c , ,

' *1 y 1

f' . . ,. , o . , ; ,.

-

.

...

iOYSTER CREEK !

;

i:

CYCLE 12R OUTAGE<

:;1

i' IGSCC ACTIVITIES g,

?, 3'

''TR-059'

i Rev. 0!

>

?

I

i.,

iP

AUTHOR/

! s

*"/$' hQ _

'

D. Covill - NDE/ISI Services Manager

i

'

APPROVALS

_ _ aQ 'WW.

~

D.D. Bowman - Mgr. Nuclear Chemical / Materials Eng.

Ax L-er \ O |t,1|M,

C.R.,Cahodanno - Director Eng. & Design

|W $P GYR. K ten 7 Director Quality Issuranco ,

hwk, 1940-89K K.'Croneberger - Director Technical Functions (Acting)

.."

(Significant Im ct Review)

,

8911080277 891030 '

PDR ADCCK 050002190 PNU

L1 ,

l

- .- - - ._

i

. , . . + ,,

L TABLE OF CONTENTS,

*,.

i

,

1.0 Introduction 1

| 2.0 IGSCC Examinations and Results 4

3.0 Disposition of weldments containingi IGSCC Indications 16

4.0 Induction Heating Stress Improvement (IHSI) 17

5.0 conclusions 19

6.0 Future Actions 20,

'

7.0 References 21

8.0 Tables 22

"9.0 Figures 28

i

Total Effective Paoes 39

!

r

k

i-

|

||I

I'||-'

!

. - - .. .. - . . . - ,. . , -,

F l<

Li .,,

*&lRTRACT-

( This report describes the Oyster Creek Cycle 12R outage activities rel6ted to.

r

the B'fR IGSCC issue. We examined 150 butt welds within the scope of Generic !

j. Letter 88-01 in the Recirculation, Shutdown Cooling,. Reactor Water Cleanup,

'

Core Spray, and Isolation Condenser systems, closure head piping, and 6'

structural weld overlays (2 in the Recirculation System and 4 in the Isolationi

Condenser system outside the drywell) for IGSCC. Six butt welds contained UT '

indications with the characteristics of IGSCC. Five (two Recirculation system,

and three in the Isolation condenser system outside the drywell) required weld

overlay repair; one Recirculation system weld was analyzed and found to bJ

acceptable for continued operation without repair. The six inspected overlays-

contained no' indications of IGSCO in the overlays or outer 25% of the original

pipe wall.,

i

Additionally, two welds'(one B" Core Spray, one 2" (6x2 reducer) Reactor Head ,

cooling) were found to be leaking during pressure testing. The Core Spray weld

was overlay repaired; the head weld was cut out and re-welded. The RHC defect '

was destructively evaluated as being IGSCC.

|

|

|

L one weld in the CRD Return line (3", SCH.80) was inspected by UT as part of our

|Section XI ISI Program. The disposition was that indications characteristic of

IGSCC were present. This weld was removed and destructively determined not to1

contain IGSCC.

| lE IHSI was effectively applied to welds as listed below. ;

Svetem Eglda

Recirculation 4 Safe End Welds

LCore Spray 6 Safe End Welds

19 Butt Wolds I

Isolation Condenser 4 Safe End Welds.

(inside drywell) 9 Butt Welds

,

, ._ .. . . - -.

-

'It h . \if | 9 * ,

t, , TR-059' Rev. O'

f Page 1i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purgone

This document describet GP'JN's Cycle 12R outage activities

relating to the BWR intergranular stress corrosion cracking

(IGSCC) iseue. Activities that occurred were augmented

inspections of stainless steel piping for IGSCC, induction

heating stress improvement (IHSI) of susceptible system welds,+

and weld overlay repairs.

1.2 Rackaroand

In the previous two outages (20R, 11R), GPUN has been performing

inspections of stainless steel piping for 20 SCC. In 10R, we

found 27 welds in the Isolation Condenser system outside the

drywell containing indications of 3GSCC. No indications of

IGSCC were found in any other system, including the

Recirculation System. Details of these inspections and

corrective neasures are provided in TR-012 [1] and TDR 580 [2].

Ir. 11R, we found three Recirculation Welda and one Isolation,

Condenser weld outside the drywell containiny indications of

IGSCC. TR-039 [3] contains the details of these inspections and

corrective measures. *

iThe NRC iss9ed Generic Letter (GL) 88-01 [4) and NUREG-0313 Rev.i'2 [5] in January 1988. The NRC and GPUN reached agreement on!

the plans for 12R inspections (6, 7, 8).k

n ;

i

a

5 , , , _ -

. . ,

L - -. , .

TR-059 I#' Rev. 0 |-

Page 2 i

L !

| 1.3 Examinations for ICSCO j

1.3.1 Examination Methodsi

|- The primary method of emanination was ultrasonic j

i itesting (UT) using procedures and equipment |

|

demonstrated effective in both the detection and i

i

sising of 2CSCC.

1.3.2 ymmminer cualifications

operators and examiners were qualified before :',

performing examinations in accordance with the'

,

|

recommendation of NUREG-0313 Rev. 2. Only those j

individuals on the EPRI NDE Center " Registry of f?

Qualified Individuals" performed examinations and,

1

reviews. !

t

'

| 1.3.3 svatoms in secoe

iWelds were examined in the Recirculation, Core Spray, !

f

Reactor Water Cleanup, Shutdown Cooling, and Isolation !

|condenser (inside and outside drywell) systems and on i

'

|'

closure head piping susceptible welds.

1.3.4 snmole siggi

A total of 150 butt welds within the scope of GL 88-01 fI [

and 6 structural weld overlays were examined. Detailsi

| ;'

are provided in Table 1.

!

,

!

!

| t

[__ _ _ _ _ _ . - . - - _ _. . _._ _

m- ,

o*, ,,

| I- 5 -

,

, ,

| TR-059 |Rev. 0i

Page 3|

1.3.$ Examination Results i

six welds contained indications having the UT signal

characteristics of IGSCC. Three (NG-D-11, NG-D-18 and

NG-D-21) were in the *D" loop of the Recirculation ;

!

system (26-inch diameter), and three (NE-1-66, NE-2-82L

and NE-2-100) were in the Isolation condenser system f

outside the drywell.

1.3.6 Eressure Test Findinos ;

ITwo welds were found to be leaking during pressure

itesting. One was an 8 inch diameter Core spray Weld i

I(NE-3-38), and one was a 2 inch diameter Reactor Head

cooling Weld (6x2 reducer). ;

;

1.4. Disoosition of Indications |[

Wolds NG-D-11, NG-D-21, NE-1-66, NE-2-82, NE-2-100 and NE-3-38

were repaired with a standard design weld overlay. Weld NG-D-18

was evaluated to the requirements of the ASME Code Section XI, |

sub-section IWB-3640 and found to be acceptable for continued

'service without repair. The Reactor Head Cooling Weld was

removed and rowelded after the indication was cut out.l'

| 1.5 IH11 ,

c ,

IHSI was effectively applied to safe end welds in Recirculationi

| (4), Core Spray (6) and Isolation Condenser Systems (4) and to

19 butt welds in the Core Spray and 9 butt welds in the

| Isolation Condenser (insido drywell) Systems.

|1|

|

._ _ _ _.

F '

*.,1 e ,

f, TR-059Rev. O! *

Page 4

; 2.0 IQScc EXAMINATIONS AND RESULTS

L 2.1 Introduction

This section describes the ICsec augmented inspection program and

lresults of examinations performed during the Cycle 12R outage.

,

,

Described are the examination methods, p**tonnel qualifications, i

extent of examinations, and results. 7 program fulfilled ouri -,

commitment to the NRc and provided assurance that we are not |t'

experiencing a major cracking problem.

2.2 Examination Methods !

r

stainless steel piping system welds were examined by ultrasonic (UT) ;

and, in some cases, radiographic testing (RT) was used to supplement [i

the UT.

Manual and automated UT examination procedures were qualified at the

|EPRI NDE Center. These procedures rely on the 45 degree shear wave ;

:

examination as the primary detection technique.

Geometric considerations of the weld bead width related to base,

!

material thickness in some casee required the use of manual 00 fdegree shear wave as a supplemental detection examination. |

sizing after verification of IGscc was performed by manual UT.

Various EPRI-taught and industry-accepted techniques were utilized.

The equipment utilized for the automated UT detection examination ;

L

was the GE-SMART System. The ALARA I Scanner (track and arm) with,

i

UT Transducer Skewing capabilities allowed accurate location

determination by use of X, Y, and S coordinates.

!

t

o

* * .TR-059,

Rev. O'

Page 6

The OD and 3D clad safe ends were initially examined using thei

GE-SMART system. Refracted longitudinal waves were used rather than j

!46' shear waves because of the need to enhanew the tip-dif fracted |

|and reflection signals from flaws extending through the ID cladding

into the base metal. A corner trap signal could be obscured by the !!

clad interface. 'the process was qualified on a mockup which ;i

duplicated the as-built configuration as best as we could determine ;

from our records.

Additional examinations were performed using the UTL-KWU L-SAFTi

(synthetic Apporture Focusing Technique) system. This system j

recorde digitised signals at a small sampling interval allowing a I

!high quality reconstruction of the received wave pulse. This

7

enhances flaw discrimination capabilities. |

The data aquisition system was the Ultra Image III. The data output f

from this system was a floppy disc, video cassette recording of the

!"A" scan, and computer printout of essential variables supplemented j

by hand written calibration and data sheets. f.

Examination of structural weld overlays was performed using manual ||

UT techniques and were demonstrated effective in detecting IGSCC in!

the overlay and the outer 25% of the original pipe wall. '

i

t

i

!

,

-- ._ _ _

Ir! o,,

TR-059i

.-e ' - Rev. O

I Page 6,,

2.3 Personrimi oualifications

UT was performed by personnel qualified to the NRC/IPRI/BWROO

i Coordination Plan for Training and Qualification Activities of

NDE Personnel.

2.4 QPUN Review|

EPRI* qualified CPUN personnel and CPUN-approved contractors who wereI!'

also EPRI-gualified performed reviews of all procedures, personnelL

certifications, data packages, and concurred with all data analysis ||

performed by the contractor. :

!

2.5 samolino Plan .j

This section provides the sampling plan used for inspections ini

12R. We %.escribe it in terms of Categories as defined in ,

t

NUREG-0313. The categories applicable to oyster Creek are: C (sI'd i

i

and inspected af ter SI in the same outage), D (no s!, inspected in ,

i

11R), E (inspected, founs to contain indications of IGSCC, and [t'

accepted as SI'd or standard weld overlay repaired), and 0 (not|

inspected in 11R).

Also, the basis used to select specific welds for inspection is i

discu6 sed. ;

)

!.

,

,

!

+-,

!

o*. l.

TR-059.,

Rev. O'

Page 7 j

2.5.1 Reeirculation svatem

cateaory c j

The initial sample was 10% (6) of the 61 Category C

butt-welds. An additioral 10% (6) were inspected after

.|two welds in the initial sample were found to contain j

i

indications of IGSCC. The remaining 49 were inspected |I

after one weld in the second sample was found to containi'indications of IGSCC.;

cateaory E|

I

The three welds found to contain indications of ICSCC in )

11R were inspected. Two were repaired with standard weld r

overlays; one was accepted as SI'd.

fcateoorv o

i

The four C-loop safe end welds were inspected after IHSI.

2.5.2 core serav i

Cateoory_O7

The safe end welds were inspected after IHSI (see 2.6.2

further discussion on these welds). For piping welds, 20%,

I(5) of the system's 26 total susceptible welds were

inspected. Of these, 4 were inspected before IHSI and 1 fwas inspected after IHSI. Following the detection of a

leak from one butt weld, an additional eight were '

,

inspected. Of these, seven had been IHSI'd during 12R. ;

2.5.3 Shutdown coolino

Cateoory G ;

20% (3) of the system's 14 total susceptible welds were |!'

Inspected.|.'

, ,

k

. _ _ . _

-_

t . m*.I

h''. >

U TR-059 !

E Rev. C i' Page 8 i

,

a

'2.5.4 Closure Head Picina

i

i

cateaory a,

20% (2) of the piping's 8 total susceptible welds were {

iinspected. Following the detection of a leak from onu 2 ;

ii ' inch butt weld (6x2 reducer) in the Reactor Head Cooling )

(RHC) line, three additional butt welds (two 4-inch and| ;

Ione 2-inch diameter) were UT examined.

2.5.5 RED +

t

Cateaory_g i

I

204 (10) of the system's 51 total susceptible welds [

inboard of the second containment isolation valves wore

inspected. ;

2.5.6 Isolation condenser (inside_the drywell)

i

Cateoory G i

All four safe end welds were inspected after IHSI. For

piping welds, 20% (10) of the system's 52 total

susceptible welds inside the drywell were inspected.

2.5.7 Isolation condenser (outside the drywell)

Cateoorv D

10% (4) of the 39 category D welds were inspected. An,

radditional 10% (4) were inspected after finding one weld

in the initial sample with indications of 20 SCC.

Additionally, two welds were inspected as part of the,

:

evaluation of the unusual operating condition of the

system at the end of Cycle 11 [9). Note that Category D i

only includes those welds inspected in 11R; no credit was

taken for insper:tions performed in 10R.

L

. _.

*oo .

i* TR-059i' Rev. 0*

,

f- Page 9'

'

Ic

'j Lategory E i

I i

The one weld overlay deposited in thR was inspected. 10% ;;

I

(2) of the 18 overlays deposited in 10R were inspected. i

And, one additional overlay deposited in 10R was inspected |t

i since it was the only one beneath which we detected the !

Icrack in the original pipe wall although it is not in the

!I

outer 25% of the original pipe wall. ||!Category.G

lot (11) of the system's 112 inspectable, susceptible butt

iwelds were inspected. Of these, 7 were original welds

that were inspected in 10R, to IRB 82-03 requirements, and |!

4 were installed in 10R as part of the repair program ?

['

[2]. These 4 were tie-in welds to the original piping.

Additionally, one weld was inspected as part of the !l

evaluation of the system's unusual operating condition at [i

the end of Cycle 11 [9). As a result of finding two welds ;

containing indications of 1GSCC in the initial sample, wei

inspected an additional 10% (11). All eleven were [f

originel welds that were inspected in 10R. j

2.5.8 Basis for selection [t

The selection of specific welds for inspection was based i!

on previous inspection results, whether from 10R or 11R. f

Welds with indications previously dispositioned as

geometry, root condition,

,

>

?O

,- e - , . ~ .

[. R,

,

o*. |..

b'

TR-059 I

L~ R.v. o j-

L Fage lo )| |

| |'

and/or counterbore appear to be possible candidates for I

|'

misinterpretation. Therefore, for the Recirculation

i system, we focused on welds previously dispositioned as

containing non-1GsCC indications. The welds we selected i

for the first sample of six were welds that required

substantial additional evaluation in 11R before being!

i dispositioned as non-2GSCC. In the second unnple of six, }

five were previously dispositioned as containing non-ICSCC |,!

indications, and one was dispositioned as containing no |

recordable indications, fi

A similar approach was used to select welds for inspection,

in the Isolation Condeneer system outside the drywell. i

:

Following the detection of a leah from a 2 inch weld in |,

the Reactor Head Cooling piping, two welds in the vent j

piping were selected based upon their being exposed to the !

same operating environment. Following the detection of a

I

( leak from the Core Spray Weld, and subsequent detection of|

a circumferential IGSCC indication by UT, we inspected all i'

the remaining Category G welds that were outside the,

bio-shield doors.,

2.6 Examination Results

This section describes the results of the 12R inspections. '

2.6.1 Recirculation System

Catcoorv C,

t

"

!1 >

t

_ _ _

.- -

TR-059 ' ))o',<

,

{ ~ * Rev. O j

.Page 11

I i

I: |

l Three (NG-D-11, NG-D-18, NG-D=21) of the 61 welds ||

inspected were found to contain indications of 2GSCC. !!

Details of the indications are provided in Table 2 and

Figures 1, 5 and 6. All three were inspected in 11R and ;'

!

were dispositioned as containing non-IG8CC indications. :!

,.

Additionally, weld NG-D-11 was one of the three welds''

inspected from the 3D in 10R [1] and was inspected before 7

I

and after decontamination and IH81 in 11R. The twoi.

indications detected in 10R are bounded by two of the

indications in 12R (see Figures 1 and 2). |

In order to verify the UT call and assess whether or not,

decontamination and/or IHSI contributed to cracking, a

1-1/2 inch diameter, full-wall plug was rem >ved and

forwarded to GE for metallurgical evaluation. In short,;

'

the evaluation showed that IGSCC was present, the actual.

depth was slightly deeper than the UT called depth (30% vs jL

27% throughwall), and we concluded that the crack as it ;t

currently exists was most likely present before |

Idecontamination and IHSI performed in 11R [10, 11). ;

fcateoorv E

The two overlays (NG-C-17 and NG-C-23) contained no

indications of IGSCC in the overlay or outer 25% of the

'original pipe wall. The indication in weld NG-C-9A, which

!was accepted as SI'd in 11R, was sized this outage as 24% {

throughwall x 4.6% circumference (see Table 2 and Figure

3). ,

!i

!-

s

- , -- -. ,c.-

_ _ - -r.I

e'..

|, TR-059 is

Rev. O' '

Page 12 ;

;

In 11R, the indication was oised as att throughwall x 2.9% |

I:

circumference (Figure 4). These are based on manual}

! measuremants; however, we note that the autoidated system (:

detected essentially no change in length (0.1" longer). |fWe consider that these differences are most likely a

, .

result of UT accuracy differences and not a result of fi -

actual growth. However, we plan to reinspect this weld int

i'

13R to confirm our judgement. !

|Cateaorv Q !

l

The four C-loop safe end welds were found to contain no

indications of 20$CC. In both safe ends, indications,

i'

attributable to the 3D axial cladding were found,

i

approximately 2 inches toward the vessel from the ||

safe-end-to-piping weld. Details of the examinations ;

iperformed are provided in TR-057 [12).

2.6.2 Core serag,

:

Cateaorv 0 ,

P

None of the piping welds examined by UT contained

!indications of ICSCC. Both safe end-to-nozzle welds|

contained no indications of 20 SCC. During weld ;

preparation for inspection of the safe end-to-pipingi

6

'' welds, we discovered an additional weld in each which is (

| the weld added as a result of the pre-commercial operation!

cracking repair program. Both these safe ends had been

heavily ground for PT examination in 1971 (13). t

i

>

- . _ . _ - - , _

?-

,

O*ae

TR-0B9.: ,,

,

Rev. O ;

)Page 13

: !This grinding left the surface An a rough, faceted ;

condition. Additionally, the calibration block was clad

i

on the 2D. This configuration (i.e., OD and ID clad)

requires the use of refracted longitudinal waves (RL) as [f

opposed to the normally-used shear waves. As the ,

,

;

inspections occured, it became apparent that there war [f

apparently no ID cladding between the two outer safe end j

welds. The ID cladding ends at the outer edge of theI

original safe end (Figure 11). r

l

'

Based on this best effort examination, we have concluded

!

that significant ICSCC is not present. The techniques (used resulted in a sensitive examination, but there was f

Isignificant noise due to the higher gains used. !

'

Based upon these results and high personnel exposures in

these areas, we have decided that we will reinspect these

four welds after we have developed automated surface

preparation procedures and manufacture a calibration block

that represents the as-found condition.

During a walkdown as part of the startup sequence, a leak

was detected from Core Spray Weld NE-3-38. At the time,

the pressure was about 1000 psi. The leak originated from

a short (1/8" long) axial crack. UT of this crack showed

that it had the characteristics of IGSCC.

=

7

c''.c,

,' :

TR-059 ,

,Rev. O I'

Page 14 [!

' '

UT of the weld detected another axial indication and a ,

|

circumferential indication (2.5" long a 51% throughwall) .

!'

(see Table 2 and Figure 10). This weld had been inspected |!

in 11R and was dispositioned as containing ano recordable !t|.

indications". This weld was ISH1'd in 12R with no post-S! i,

i

UT. As a result of finding the circumferential !

indication, we inspected eight naditional welds in both

Core Spray lines. All had not been previously inspected. L

No additional indications of 10800 were detected. [[

2.6.3 shutdown coolina ,j!

No indications of IGSCC were detected by UT. j

i

2.6.4 Closure Head Ploina j

No indications of IGSCC were detected by UT.

During hydrostatic testing (about 1135 psig), a leak was |:

detected coming from a crack in a 2 inch butt weld in the i

'r

Reactor Head Cooling piping. Destructive examination [

determined that the defect was attributable to ICSCC. We i

!.

| inspected two 4-inch and one 2-inch diameter velds in the j

vent piping; no additional indications of ICSCC were !

Idetected.

,

l 2.6.5 BN.QM

No indications of ICSCC were detected by UT.

2.6.6 Isolation condenser (inside the drywell)

| No indications of IGSCC were detected by UT.

|^ i

| 1

i

>

,, , - - - _ . - - - . _ . - - - , . - -

E'|~

< < ' . -TR-059' *

"

Rev. 0Page 15

,

;

;

2.6.7 Isolation condenaar (outside the drywell)

Cateaory D

one weld (NE-1-66) contained indications of IGSCC. See

Table 2 and Figure 7 for details.

j cat eaery E

No indications of IGSCC were detected in the overlays or

outer 25% of the original pipe walls.

Cateaory G

Two welds (NE-2-82 and NE-2-200) contained indications of

IGSCC. See Table 2 and Figures 8 and 9 for details. Both

were original system welds.

2.7 control Rod Drive Return Line

!

One weld (NC-4-6) in this line (3', SCH 80) was found by UT to j

icontain indications characteristic of 20 SCC. The UT procedure was j

'

the same as that employed for inspections within the scope of GL [

'88-01. We note that this weld was inspected as part of our Section

XI ISI program. It is not within the scope of GL 88-01 augmented,

inspection due to its size ( ( 4' NPS) and operating temperatureC

(80' F). The depth of the indication was UT-sized as 244 }

throughwall which exceeded the code-allowable maximum depth. For

prudency, we decided to remove the weld, and have it destructively ;

examined, rather than repair it. ;

|

GE performed the destructive evaluation of the weld. They concluded !

!

that the UT signal responses were a result of the condition of the

*

weld in the root area, primarily lack of fusion [14).

| -

: ,

'

',

-- -- - _ . --. . . --

>

0 .

TR-059 |,

Rev. O !'

Page 16 '

i;

3.0 DISPOSITION OF WILDMENTS CONTAINING IGSCC INDICATIONS |

3.1 Introduction !

IThis section describes the actions taken to disposition the !

,

weldments identified by examination as containing the UT signal !!

characteristics of 20 SCC. The two actions described are weld,

,

overlay repair and analytical evaluation for continued service !I

without repair.

3.2 Mald Overlav Repaire !

Recirculation system we?.de NO-D-11 and NO-D-21, Isolation Condenser

welds NE-1-66, NE-2-82 and NE-2-200, and Core spray Weld NE-3-38 :

were weld overlay repaired. The overlays were designed assuming,

that a 360' through-wall crack existed at each location. The -

resultar.t minimum design thickness provides adequate margin against |

plastic collapse when evaluated to the requirenents of IWB-3642 of

the ASME B&PV Code (1986 Edition) Section XI. The .ridth of the

overlays are sufficient to enable ultrasonic examination of the.

overlay and nuter 25% of the pipe wall in accordance with the :i

current, accepted methods. Since the overlays were deposited using ;

the gas tungstan are method, only primary stresses were included in ,

the design input.

Details of the designs are provided in Table 3, and Ref. 15. ,

i

The overlays were deposited using the GTAW process with 308L bare i

wire. The original pipe surface and final overlay nurface were

liquid penetrant examined. The measurements to confirm minimum

1

- - --

r &

L

9.,,TR-059,o

L Rev. 0 |*

Page 17,

hi

[ design thickness included the first layer that cc'ntained an average |!

'

ferrite number of 7.5 or higher with no single reading less than 5.,! l

Following completion of the overlay welding, each was ultrasonically ,

i

!emantned using the current, EPRI-taught, industry-accepted methods ;~

! i

as baseline examinations. :

fL. 3.3 Use-An-Is!

The indications in Recirculation system weld NO-D-18 were evaluated |

[for continued service assuming as-IHS!'d residual stress patterns.

'

i

NO-C-9A was re-evaluated based on the indication size an called in

12R. The results showed that both were acceptable for continued I"

service without repair when evaluated to the criteria of IWB-3640 of!

ASME Code (1986 Edition) Section XI, Tables IWB-3641-5 and 6 and |t

NUREG-0313 Rev. 2. The evaluation was performed assuming that the [

!weld was deposited using the shielded-metal are process. ,

t

As-IHSI-treated, we do not expect further substantial crack growth ,

!

to the point where repair action would be required. This will be |

confirmed by future examinations (see section 6.0). |

I'3.4 Replace

CRDR line weld NC-4-6 and the Reactor Head Cooling weld were

replaced. We note that neither weld is in the scope of GL 88-01. !

4.0 INDUCTION KEATING STRESS IMPROVEMENT IIHSI)

4.2 Introduction |

This section describes the implementation of IHSI during the 12R:

outage.

?

i

i

f

P

. _ . . .- __.__ _ ---

_

-i ...

i TR-059'

|'~

Rev. 0-'

Pags 14 {-'

: i

i 4.2 Extent

fRacirculation system

|

b-.

The four C-loop safe end welds were INSI'd.

!'Core Sprav

The six safe end welds were IHSI'd. Nucwch's evalu6 tion concludfid,

:

that the center weld (Figure 10) was effectively SI'd as a result of !,

I i

the treatment applied to the welds on either side. Additionally, 19 |

butt welds were IHSI'd. The three remaining susceptible weldo were ,

not treated this outage due to unexpected interferences. (Isolation condenser !

The four safe end welds and 9 piping welds were IHSI'd. ;i

4.3 Insometion seeuences !i

The four Recirculation safe end welds, four Isolation Condenser safe!

end welds, and six Core Spray nozzle s6fe end welds were inspected

,

after IHSI. See Section 2.6.2 for discussion of the Core Spray safe |!

end welds. |!

Of the 19 IMSI'd Core Spray piping welds, 9 were inspected thisI

outage after IHSI, 4 were inspected this outage before IHSI, and 6

were not inspected this outage. Of these 6, 3 were inspected in i

I11R.;

|-,

I

[r

>

,

;

1 ,

| '

,

b

|

- --.- _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _

yi ,

.~ , .I

TR-069, y ,* Rev. O|

I Page 19 |ii

of the 9 IN8!'d piping welds in the Isolation Condenser piping f[

inside the drywell, none were inspected this outage after 2HSI, 1 )

!

was inspected this outage before IHS!, and 8 were not inspected this

outage. Of these 8, 4 were inspected in 11R. f!

6.0 00NCLUSIONS

1. Our augmented inspection program fulfilled our commitment to the fr

NRC, including the requirements for extent of examinations, f:

examination nethods, and personnel and procedural qualifications. ;,

We consider that these inspections provide adequate assurance that ft

we are not experiencing a major cracking problem.L

2. Of the six weldments found to contain indications with UT signals I

icharacteristic of IGSCC, five were repaired with standard weld ;

;

overlays and one was analytically determJned to be acceptable*

Ias-!HSI-treated for continued service without repair. These

!

weldments are acceptable for continued service. The weld with the i

through-wall leak was repaired by weld overlay. |;

I 3. The 3 structural weld overlays deposited during the last outage !

i'

(11R) and three of the overlays deposited in 10R were examined; no :i

ICSCC indications were detected in the overlays or the outer 25% ot' |

the pipe walls. These overlays are acceptable for continuedP

i service.,

!

i

i

6

,

4

l

| -

. - _ _ - - - -- - - - - - .-

F[

l . ..,

!* TM-Ob9*

| Rev. OPage 20s

4. 3HS! treatment of welde was effectively performed. The likelihood

I

of initiation of ICSCC in uncracked weldments and further growth of ;

ehallow, undetected IGSCC Las been substantially reduced, if not !

:

eliminated. (!

5. Detection of indications of 3GsCC in welds that were previously s!'d [

and inspected is not currently considered indicative of ineffective

s!. The welds selected for initial and first expanded scope were [

those considered candidates for possible misinterpretation in |!

previous outage inspections. Destructive evaluation of a sample i

from one weld led to the conclusion that ICSCC was most likely,

present when s1 and subsequent inspection were performed. i

!6. The change in nise of the unrepaired indication in 82'd weld NG-C-9h

|

Iis probably due to sizing inaccuracies. We will continue to monitor!

this weld with inspection in future outagee. ji

6.0 FUTURE ACTIONS |

f

The NRC has issued Revision 2 to NUREG-0313 and implementing Generic f

Letter 88-01. These docut..ents address the IGSCC issue and include the

NRC's position and recommendations regarding long-term actions..

Implementation of mitigating actions, such as etress improvement

techniques and hydrogen water chemistry, and future inspection plans will fbe described in our response to Generic Letter 88-01.

,

t

P

,

1

l

|I

l:

__ . ,

.. 9 '.

TR-059'. ,

Rev. OPage 21

7.0 REFEREgcEs

'' 1. TR-012 Revel: Oyster Creek Recirculation System Piping InspectionProgram, GPUN, September 5, 1983.

" 2. *2 solation Condenser System Piping Cracked Welda-Repair and FailureAnalysis", TDR 580 Rev. 2, GPUN, November 5, 1985.

3. TR-039 Rev. Os oyster Creek Oycle 11R outage IGSCC Activities, GPUN,September 30, 1986.

4. "NRC Position on IGSCC in NWR Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping(Generic Letter 88-01)', USNRC, January 25, 1988.

5. ' Technical Report on Waterial Selection and Processing Guidelinesfor BWR Coolant Pressure Soundary Paping", NUREG-0313 Revision 1,W.S. Naselton, USNRC.

6. NRC letter dated October 18, 1988.

7. NRC/GPUN telecon, October 25, 1988.

8. NRC/GPUN telecon, November 30, 1988.

9. *0yster Creek Isolation Condenser Performance, August-September,1988", TDR 950, Rev. 1, GPUN.

10. GE Report 89-178-002, Evaluation of Core Sample NO-D-11 from OysterCreek Nuclear Generating Station, January 1989.

11. GE Report 89 CPR01-36, Forensic Evaluation of Oyster Creek NuclearGenerating Station Recirculation Pipe Specimen NO-D-11, January1989.

12. TR-057 Rev. 0: Dyster Creek Recirculation Nottle Safe End 12R OutageInspection Report, GPUN, March 9, 1989.

13. GPUN (I.R. Finfrock) letter to NRC (P.A. Norris), Inspection ofReactor Vessel Nozzles, June 16, 1970.

14. GE Report 89-178-003, Metallurgical Evaluation of a Three-InchDiameter CRD Return Line Elbow from Oyster Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation, February 1989.

15. Nutech Report XGU-05-212, Design Report For Weld overlay Repairs atOyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, 1988 Refueling (12R)Outage, February 1989.

__ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. ~

__

'

g . ,, ,

'_ TR-059 ;s .

.. Rev. O i

;-. J- Page 22 },

,

!

?

8.0 2&&L&g ,.

J

I1. Inspection Tabulation t

i 2. 3GSOC Indications !'33. Weld overlay Design Paraneters

! in

ir !-

1

'

e

f't

i

.

f

L ii

r

|t

?

,

P

.1,

5i {

,

i

ti

i!

l

Ii

IB

$

I

i

b

|i!'

|1.

|'

|

|' *

l i; i

|

| i| !1 ;

1'1

!'

|

fI

.t

I

h,

- _ _ - --

, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . .

_ ___

__

o_

o

TABLE 1 oInspection Tabulation

~

,-

'Fipe Total Uninspectable NURBG-0313 12RSystem NPS (in.) Welds Welds Category before Inspections

12R A 4 Dia.iRecirculation 26 89 5 C = 61 61

E=3 3.

C = 20* 4

Shutdown Cooling 14 14 O D=6 0C=8 3

RWCU 6 51 ** 5 D = 10 0C = 36 10

Closure Head 4, 6 8 O D=0 0C=8 4

_.

Core Spray 6, 8 28 *** O D=8 3C = 20 17

Iso Condenser

Inside DW 10 52 8 D = 12 OC = 32 14

Outside DK 8, 10, 137 2 D = 39 1012, 16 E = 19 4

C = 71 23

* All 20 are CD & ID Clad Safe End Welds.** Inside 2nd Civ*** This total includes the two welds found during 12R (see 2.6.2).

IIYii :" a 4

~ o 's |te

3

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -

_ _ _ _ _ _ __, __

e

.

TABLE 2 O

Page 1 of 3 ,"

IGSCC INDICATIONS

..

PipeSystem Diameter Weld No. Location Indication Description

Recirculation 26.0" NG-C-9A *C* Loop 112 Examinatit,n, (Elbow to pipe configuration)IGSCC indication #1 started at L-14.8*, is 2.2-

long, and is 184 thru wall. The indication is onthe elbow side of the weld. (Ref. Figure 4)

12R ExaminationIGSCC indication #1 starts at L-14.25 , is 3.5"long, and is 24% thru well. The indication is onthe elbow side of the weld. (Ref. Figure 2)

Recirculation 26.0" NG-D-11 "D" Loop IOR Examination, (Pump to elbow configuration)Root geometry indication #200 started at L-20.75*and was 1.75* long. The indication is on the elbowside of the weld. (Ref. Figure 2) -

Root geometry indication #201 started at L-49.50*and was 12.5- long. The indication is on the elbow.side of the weld. (Ref. Figure 2)

12R ExaminationIGSCC indication #1 starts at L-20.40 , is 2.4*long, and is 20% thru wall. The indication is onthe elbow side of the weld. (Ref. Figure 1)

IGSCC indication #2 starts at i.-30.20 , is 3.80-

long, and is 20% thru wall. The indication is onthe elbow side of the weld. (Ref. Figure 1)

IGSCC indication #3 starts at L-43.OO , is 33.5*long, and is 24% thru wall. The indication is onthe elbow side of the weld. (Ref. Figure 1)

IGSCC indit ation #4 starts at L-78.30*, is 2.70*long, and is 244 thru wall. The indication is onthe elbow side of the weld. (Ref. Figure 1)

:r;1| .* a;o

..

_. _ _ . -_. _ - - _ _,

.

..

DTABLE 2*

Page 2 of 3,

IGSCC INDICATIOftS_-

PipeSystem Diameter Weld No. Location Indication Description

Recirculation 26.O* NG-D-18 *D Loop 12R Examination, (Pipe to pipe configuration)IGSCC indication #1 started at L-55.O*, is 1.2*

long, and is 14% thru wall. The indication is onthe upctream side of the weld. (Ref. Figure 5)

IGSCC indication #1 starts at L-78.OO*, is 2.2*

long, and is 10% thru wall. The indication is onthe upstream side of the weld. (Ref. Figure 5)

Recirculation 26.0" NG-D-21 *D* Loop 12R Examination, (Pipe to elbow configuration) 4

IGSCC indication #1 started at L-24.6", is 2.3*

long, and is 30% thru wall. The indication is onthe elbow side of the weld. (Ref. Figure 6)

IGSCC indication #2 starts at L-64.OO", is 1.O*long, and is 20% thru wall. The indication is onthe pipe side of the weld. (Ref. Figure 6)

IGSCC indication #3 starts at L-72.80 , is 2.3"long, and is 25% thru wall. The indication is onthe pipe side of the weld. (Ref. Figure 6)

IGSCC indication #4 starts at L-77.80", is 1.8*long, and is 26% thru wall. The indication is onthe pipe side of the weld. (Ref. Figure 6)

Isolation 12.O* NE-1-66 *B* Loop 12R Examination, (Pipe to elbow configuration)Condenser Steam Side IGSCC indication #1 started at L-37.5*, is 4.5*

long, and is 35% thru well. The indication is onthe pipe side of the weld. (Ref. Figure 7)

_ _ _

it ? oMO

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

__

- . - . _ _ _ _ _ .

o.

TABLE 2 Page 3 of 3 E-

,

.

IGSCC INDICATIONS

PipeSystem Diameter Weld No. Location Indication Description

Isolation 1:7.0" NE-2-82 "B" Loop 12R Examination, (Pipe to elboer configuration)

Condenser Condensate IGSCC indication #1 started at L-10.5", is 2.5"4

side long, and is 224 thru wall. The indication is onthe elbow side of the weld. (pef. Figure 8)

IGSCC indication #2 started at L-17.O*, is 4.O*

long, and is 284 thru wall. The indication is onthe pipe side of the weld. (Ref. Figure 8)

Isolation 12.0" NE-2-100 *B" Loop 12R Examination, (Tee to pipe configuration)Condenser Condensate IGSCC indication #1 started at L-6.40*, is 1.3*

Side long, and is 25% thru wall The indication is onthe Tee side of the weld. (Ref. Figure 9)

IGSCC indication #2 started at L-29.O*, is 2.4*

long, and is 15% thru well. The indication is onthe Tee side of the weld. (Ref. Figure 9)

Core Spray 8.0" NZ-3-38 North 12R Examination (after leak visually detected)elbone-to-pipe configuration.

Indication #1 is axial at L-6.5", is 0.25" long,throughwall leaker, on the pipe side.

Indication #2 is axial at L-8.2", is 0.30- long,and on the pipe side. No depth determined.

Indication #3 starts at L-9.9, is 2.6* long, andis 51% throughwall. The indication is on the pipeside of the weld (Figure 10).

_-__.

$ .< $go5

|. , . . TR-059

:n R2v. 0

|I** TABLE 3 P89e 27

|CIRCUMFERENTIALLY FLAWED OVERLAY-REPAIRED WELDS

PIPE AND FLAW GEOMETRIC DETAILS

I(2) I3) I4) t(5) ,(6) g(7)O. D.III t p o tgt

Weld No. (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) Decrees

NE-1-66 12.750 0.68 0.501 0.083 1.181 0.773 360

NE-2-82 8.625 0.52 0.436 0.080 0.956 0.610 360

NE-2-100 10.750 0.60 0.274 N/A 0.874 0.610 360I NG-D-11 26.000 1.34 0.625 N/A 1.965 1.350 360

NG-D-21 26.000 1.30 0.710 N/A 2.010 1.310 360

I NZ-3-38 8.625 0.516 0.294 0.046 0.810 0.572 360

Notes:

1. O.D. = outside diameter.

2. t = pipe wall thickness.p

3. t = total weld overlay repair thickness.o

4. tg = low delta ferrite first layer thickness

I (if applicable).

5. t =tp+t.I

o

6. a = evaluation flaw depth=tp+tg+ .010" bounding f a tigue Orack growth.

7. L = evaluation f)aw length.

IB

II |

4

t1utechg vaox atrtRcuct 16:

v- t ,q .

|'ja .., ,

| v- a6 TR-059.,

Rev. O i' ''

Page 28 |

l

|L 9.0 FIGURES|i

1. NG-D-11: 12R Indications j

2. NO-D-11: 10R 2ndications |

|

3. NG-C-9As 12R Indication |'

4. NG-C-9As 11R Indication'

,

5. NG-D-18 12R Indications )

6. NG-D-21 12R Indicationu

7. WE-1-66: 12R Indications

8. NE-2-82: 12R Indications

9. NE-2-100: 12R Indications

10. NE-3-38: 12R Indications

11. Core Spray safe End Configuration

i;

l'

|t

|

||

l. .'

P

l

o|

!t

'

L-

. _ , . . _ - _-..

e L 1Nualear_-.-- - -

, .

7.. -

;,,_os,

jh_QgD NO. NG-D-lI' '

f'

.- M MTE- | 2 R R3v. O,

" ' " " I'* sys7m RECIRC. . .

WEl n NO.- NG-D-Il IND*Att !

' ',. ~ ,.- ..

'

PUMP _NOM, PIPE O.D. 26.0".- -

- .

'

,- NOM. PIPE WALL I,219'''

N| .

-

N 's ,

ELBOW,-- PUMP.,'

:

'

EXAM. IND.1 .Z. AUTO 81,0' -

MANUAL'" g g,3 T W' SE"*2 2-o

;-

,

j 76,5 ;;-

o

I. #

N0 4_.

,

I

'

s

IN D, ,. INDI34"

22,8 -|

IND 2,

I^It

30.2

34.0" a40,8

I 43,0'|

'

INDICATION EVALUATION = IGSCC

p ACOCC8 91 ' 1-82

IFigure 1|

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

.. . . _.-. .- 7-- - - -- ~~ - ~

J

'e wlNualear ";E ;30" !L ..

:. ELD NO. NG-D-Il..

NW~ ,

'

,' FyAM DATE- 10 R,

;

;' - S(STEM- RECIRC 4

'

,-,~ .% ELD NO.- NG-D-Il IND"ALL'

,. ,.-' '

sPUMp NOM. PIPE O.D. 26.0"> - -. - .

'

sl- NOM. PIPE WALL l.219^''

--

-'

N -

PUMP '-' '

ELBOW'

'

EXAM. -w IND.__ AUTO

1.2LMANUAL' O TW- SEWH 2. -

.

!-s 4-

|

,

*

Y20,75 I N D'2 0.Q.,-

;, #

-

ri #

L 22.5 - IND 201 > ,

1 i|

8

'

49.540,8"

'

INDICATION EVALUATION = ROOT GEOMETRY.. . , . , )

t,

Figure 2

. . . . ---- - . . - - . _ _ _ _ . _. . _

.

TR-059#") NJ j g fe. R>v. o I, h D NO. NG-C-9A '

o .w -

.s 1 ,.- @ EATE- 12 R reso 32 !'

.

SYSTEM- RECIRC :.

w n NQ-NG-C-9A IN 1? 1-'-

,. ..- ,.

,- ELBOW NOM, PIPE 0.D. 26,0''' '' '

- .

sl NOM. PIPE WALL I,219+ ;''

',

,

Is'

ELBOW,'

f PIPE i- .

\\ .

.

kEXAM. mD.AUTO '

X. MANUAL 0 TW 0.306 24%

|

>

*M 14.25 +-

!

17,75'k ,

L + ,

,

|

|

|

5-

:

i

40. If|

INDICATION EVALUATION = IGSCC

Aooooietii.e2' - -

I1

Fir,ure 3 ;

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

,

LNELD NO. NG-C-9A E;"|-

' '-

FvAM EATLr_ ii R ,,,;3,''

+ s .-,

SYSTEM- REC | RC .

.

WEi n No.-NG-C-9A IN ii I' '

'.' ,

,, .^

,- . ELBOWNOM, PIPE O.D. 26,O* j

''

.

NOM. PIPE WALL l.219''''

'

s ,- ;

s''- ELBOW',

,* PIPE i .

\

EXAM. k J-m

AUTOIMANUAL 4

0 T w = QJ.P.J. .J.fLE'

| :

,

| -

16.F, i.

,

17,'s .'| sr .

b

+

,

J 5-

,,

t .

40. t(

INDICATION EVALUATION = IGSCC

, -.n i.n.

"

Figure 4

. , , _ _ _ . . , . . _ _ _ . . _ - - _ . . . _ _ , . . . . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ . . _ . .

.. _ _. - . ._ - .

t. :< uuNuclear o a,,

. . . . .

t g NO. NG-D-18 '" '

M MTF- 12 R **''; 3,,

,

f' system- RECIRC' ,,

'

|'

,- .- WEl n NO.- NG- )-| 8 INDEAt.L !'

'

NOM,I)IPE O.D. 26,0'' |'

,- PIPE .

'

s1 NOM. PIPE WALL l.219''/' ''

'-

N ' ,

PIPE'-

.

n )EXAM. Q IND. f'

X AUTO:

__ MANUAL

(f 80.2"78.0'' [TW SEE7hE1

l |

|

4 V +- '

wa\.,

-

.

+ -

IND~i

-

1 ,.

56.2'

N T-

55,0 3

5

l#

40,8 -

INDICATION E' VALUATION = IGSCC- - - -

, - i n.ii

Figure 5

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

. _ . _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _. _ _ . . _ .

=-o a !<1WINuclearwiiD NO. NG-O'21

''- ev. o !-

FvAM CATE- 12 R rep 34 j.g i'

'

. ,.-s

SYSTEJ- RECIRCe i

,- WEl n O.- NG- 3 - 21 IN 1%t' '

..- -.

'' '

,- PI PE NOM, PIPE O.D. 26.0"' '-

.

,

NOM. PIPE WALL I,219'''

si ,-'

'* '

i PIPE,'-

ELBOW,

\\ <;

zut> o + z~o n .s .ay )EXAM. m f~

_E. AUTO cw'

t

MANUAL "~~ og TW SEE.TABL& 'l,,

,

,

j 77,8, :75,l'

72.8'.

'

-* w4 +-

IN D.*3.'' 65,0,

,

'64.0''tw2

.

+ -

IN D.*1

24,6 -

| ~

i 26,9

| s

40, 8''-

\

INDICATION EVALUATION = IGSCC'

,'

f AOOOO? 91 11 82' *

IFigure 6 *

_ . - - . - - . _ __ __ _ - _.-_. -...._ _. _ _ _ -_ _ _ ___ _ _____ - - _ _ _ _ -----

, . ._ -- - . . - - .

!:d WINuclearl > n-m.. ,

' -|wEl D NO. NE-1-66' '

$$"$s'

,- M ncF- 12 R a J,

' ' , ' ' systad- ISO.COND.''

.- WEl n No.- NE-l-66 IN 1? I- --

[j ' ' ''

'

gt NOM, f)IPE O.D. 12,0''

-,

' ,

sl NOM. PIPE WALL 0,687/''

-

PIPE' |'js -

-'

ELBOW'-

EXAM. 'IN 1 f-- ~

AUTOXMANUAL 08 0 37,5" " '

,,

2,0|

. \ )

|! C '

.

I:

I 4-| -. \ /t

.. i

t..

+

L

1 '

/

1

L5

L

1

1 20,0'',

1.

INDICATION EVALUATION = IGSCC,,

-

-.i n.n,,,

*iFigurc 7

_ . _ . . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ - - - --- _- - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ~~ - ~ ~ ' ' ' "

~~

n's Nualear a-on I

L' NEE 3 NO. NE-2-82 ,- M MTE- 12 R f,. "# -

'

SYST9A- ISO COND. ;

WEI n NO.- NE-2-82 IN D.* 4t t I' '

-

,, ,.' '

,- ' PIPE NOM, PIPE 0.D. 8.0"g|.

_

NOM. PIPE WALL 0.500*''

l -

,-[si PIPE, )ls -

k }I N O.~2 ) !IN D'1 i "

,

EXAM. INO. f~

_. AUTO'

_E. MANUAL 0 Tw sE" *52'

|

i

! 1!

| -

|9 4-

!

L 21.0" i

IND 2- '

,

|

IND'1

[ :-

aP

h10,5 | 7,o'

1\

.[13,5"h 13,0-

INDICATION EVALUATION = IGSCC

Acocca$~ d,

Figure 8 I

L'':RINuoMs 1 -os,. .

'*j WFI D' NO, NE-2-lq0 ,-,- M m- 12 R "''f ,,

'

E '.: - smrrM-ISO COND.'"

,- ,- WEl n No.- 1 E-2-100 IN 1?ALL' '

"' ' '

|TEE NOM. PIPE 0.D. 10,0*' '

-.- - .

,'

sl NOM. PIPE WALL 0,593'.'-

'-

'' ' s ,- TE:,.

''

PIPE' . . ,

i

~

KIND 72 )EXAM. k "~ ;IN 1

AUTO.4. MANUAL 0 TW se 5 788* '

.

^

30.2

^

6.0" 27:8*--*

f

IND72 /,,

7.3 IND'1%

+

,

I'

J16 9*

INDICATION VALUATIO N = IGSCC,

9 - i ii.43. . . s.

.

iFigure 9

?VJ1 Nuclear i '1.

wn 0 NO. NE 3-38 i-

, - x ,.- Fv'" MTr- 12 R ("[5|-

' t

o . f ,,

SYSTDJ- core. SPRAY 'Pags 38'< ,,

-

;. ..- ,- WEl n e ,- uit . 3 - 3 s !' '

' '_

|'

ELBOW NOM, PIPE O.D. 8 o"L .; '

- .

,

T, si ,- NOM. PIDE WALL .5"'

-

,

1 s --

i ELBOW,'% -

PIPE,

EXAM * U #^,

% IN ) f -

AUTO- '

1 MANUAL'

O T W - o. as 1!_;51

l4,

l

D .,q_

.

*

;-

'

4.S ' -

t.EPMER (ai).

1

,

* 2.~ ,

#

nr3

fa.i

s'

i

|'

12.5 '

4 tSPTM mot mEnsano

INDICATION EVALUATION = IGSCC

t *= i i i . n- - -

1. ,.

Figure 9,1

w ., ,.

>

ft,, O TR-059 ,

, e* .. Rey, O*'' P:ge 39.

I " '

t,

dh I'

, -c yw' Nu

k'$ LaJ-c'i zQ' E Q

'"

gYI, D.' ht'O -

lL] d " vi |L Au ----

Wt4 i_.I LA N

*.

Q r..~.

3 Nh' W S br E E

e _j - -,.n:, e I

l's] 08 1 f i

\\ / / jsj ~

/ /o s. f- ti. _ .

,

' ' / '- --- i... j\j ,/ /.

e , i

"-o Lg ,

._,||

- *!

.)' EI. #l g ;i

<- -

u :. _ , .

t'a

I | (f) uca.

- . ,.

O4 .

'' . " '' :,.. -.-: '' (1| 5n~

U g. i,

ea'--

| Q g-~o

n n u ,

(""~'jb )I m .,

I L.L.* -

t-- .,'' '

i I (_) En= \ w .z =.o.-

mEl bCJ N. /* =i,

". tJ.'s, ., ..

.#*

u2. = ,

%.. g./** e ''s %.. .*1Ow

O . . . -.

komy i -,

1 3 @ D*

n -

bf Ua oo zu

*/ \o y$G/ oei i M W

~ 'Z J/ \s b GI WC/E j fa&

N 2 ' c'.:Nx NO-

. . . . . .

Figure 11,