld thickness is minimum design thickness of the overlay (0.429") plus 0.121" for Ist layer " 0.550".
Etreetive average thicLness - Final overlay average thickness 0.121"
- 1. Toe ofove. lay shall remain min oro.25" from butt weld / valve interface L Total wcld thickness is minimum design thickness of the overlay (0.445") plus 0.145" for I si layer - 0.590*.
Ef fective average thicLness - Final overlay average thickness - 0.145".
K. Average gauge mark length aller overlay greater than the average gauge mark length prior to overlay.
SIR-96-114, Rev.1 C-8