ML11124A131

Fourth Ten Year Interval -- Inservice Inspection Plan Request for Relief No. 10-ON-002

ML11124A131
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	04/29/2011
From:	Gillespie T Duke Energy Carolinas
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
10-ON-002
Download: ML11124A131 (225)

Text

Duke T.PRESTON GILLESPIE, Jr.

Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy ON01 VP / 7800 Rochester Hwy.

Seneca, SC 29672 April 29, 2011 864-873-4478 864-873-4208 fax T.Gillespie@duke-energy.corn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 2, and 3 Docket No: 50-269, -270, -287 Fourth Ten Year Interval -- Inservice Inspection Plan Request for Relief No. 10-ON-002 Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), attached is a Request for Relief from the requirement to examine 100% of the volume specified by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code), Section Xl, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, 1998 Edition with 2000 Addenda (as modified by Code Case N-460).

The attached Request for Relief 10-ON-002 is to allow Duke Energy to take credit for the enclosed Table 1 list of limited ultrasonic examinations on welds associated with various systems and components during Unit 1 end of cycle 24, Unit 2 end of cycle 22, and Unit 3 end of cycle 23 refueling outages. The ultrasonic examination coverage of the subject Unit 1, 2, and 3 welds did not meet the 90% examination requirements of Code Case N-460. The obtainable volume coverage for weld examination is indicated on the enclosed requests. Achievement of greater examination coverage for these welds is impractical due to piping/valve geometry and interferences.

Therefore, Duke Energy requests that the NRC grant relief as authorized under 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i).

If there are any questions or further information is needed you may contact Corey Gray at (864) 873-6325, Sincerely, T. Preston Gillespie Jr.,

Site Vice President Enclosure www. duke-energy.corn

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 29, 2011 Page 2 xc w/att:

Victor McCree Region IIAdministrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 John Stang Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 xc(w/o attch):

Andrew Sabisch Senior NRC Resident Inspector Oconee Nuclear Station Susan Jenkins, Section Manager Division of Waste Management Bureau of Land and Waste Management SC Dept. of Health & Environmental Control 2600 Bull St.

Columbia, SC 29201

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 29, 2011 Page 3 bxc w/att: M. A. Pyne M. J. Ferlisi D. K. Zimmerman R. R. Connell J. M. Boughman R. G. Sheffield M. E. Zurbuch (ANII)

C. A. Gray ISI Relief Request File NRIA File/ELL EC050 ONS Information Service and Compliance

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 1.0 Scope of Relief Request Relief is requested pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii) for welds listed in Table 1.

These welds were required to be examined in accordance with Inservice Inspection Plans for the following Units.

Oconee Nuclear Station - Unit 1 Fourth 10-Year Inservice Inspection Interval Interval Start Date: 01/01/2004 Oconee Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Fourth 10-Year Inservice Inspection Interval Interval Start Date: 09/09/2004 Oconee Nuclear Station - Unit 3 Fourth 10-Year Inservice Inspection Interval Interval Start Date: 1/2/2005 Table 1 Relief Oconee Examination Weld ID Item/Summary Examination Data Request Unit Performed Number Number Section Number (Refueling Number Out_.q*.Le 2.0 1 1EOC24 1LP-124-21 O1.C5.11.0027 See Attachment A Pages 1-2 3.0 1 1EOC24 1HP-282-76A O1.C5.21.0023 See Attachment A Pages 3-4 4.0 1 1EOC24 1HP-193-13 O1.C5.21.0039 See Attachment A Pages 5-6 5.0 1 1EOC24 1HP-367-21 O1.C5.21.0043 See Attachment A Pages 7-8 6.0 1 1EOC24 1 LP-208-4 O1.C5.11.0076 See Attachment A Pages 9-10 7.0 1 1EOC24 1 LP-208-3 O1.C5.11.0075 See Attachment A Pages 11-12 8.0 1 1EOC24 1LP-208-20 O1.C5.11.0074 See Attachment A Pages 13-14 9.0 1 1EOC24 1 LP-208-19 O1.C5.11.0072 See Attachment A Pages 15-16 10.0 1 1EOC24 1-PDB2-1 01.B9.11.0075 See Attachment A I I_ I Pages 17-21 Page 1 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 Table 1 Relief Oconee Examination Weld ID Item/Summary Examination Data Request Unit Performed Number Number Section Number (Refueling Number - Outage) 11.0 1 1EOC24 1-PIB2-9 O1.B9.11.0053 See Attachment A Pages 22-26 12.0 2 2EOC22 2-PZR-WP15 02.B3.110.0001 See Attachment B Pages 1-9 13.0 2 2EOC22 2-PZR-WP26-4 02.B3.110.0006 See Attachment B Pages 10-17 14.0 2 2EOC22 2-PZR-WP26-5 02.B3.110.0007 See Attachment B Pages 18-25 15.0 2 2EOC22 2-PZR-WP26-6 02.B3.110.0008 See Attachment B Pages 26-33 16.0 2 2EOC22 2-PDBl-1 02.B9.11.0059 See Attachment B Pages 34-38 17.0 2 2EOC22 2-LST-HD-SH-2 02.C1.20.0006 See Attachment B Pages 39-41 18.0 2 2EOC22 2LP-148-90 02.C5.11.0004 See Attachment B Pages 42-43 19.0 2 2EOC22 2-51A-17-147 02.C5.21.0021 See Attachment B Pages 44-45 20.0 2 2EOC22 2HP-220-9 02.C5.21.0024 See Attachment B Pages 46-47 21.0 2 2EOC22 2HP-220-14 02.C5.21.0025 See Attachment B Pages 48-50 22.0 3 3EOC23 3-PZR-WP15 03.B3.110.0001 See Attachment C Pages 1-8 23.0 3 3EOC23 3-PZR-WP34 03.B3.110.0002 See Attachment C Pages 9-15 24.0 3 3EOC23 3-PZR-WP33-3 03.B3.110.0003 See Attachment C Pages 16-22 25.0 3 3EOC23 3-PZR-WP33-2 03.B3.110.0004 See Attachment C Pages 23-29 Page 2 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 Table 1 Relief Oconee Examination Weld ID Item/Summary Examination Data Request Unit Performed Number Number Section Number (Refueling Number Outagej 26.0 3 3EOC23 3-PZR-WP33-1 03.B3.110.0005 See Attachment C Pages 30-36 27.0 3 3EOC23 3-PIA1-8 03.B9.11.0007 See Attachment C Pages 37-41 28.0 3 3EOC23 3HP-241-3 03.B9.11.0035 See Attachment C Pages 42-43 29.0 3 3EOC23 3-LST-HD-SH-2 03.C1.20.0006 See Attachment C Pages 44-47 30.0 3 3EOC23 3LP-132-23 03.C5.11.0015 See Attachment C Pages 48-50 31.0 3 3EOC23 3LP-221-27 03.C5.11.0032 See Attachment C Pages 51-52 32.0 3 3EOC23 3LP-221-18 03.C5.11.0033 See Attachment C Pages 53-54 33.0 3 3EOC23 3LP-221-17 03.C5.11.0034 See Attachment C Pages 55-56 34.0 3 3EOC23 3LP-222-15 03.C5.11.0049 See Attachment C Pages 57-58 35.0 3 3EOC23 3LP-222-16 03.C5.11.0050 See Attachment C Pages 59-62 36.0 3 3EOC23 3-51A-52-29 03.C5.21.0019 See Attachment C Pages 63-64 37.0 3 3EOC23 3-51A-59-87 03.C5.21.0032 See Attachment C Pages 65-67 38.0 3 3EOC23 3HP-501-23 03.C5.21.0058 See Attachment C I I__ I IPages 68-69 Page 3 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 2.0 Weld #1LP-124-21 2.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 1 Reducer to Valve Weld, Weld #1LP-124-21, Summary Number O1 .C5.11.0027 2.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 2.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-i, Item Number C5. 11, Figure IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 2.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Stainless steel reducer

• Surface 2: Cast stainless steel valve

• NPS: 12.0 in.

• Thickness: 1.168 in.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a (b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one axial direction ($1 -

reducer)

• 60' shear waves obtained 0% coverage in one axial direction (S2 - valve)

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (50% + 0% + 50% +

50%)/4 = 37.5%.

The limitation was caused by the cast stainless steel valve material and configuration. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

2.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use This weld was examined using procedure, equipment, and personnel qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII. No alternative examinations Page 4 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

2.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

2.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 01.C5.11.0027 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.11 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), visual observations performed during operator rounds provide additional assurance that in the event leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 5 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 3.0 Weld #1HP-282-76A 3.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 1 Valve to Tee Weld #1 HP-282-76A, Summary Number O1 .C5.21.0023 3.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 3.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-i, Item Number C5.21, Figure IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 3.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Forged stainless steel valve

• Surface 2: Stainless steel tee

• NPS: 4.0 in.

• Thickness: 0.531 in.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a (b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction (S1 -

valve)

• 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction (S2 - tee)

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 45' shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (100% + 100% + 50% +

50%)/4 = 75%.

The limitation was caused by the valve taper configuration. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

3.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use This weld was examined using procedure, equipment, and personnel qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII. No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service Page 6 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

3.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

3.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 01 .C5.21.0023 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.21 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), visual observations performed during operator rounds provide additional assurance that in the event leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 7 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 4.0 Weld #1HP-193-13 4.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 1 Tee to Valve Weld #1 HP-1 93-13, Summary Number O1 .C5.21.0039 4.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 4.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-I, Item Number C5.21, Figure IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 4.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Stainless steel tee

• Surface 2: Cast stainless steel valve

• NPS: 4.0 in.

• Thickness: 0.674 in.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a (b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one axial direction (S1 - tee)

• 600 shear waves obtained 0% coverage in one axial direction (S2 - valve)

• 380 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 380 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (50% + 0% + 50% +

50%)/4 = 37.5%.

The limitation was caused by the cast stainless steel valve material and taper configuration. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

4.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use This weld was examined using procedure, equipment, and personnel qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII. No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service Page 8 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

4.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

4.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 01.C5.21.0039 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.21 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), visual observations performed during operator rounds provide additional assurance that in the event leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 9 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 5.0 Weld #1HP-367-21 5.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 1 Elbow to Flange Weld #1 HP-367-21, Summary Number O1 .C5.21.0043 5.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 5.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-i, Item Number C5.21, Figure IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 5.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

" Surface 1: Stainless steel elbow

• Surface 2: Stainless steel flange

• NPS: 3.0 in.

• Thickness: 0.216 in.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a (b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one axial direction (51 -

elbow)

• 600 shear waves obtained 19.2% coverage in one axial direction (S2 -

flange)

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (50% + 19.2% + 50% +

50%)/4 = 42.3%.

The limitation was caused by the flange configuration. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the flange would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

5.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use This weld was examined using procedure, equipment, and personnel qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII. No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT)

Page 10 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

5.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

5.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number O1.C5.21.0043 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.21 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), visual observations performed during operator rounds provide additional assurance that in the event leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 11 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 6.0 Weld #1 LP-208-4 6.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 1 Pipe to Valve Weld #1 LP-208-4, Summary Number O1 .C5.11.0076 6.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 6.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-i, Item Number C5.1 1, Figure IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 6.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Forged stainless steel valve

• Surface 2: Stainless steel pipe

• NPS: 10.0 in.

• Thickness: 1.0 in.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a (b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction (S1 -

valve)

• 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction (S2 -

pipe)

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (100% + 100% + 50%-+

50%)/4 = 75%.

The limitation was caused by the valve taper configuration. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

6.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use This weld was examined using procedure, equipment, and personnel qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII. No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service Page 12 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

6.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

6.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number O1.C5.11.0076 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.11 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 13 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 7.0 Weld #1 LP-208-3 7.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 1 Pipe to Valve Weld #1 LP-208-3, Summary Number O1 .C5.11.0075 7.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 7.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-i, Item Number C5.11, Figure IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 7.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Stainless steel pipe

• Surface 2: Forged stainless steel valve

• NPS: 10.0 in.

• Thickness: 1.0 in.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a (b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction (S1 -

pipe)

• 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction (S2 -

valve)

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (100% +100% + 50% +

50%)/4 = 75%.

The limitation was caused by the valve taper configuration. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

7.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use This weld was examined using procedure, equipment, and personnel qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII. No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT)

Page 14 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

7.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

7.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 01 .C5.11.0075 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.11 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 15 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 8.0 Weld #1 LP-208-20 8.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 1 Pipe to Valve Weld #1 LP-208-20, Summary Number O1 .C5.11.0074 8.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 8.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-i, Item Number C5.11, Figure IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 8.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Forged stainless steel valve

• Surface 2: Stainless steel pipe

• NPS: 10.0 in.

• Thickness: 1.0 in.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a (b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

0 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction (51 -

valve)

• 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction (S2 -

pipe)

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (100% + 100% + 50% +

50%)/4 = 75%.

The limitation was caused by the valve taper configuration. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

8.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use This weld was examined using procedure, equipment, and personnel qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII. No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT)

Page 16 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

8.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

8.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number O1.C5.11.0074 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.11 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 17 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 9.0 Weld #1 LP-208-19 9.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 1 Pipe to Valve Weld #1 LP-208-19, Summary Number O1 .C5.11.0072 9.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 9.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-i, Item Number C5.1 1, Figure IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 9.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Stainless steel pipe

• Surface 2: Forged stainless steel valve

• NPS: 10.0 in.

• Thickness: 1.0 in.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a (b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction (S1 -

pipe)

• 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction (S2 -

valve)

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (100% +100% + 50% +

50%)/4 = 75%.

The limitation was caused by the valve taper configuration. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

9.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use This weld was examined using procedure, equipment, and personnel qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII. No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT)

Page 18 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

9.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

9.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 01 .C5.11.0072 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.11 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 19 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 10.0 Weld #1-PDB2-1 10.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 1 RCP 1B2 Pump Casing Nozzle to Safe-End Weld #1-PDB2-1, Summary Number O1..B9.11.0075 10.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 10.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-J, Item Number B9.11, Figure IWB-2500-8 (c), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 10.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Stainless steel safe end

• Surface 2: Cast stainless steel pump casing

• NPS: 33.50 in.

• Thickness: 2.330 in.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a (b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

0 600 shear waves obtained 50.0% coverage in one axial direction (S1 -

safe end)

• 60' shear waves obtained 0.0% coverage in one axial direction (32 -

pump casing)

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (50% + 0% + 50% +

50%)/4 = 37.5%.

• In addition, a best effort examination was performed using 600 and 700 longitudinal waves to the extent possible in the upper 2/3 area.

The limitation was caused by the pump casing material. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the pump casing would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

Page 20 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 10.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use This weld was examined using procedure, equipment, and personnel qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII. No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

10.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

10.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number O1 .B9.11.0075 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with.the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this B9.11 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1; Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 21 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 11.0 Weld #1-PIB2-9 11.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Oconee Unit 1 RCP 1B2 Pump Casing Nozzle to Safe-End Weld #1-PIB2-9, Summary Number 01 .B9.11.0053 11.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 11.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-J, Item Number B9.11, Figure IWB-2500-8 (c), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 11.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Stainless steel safe end

• Surface 2: Cast stainless steel pump casing

• NPS: 36.50 in.

• Thickness: 2.330 in.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a (b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 60' shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one axial direction (S1 - safe end)

• 600 shear waves obtained 0.0% coverage in one axial direction (S2 -

pump casing)

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 45' shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (50% + 0% + 50% +

50%)/4 = 37.5%.

• In addition, a best effort examination was performed using 60' and 700 longitudinal waves to the extent possible in the upper 2/3 area.

The limitation was caused by the pump casing material. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the pump casing would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

Page 22 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 11.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use This weld was examined using procedure, equipment, and personnel qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII. No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

11.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

11.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number O1..B9.11.0053 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda. .

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this B9.1 1 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1; Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 23 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 12.0 Weld #2-PZR-WP15 12.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 2, Pressurizer Lower Head to Surge Nozzle Weld #2-PZR-WP15, Summary Number 02.B3.110.0001 12.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 12.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Item Number B3.110 Figure IWB-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I 12.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Carbon Steel Lower Head

• Surface 2: Carbon Steel Surge Nozzle

• NPS: 15.250 in.

• Thickness: 4.750 in.

Scan requirements are described in ASME Section V, Article 4, T-441.1.2(a), T-441.1.3, T-441.1.4, T-441.1.5 and T-441.1.6. The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following base and weld metal scan results:

• Weld coverage provided an aggregate coverage of 37.3%

• Base Material coverage provided an aggregate coverage of 51.2%

• 0' Scan coverage provided a coverage of 36.5%

• The total obtained aggregate coverage was (37.3 + 51.2 + 36.5 = 125)/3

= 41.7%

The limitation was caused by the design of the surge nozzle not allowing for scanning from the nozzle side of the weld. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the surge nozzle would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

Page 24 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 12.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better coverage.

12.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

12.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 02. B3. 110.0001 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1; Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 25 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 13.0 Weld #2-PZR-WP26-4 13.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 2 Pressurizer Upper Shell to Sampling Nozzle Weld #2-PZR-WP26-4, Summary Number 02.B3.110.0006 13.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 13.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Item Number B3.110 Figure IWB-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I 13.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Carbon Steel Upper Shell

• Surface 2: Carbon Steel Sampling Nozzle

• NPS: 5.750 in.

• Thickness: 6.187 in.

Scan requirements are described in ASME Section V, Article 4, T-441.1.2(a), T-441.1.3, T-441.1.4, T-441.1.5 and T-441.1.6. The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following base and weld metal scan results:

• Weld coverage provided an aggregate coverage of 18.7%

• Base Material coverage provided an aggregate coverage of 57.6%

• 00 Scan coverage provided a coverage of 33.9%

• The total obtained aggregate coverage was (18.7 + 57.6 + 33.9 =

110.2)/3 = 36.7%

The limitation was caused by the design of the sampling nozzle not allowing for scanning from the nozzle side of the weld. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the sampling nozzle would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

13.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better coverage.

Page 26 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 13.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

13.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 02.B3.110.0006 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1; Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 27 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 14.0 Weld #2-PZR-WP26-5 14.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 2 Pressurizer Upper Shell to Sampling Nozzle Weld #2-PZR-WP26-5, Summary Number 02.B3.110.0007 14.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 14.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Item Number B3.110 Figure IWB-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I 14.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Carbon Steel Upper Shell

• Surface 2: Carbon Steel Sampling Nozzle

• NPS: 5.750 in.

• Thickness: 6.187 in.

Scan requirements are described in ASME Section V, Article 4, T-441.1.2(a), T-441.1.3, T-441.1.4, T-441.1.5 and T-441.1.6. The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following base and weld metal scan results:

• Weld coverage provided an aggregate coverage of 18.7%

• Base Material coverage provided an aggregate coverage of 57.6%

• 0' Scan coverage provided a coverage of 33.9%

• The total obtained aggregate coverage was (18.7 + 57.6 + 33.9 =

110.2)/3 = 36.7%

The limitation was caused by the design of the sampling nozzle not allowing for scanning from the nozzle side of the weld. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the sampling nozzle would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

14.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better coverage.

Page 28 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 14.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

14.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 02.B3.1110.0007 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1; Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 29 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 15.0 Weld #2-PZR-WP26-6 15.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 2 Pressurizer Upper Shell to Sampling Nozzle Weld #2-PZR-WP26-6, Summary Number 02.B3.110.0008 15.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 15.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Item Number B3.110 Figure IWB-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I 15.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Carbon Steel Upper Shell

• Surface 2: Carbon Steel Sampling Nozzle

• NPS: 5.750 in.

• Thickness: 6.187 in.

Scan requirements are described in ASME Section V, Article 4, T-441.1.2(a), T-441.1.3, T-441.1.4, T-441.1.5 and T-441.1.6. The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following base and weld metal scan results:

• Weld coverage provided an aggregate coverage of 18.7%

• Base Material coverage provided an aggregate coverage of 57.6%

• 0' Scan coverage provided a coverage of 33.9%

• The total obtained aggregate coverage was (18.7 + 57.6 + 33.9 =

110.2)/3 = 36.7%

The limitation was caused by the design of the sampling nozzle not allowing for scanning from the nozzle side of the weld. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the sampling nozzle would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

15.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better coverage.

Page 30 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 15.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

15.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 02.B3.110.0008 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1; Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 31 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 16.0 Weld #2-PDB1-1 16.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 2 Reactor Coolant Pump 2B1 Casing Nozzle to Safe-End Weld #2-PDBI-1, Summary Number 02.B9.11.0059 16.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 16.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-J, Item Number B9.11 Figure IWB-2500-8 (c), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 16.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Stainless Steel Safe End

• Surface 2: Cast Stainless Pump Casing

• NPS: 33.50 in.

• Thickness: 2.330 in.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a (b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one axial direction (S1 - safe end) 0 600 shear waves obtained 0.0% coverage in one axial direction (S2 -

pump casing)

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

.-450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (50% + 0% + 50% +

50%)/4 = 37.5%.

• In addition, a best effort examination was performed using 600 and 700 longitudinal waves to the extent possible in the upper 2/3 area.

The limitation was caused by the pump casing material. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the pump casing would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

Page 32 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #110ON 002 16.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use This weld was examined using procedure, equipment, and personnel qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII. No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

16.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

16.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 02.B9.11.0059 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this B9.1 1 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1; Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing acceptableapproved results examination techniques for the coverage and equipment.

completed Basedexamination, by the volumetric on the the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 33 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 17.0 Weld #2-LST-HD-SH-2 17.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 2 Letdown Storage Tank Lower Head to Shell weld #2-LST-HD-SH-2, Summary Number 02.C1.20.0006 17.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 17.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-A, Item Number C1.20, Fig. IWC-2500-1 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D 17.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Stainless Steel Shell

• Surface 2: Stainless Steel Lower Head

• Dia.: 96.00in.

• Thickness: 0.375 in.

ASME Section XI, Appendix Ill, 111-4420 requires coverage of the examination volume in two beam path directions and Appendix Ill, 111-4430 requires scanning on the weld crown in two directions. The total aggregate percent of coverage was calculated as follows.

0 600 shear waves obtained 80.26% coverage in one axial direction (S1 -

shell)

• 600 shear waves obtained 80.26% coverage in one axial direction (S2 -

head)

• 600 shear waves obtained 80.26% coverage in one circ. direction (S3 -

CW)

• 600 shear waves obtained 80.26% coverage in one circ. direction (S4 -

CCW) 0 This aggregate coverage was calculated to be (80.26% + 80.26%

+80.26% + 80.26%)/4 = 80.3%

The limitations were caused by the four physical scanning limitations. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the support pads would have to be relocated to allow scanning from each of the four directions required, which is impractical.

Page 34 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage of examination volume A-B-C-D. The achieved coverage did not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

17.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better coverage.

17.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

17.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 02.C1.20.0006 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

The system leakage test performed each period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), visual observations performed during operator rounds provide additional assurance that in the event leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 35 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 18.0 Weld #2LP-148-90 18.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 2 Reducer to Valve Weld #2LP-148-90, Summary Number 02.C5.11.0004 18.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 18.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-i, Item Number C5. 11, Figure IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 18.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Stainless Steel Reducer

• Surface 2: Cast Stainless Steel Valve

• NPS: 12.0 in.

• Thickness: 1.168 in.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a (b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one axial direction (S1 -

reducer)

• 600 shear waves obtained 0% coverage in one axial direction (S2 - valve)

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (50% +0% + 50% + 50%)/4

= 37.5%.

The limitation was caused by the valve taper configuration and cast stainless steel material. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

18.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

Page 36 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 18.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

18.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 02.C5.11.0004 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.11 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), visual observations performed during operator rounds provide additional assurance that in the event leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 37 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 19.0 Weld #2-51A-17-147 19.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 2 Elbow to Valve Weld #2-51A-1 7-147, Summary Number 02.C5.21.0021 19.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 19.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-i, Item Number C5.21, Figure IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 19.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Stainless Steel Elbow

• Surface 2: Forged Stainless Steel Valve

• NPS: 4.0 in.

• Thickness: 0.531 in.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a(b)(2)(xv) (A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction (S1 -

elbow)

• 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction (S2 -

valve)

• 45' shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

0 The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (100% + 100% + 50% +

50% = 300)/4 = 75.0%.

The limitation was caused by the valve taper configuration. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

19.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is Page 38 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

19.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

19.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 02.C5.21.0021 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.21 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), visual observations performed during operator rounds provide additional assurance that in the event leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 39 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 20.0 Weld #2HP-220-9 20.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 2 Pipe to Valve Weld #2HP-220-9, Summary Number 02.C5.21.0024 20.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 20.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-i, Item Number C5.21, Figure IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 20.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Stainless Steel Pipe

• Surface 2: Cast Stainless Steel Valve

• NPS: 4.0 in.

• Thickness: 0.674 in.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a(b)(2)(xv) (A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one axial direction (S1 - pipe)

• 600 shear waves obtained 0% coverage in one axial direction (32 - valve)

• 380 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 380 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (50% + 0% + 50% + 50% =

150)/4 = 37.5%.

The limitation was caused by the cast stainless steel valve material and taper configuration. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

20.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

Page 40 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 20.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

20.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item numb&r 02.C5.21.0024 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.21 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), visual observations performed during operator rounds provide additional assurance that in the event leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 41 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 21.0 Weld #2HP-220-14 21.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 2 Pipe to Tee Weld #2HP-220-14, Summary Number 02.C5.21.0025 21.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 21.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-i, Item Number C5.21, Figure IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 21.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Stainless Steel Tee

• Surface 2: Stainless Steel Pipe

• NPS: 4.0 in.

• Thickness: 0.674 in.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a(b)(2)(xv) (A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 43.3% coverage in one axial direction (S1 -

tee) 0 60' shear waves obtained 71.6% coverage in one axial direction (S2 -

pipe)

• 380 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 380 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (43.3% + 71.6% + 100% +

100% = 314.9)/4 = 78.7%.

The limitation was caused by the configuration of the tee. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the tee would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

21.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is Page 42 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

21.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

21.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 02.C5.21.0025 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.21 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), visual observations performed during operator rounds provide additional assurance that in the event leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 43 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 22.0 Weld #3-PZR-WP15 22.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Pressurizer Lower Head to Surge Nozzle Weld #3-PZR-WP-15, Summary Number 03.B3.110.0001 22.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 22.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Item Number B3.110, Fig. IWB-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I 22.4. Impracticality of Compliance The pressurizer lower head and nozzle material are carbon steel. This weld has a diameter of 15.250 inches and a wall thickness of 4.750 inches.

Scanning requirements are described in ASME Section V, Article 4, T-441.1.2(a),

T-441.1.3, T-441.1.4, T-441.1.5 and T-441.1.6 could not be met. The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

" Weld coverage using 450, 600& 70' shear waves for axial scans (S1, 82),

and 600 & 450 shear waves for circ. scans (CW, CCW) obtained 37.3%

coverage.

" Base material coverage using 450,600&700 shear wave for axial scans (51) and 60'&450 shear waves for circ. scans (CW, CCW) obtained 51.2% coverage.

• 00 scan coverage obtained 36.5% coverage.

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (51.2% +37.3% + 36.5%)/3

= 41.7%.

The limitation was caused by interference due to the location of the nozzle blend radius and the design of the nozzle which prevented placement of the search units on the nozzle side of the weld so that the weld could not be examined from that side. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the surge nozzle would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

22.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use Radiography as an alternative is not feasible because access is not available for film placement. No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval.

Page 44 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 22.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

22.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.B3.1 10.0001 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1; Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 45 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 23.0 Weld #3-PZR-WP34 23.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Pressurizer Spray Nozzle to Upper Head Weld #3-PZR-WP-34, Summary Number 03.B3.110.0002 23.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 2.3.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Item Number B3.110, Fig. IWB-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I 23.4. Impracticality of Compliance The material is carbon steel. This weld has a diameter of 7.75 inches and a wall thickness of 4.75 inches.

Scanning requirements are described in ASME Section V, Article 4, T-441.1.2(a),

T-441.1.3, T-441.1.4, T-441.1.5 and T-441.1.6. The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

0 Weld coverage using 450, 60'& 70' shear waves for axial scans (S1, S2),

and 600 & 450 shear waves for circ. scans (CW, CCW) obtained 34.2%

coverage.

a Base material coverage using 450, 60'& 700 shear wave for axial scans (51) and 600& 450 shear waves for circ. scans (CW, CCW) obtained 61.4% coverage.

• 00 scan coverage obtained 42.6% coverage.

0 The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (34.2% +61.4% + 42.6%)/3

= 46.1%.

Interference caused by the location of the nozzle blend radius and the design of the nozzle prevented placement of the search units on the nozzle side of the weld, and the weld could not be examined from that side. In order to achieve the required coverage, the nozzle would have to be re-designed to allow access from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

23.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use Radiography as an alternative is not feasible because access is not available for film placement. No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval.

Page 46 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 23.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

23.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.B3.110.0002 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1; Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 47 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 24.0 Weld #3-PZR-WP33-3 24.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Pressurizer Relief Nozzle to Head Weld #3-PZR-WP33-3, Summary Number 03.B3.110.0003 24.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 24.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Item Number B3.110, Fig. IWB-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I 24.4. Impracticality of Compliance This is a carbon steel nozzle welded into a carbon steel pressure vessel. This weld has a diameter of 6.875 inches and a wall thickness of 4.75 inches.

The scanning requirements are described in ASME Section V, Article 4, T-441.1.2(a), T-441.1.3, T-441.1.4, T-441.1.5 and T-441.1.6. The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

0 Weld coverage using 45', 60'& 700 shear waves for axial scans (S1, S2),

and 60'&450 shear waves for circ. scans (CW, CCW) obtained 17.6%.

• Base material coverage using 45', 600& 700 shear wave for axial scans (51) and 600& 450 shear waves for circ. scans (CW, CCW) obtained 47.4% coverage.

• 00 scan coverage obtained 24.9% coverage.

a The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (17.6% + 47.4% +

24.9%)/3 = 30.0%.

Interference caused by the location of the nozzle blend radius and the design of the nozzle prevented placement of the search units on the nozzle side of the weld, and the weld could not be examined from that side. In order to achieve the required coverage, the nozzle would have to be re-designed to allow access from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

24.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use Radiography as an alternative is not feasible because access is not available for film placement. No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval.

Page 48 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 24.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

24.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.B3.110.0003 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1; Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 49 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 25.0 Weld #3-PZR-WP33-2 25.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Pressurizer Relief Nozzle to Head Weld #3-PZR-WP33-2, Summary Number 03.B3.110.0004 25.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 25.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Item Number B3.110, Fig. IWB-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-l 25.4. Impracticality of Compliance This is a carbon steel nozzle welded into a carbon steel pressure vessel. This weld has a diameter of 6.875 inches and a wall thickness of 4.75 inches.

The scanning requirements are described in ASME Section V, Article 4, T-441.1.2(a), T-441.1.3, T-441.1.4, T-441.1.5 and T-441.1.6. The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• Weld coverage using 450, 600& 700 shear waves for axial scans (51, 82),

and 60'& 450 shear waves for circ. Scans (CW, CCW) obtained 17.6%.

" Base material coverage using 450, 60'&700 shear wave for axial scans

($1) and 600& 450 shear waves for circ. scans (CW, CCW) obtained 47.4% coverage.

• 00 scan coverage obtained 24.9% coverage.

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (17.6% + 47.4% +

24.9%)/3 = 30.0%.

Interference caused by the location of the nozzle blend radius and the design of the nozzle prevented placement of the search units on the nozzle side of the weld, and the weld could not be examined from that side. In order to achieve the required coverage, the nozzle would have to be re-designed to allow access from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

25.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use Radiography as an alternative is not feasible because access is not available for film placement. No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval.

Page 50 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 25.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

25.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.B3.110.0004 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1; Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 51 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 26.0 Weld #3-PZR-WP33-1 26.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Pressurizer Relief Nozzle to Head Weld #3-PZR-WP33-1, Summary Number 03.B3.110.0005 26.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 26.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Item Number B3.110, Fig. IWB-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I 26.4. Impracticality of Compliance This is a carbon steel nozzle welded into a carbon steel pressure vessel. This weld has a diameter of 6.875 inches and a wall thickness of 4.75 inches.

The scanning requirements are described in ASME Section V, Article 4, T-441.1.2(a), T-441.1.3, T-441.1.4, T-441.1.5 and T-441.1.6. The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• Weld coverage using 450, 60°& 700 shear waves for axial scans (S1, 32),

and 60°& 450 shear waves for circ. scans (CW, CCW) obtained 17.6%.

" Base material coverage using 45', 60'& 700 shear wave for axial scans (51) and 60'&45' shear waves for circ. scans (CW, CCW) obtained 47.4% coverage.

• 0' scan coverage obtained 24.9% coverage.

" The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (17.6% + 47.4% +

24.9%)/3 = 30.0%.

Interference caused by the location of the nozzle blend radius and the design of the nozzle prevented placement of the search units on the nozzle side of the weld, and the weld could not be examined from that side. In order to achieve the required coverage, the nozzle would have to be re-designed to allow access from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

26.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use Radiography as an alternative is not feasible because access is not available for film placement. No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval.

Page 52 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 26.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

26.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03. B3.1110.0005 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1; Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 53 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 27.0 Weld #3-PIA1-8 27.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Reactor Coolant Pump 3A1 Casing Nozzle to Safe-End Weld #3-PIAl-8, Summary Number 03.B9.11.0007 27.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 27.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-J, Item Number B9.1 1, Fig. IWB-2500-8 (c), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 27.4. Impracticality of Compliance This is a stainless steel safe end welded to a cast stainless steel pump. This weld has a diameter of 33.50 inches and a wall thickness of 2.33 inches.

The scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 50.0% coverage in one axial direction (S1 -

safe end)

• 60' shear waves obtained 0.0% coverage in one axial direction (S2 -

pump casing)

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (50% + 0.0% + 50% +

50%)/4 = 37.5%.

• In addition, a best effort examination was performed using 60' and 70' longitudinal waves to the extent possible in the upper 2/3 area.

The limitation was caused by the pump casing material. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the pump casing would have to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

27.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

Page 54 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 27.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

27.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.B9.11.0007 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this B9.11 item and achieved 100%

coverage during outage 3EOC22. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1; Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during outage 3EOC22, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 55 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 28.0 Weld #3HP-241-3 28.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Pipe to Valve Weld #3HP-241-3, Summary Number 03.B9.11.0035 28.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 28.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-J, Item Number B9.1 1, Fig. IWB-2500-8 (c), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 28.4. Impracticality of Compliance This is a forged stainless steel valve welded to stainless steel pipe. This weld has a diameter of 4.0 inches and a wall thickness of 0.531 inch.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 100.0% coverage in one axial direction (S1 -

pipe side)

• 450 and 600 shear waves obtained 100.0% coverage in one axial direction (S2 - valve side)

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (100% + 100.0% + 50% +

50%)/4 = 75%.

The limitation was caused by the taper on the valve side which prevents scanning the entire volume in the circumferential direction from the valve side. In order to achieve the required coverage the valve would need to be redesigned to eliminate the taper or the weld would have to be re-designed to allow more access from the valve side. This is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

28.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

Page 56 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 28.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

28.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.B9.11.0035 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this B9.11 item and achieved 100%

coverage during outage 3EOC22. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1; Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during outage 3EOC22, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 57 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 29.0 Weld #3-LST-HD-SH-2 29.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Letdown Storage Tank Lower Head to Shell weld #3-LST-HD-SH-2, Summary Number 03.C1.20.0006 29.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 29.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-A, Item Number C1.20, Fig. IWC-2500-1 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D 29.4. Impracticality of Compliance This is a stainless steel pressure vessel weld. This weld has a diameter of 96.0 inches (ID) and a wall thickness of .375 inches.

The ultrasonic examination of the Pressure Vessel lower head to shell weld obtained 80.3% coverage of the required volume. ASME Section XI, Appendix Ill, 111-4420 requires scanning in two beam path directions to detect reflectors parallel to the weld and Appendix III, 111-4430 requires scanning on the weld crown in two directions to detect reflectors transverse to the weld. The aggregate coverage was calculated as follows:

• 600 shear waves obtained 80.26% coverage in one axial direction (S1 -

shell)

• 600 shear waves obtained 80.26% coverage in one axial direction (S2 -

lower head)

• 600 shear waves obtained 80.26% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

a 600 shear waves obtained 80.26% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (80.26% + 80.26% +

80.26% + 80.26%)/4 = 80.3%.

The limitations were caused by the four physical scanning limitations. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the support pads would have to be relocated to allow scanning from each of the four directions required, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

29.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better coverage.

Page 58 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 29.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

29.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.C1.20.0006 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

The system leakage test performed each perio~d in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), visual observations performed during operator rounds provide additional assurance that in the event leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 59 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 30.0 Weld #3LP-132-23 30.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Reducer to Valve Weld #3LP-1 32-23, Summary Number 03.C5.11.0015 30.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 30.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-I, Item Number C5.11, Fig. IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 30.4. Impracticality of Compliance This is a stainless steel reducer welded to a cast stainless steel valve. This weld has a diameter of 12.0 inches and a wall thickness of 1.168 inches.

This Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one axial direction ($1 -

reducer)

• 600 shear waves obtained 0% coverage in one axial direction (S2 - valve)

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (50% + 0% + 50% +

50%)/4 = 37.5%.

The limitation was caused by the taper on the valve side and the cast stainless steel material. This prevented scanning the entire volume from the valve side.

In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the valve would have to be replaced with forged stainless steel and would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

30.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

Page 60 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 30.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

30.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.C5.11.0015 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.11 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the. above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), visual observations performed during operator rounds provide additional assurance that in the event leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 61 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 31.0 Weld #3LP-221-27 31.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Pipe to Valve Weld #3LP-221-27, Summary Number 03.C5.11.0032 31.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 31.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-I, Item Number C5. 11, Fig. IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 31.4. Impracticality of Compliance This is a forged stainless steel valve welded to stainless steel pipe. This weld has a diameter of 10.0 inches and a wall thickness of 1.0 inches.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction ($1 -

valve)

• 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction (S2 -

pipe)

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (100% + 100% + 50% +

50%)/4 = 75%.

The limitation was caused by the taper on the valve side which prevents scanning the entire volume from the valve side. In order to obtain more coverage, the valve taper would have to be re-designed to allow scanning in the circumferential direction from the valve side. This is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

31.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

Page 62 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 31.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

31.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.C5.11.0032 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.11 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 63 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 32.0 Weld #3LP-221-18 32.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Pipe to Flow Restrictor Weld #3LP-221-18, Summary Number 03.C5.11.0033 32.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 32.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-i, Item Number C5.1 1, Fig. IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 32.4. Impracticality of Compliance This is a cast stainless steel flow restrictor welded to stainless steel pipe. This weld has a diameter of 10.0 inches and a wall thickness of 1.0 inches.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one axial direction (S1 - pipe)

• 60°' shear wave~s obtained 0%/ rcove~raae in one axial direction ($2 -

restrictor) 0 45' shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CVV).

0 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

S The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (50% + 0% + 50% +

50%)/4 = 37.5%.

The ultrasonic examination was performed using Appendix VIII qualified personnel, procedures, and equipment. A 60' refracted shear wave was used to examine the far side of the examination volume but is not included in the percent of coverage.

The limitation was caused by the cast stainless steel flow restrictor side which prevents scanning the entire volume from four orthogonal directions. In order to obtain more coverage the weld would have to be re-designed to allow scanning from the restrictor side. This is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

32.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

Page 64 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 32.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

32.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.C5.11.0033 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.11 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 65 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 33.0 Weld #3LP-221-17 33.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Pipe to Flow Restrictor Weld #3LP-221-17, Summary Number 03.C5.11.0034 33.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 33.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-i, Item Number C5.1 1, Fig. IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 33.4. Impracticality of Compliance This is a cast stainless steel flow restrictor welded to stainless steel pipe. This weld has a diameter of 10.0 inches and a wall thickness of 1.0 inches.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 0% coverage in one axial direction (S1 -

restrictor)

• 60' shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one axial direction (S2 - pipe)

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (50% + 0% + 50% +

50%)/4 = 37.5%.

The ultrasonic examination was performed using Appendix VIII qualified personnel, procedures, and equipment. A 600 refracted longitudinal wave was used to examine the far side of the examination volume but is not included in the percent of coverage.

The limitation was caused by the cast stainless steel flow restrictor side which prevents scanning the entire volume from four orthogonal directions. In order to obtain more coverage the weld would have to be re-designed to allow scanning from the restrictor side. This is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

33.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

Page 66 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 33.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

33.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.C5.11.0034 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.11 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 67 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 34.0 Weld #3LP-222-15 34.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Pipe to Valve Weld #3LP-222-15, Summary Number 03.C5.11.0049 34.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 34.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-i, Item Number C5.11, Fig. IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 34.4. Impracticality of Compliance This is a forged stainless steel valve welded to stainless steel pipe. This weld has a diameter of 10.0 inches and a wall thickness of 1.0 inches.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 450 and 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction

($1 -valve)

• 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction (S2 -

pipe)

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in the (CW) circ. direction

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in the (CCW) circ. direction

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (100% + 100% + 50% +

50%)/4 = 75%.

The ultrasonic examination was performed using Appendix VIII qualified personnel, procedures, and equipment. A 600 refracted longitudinal wave was used to examine the far side of the examination volume but is not included in the percent of coverage.

The limitation was caused by the taper on the valve side which prevents scanning the entire volume from the valve side. In order to obtain more coverage, the weld would have to be re-designed to allow scanning from the valve side. This is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

34.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

Page 68 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 34.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

34.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.C5.11.0049 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.11 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, and the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 69 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 35.0 Weld #3LP-222-16 35.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Pipe to Valve 3LP-179 Weld #3LP-222-16, Summary Number 03.C5.11.0050 35.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 35.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-1, Item Number C5.1 1, Fig. IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 35.4. Impracticality of Compliance This is a forged stainless steel valve welded to stainless steel pipe. This weld has a diameter of 10.0 inches and a wall thickness of 1.0 inches.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction (S1 -

pipe) 0 450 and 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction (S2 - valve)

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 450 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (100% +100% + 50% +

50%)/4 = 75%.

The limitation was caused by the taper on the valve side which prevents scanning the entire volume from the valve side. In order to obtain more coverage the weld would have to be re-designed to allow scanning from the valve side.

This is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

35.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

Page 70 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 35.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

35.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.C5.11.0050 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section Xl, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.11 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 71 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 36.0 Weld #3-51A-52-29 36.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Pipe to Valve Weld #3-51A-52-29, Summary Number 03.C5.21.0019 36.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 36.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-i, Item Number C5.21, Fig. IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 36.4. Impracticality of Compliance This is a forged stainless steel valve welded to stainless steel pipe. This weld has a diameter of 4.0 inches and a wall thickness of 0.531 inches.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction (S1 -

pipe) 0 600 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one axial direction (82 -

valve)

• 450 shear waves obtained 67.8% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 450 shear waves obtained 67.8% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (100% +100% + 67.8% +

67.8%)/4 = 83.9%.

The limitation was caused by the taper on the valve side which prevents scanning the entire volume from the valve side. In order to achieve the required coverage, the valve would need to be redesigned to eliminate the taper. This is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

36.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

Page 72 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 36.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

36.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.C5.21.0019 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.21 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), visual observations performed during operator rounds provide additional assurance that in the event leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 73 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 37.0 Weld #3-51A-59-87 37.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Pipe Tee to Elbow Weld #3-51A-59-87, Summary Number 03.C5.21.0032 37.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 37.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-i, Item Number C5.21, Fig. IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 37.4. Impracticality of Compliance This is a stainless steel pipe elbow welded to a stainless steel tee. This weld has a diameter of 4.0 inches and a wall thickness of .674 inches.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 67.5% coverage in one axial direction (S1 -

elbow)

• 600 shear waves obtained 57.7.% coverage in one axial direction (S2 -

tee)

• 380 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

0 38' shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

0 The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (67.5% + 57.7% + 100% +

100%)/4 = 81.3%.

The limitation was caused by the radius on the tee, and the intrados of the elbow, which prevented scanning the entire volume. In order to achieve the required coverage, the tee and elbow would need to be redesigned, which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

37.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

37.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

Page 74 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 37.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.C5.21.0032 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.21 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), visual observations performed during operator rounds provide additional assurance that in the event leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations r6quired by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 75 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 38.0 Weld #3HP-501-23 38.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Pipe to Reducer Weld #3HP-501-23, Summary Number 03.C5.21.0058 38.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda 38.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWC-2500, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-i, Item Number C5.21, Fig. IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F 38.4. Impracticality of Compliance This is a stainless steel reducer welded to a stainless steel pipe. This weld has a diameter of 2.0 inches and a wall thickness of 0.344 inches.

Scanning requirements are described in 10CFR.50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). The aggregate coverage was calculated from the following:

• 600 shear waves obtained 50% coverage in one axial direction (S1 -

reducer)

• 450 shear waves obtained 16.7% coverage in one axial direction (S2 -

pipe)

• 450 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one circ. direction (CW).

• 450 shear waves obtained 100% coverage in one circ. direction (CCW).

• The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (50% + 16.7% + 100% +

100%)/4 = 66.7%.

The limitation was caused by valve 3-HP-3 taper in the proximity of the pipe to reducer weld which limited scanning from the pipe side. In order to achieve the required coverage, the pipe would have to be replaced with a longer piece to allow scanning from both sides of the weld which is impractical.

The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. Therefore, the available coverage will not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

38.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Additionally, radiography has not been qualified through performance demonstration.

Page 76 of 77

RELIEF REQUEST #10 ON 002 38.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is proposed for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on July 15, 2014.

38.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.C5.21.0058 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.

In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a surface examination (code required) on this C5.21 item and achieved 100%

coverage. The result from the surface examination was acceptable.

The system leakage test performed each inspection period in accordance with Table IWC-2500-1; Examination Category C-H requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring provides additional assurance that, in the event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the acceptable results of the surface examinations performed during this outage, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Page 77 of 77

AIIACHMENT 44 UT Pipe Weid Examination PASE -1l OF 7-(p Site/Unit; Ocone / 1 Procedure: NDE-I00 Outage No.: 01-24 Summary No.: O1I.C5..1.0027 Procedure Rev.: 17 Report No.: UT-08-001 Worlkcope: J81 Work Order No.: 01760769 Page: 1 of 2 Code: 189/2000A Calt/tem: C-F-11C5.11 Location:

Drawing No.: 1LP-124 Descrlptlon Reducer to.Valve 1LP-17 System ID: 53A Component ID: 1 LP-124-21 Size/Length: M/A Thickness/Diameter. 1.168112.000 LUmltatlons Yes - See Attached Umitation Report Start Time: 0000 Finish Time: 0949 Examination Surface: Inside C] Outside &a Surtace Condition: FLUSH Lo Location: 9.1.1.1 Wo Location: WELD CENTERLINE Couplant: - ULTRAGEL I, Batch No.: 07125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: DAS Serial No.: MCNDE32821 Surface Temp.: as "F Cal. Repoft No.: CAL-08-001 CAL-0-0802. CAL-08-003. CAL49-004 AngleUsed 0 461 46Ti 80 SOL 1 70 Scanning dB I 1 51 55'" 58 65.1 Indication(s): Yes ] NoE- Scan Coverage: Upstreamr- Downstream[Z CW Ea CCW 0 Comments:

• 64 dB used for 60 degree from valve side

Scale: 1"= 1" Suinmiirv No.: OLCS.iI.0027 Weld No.: ILP-124-21 Axial Coverage W ca Valve

/ S2

-- pipe-Si L

I76 9 [ I -K I (Cast Material)

Cire Coverage 450 Shear Valve 2ed I(C*Mt S2tela)

-pipe- 'DK7 Si F//~

501/6 coverage scans S3 and S4

% Coverage Calculations S =Pipe- = 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S2 = Valve = 0% (100% of the length x 0% of the volume)

S3 = CW 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S4 = CCW = 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

Total = 150/4 = 37.5 % Aggregate Coverage Inspector / Date: 7-"-1 Page Z of__

ATIACHMENTA PME 3 OF, UT Pipe Weou Examination SitdUkni Oconee / 1 Procedure: NDE-600 Outage No.: 01-24 Sumialy No.: O1.C5.21.6023 Procedure Rev.: 17 Report No.: UT0-8-007 Workscope: NW Work Order No.: 01760806 Page: 1 of 2 Code: 11W11/2000A CatAtem: C-F-1C5.21 Location:

Drawing No.: 1HP-282

Description:

Te to Valve 1IP-117 System ID: 51A Component ID: IHP-282-76A SJza/Length: N/A Th*ees/Dianmeer. 0.31 / 4.000 Umitations: Ye - 3 Auachd 4 UrLwation RpoMrt Start Time: 1004 Finish Time: 1011 Examinajion Surface: Inside r- Outside Wd Sudrace Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.2 Wo Location: Canterinb of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 07125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: DA.S Seril No.: MCND. I21 Surface Temp.: 62 "F Cal. Report No.: CAL4."1?2 CAL..oo13, CAL6.0o14 AngleUsed 01461 46T *0 BO. ...

Scanning dB 83 55 62 Indicallon(s): Yes [. No _ Scan Coverage: Upstream (-2 Downatream F%

• CW CCW FVJ Co~mmen Results: Accept Reject VI Info [C__

Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%. No - 75% Reviewed Previous DaiS: Yes SExaminer Level mN re Date ReviewejSgaueDt A Si*nwur,,e D 2M MAW Leoper, Winred C.

Examiner Level U-N Date Site Review r Signature Date Tucker, David K. VIM =, N/A NIA OtJ-er Level NWA Slgnarue Date 1ANIi !ileview Date NIA 2/1212098 A I JI~ 4(1alw q-/r U

Sa-MEMMyr 4%: No rL: P-S-A 60P Shear LpJ c 9-1~

IaC6 AxW 50YA -oe S3 and S4 SCMS Scale .1 "= 10

% Coveragee Calculations SI = Valve - 100% (100% of the length x 100% of the volume)

S2 = Tee 100% (100% of the length x 100% of the volume)

S3 = CW 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S4 = CCW -- 50% (1000/a of the length x 50% of the volume)

Total = 300/4 - 75.0 % Aggregate Coverage Inspector/Date:Paeo .Pap 7- of Z 7-

A IACHMENT A*

PAGE 5 OF Z(,

UT Pipe Weld Examination sitwb.w Orono& j Ploceuwe: mo-40.O 00 NO.:

Ne 01.24 Summary no. O1.CI,1J438 Plocedwe Rev.: 17 Rtponf: UT.Of,211 Waftow"G 151 Work GDe No.; 01760774 Code: 11S28*IA0A Ca*J}in: C-F-t/CL21 Locallor _______________

Dsaw., wo.: INP.I9S 01scipb: Valve t1P46,.t Tee

$.YStM/ k OIA Coa*rPoaft 1D: INP-1a92-1 sLwa-zho: NIA TuIRIeIAter. 0'414J0 Landmuons Yes - S" Allohe UmlmlI pafl 1-1nTmue: 1110 FinihTims: 1123 Egxramina.ý6nwe. ww s OL49160 0 5wran Conduan: FLUSH-LbO*=W .Wo x4noi. Weld Cntear*h Ccu~xn": ULTRACEL II 0819h No-- OT7, Temp. Tool MIg.. A Satla4 NO.. MOE ZI Svleco Temp,: 76 *F CaL ReWoflb Ho. A4ebb82,. CAL-0C.11. CALFN&02 An& UNW 9"14" 45 60 I IM wk~tolhc~ol), YUS Q ~scan coverage: upsrakrn Dewlaea O"w"i ~ ~ cCw' Comments; Rftuft Accl C]Q Rl~ci a Into 0 L4 UQ £ktdGforGosatown valddve PN=N.c cOma

,* oblow~m I. m0/ RmM;WW~ Previms bma Us

G-J OX r, /.k;

/Jk, I Ia.-

Lýý =iuagal utCLID blQ - I -P- IU - IS

~aubtfL.

0 9

IAGEr! ,U- ~ -

2mk&W -

AS(:C Z

-~

ix 'o

Al TACHMENT A UT Pipe Weia Examination PA BE 7 9F 2_ k Sitelurlt: OconeeI Procedure: NDE-600 Outage No.: 01-24 Summary No.: O1.CS.21.0043 Procedure Rev.: 17 Report No.: UT-.080-Workscope: 1sl Work Order No.: 01760810 Page: 1 of 2 Code: lOI/2OA CaLIftem: 0-F-.ICI.21 Location:

Drawing No.: 1HP-367

Description:

Elbow to Flange Syst*n ID: SIB Component ID: 1HP-367-21 Szangft NEA ThiclneaslDiameter. 0.215/ 3,000 limitations: Yes - See Aftched -imitation RPort Start Time: 1100 Finish Time: 1110 Exambiadon Surface: Inside L_ OutaJ 66~ Surface Condition: AS GROUND LO Locatlon: 9.1.1.2 Wo Loction: Contatfin of Weld Couplart: ULTRAGIEL I1 Batch No.: 07125 Temp. Tool Mig.: O.AS SeuaJ No.: MCNDE3279B Surface Temp.: 105 OF Cal. Report No.: CAL 438.005 CAL-aaB.CAL-O"iO Angle Used T1I0 4TE 65

.foH indication(s): Yes L] NoR Scan Coverage: Upstream [] Downstream iR cw 1 CCw i Comments Results: Acca Retect

• 0 Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%:

ItMPNo. OLM5.2104 Vd No. IHP-367-21 Scale: I"=- "

MP shear 4- -

4-- ~ 70P Shear 6-Sear

~~~~1 Elbow - SI . -

CoveapCinmed S I 500/q S2 = 19M/% / No COVMVu Clainod Vh~th 7010 Shea Only See O:

Note: 70* shear scan from Surfae I not included in percentage coverage due to requirements of 10CFR50.55a(bX2XxvXAXI). Best effort scan with 70 shear obtained 30.8% coveage.

AAA Scam Scale: 1"ý "

Elbow- SI II Mge-SZ

- I!

with4 0 Slirwd==

uth 450 3 an S Caesca

%Cvegie Calculations S 1 =-Elbow = 50% (100% o f the length x 50% of the volume).

S2 =Flange - 19.2% (100% of the length x 19.2% of the volume)

S3 = CW - 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S4 = CCW 500/0 (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

Total - 169.2 / 4 = 42.3 % Aggregate Coverage

-I ctr/D- (aL-9 7- N 108& nPageof Z.

AIIACHMENT A PABE 0F UT Pipe Weh Examination Sits/Unit: Ocone / I Procedure: PDI-UT-2 Outage No.: 01-24 Summary No.: O1.C6.11.0076 Procedure Rev.: C Report No.: UT-08-069 Workscope: ISi Work Order No.: 01759029 Page: 1 of 4 Code: 1990/2000A Cat/htem: C-F-1/C5.11 Location:

Drawing No.: 1LP-208

Description:

Pipe to Valve 1LP-178 System ID: 53A Component ID: 1LP-208-4 SizuiLength: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 1.000/10.000 Umitations: Yes - See Atached LUmitatilon Report Start Time: 1051 Finish TIme: 1127 Exandnation Surface: Inside [ Outlside 2 Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.1 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 07125 Temp. Tool Mig.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDES2623 Surface Temp.: 70 T Cal. Report No.: CAL-08-O6S CAL-O8-W,7. CAL-oi-,,.

AngleUsed 0 46 I45TI 60 I " I I Scanning dB 1 135.9 35.9 47.9 69.9 Indication(s): Yes 2 No C] Scan Coverage: Upstream @ Downstream&2 CW - CCW 2z Comments:

Results: Accept E] Reject Ea Info [-3_

Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 75% Reviewed Previous Data: Yes ExinerDate Revier Signature Dale SafeL&,E '-t -41271=08 ____,______A________________

Exmnr Lvll-: ZInlZDate Site Reieý Signature Date 4/27/2008 N/A Other Level NA Signature Date ANII vlew Dale N/A 4 N ew/27

Scale: P"= I" Simmwav N4: Ot.CS.-U.0076 VMd Na : ILP-2018-4 MEJ

==Q 9-. -- AxW Cwwag 4-A ,

scmo S3 and 84

% Coverage Calculations SI = Valve 1000/0 (100% of the length x 100%/ of the volume)

S2 = Pipe 100% (100% of the length x 100% of the volume)

S3 = CW 50010 (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S4 = CCW 50_% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

Total 300 / 4 = 75.0 % Aggregate Coverage hispecor /afte: aLIVjoE> Pa LI of!L

Al TACHMENT A filknlý UT Pipe Weru Examination MAt -t OFý(0 rJAWWW Site/Unit Oconee I 1 Procedure: PDl-UT-2 Outage No.: O1-24 Summary No.: O1.CM.1 1.0075 Procedure Rev.: C Report No.; UT-O8-068 Workscope: ISi Work Order No.: 01759029 Page: 1 of 2 Code: 1998/2000A CatJitem: C-F-1dC5.11 Localion:

Drawing No.: ILP-208 Desonoption: Pipe t* Valve 1LP-178 System ID: 53A Component ID: 11LP-208-3 Size/Length: WA Thicknessi~iameter: 1.000/ 10.000 Limitations: Yes - See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 1042 Finish Time: 1120 Examination Suidace: Inside - Outside 2 Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location: 0.1.1.1 Wa Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL 11 Batch No.: 07125 Temp. Tool Mtg. D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32823 Surface Temp.: 70 , OF CaL Report No.: CAL-"8-068, CAL-08.067, CAL-o-OaS Angle Used 0 461 45T- 1 60 1 60L Scanning dB I 35.9"1 35.9 1 47.9 169.9 Indicalon(s): Yes 0 No [ Scan Coverage: Upstream 2 Downstream Ij CWI (;cw gj Comments:

Results:

• Accept 0 Reject 6 Into [3 Percent Of Coverage Obtalned > 90%: No - 75% Reviewed Previous Data: Yes

Scale: P"= 1" a- SummaryNoa: 01.0.11.0075 NWe No. : ILP-208-3

= L-LAJJ ME Axhd COVURP Cirw Cover-age scas 83 and S4

% Coverage Calculations Si =-Pipe 100% (100% of the length x 100% of the volume)

S2 = Valve = 100% (100%/6 of the length x 100% of the volume)

S3 = CW 50% (100% of the length x 50%/of the volume)

S4 = CCW - 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

Total 300/4 = 75.0 % Aggregate Coverage Inspector / Date: tt 11Voia Page Zof -L

ATTACHMENT A UT Pipe Wend Examination PASE fS DF?(

Site/Unit: Oco0m I 1 Procedure: PDHJT-2 Outage No.: 01-24 Summary No.: 01.45.11.0074 Procedure Rev.: C Report No.: UT-08-057 Workscope: IS Work Order No.: 01758029 Page: 1 of 2 Code: .19811=00"A Cat.ltem: C-F-11/,..11 Looalion: -

Drawing No.: 1LP-208

Description:

Pipe to Valve 1 LP-179 System ID: 53A Component ID: 1LP-208-20 Slze/Length: N/A Thickneae/Diameter. 1.000110.000 Limitations: Yes - See Attached Limttaton Report Start Tine: 1142 Finish Time: 1210 Examiruon Sufacea inside r Outside Surfac Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.1 Wo Location: Canterline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL 11 Batch No.: 07125 Temp. Tool Mig.: D.AS Serial No.: MCNDE32823 Surface Temp.: 70 OF Cal. Report No.: CAL.-08-06% CAL-08-067. CAL-0O-GOB Angle Used 0 45 45T 80 60L ScanninglB 35.L 35.9 47.9 9.9 Indication(s): Yes 0 No 6d Scan Coverage: Upstream [ Downstream 0 CW 2 CoW 2 Comments:

Results: Accept 0 Reject 2) 0 into -'

Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 75% Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner .Level 10-N signature Dat Rwsignature Date Stauffer. Lester, E. 7 OS ý. Lk.- .... _________________________0 6__1=

'Examiner Level II-N .,,_gno .," Date Site Review . Signature Date Tucker. David K. 2 L -= 4/27/2008 NIA Other Level NIA Signature Date ANII Review 1 -,intre Date W/A QU7M064Mg- d 2 Ný/02/

Scale: 1"= I"

-N SuDUDRF No.: 0l.CS.IIAN)74 Weld No.: ILF-208-20 AxW -ae" Z6 5V1 amiagso scaumS3 mad S4

% Coverage Calculations SI = Valve = 100% (1000% of the length x 100% of the volume)

S2 = Pipe 100% (100% of the length x I001/o of the volume)

S3 =CW = 50% (1.00% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S4 = CCW = 50% (100% of the length x 50%/o of the volume)

Total = 300/4 = 75.0 % Aggregate Coverage Inspwtor / Date : '4 oD hispeetr-&-ie R'age Zof -Z

AT TACHMENT A PAGE/ Fo UT Pipe Ward Examination Site/Unit OconeO I 1 Procedure: PDI-UT-2 Outage No.: 01-24 Summary N.: O1.C5,11.0072 Procedure Rev.: C Report No.: UT-0-066 Workacope: ISI Work Order No.: 01759029 Page: 1 of 2 Code: 19981200OA Cat./ltem: C-F-1/C5.11 Location:

Drawing No.: I LP-208 Desciption: Pipe to Valve l LP-179 System ID: 53A Component ID: 1LP-208-19 SSzatLenglh: NA Thickness/Diameter: 1.000/10.000 imitations: Yes - See Attached Limitation Report Star Time 1135 Finish Time; 1204 Examination Surface: Inside C] Outside [ Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.1 We Location: Centedrine of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 07126 Temp. Tool Mig.: DAS Serial No.: MCNDE32823 Surface Temp.:. 70 OF Cal. Report No.: CAL-O08-MG CAL.08-01 7, CAL-S-0SS Angle Used 10 45 45T 60 60L Scanning dB 1 35.9 28.9 47.9 69.9 Indication(s): Yes 0 No [ Scan Coverage: Upstream [ Downstream CW I C CCW []

Comments:

Results: Accept E] Reject 2 Info Q]

Percent of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 75% Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Exmnr LvlWNsgaueDate :Review~ R Signature Date Stufr etrDate Site Rview ~iSignature Dt Tucker, David K. Ot~lN/A evelN/A tgr~ure 4/27/2008 N

• R'eview

/27/008'Dat e tANII *. LC/i*""*/-(k i) gnature ,*/ ..- ,/, Da/At Date Other8_ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _

Scale: I"= I" USuuuxrv No: O1.C51tOG72 Wdd No.6 z U'-208-19

• J6J c3 Axial Coverag CD

% Coverage Calculations Si =Pipe 100%/ (100% of the length x 100% of the volume)

S2 =Valve - 100% (100% of the length x 100% of the volume)

S3 =CW - 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S4 = CCW = 500% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

Total .300/4 75.0 % Aggregate Coverage Inspector / Date - hispetor/411:11D5 Page -Lof 7.

ATIACHMENT A\

PASE /7 OF ZP UT Pipe Weld Examination SitaiUnlt Oconee

• Procedure: PDI-UTo2 Outage No.: 01-24 Summary No.: 01.89.11.0075 Procedure Rev.: C Report No.: UT-08-082 Workscope: ISf Work Order No.: 0175888 Page: 1 of 3 Code: 199812000A CaiLltem: E-W /59.11 Location:

Drawing No,: ISI-OCNI.014 Description; RC Pump 1B2 to Safe End System lto 50 Component ID: 1-PDB2-1 Size/Length: WA Thickness/Diameter: 2.333 / 33.500 Umitations: Yea - See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: .1240 Finish Time: 1317 Examirnatlon Surface: Inside Q Outside 0 Surface Condition: GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.1 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGFL II Batch No.: 07125 Temp. Tool Mtg.: D.AS Serial No.: MCNDE32823 Surface Temp.: 67 F Cal. Report No.: CAL.08-077, CAL-08-0781 CAL-0-oT79 AngleUsed 1 0 414 4ST 60 OL i60 Scanning dB 506.2 59.2 50.7 53.2 Indication(s): Yes -] No 0 Scan Coverage: Upstreamo0 Downstream E" CW O. CCW O Comments:

Results: Accept 0 Reject 5 Info C] Initial Section XI Examn Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 37.5% Reviewed Previous Data. No I

Exntnr LvlI- lDate Reviewer Sinaur Date Tuoker, David K. , 4,/29,2008 4_L ALA '5[Ica Examiner Level U-SNiDaaSt Rve Signature Date Griabel, David M. .. 4128/2008 N/A Other Level WA Signature' Date ANIlRevlew lure Date W/A 4MIzu2e6 L

ATTACHMENT A MAE /SDF 2(ep SummaryNo.: 01 1.0075 Weld No.: I-PDB2-1 Scale: 1 t= I No Coverage Claimed Supplemental coverage Coverage Claimed = 50%

with 600 RL Wave Only See Note:

Note: 60' RL scan not included in per.entage coverage due to requirements of IOCR50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). Best effort Scan with 60* RL obtained 29.1% coverage in o°e axiI direetion.

/

Inspector/Date: Oo**.- Page Z of I

4=~

.- .1 Aggregate Coverage Sheet nia.. .. w I" [mAUn _on R.o1 U-'!"]! UAMU La !R ME 6 Xjb S1 = Safe End = 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S2 = RCP- 0% (10 0% of the length x 0% of the volume)

S3 = CW 50% (10 0% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S4 = CCW = 50% (10 0% of the length x 50% of the volume)

Total = 150/4 = J Aaregate Coverage inspector/Date: 4 Page -1 Page . o112 of -S

ATIACHMENT A PAGE 2-O F -2,(

UT Pipe Wend Examination Site/Unit Oconee / 1 Procedure: NDE-530 Outage No.: 01-24 Summary No.: 01.89.11.0075 Procedure Rev.: 1 Report No.: UT-08-081 Work:cope: IS1 Work Order No.: 01758688 Page: 1 of 2 Code; 19W/2000A Cat./Item: B-J/M9.11 Location:

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN1 -014

Description:

RC Pump 152 to Safe End System ID: so Component ID: 1-PD2-1 Size/Length: WA Thlckness/Dlameter. 2.333133.500 Limitations: Nona Start Time: 1127 Finish Time: 1239 Examination Surface: Inside fl Outside (] Surface Condition: GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.1 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant ULTRAGIL II Batch No.: 07125 Ternp. Tool Mtg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32823 Surface Temp.: 67 F Cal. Report No.: CAL-08-075, CAL-08-076 Angle Used I0 4S~ I 45T 6801 SOLT I 701-ftOL Scanningd I. 81.71 86.7 94.S Indication(s): Yes Q No R Scan Coverage: Upstream [2 Downstream 0 CW [] CCW [

Comments:

Results: Accept [ Reject [ Info Iinitial Section XI Exam Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: WA Reviewed Previous Data: No Tc, v.....'-

e ..

Examiner Level Date Si.Revl ew I Signature Date Examiner LevOWIM-N Date SiteReviewI - Signature Date GrIebel, David M. 4r292008 WA Other Level A Signature Date ANIi ew Date NIA41920 r6 22 .

AlIACHt4ENTA PASEQ-) 2. Surnnay No.: OL.P' .0075 VWld No.: I-PDB2-1 M~e: V= I" Bed effort Exam with 70VRL and 60ORL per pocedure NDE-830 for the upper 2/3 of the area ofinterest. See.Report No. UTO-8-&5. c>, I Zf_$ 1%(6 Inspector / Date: If~te:

Inspector Page7~ofZ Page I of -4

AIIACHMENT A PAGE ZI O :2-ý UT Pipe WeMd Examination SiteiUnit Oconee / Procedure: NDE-600 Outage No.: 01-24 Summary No.; 01.B9.11.0053 Procedure Rev.: 17 Report No.: UT-08-049 Workscope: IS; Work Order No.: 01758567 Page: 1 of S Code: 199812000A Cat/Item: 5-J /B9.11 Location:

Oraiwing No.: ISI-OCN1-010

Description:

Pipe Safe End to RC Pump 1B2 System ID: 50 Component ID: 1-PI62-9 Size/Length: WA Thickness/Diameter: 2.330/36.500 Limitations: Yea - See Attached Sketch StadrTime: 1117 Rnish Time: 1143 Examination Surface: Inside C] Outside W] Surface Condition: GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.5 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant ULTRAGEL 11 Batch No.: 07125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32823 Surface Temp.: 67 °F Cal. Report No.: CAL-M8-047, CAL-08-048, CAL-0-049 AnglieUsed I0"4S 454T 60 61 I '

Scanning dB 60 60 6621 Indication(s): Yes E] No 0 Scan Coverage: Upstream Ea Downstream 0 CW 9 CCW 93 Comments:

Results. Accept Sa Reject E] Info [] Initial Section Xl Exam Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 37.5% Reviewed Previous Data:

Aggregate Coverage Sheet CU.-MaLY.-WED-11M -1M.

V, 4-t Ane-1

. I

%AW*dAM- .

• -& L.

nIOl*C S1 =Safe End 2150% (100% of the length x 50%of the volume)

S2 = RCP - 0% (100% of the length x 0% of the volume)

S3=CW= 50% (10 0% of the length x 50%of the volume)

S4 = CCW = 50% (10 0% of the length x 50% of the volume)

Total= 150/4 =IM5% Aggregate Coverage Inspector~/Date: Tnt 310iV3 Page L of~.

--.-Scale: Vl= I" No Coverage Claimed Supplermntal coverage Coverage Claimed = 50%

with 60" RL Wave Only See Note:

Note: 60' RL scan not included in percentage coverage due to requirements of 10CFR59.55a(bX2)(xv)(A)(l). Best effort scan with 60 RIL obtained 44.9% coverage in one axta direction.

Inspector / Date: Page of 3

AIIACHMENT/P PAOE2! OF -s UT Pipe Wuxd Examination SteUnit: Oconee / 1 Procedure; NDE-830 Outage No.: 01-24 Summary No.: 01.8&.11.0053 Procedure Rev.: 1 Report No.: UT.08-05D Woucrcope: ISI Work Order No.: 01758567 Page: 1 of o 2 Code: 19982000A Cat/Iter: B-J /89.11 Location:.

Drawing No.: l3I-OCN1-010

Description:

Pipe Safe End to RC Pump 152 System ID: so Component ID: 1-PIB20 Size/Length: N/A ThicknesalDiameter. 2.330135.500 Umitations: Yes - See Attached Coverage Calculation Report Start ýIme: 1144 Finish Time: 1220 Examination Surlace: Inside [J Oulsidea 2) Surface Condition: GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.5 No Location: Centerline of Wald Couplant: ULTRAGEL 11 Batch No.: 07125 Temp. Tool Mfg.:

• DJLS Serial No.: MCNDE32823 Surface To mmp.; 7 OF Cal. Report No.: CAL-08-- . CAL.08.051 AngleUsed 0 4S I46Tr 1601 60L 70L Scanning dB I I 72" 711 -

Indication(s): Yes [ No &a Sca n Coverage: Upstream 2] Downstream 2) CW [2 CCW EZ Comments:

• Scanned at 72.0 dB to det noise level & 30% FSH.

"Scanned at 78.0 dB to sot noise level 0 30% FSH

-Best effort exam of upper 213 of weld to aupplement coverage Reaults: Accept 2) Reject [3 Into jJ InItlal Section Xl Exam Pement Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: FReviewed Previous Data: No

............ ATf AC HMENT A PA0E 2(,4 F -

600 RL Scale: 1" .1 Best effort-Exam with 70'RL and 60PRL per procedure NDE-830 for the upper 2/3 of the area of interest See Report No. UT-O8-050.

Inspector / Date: L4,51043 Page Z of Z

AITACHMENT13 FASE I OF. So UT Vessel Examination SitWUrt Ocoe. 1 2 Procedure: NIDE-4O Outage No.: 02.22 Summary No.: 02.13.110.0001 Procedure Rev.: 3 Report No.: UT.07-089 Woita,*pe: 181 Work Orier No.: 01678781 Page: I of Code: IW8 Catiltem: 1B3.110 180 Location:

Drawing No.: I.OCN2.002 Dcription: Nozzle to Head System ID: 60 Component ID: 2-PZR-WPI5 Size/Length: WA ThIckness/Diameter: 4.750115.250 Limitations: None Start Time: 0939 Finish Time: 0952 Examination Surface: Inside Q] Outside E0 Surface Condition: As Manufactured Lo Location: 9.2.3 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Too( Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE 27221 Surface Temp.: 72 'F Cal. Report No.: CAL-07.0, An&iUsed 5 1 45T

!'04 160 I Scanrningd41l1 37.J1 Indicallcn(s): Yes - No ; Scan Coverage: Upstream C Downstream CW 0 CCW C3 Comments:

FC 06D04 Additional lrnpector. L Cochran

A11ACIU4ENT ;3 FA[61 S78F50c UT Vessel Examination S1IeJUnIt: Oconee I Procedure: NDE-820 Outage No.: 02-22 Summary No.: 02.B3.110.0001 Procedure Rev.: 2 Report No.: UT-07-090 Workscope: 131 Work Order No.: 01678781 Page: I of 8 Code: 1898 Cat.LItem: E.-0 1B3.110 Location:

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN2-002

Description:

Nozle to Head System ID: 50 Component ID: 2-PZR-WP15 SIzelLength: NIA Thickness/Dlameter: 4.760115.250 Lirnitations: Yes - See Limitation Report Start Time: 0952 Finish Time: 1019 Examination Surface: Inside " Outside J Surface Condition:. As Manufactured Lo Location: 9.2.3 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE 27221 Surface Temp.: 72 *F Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-086, CAL-07-087. CAL-07-088 Scanning. d8 1 Angle Used 0 46 3 45T 63 607,.0 6oT01 0 70" 1 Indication(s): Yes E] No [] Scan Coverage: Upstream El Downstream [] CW W CCW O Comments:

FC 06-06 Additional Inspector: L Cochran ,.

Results: Accept f] Reject El Info 0 _

percent Of Coverage Obtained ; 90%: No **A% - 17fr7 Reviewed Previous Data: yes Examiner Level IU-N Signature Date Reviewe" Signature Date moutser, Gaye E. S"f 51520 a -

Eminer Level 11-N S/ Date Site Review Signature Date Tucker, David K, 5115/2007 Other Level IlN igaueDate ANII Review Signature Date J ms Russe E. 611~nur SM71*1;2-

AltACHMENT e FASE.3 ofso DUKE ENERGY COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Summary #: 02al3.110.0001 Component ID 2-PZR-WPI5 remarks:

SV 0 NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION A.7e LNo 0LIMITED SCAN - 1 0R 2 1 E] 2 1@ cw [K cow FROM L N/A to L N'A INCHES FROM WO CL to Beyond ANGLE: 0 ED 45 0 60 other 70 FROM o DEG to 360 DEG 0 NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION QLIMITED SCAN 1 [] 21]2[3 cw [ c w] _w FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 00 0 45 0 60 other FROM DEG to DEG O NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION QLIMITED SCAN 01 0 2 0] 1 [] 2 [] cw E cow FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: J0 E 45 [ 60 other FROM DEG to DEG 0 NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 0 LIMITED SCAN I1 2 [0 1 [] 2 [1 Ow ["3cOw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to Sketch(s) attached ANGLE: 00 [ 45 0 60- r FROM DEG to DEG 0 yes D No Gayle Houser 05/15=0071 Sheet . of .

• L Date:

JAuthorized 1nspecto -o Date:

- s 4

v

PZR Surge Nozzle to Shell % of Coverage o-

- .x Item No.: 0Z.153. JI\o.Ooo WeidNo.: S~~%Pt Weld Coverage Scan A40&  % Coverage Obtained S1 450,600 & 700 82.7 S2 450,60) & 700 0 Cw 600 & 450 33.3 CCw 600 &450 33.3 Total 149.3 149.3 + 4 = 37.3  % Coverage Base Material Coverage Si 450,600& 700 65.1 Cw & CCw 450&600 37.3 Total 102.4 102.4 + 2 = 51.2  % Coverage 0° Scan Coverage 36.5  % Coverage Aggregate Coverage = Weld + Base Material + 0* + 3 41.7 %Coverage Inspector / Date, : Insp._ o D5at11g0o Page I of-&

Al IACHHENT 13 4IAV .5 0F So Item No.: pz. K. tio. eO Pressurizer Surge No, Wzze to Head Wed No.: z.- P-Inspector/Date: mz~~I~'L~-

Weld Metal Total Exam Area = 8.88 sq. in.

8.88 Sq. in.

Shell Surface I

A11ACKKEkT 3 Item No.: ot-P. MAE 6 f6 m inji. co I Pressurizer Sui ge No~zle to head Weld No. :

InspeCtor/Date:Q& ý-.IM (

BaseBMetalTotal Exam Area =12.31 +20.70O= 33.01 sq. n.

12.31 Sq. in.

Shell Surface I 20.70 Sq.

9A,%s -5 or-5

AIIACBI4EII 53 MAE 7 Of To Item No.- -"o7. i. -to. oooi Pressurizer Sm ge No~zze to Head Weld No. : -12,0-  %, ids Inspetor/Date:

2 TotaWBase MetlExamined Axial scans= 12.31+9.18 /33.01 x 100=65.1%

A combination of 450,600 and 70 0anglm were used to obtain coverage.

450, 600 and 700 12.31 Sq. in.

Shell Surface I 9.18 Sq. in.

AIIAERKEII ý3 M~E 8 9F 5 ItemNo.:. oM B.ii.o.oo1 lPressurizer Sw ge Nozzle tol &ead WeIdNo.:

Impector/Date :- *,'-4oi 2

Total Weld Metal Examined Axial scans = 7.34 / 8.88 x 100 = 82.7%

A combination of 45*,60° and 700 angles were used to obtain coverage.

450, 600 and 700 Shell Surface I 7.34 Sq. in.

?Af,-1 ;:

8 iN a MW ~

A1AIF KE I q Item No. : 0., , I c.oI IiSSUrzer soosI NUge fNOZZle to lmeaa WeldNo.:  %.,?wvS-inspector/Date: :vvL 51 n V Total VWld and Base Metal Examined 00 = 2.96 + 12.31 / 41.89 x 100 = 36.5%

Total Base Metal Examined Circ. scans = 12.31/ 33.01 x 100 = 37.3%

Total Weld Metal Examined Circ. scans =2.96/ 8.88 x 100 = 33.3%

0", 45' and 600 CW and CCW 2.96 Sq. in.

12.31 Sq. in.

Shell Surface 1

?A kf ~of:

A1IA~fMENT L9 UT Vessel -xamination PASE /0 V.,

SiteiUnit Oconee 1 2 Procedure: NDE-640 Outage No.: 02-22 Summary No.: 02.83.110.0006 Procedure Rev.: 3 Report No.: UT-07-051 Workscope: IS! Work Order No.: 01678781 Page: 1 of I Code: 1998 CatJItem: B-D 1B3.110 Location:

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN2.002

Description:

Nozzle to Shell System ID: 50 Component ID: 2-PZR-WP26-4 Size/Length: NA ThicknessiDiameter: 6.1871 5.760 Limitations: Yes - See Report I UT-07.104 for Coverage Calculations Start Time: 1018 Finish Time: 1024 Exa.mirnation Surface" Inside E] OutIde 2 Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location: 9.2.3 Wo Location: Centedine of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE32770 Surface Temp.: 63 "F Cal. Repoit No.: CAL-07-049 AngleUsed I 0 45145T 60 60T1 I Scanning dBi 1 7.4 indication(s): Yes 0] No 0 Scan Coverage: Upstream - Downstream 1 CW R) CCW 2 Comments:

FC 06-04 Results: Accept 2 Reject C] Info __

Percent Of Coverage Obtained 90%: No- Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Level 111-N XI8 Date Reviewer Ignature Date Cochran, Lonnia D. A.. V f - 51=1007 ________!!______________________

Examiner Level Il-N Signatur* Date Site Review Signature Date Waddel, Jooey ,.iL 'JoL.t. 5J12007 _

Other Level NJA /7 Signature Date ANII Review Signature Date N/A 51912007, vZ,,______________________

ATI?&CKENT 3 UT Vessel Examination SitefUnit: Oconee / 2 Procedure: NDE-820 Outage No.: 02.22 Summary No.: 02.B3.111.0006 Procedure Rev.: 2 Report No.: UT.07-048 Work"cope: I1s Work Order No.; 01678781 Page: 1 of 3 Code: 1998 Catlitem: 5-D013.110 Location:

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN2-00Z

Description:

Nozzle to Shell System ID: 60 Component ID: 2-PZR-WP26-4 Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 6.187 5.750 Limitations: Yes - See Report= 4 for Coverage Calculations Start Time: 0953 Finish Time: 1020 Exarination Surface: Inside 2] Outside L] Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location: 9.2.3 We Location: Contarine of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Sedal No.: MCNDE32770 Surface Temp.: 63 °F Cal. Report No.: CAL,.07-047, CAL.07-048. CAL-07-050, CAL-07-051 Angle Used 0 145 45T 60 8OT 35135T Scanning dB 67. 67.5 85.8 70.2 4 Indcation(s): Yes 6] No fl Scan Coverage: Upstream [] Downstream 2] CW 0 CCW R]

Comments:

FC 06-04 S. Report NO. UT-07-067 For Indication sizing information 600 & 700 Scan - Additional inspector - Joey Waddel Results: Accept 2] Reject [D Info [_

Percent Of Coverage Obtained ; 90%: No -.,3,9 cO*. Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Level I,.N " i atu Date Reviewer, A Signature Date Mauldin, Lary E. iiA.

'- SID2007 ii Examiner Level i-,N na*'e Date Site Review Signature Date Ellis, Ken 519/2007 Other Level Ill-N _., ,. 4,-ýnaturo Date ANlI Review Signature Date Cochran, Lonnie D. C- -^ - 5/912007, 2P 5

r4 PZR Samulyflg NFozzle to Shell % of Coverage Item No:Q.1SU~coC WeldNo.: Z~%.L'~~

Weld Coveraue Scan AngLe  % Coverage Obtained Si 350,450,600 & 700 74.8 S2 350450,600 & 700 0 Cw 350 & 450 0 CCw 350 & 450 0 Total 74.8 74.8 -4= 18.7  % Coverage Base Material Coverage S1 350,450,600& 700 72.8 CW & CCW 450&350 42.4 Total 115.2 115.2 +2= 57.6  % Coverage 0O Scan Coverage 33.9  % Coverage Aggregate Coverage = Weld + Base Material + 00 + 3 36.7 %Coyerage Inspector I Date : SIZZI5a -7 PagelIof 1 AaiACAL.-YI-i "K~ia

&V.~Va~

A1IAUIME11 Pressurizer Saiiling Nozzle to Shell 9ASIF 1 at s5o Weld No.:.Z?-?4' Inspetor/Date Nozzle Surface 2 Base Metal Total Exam Area 24.52 + 20.35 = 44.87 sq. in.

20.35 sq. in.

24.52 sq. in Shell Surface I

?A (-cf Z c1P4

Item No.. -m. wa, pooo. Pressurizer Sa.u1ing Nozzle to Shell PASE ;iq if 50 Weld No.: z,-?*. ,,ta..-'

Inspector/Date Cý ý -5 ]107 Nozzle Surface 2

• -WldMetal Total xam Area 11.29 sq. im 11.29 sq. in.

Shell Surface I

?Atvf- 5 Op (

TO W-70br AD - VV-01-04

Item No. - m 5s.i o.o oDL, ressurizer Sawipfin Nozzle to Shell AIACHMENI B PAB 1.5 IF E0o WeIdNo.:

Inspector/Date: ~ v~o P4C~~c Li4 C:

ATIACHMENT 3 PASE /6 OF 5c Item No.; ozJ. ,\ ocW£0 reTsurizer Sati~ing Nomze to She II Weld No.:v(

Inspector/Date: wt - =z *' -*

Nozzle Surface 2

• ] Total Weld Metal Examined.

A combination of 350,450,600 and 7 0°angles were used to obtain coverage.

%Examined from Surface 1= 8.44 / 11.29 x 100 = 74.8%.

%Examined from Surface 2, CW and CCW= 0%.

700 Shell Surface I 8.44 sq. in. / Patcr. 5 orL-C AL-rvJe% M* -rtD *t4 .)'O**. qo'- *l -

AT 1ACHM, T Item No.: .7- 15. km.oo.. I-'ressurizer Sanuptng Nozzle to Nhel ME /7___,5 Weld No.-: z --. r P2 -4 Inspector/Date : T=ný- ;j-LL - Nozzle Surface 2

] Total Base Metal Examined with at leasti 2 angles from one direction.

A combination of 35,450,600 and 70°angles were used to obtain coverage.

% Examined = (24.34 + 8.34) / 44.87 x 100 = 72.8%.

600 24.34 sq. in.

Shell Surface 1

/ L-OF' 8.34 sq. in.

A-0c-,vC-,"" -T i4oL0 0.. Or0o1-01o

AI1ACiUNEu1 13 UT Vessel .xamination MAE Ig -O 5o SitewUnit: Oconee 2 Procedure: NOE-640 Outage No.: 02-22 Summary No.: 02.B3.110.0007 Procedure Rev.: 3 Report No.: UT-07-052 Workscope: IS1 Work Order No.: 01878781 Page: 1 of 1 Code: 1998 CaLiItem: 3-0 183.110 Location:

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN2-002

Description:

Nozzle to Shall System ID: 50 Componenl ID: 2-PZR.WP264 SizalLength: N/A Thidness/Diameter 6,18715.750 Limitations: Yes -8.. Report # UT-07-049 for-Coverage Calculations Start Time: 1052 Fnirsh Time: 1058 Examination Surface: Inside fJ Outside 0 Surface Condition: AS GROUND La Localion: 9.2.3 Wo Loca=ion: Centedine of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL 11 Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNOE32770 Surface Temp.: 63 "F Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-049 AngleUd e45d 0 4 ,45 4 "60 i Scannring d89 37A4 Indcation(s): Yes D No W) Scan Coverage: Upslream 0[ Downstream [] CW [ CCW2 Comments:

FC 06.04 Results: Accept Sj Reject [3 Info I Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: .- No -4"% Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Cochraner Lenvel lI.N rSn r D19t0e ReiwrSgaueDt Cothraner LevnelQ.l- 51v9ewe Date- 9q7Sigatr al Examinmer Level 11-N Signature Date Site Review Signature Date Waddell, Joey 61912007 __________________________________

Other Level NiA Signature Date ANII Review ~ ,, Signature Date WA (J519/2007, ý) I2/

A11AtCI4ENT 6 UT Vessel Examination PASE /9 Of50 Silo/Unit: Oconee I 2 Procedure: NDE-820 Outage No.: 02-22 Summary No.: 02.B3.110.0007 Procedure Rev.: 2 Report No.: UT-07-049 Workscope: ISI Work Order No.: 01678781 Page: 1 of 10 Code: 1988 CalJItem: 8-D IB3.110 Location:

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN2-002 Descilptlon: Nozzle to Shell System ID: 50 Component ID: 2-PZR-WP26.5 Size/Length: N/A ThicknessiDiameter. 6.187 15.750 Limitations: Yes - See Limitation Report Start Time: 1021 Finish Time: 1047 Examination Surface: Inside EZ Outside 0 Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location: 9.2.3 Wo Location: Centedine of Weld Couptant: ULTRAGEL It Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE32770 Surface Temp.: 63 "F Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-047, CAL-07-048, CAL-07-050. CAL-07-051 Angle Used l0 146 145Tl6 60 6T 31035Tt Scanning dB 17.567.5 3B.3 79.2 GA Indication(s): Yes j'" No - Scan Coverage: Upstream -] DownstreamEZ CW - CCW --

Comments:

FC 06-06 Go*& 701 Scan -Additional inspector - Joey Waddel Results: Accept2 Reject (D Info C Percent Of Coverage Obtained ' 90%: No - 6ft%

0~00 PZR Sampling Nozzle to Shell % of Coverage 00, Item No. : OZ..Z.6! 110. 000- Weld No. : I _____

- -___P-_ -

Weld Coverage Scan Anv~e %overage Obtained S1 350,450,600 & 70- 74.8 S2 350,45-,600 & 700 0 Cw 350 & 450 0

CCw 350 & 450 0

Total 74.8 74.8 +4= 18.7  % Coverage Base M xal Coverue St 350,450,600& 70" 72.8 Cw &CCw 45°&350 42.4 Total 115.2 115.2 +2= 57.6  % Coverage 0' Scan Coverage 33.9  % Coverage Aggregate Coverage = Weld + Base Material + 0' + 3 36.7 %Coveraue Inspector / Date: Inspector / Dae: tL ~jt~joi Page 5 -of i0

AI1ACHI4ENI .1 Item No. : oz .S. ItD. c-i Pressurizer Sanroling Nozzle to Shell PAIEZ2. OF .50 Weld No. : _

Inspector/Date: ý0 1 Nozzle Surface 2 Base Metal Total ExamuArea = 24.52 + 20.35 = 44.87 sq. in.

20.35 sq. in.

24.52 sq. in.

I:

Shell Surface 1

?Ake.Cp oWLO1

AlIACHMENT43 MA~n. IF 50 Item No.: m,-Z. gto. 27 Pressuriwr Sapling Nozzle to Shell VMdNo.: zrt~- -

Inspector/Date CA n Nozzle Surface 2 SVwk1d MA TtW1TaExm Are= 11.29 sq. in 11.29 sq. in.

Shell Surface I ftLCC -1 0;:1

AIIACHMEMT 13 PA6E,43 Of 5c' Item No.: *.

1. . ooog I'ressurizer Satkpiing p iozzle to Shell Inspector/Date: -614P.7 Nozzle Surface 2

[E Base Metal Examed with 350 and 450 angles.

% Examined 35Oand 450 = 19.03 / 44.87 x 100 = 42.4%.

% Examined 00 = 19.03 / 56.16 x 100 = 33.9%.

0', 350and 45°Circ. scan 19.03 sq. in.

Shell Surface 1 pAk a&C'FID

ATIACHMENT S Item No. : l.a. iD,., oo*,1 messurizer Sanpling Nozzle to Shell PAGE- 24 of 50 Inspector/Date .naL IV =c *Z*l Nozzle Surface 2 E-m Total Base Metal Examined with at least 2 angles from one direction.

A combination of 350,450,600 and 70°angles were used to obtain coverage.

%Examined = (24.34 + 8.34) / 44.87 x 100 = 72.8/. i 600 70c 24.34 sq. in.

Shell Surface 1

- , , , I, 1ý \

8.34 sq. in. PAL-d- q ~Of'

AIIACHKEK1 S PAHE2S5 Of :5 ItemNo.: oZ .'65.ho.*c7 lj *essurizer Sampling Nozzle to Shell Weld No.: --?aV-- *,'.*-

inspector/Date:

Nozzle Surface 2 Total Weld Metal Examined.

A combination of 350,450,600 and 70 °angles were used to obtain coverage.

% Examined from Surface 1=8.44/ 11.29 x 100=74.8%.

% Examined from Surface 2, CW and CCW = 0%. )

700 Shell Surface 1

$4J~¶~9 8.44 sq. in.

PAI.-C I o 00 10

AIIACHKERI 6 PAE24, 8F.<0 UT Vessel h-amination Site/Unit: Oconee I 2 Procedure: NDE-640 Outage No.: 02.22 Summary No.: 02.B3.110.0008 Procedure Rev.: 3 Report No.: UT-07.053 Woricacope: [SI Work Order No.: 01678781 Page: 1 of I Code: 1998 Cat./Item: B-D /B3.1O Location:

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN2-002 Descdption: Nozzle to Shell System ID: s0 Component ID: 2-PZR-WP28-6 c o...... 1 9ý ou Size/Length: N/A ThicknessODiameter: 8.1871 5.750

,imtations: Yes - Soo Report $ UT-07:::D for Coverage Calculations Start Time: 1102 Finish Time: 1106 Examination Surlace: Inside ] Outside 21 Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location: 9.2.3 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL If Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE32770 Surface Temp.: 63 *F Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-049 AngleUse, I 01 45 1 45T'1 8o 0oT Scanning dB 37A4 Indication(s): Yes Q No 2 Scan Coverage: Upstream 0 Downstream @1 CW 21 CCW []

Comments:

FC 06-04 Results: Accept [a Reject [ Info (]

-3&..'7W Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No 6 J14Vl Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Lvel III-.N 9 ,g~ture Date Reviewer Signature Date Cochran. Lonnie D. 6W,1-17 519/2007 6JJ/1 Eaminer,I-N Level Signature Date Site Review y SIgnture Date Wadd.l, J.oey K()IL 55/ o912007 Oth, Level NIA Signature Date ANN Review Signature Date WA 1912007 ______________________________________

A11ACHMER1 13 Ism, UT Vessel Examination PAGE 2 7 OF57 SitetUnlt: Oconee I 2 Procedure: NDE-820 Outage No.: 02-22 Summary No.: 02.13.1110.0008 Procedure Rev.: 2 Report No,: UT-07-050 Page: 1 of Workscope: IS1 Work Order No.: 01678761 . 3 Code: 1988 CatJtern: B-0 JB3,110 Location:

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN2-002

Description:

Nozzle to Shell System ID: s0 Component ID: 2-PZR-WP26-6 Size/Length: WA Thickness/Diameter: 6.18715.750 Limtations: Yes - See Repor=; Qr Coverage Calculations Start Time: 1048 Finish Time: 1107 fV1-7fi' -. .

Examination Surface: Inside Outside 0 O Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location: 9.2.3 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE32770 Surface Temp.: 63 F Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-047, CAL-07-04 CAL.07-050, CAL-07-051 Angle.Used i 01 45 45T61 0 6 0T 1363T Scanning dB 67.5 67.5 5.8 79.2 64.

Indication(s): Yes I No C Scan Coverage: Upstream [] Downstream b CW R CCW R)

Comments:

FC 06-06 60° & 70' Scan - Additional Inspector - Joey Waddel Results: Accept [ Reject r] Info __

Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No -U./ cA--ditlr1 Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Level II-N ,in~r Date StReiwSignature Date SEllis, Ken W/912007 iOther Level lUI-N j. Date ANII Review SigntureDat Cochran, Lonnie D. 9207.:iv2

LA-~

PZR Sampling Nozzle to Shell % of Coverage

..L44 Item No. : o W , w, cvpuS Weld No.: 2. - t' wv*"4' Weld Coverage Scan Anale  % Coverage Obtained SI 350,450,600 & 700 74.8 S2 350450,600 & 700 0 Cw 350 & 450 0 CCw 350 & 450 0 Total 74.8 74.8 +4 = 18.7  % Coverage Base Material Coverage S1 350,450,600& 700 72.8 Cw & CCw 450&350 42.4 Total 115.2 115.2 ÷2= 57.6  % Coverage 00 Scan Coverage 33.9  % Coverage Aggregate Coverage = Weld + Base Material + 00+ 3 36.7  % Coverage Inspector / Date" C ii" Page _Lof to W'TP~~Ag~-Mr f%94btw-.36 V.

AI1ACMEN1 a~

PASEa'l BF 50 Item No. : 7- es, ip. gpoas Pressurizer Sanmling Nozzle to Shell Inspector/Date . M-r

• 5 5 =44.7 s.

Nozzle Surface 2 LZJBase Mea Total Exam Area--24.52 + 20.35 =44.87 sq. in.

20.35 sq. in.

24.52 sq. in Shell Surface I pflrwc Z 'OFCa

• Tv*""C-7r -M wAA:rj-v. U-r-0-1.05,

A11ACKKENT 03 Item Na : -oz 6. i*p. oo Es Pressurizer Sanzling Nozule to Shell PAE-30 IF So ImpemtorlDate: - sl-r ° Nozzle Surface 2 LII] WeldMetalTotalExamArea 11.29 sq. in.

11.29 sq. in.

Shell Surface 1 3 OE01C0s too.

AIIACHKEKT 9 PA613/ Of .50 ItemNo.: ot.M.io, ooo Pressurizer Sanpling Nozzle to Shell WeIdNo.:

Inspector/Date:(O-Nozzle Surface 2 m Base Metal Examed with 35 0 and 45' ngles.

% Examined 35°and 45' = 19.03 / 44.87 x 100 =42.4%.

%Examined 0' = 19.03 / 56.16 x 100 = 33.9%.

0°, 35and 450Circ. scan 19.03 sq. in.

Shell Surface 1 J-6 -lb VAC~'ne f' &4r (b

AITACHMENT F3 PA~f 32.. Of 5-b ItemNo.:-. m , io oc Pressurizer Sampling Nozzle to Shell Inspector/Date : r Nozzle Surface 2 Total Weld Metal Examined.

A combination of 350,45',60' and 70*angles were used to obtain coverage.

%Examined from Surface1 8.44/ 11.29x 100 =74.8%.

% Examined from Surface 2, CW and CCW = 0 0/ )

700 Shell Surface 1 V. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ " ,,\VT C. , C X X ' Z1 .7'N. t K, T ;Z T. \\N N. \.N. N.N7. \.N. N.

N7,\"

8.44 sq. in ?A~WC-  :&

kVfj M ivY ?MCA-OT '-az 1-60

AIIACHMENT B PAGEB;3 OF 5c~

Item No.: -oT.. 16, no. ot b'ressunzer Samplig Nozzle to She U WeldNo. : 7m.- _.z -(. 0 Inspector/Date: **fT. z.o7 Nozzle Surface 2 Total Base Metal Examined with at least 2 angles from one directionL A combination of 35',45',600 and 701angles were used to obtain coverage.

%Examined = (24.34 + 8.34) / 44.87 x 100 = 72.8%.

600 24.34 sq. in.

Shell Surface I

?7=- J 8.34 sq.i.i--

~eMP~-m gate PDwD.or-0c1- os

UT Pipe W.o.. Examination PACEACHqET A1B 3q AF56, Site/Unit: Oonee I 2 Procedure: NDE-600 Outage No.: 02-22 Summary No.: O2.56.11.0059 Procedure Rev.: 17 Report No.: UT-07-045 Worcscope: ISI Work Order No.: 01M7580 Page: 1 of 3 Code: 1998 CaL/item: 8-J 1B9.11 Location:.

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN2-O13

Description:

Casing to Safe End System ID: 50 Component ID: 2-PDBI-1 Siza/Length: N/A Thickneas/Diameter, 2.330133.500

.inltalons: Yes - See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 1512 Finish Time: 1545 Examination Surface: Inside C] Outside E2 Surface Condition: GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.1 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL il Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mtg.: FISHER Serial No.: MONDE 27221 Surface Temp.: 80 OF Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-041, CAL-07-042, CAL-07 -043 AngleUsed t0o 45 145T- S [L6o L I Scanning d 45 166 73.3 Indication(s): Yes Q3 No 63 Scan Coverage:. Upstream [I Downstream 2I CW W COW 2)

Comments:

Results: Accept Ea Reject C] Info Q Initial Section XI Exam Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 37.5% Reviewed Previous Data: No Examircent Level 1l-N Sigbiture No -f Date Reviewer Signature Date Houser, Gayle2. ,5/82007 0 7 Examiner Lavet iitNa Signature Date Site Review Signature Date SEllis, Ken z -ý 5/8/2007 Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Review Signature Date NIA 51/W0071.'~ ~ c  ?

A11ACH*EMT 3 UT Pipe Wead Examination PAGE.,5 Of 60 Site/Unit Oconee 1 2 Procedure: NDE-830 Outage No.: 02-22 Summary No.: 02.50.11.0059 Procedure Rev.: 1 Report No.: UT-07-047 Workscope: ISI Work Order No.: 01678880 Page: 1 of I Code: 1998 Cat~itern: B-J I/9.11 Location:

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN2-013

Description:

Casing to Sate End System ID: s0 Component AD:2.PDBI-1 Size/Length: NA Thickness/Dlameter: 2.330 i 33.500 Lmnitations: Yes - See Coverage Calculations attached to Report I UT-07-047 Start Time: 1546 Finish Time: 1515 Examination Surface: Inside C] Outside &5 Surface Condition: GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.1 Wo Location: Centedine of Weld 'Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE 27221 Surface Temp.: s0 OF Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-045, CAL-07-046 AngleUsed 0 4S 46T 60 I 70L Scanning dB 79 91 Indicalion(s): Yes

• No

• Scan Coverage: Upstream 21 Downstream C CW 2 CCW R]

Comments:

Results: Accept 21 Reject 0] Into Q Initial Section Xl Exam Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 37.5% Reviewed Previous Data: No Examiner Level i.N e bL Date Reviewer Signature Date Signature Examiner NIA Level WA S Date o2071 Site Review

.. .' . Signature Date Ote jA Lvl inaueDate AIl Reie Signature Date N/A SW2071

Ah1ACH)MEMI B SunmmyNo.: O2 i.11.0059 PAGE 3 1 at 50 Weld No.: 2-PDBI -1 Scale: I"= I" Best effort Exam with 70°RL and 60ORL per procedure NDE-830 for the upper 2/3 of the area of interest. See Report No. UT-07-047.

/-

Inspector / Date: Page _L of i

AIIACHMENT 3 PAGE.31 OF .5 SumnaryNo.: 02, .11.0059 Weld No.: 2-PDB I-I Best effort Exam with 70 0RL and 600 RL per procedure NDE-830 for the upper 2/3 of the area of interest. See Report No. UT-07-047.

No Coverage Claimed Supplemental coverage Coverage Claimed = 50%

with 600 RL Wave Only See Note:

Note. 600 RL scan not included in percentage coverage due to requirements of IOCFR50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(I). Best effort scan with 600 RL obtained 50% coverage in one axial direction.

Inspeco / Date: Page_ of _

V~

LAJ e 4" Summary No.: 02.B9.1 1.0059 Weld No.: 2PDBI-I SI = Safe End = 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S2 = RCP = 0% (0% of the length x 0% of the volume)

S3 = CW = 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S4=CCW = (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

Total = 150 / 4 =375 T Aggregate Coverage Inspector / Date: Inspector / Date: itr. Page lof S of 33

A1ACHE3'T AF~

UT Vessel Lxamination Site/Unit: Oconee / 2 Procedure: NDE-3630 Outage No.: 02.22 Summary No.: O2.CI.20.0006 Procedure Rev.: 1 Report No.: UT-07-069 Workscope: ISl Work Order No.: 01662285 Page: 1 of 3 Code: Cat~item: C-A JC1.20 Location:

Drawing No.: OM 201-43

Description:

Head to Shell System ID: 51A Component ID: 2-.LST-iID0SH-2 Size/Length: NIA Thickness/Diameter: 0.3761 96.000 Uritations: Yes - See Limitation Report Starl lime: 2103 Finish Time: 2218 Examination Surface: inside Q Outside &a Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location: 9.2.1 Wo Location: Centedine of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32798 Surface Temp.: s0 OF Cal. Report No.: CAL-O7-O62, CAL-07.063 AngieUsed

°JF45 ' 45tT 60 ,T Scanning dB .49 49 indication(s): Yes Q No o Scan Coverage:- Upstream 0 Downstream=5 CW 0 CCW 2 Comments:

Additional inspector- K. Ellis CI --,

Results: Accept 01 Reject [] Info C] Initial Section XI Inspection Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 80.26% Reviewed Previous Data: No

ATIACHMENT B PAGE lo gf DUKE ENERGY COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT

[ NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION .e 4 equally spaced pads foro El LIMITED SCAN [ 1 [ 2 [1 Z] 2 9 cw cow legs15in. @Dia.8'C:

FROM L

• to L INCHES FROM WO CL to Beyond. -t4. 00A)//so.qsovg i (n10 ANGLE: El 0 El 45 [ 60 other FROM N/A DEG to NIA DEG (n "- ea El NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION ELIMITED SCAN rl 1 12 E 2 1 2_0____0_ ¢-1w ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: El 0 [E 45 E] 60 other FROM DEG to DEG El NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION ELIMITED SCAN El1 E2 1 [1 2 [1Cw El ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: El 0 El 45 El 60 other FROM DEG to DEG El NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION

-' LIMITED SCAN -7 1 '- 2 '- 1 M- 2 Rl cw El ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM Wo to Sketch(s) attached ANGLE: El 0 [] 45 E]A o ther FROM DEGtto DEG [E yes No 05/10/20071 Sheet Z of I' Authorized InspectorDe Date:

Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations - Vessels SiteAJnit: Oconee / 2 Procedure: NOE-3630 Outage No.: 02-22 Summary No.: O2.CI.20.0006 Procedure Rev.: Report No,: UT-07-069 Workscope: Ist Work Order No.: 01682285 Page: 3 of 3 0 deq Planar Scan  % Length X  % volume of length /100  % total for 0 deg M..

-Ja

• zWl-MU

,C";3 45 deg Scan I  % Length X  % volume of length / 100 =  % total for Scan 1 Scan 2  % Length X  % volume of length / 100 =  % total for Scan 2 Scan 3  % Length X  % volume el length I OO=  % total for Scan 3 Scan 4  % Length X  % volume of length / 100 =  % total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by 8 scans = %total for 45 deg Other deg 60 Scan I 80.260  % Length X 100.000  % volume of length ( 100 = 80.260  % total for Scan 1 Scan 2 80.260  % Length X 100.000  % volume of length /100 80.260  % total for Scan 2 Scan 3 80.260 %Length X 100,000  % volume of length / t00= 80.260  % total or Scan 3 Scan4 80.260 %Length X 100.000  % volume of length I100 = 80.260  % total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by# scIans 80.260  % total for 80 deg Percent complete coverage Add totals for each angle and scan required and divide by # eo angles to detemtine; 80.280  % Total for complete exam Note:

Supplemental coverage may be achieved b* use of other angles I methods. When used, the coverage for volume not obtained with angles as noted above shall bp calculated and added to the total to provide the percent total for the complete examination.

Site Field Supervisor~ Date.

AIIACHMEHNT UT Pipe Weld Examination PAGE9 O3f5c Site/Unlt Oconee I 2 Procedure: H-.0040 Outage No.: 02-22 Summary No.: 02.05.11.0004 Procedure Rev.; 17 Report No.: UT-07-005 Worksoope: Is1 Work Order No.: 167-S72 Page: 1 of 2 Code: 19M8 CaL/Item: C-F-105.11 Locaflon:

Drawing No.: 2LP-148

Description:

Reducer to Valve 2LP-18 Syvtem 10: 5._3A Component ID: 2LP-148-90 _______Slzei~angth: WA ThicnlwDiametecr . 2C Limitations; Yes - See Attached Lmiltaton Calulatte Ins Start Time.: 14135 Finisha lime: so Exminaflon Suwfae: Inside I Outside tl Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo Loca1IurL 9.1.t11 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couptant ULTRAGEL It Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mig.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE22823 Surface Temp.: 74 *F Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-004, CAL-07-005, CAL-07-0M6 AngleUsed 0 14*-T4r 601 SOL I Scanning dB _______

Indication(s): Yesl1 No W,.I Scan Coverage: Upstrean i-.1 Domrstream I.. CW t! CCW hiv Comments:

R Ce.sJ!s: Accept M.A Reject; Info I. I Percert Of Coverage Obtained > 90%:

JUL-31-2007 86289 Am Q.A. -*Q.C.-*OHS 864 005 4340 MEj lv. 2LP-18 S2 Covuan~ClnAid -501/ NodvS=~clamed v~idh 600 RIL Mwv CnIy Scale; P"- I" See Nte Note: 60' RL scan not Included in percentage coverage due to requirements of 1OCPRSO.5S(bX2XxvXAXI). Best effort scan with 600 RL obtained 50% coverage In one axial direction.

SI = R5i9ii/i0 S'50 (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S2 -Valve = 00a (0% of the length x 0% of the volume)

S3 - CW - 50% (100% of the length x 500 of the volume) 84 - CCW = W/o (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

Total - 150 / 4 = 37.5 % Aggregate Coverage 1 A/rDluate: z

A11ACHME0 S3 PAGE YY/of 5,0 UT Pipe Welu Examination Site/Unit Oo'onm 1 2 Procedure: NDE-600 Outage No.: 02-22 Summary No.: 0245.21.0021 Procedure Rev.: 17 Report No.: UT-07-010 Wozcscope: 151 Work Order No.: 1679718 Page: I of 2 Code: 1898 CalhItem; 0.F-1/C5.21 LocaIion:

Drawing No.: 2-5lA-17 (7)

Description:

Valve 21P-148 to Elbow System ID, 51A Component ID 2-51A-17-147 Sze/Length: WA Thickness/Diameter: 0.531 14.000 Umn-allons Yes - See Attached Limitzaion Report Start Time: 1100 Finish Time: 1113 Eamiratton Suae" Inside Outside W'j Suftac Condition: GROUND Lo LocatIon: 9.1.1.2 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 06125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.AS Sedal No.: MCNDE32823 Surtace Temp.: 91 -F Cal. Report No. CAL-07-014, CAL-07-015, CAL-07-016 Ang-*eUsed 1 0 45 46T 60 60L 60 Scarnning dB 142 45_ 55 52 Indicalion(s): Yes; No Wi Scan Coverage: Upstream WJ Downstream ýei CW iVl CCW W Comments:

52dB scanned on valve side Results: Accept I61 Reject I i Info.

Percent Of Coverage Obtadned 90%: .. " Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Exwni e Le eij Signatre Date Reviewer Signature Date Hauser, Gayle E. 2/21/2007 Gary J Moss Level II ,7. .- ?

Examiner Level iw.N Signaturze Date Site Review Signatu~re Date Jolly, B. Dale "\ .. 2/21/2007 N/A Other Level NIA areI Date ANII Review Signature Date NIA I________________

Item Nm OICS1.0021 MdN.2-A7-4

%Mft2-51A-17-147 I

L..

ZE 60P Shear Cove** Claikd = 50%

450 scans 3 and 4 Covrage Claimed = 0%

450 scans 3 and 4 Scale: 1"= P"

% Coverage Calculations SI = Elbow = 100% (100% of the length x 100% of the volume)

S2 = Valve 100% (100% of the length x 100% of the volume)

S3=CW 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S4 = CCW 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

Total = 30014 -75.0  % Aggregate Coverage IfI hmpecIr /Dae:

A11ACIME11 3 PASE Yý OFS-UT Pipe Wetu Examination SIteUnit Oconee / 2 Procedure* NDE-600 Outage No.: 02-22 Summary No.: 02.CS.21.0024 Procedure Rev.: 17 Report No.: UT-07-006 Woricacope: 1St Work Order No.: 679737 Page: 1 of 2 Code: 1998 Catltem; C-F-11C5.21 Location:

Drawing No.: 2HP-220

Description:

Valve 2HP-27 to Pipe System ID: S5A Component ID: 2HP-220-O Slze/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 0.674 / 4.000 ULitations: Yes - See Attached Umitatlon Report Star Time: 1430 Finish Time. 1440 Examination Surface: Inside Outside W1 Surface Condition: GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.2 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL IH Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNOE32623 Surface Temp.: 71 OF Cal. Report No.! CAL,-07-007, CAL-07-008, CAL-07-009 Angle Used I 014SI45TIS01 SOL 1 38 ScaningdaS I I 1 1 55 70 55 Indication(s): Yes. No Wi Scan Coverage: Upstream i Downstream ie' CWwi CCWjVI Comments:

Results:. Accept ivi Reject. Info Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: I

Item fo. 02s.021.0*z Wed No. 21,P-220-9 (CO 60P RLI -ve 600 Sliear mive AL. S2 Scale: I"= I" Mpe %faial)

SI No Coverage Claimed Cbverage Claimsed = 50% Supplemental coverage with 60 ° RL Mve Only See Note:

Note: 60* RL scan not included in percentage coverage due to requirements of IOCFR50.55a(bX2)(xv)(A)(l). Best effort scan with 60* RL obtained 50% coverage in one axial direction-

% Covera-ge Calculations Sl = Pipe 50%/0 (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S2 = Valve = 0% (09/ of the length x 0% of the volume)

S3 =CW = 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S4=CCW 50_% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

Total = 150 / 4 =.37.5 % Aggregate Coverage hipcr/ Date : aW zf~iIoi Page Zof Z 4~e~/LsA,

411ACHMENT B FAist isOF !50 UT Pipe Weiu Examination SitelUnit: Oconee I 2 Procedure: NOE-600 Outage No.: 02-22 Summary No.: 02.05.21.0025 Procedure Rev.: 17 Report No.: UT-07-007 Workscope: ISI Work Order No.: 1679737 Page: I of 3 Code: 196 Cat/item: C-F-1/C5.21 Location_

Drawing No.: 2HP-220

Description:

Tee to Pipe System ID: 51A Component ID: 2HP-220-14 Size/Length: NfA ThIckness/DIameter. 0.67414.000 Umitaelons: Yes - Sae Attached Limitation Report Stanl Time: 1414 Finish Time: 1420 Examination Surface: Inside Outside iiel Surface Condition: GROUND Lo Location 9.1.1.2 Wo Localon: Centerne of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL 11 Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mig.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32S23 Surface T".: 71 -F Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-007, CAL-07-008, CAL-07-009 An& eUsed 10 45145T10 W 6L j 35 Scu dB aing 55 7O 55 indication(s): Yes No .v Scan Coverage: Upstream i'i Downstream iv CW .v; CCW iv:

Comments:

Pravloualy recorded Indications detected. No changes observed. Indicallon is not located within the bottom 1/3rd exam area.

Results: Accept iv! Reject 1 Info I ;

Percent 01 Cove*Age Obtained > 90%: No - 78.7% Reviewed Previous Data: Yes

Item No.: 09GM-S102-~' Weld No.: 2HP-220-14 LLcc C6.

% Coverage Calculations Pipe 0 = 4.5

1. = 0.674 Total Weld Volume 100%

1/3't= 0.23 = (Weld + 1/4' ea. Side) x 1/3 1* x Weld Length Weld Length 14.1 - 4.22 in 3 Weld + 1/4" ea. Side = 1.30  % of Length not Examined 100%

Length of Obstucted Area = 8.00 = (Length of Obstucted Area) ÷ (Weld Length) x 100

- 56.7 %

% of Length Examined 100%

100% -% not Examined

= 43.3%

Axial Coverage from S2 - Pipe

= % of Volume Examined 100% + 50% of Obstructed Volume

= 43.3 + 28.4

= 71.6 %

Axial Coverage from S1 - Tee

= 100% of the Volume - % of the Volume not Examined

= 100 - 56.7 43.3%

Circumferential Coverage from S3 & S4 both CW & CCW

= 100% of the Volume

= 100.%

Aggrecate % of Coverage

= (S1 + S2 + S3

+ 4)4= 78.7 % Coverage Inspector I Date: 0: [D-7 Page ?- of 3 I'~

ZUA Item No. 02,-5.21.0025 MWd No. 2lp-.20-14 60' RLWave 60WShear Scale: 1"= I" pe E S2 No Coverag ClaimeKd Coveraer Claimed = 50%/ &4*leerrada coverWg

- with 60- RL Wave Only SeeNote:

Note: 60' RL scan not included in percentage coverage due to requirements of I OCFR50.55a(bX2)(xvXA)(I). Best effort scan with 60 PRL obtained 500/ coverage in one axial direction.

Plan View- Not to Scale Weld 21-[P-220-14 SurF. 2 Limited Area I Limited Area Surf 1 Side View- Not to Scale Limited 4" on ea. side ofTee in tlat area for a total of 8". From Lo + 1.5" to 5.5" and fin Lo + 8.5" to 12.5" on Surface l. 1 spetor / Date: _ Page -I of 3

UT Vessel Examination AITACHMENT C PAOE / OF (05 Site/Unit: Oconee / 3 Procedure: NDE-640 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No.: 03.83.110.0001 Procedure Rev.: 4 Report No.: UT-07-132 Workscope: ISI Work Order No.: 01733140 Page: 1 of 1 Code: 1998 Cat./Item: B-D /B3.110 Location:

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN3-002

Description:

Nozzle to Head System ID: 50 Component ID: 3-PZR-WPI5 Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 4,750/15.250 Limitations: Yes - See Limitation Report Attached to Report No. UT-07-137 Start Time: 0900 Finish Time: 1100 Examination Surface: Inside F1 Outside [ Surface Condition: GROUND FLUSH Lo Location: 0° Line of Vessel Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.'. 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32811 Surface Temp.: 90 -F Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-151 Angle Used 1 0 45 45T 60 60T Scanning dB 41.8 Indication(s): Yes E) No R Scan Coverage: Upstream [] Downstream Sa CW U CCW L]

Comments:

See Attached Coverage Sheets Additional Inspector: Troy Huhe LeveA Il=N Results: Accept 0 Reject [] Info __

Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 41.7% Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Level Ii-N Signature Date Reviewe Signature Date Howard, Dean M. 1111/2007 2 L. ./ ,/07 Examiner Level iI-N S.j'atur Date Site Review , Signature Date Grlebel, David M. 11/112007 NIA Level Ir Date ANII R / Signature Date Kelly, Alan J. 111/2007 //-

AT IACHMENT C, PA6E 2 V

• Li .k . UT Vessel E,.amination Site/Unit: Oconee / 3 Procedure: NDE-820 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No.: 03.83.110.0001 Procedure Rev.: 2 Report No.: UT-07-137 Workscope: IS) Work Order No.: 01733140 Page: 1 of A-'7 Code: 1998 Cat.Iltem: B-D 113.110 Location:

Drawing No.: ISI.OCN3-002

Description:

Nozzle to Head System ID: 50 Component ID: 3.PZR-WPIS Size/Length: NiA Thickness/Diameter: 4.750 15.250 Limitations: Yes - See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 0900 Finish Time: 1100 Examination Surface: Inside f Outside [ Surface Condition: GROUND FLUSH Lo Location: 0' Line of Vessel Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL I1 Batch No.: 05125 Temp Tool Mfg. D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32811 Surface Temp.: 90 -F Cal. Report No. CAL-07-152, CAL-07-153, CAL-07-154 Angle Used 0 45 45T 60 60T *70 Scanning dB 65.0 6S.0 67.7 67.7 74.0 Indication(s): Yes !i No I.] Scan Coverage: Upstream Z Downstream tW CCW Comments:

See Attached Coverage Sheets Additional Inspector: Troy Huhe Level JI-N Results: Accept r'. Reject fvJ Info _,,

Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90% No - 41.7% Reviewed Previous Data' Yes I

Examiner Level 1I-N Signature Date Reviewer Signature Date Howard, Dean M. ~11/11/2007 174sur /6Dte Examiner Level lIIN Signature Date Site Review Signature Date GrI.oel, David M. / ,, -. -'111/112007 N/A Other Level ,I.N ure/Date ANII R** " Signature Date D

Kelly, Alan J. ,<.,,,.,,,,,,. 11112007 0..-t-11

/7

.7 ---1 f -4

PZR Surge Nozzle to Shell % of Coverage IsJ L.Ic Item No..: 03.B3.110.0001 Weld No. : 3-PZR-WPIS Weld Coverage Scan Annle  % Coveraixe Obtained 450,600 & 700 82.7 SI S2 450,600 & 700 3.

Cw 600 & 450 33.3 CCw 60"0& 450 33._33 Total 149.3 149.3 4= 37.3  % Coverage Base Material Coverage S1 450,600& 700 65-1 Cw & C(CW 450&600 37.3 Total 102.4 102.4 +2 = 51.2  % Coverage 0'SeiCoverage 36.5  % Coverage Aggregate Coverage = Weld + Base Material + 0' - 3 41.7  % Coverage Inspector / Date : Page Z of -7

AITACHMENT C~

PAGE q aF&93 Item No.. 3.B3.110.0001 Pressurizer Surge Nozzle to Head Weld No. : 3-PZR-WP15 Inspector/Date 2

mWeld Metal Total Exam Area = 8.88 sq. in.

8.88 Sq. in.

Shell SLuface I Scale: I" = 2" FAuL< 3 0 -

ATIACHNENT C PASE_5 IF 61 Item No. -. 3.B3.110.0001 Pressurizer Surge Nozzle to Head Weld No. : 3-PZR-WP15 Inspector/Date: n zci:

2 Base Metal Total ExamArea = 12.31 +20.70=33.01 sq. in.

12.31 Sq. in.

Shell Surface 1 20.70 Sq. in.

Scale: " = 2"

AlIACHMENTC.

Pressurizer Surge Nozzle to Head 1AIE 6 aF Item No.. J3.B3.110.0001 Weld No.: 3-PZR-WPI5 Inspector/Date : /)il L --

J~ f11([ al Nozzle 2

ZI Total Weld Metal Examined Axial scans from S1 = 7.34 / 8.88 x 100 = 82.7%

A combination of 450,60' and 70°angles were used to obtain coverage.

450, 600 and 700 Shell Surface I 7.34 Sq. in.

Scale: 1 =2" L.~-F- 5 o : 7

ATIACHMENT WASE 7 CFF Item No.: 03.B3.110.0001 Pressurizer Surge Nozzle to Head Weld No.: 3-PZR-WPj5 ) L: t,1 Nozzle I Inspector/Date:

Surface 2 Total Base Metal Examined Axial scans = 12.31+ 9.18 / 33.01 x 100 = 65.1%

A combination of 45',60' and 70°angles were used to obtain coverage.

450, 600 and 700 12.31 Sq. in.

Shell Surface 1 9.18 Sq. in.

Scale: I"= 2"

-5^f6 d47

At IACHMENTC PASE58 OFý Item No.. 03.B3.110.0001 Pressurizer Surge Nozzle to Head Weld No. : 3-PZR-WPT15 .

Inspector/Date: ( V2Zi) V ([4 Total Weld and Base Metal Examined 0' = 2.96 + 12.31 / 41.89 x 100 = 36.5%

Total Base Metal Examined Circ. scans = 12.31/ 33.01 x 100 = 37.3%

Total Weld Metal Examined Circ. scans = 2.96/ 8.88 x 100 = 33.3%

//

00, 450 and 60' CW and CCW 2.96 Sq. in.

Scale: 1"= 2" ic -7 -7

• *h * .

hig~pUT Vessel EAamination ATTACHMENT PAGE 9 TF Site/Unit:. Oconee 1 3 Procedure: NDE.640 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No.: 03.B3.110.0002 Procedure Rev.: 4 Report No.: UT-07-133 Workscope: ISI Work Order No.: 01733140 Page: 1 of 1 Code: 1998 Cat,/Item: B-D IB3.110 Location:

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN3-002

Description:

Nozzle to Head System ID: 50 Component ID: 3-PZR-WP34 Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 4,750 / 7.750 Limttations: Yes - See Limitation Report Attached to Report No. UT-07-138 Start Time: 0900 Finish Time: 1100 Examination Surface: Inside [3 Outside [] Surface Condition: GROUND FLUSH Lo Location: 0° Line of Vessel Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32811 Surface Temp.: 90 °F Cal, Report No.: CAL-07-1151 Angle Used 10 451 45T 60 60T Scanning dB 41.1 Indication(s): Yes 0 No R] Scan Coverage: Upstream [] Downstream R] CW LI CCW L]

Comments:

See Attached Coverage Sheets Additional Inspector: Troy Huhe 1evelAI-N Results: Accept Q Reject 7] Info __

Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 46.1% Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Howard, Dean M.

Level Il-N Signature 11120 Date R-ve~/ Signatu.,e /

/(.lew/'&7/Da~e1 Examiner Level II-N Si nat Date Site Review Signature Date Griebel, David M. 1111/2007 N/A Other Level II-N e Date ANII Signature Date Kelly, Alan J. 112007

• ./

AT TACHMENT C PACE /0 aO F*

DukerL.UT Vessel EAamination Site/Unit: Oconee / 3 Procedure: NDE-820 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No.: 03.83.110.0002 Procedure Rev.: 2 Report No.: UT.07-138 Workacope: 151 Work Order No.: 01733140 Page: 1 of 6 Code: 1998 Cat./item: B.D 1B3.110 Location:

Drawing No: iSI-OCN3-002

Description:

Nozzle to Head System ID: 50 Component ID: 3-PZR-WP34 Size/Length: NTA Thickness/Diameter 4.750 7.750 Limitations. Yes - See Attached Limitation Report Start Time 0900 Finish Time: 1100 Examination Surface Inside M Outside 0] Surface Condition: GROUND FLUSH Lo Location: 0' Line of Vessel Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant; ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No,: MCNDE32811 Surface Temp.: 90 'F Cal. Report No.. CAL-07-152. CAL-07-153. CAL-07-154 Angle Used 0 45 45T 60 60T7 1 70 Scanning dB 65.0 65.0 67.7 67.7 74.0 Indication(s): Yes 7! No F Scan Coverage: Upstream ('] Downstream [] CW )] CCW ]"

Comments:

S.e Attached Coverage Sheets Additional Inspector: Troy Huhe leveIll-N Results- Accept f.. Reject [] Info 171 Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 46.1% Reviewed Previous Data Yes Examiner Level Il-N Signature Date Review '- Signature Date Howard. Dean M. 11/11/2007 //. 67 Examiner Level 1l-N .Siqna~ure,9 eve in~ LaeSz Griebel, David M. 11/112007 N/A ,

Other Level ti-N Signatuire Date ANtI Rei / /Signature , Date Kelly, Alan J. 1/1,2 tI

//

PZR Spray N( )zzle to Shell % of Coverage S, Item No. : 03.B3.110.0002 Weld No.: 3-PZR-WP34

-x C6 Weld Coverage Scan Angle  % Coverag~e Obtained S1 450,600 & 700 88.3 S2 450,600 & 700 0

Cw 600 & 450 24.3 CCw 600 & 450 24.3 Total 136.9 136.9 -4 = 34.2  % Coverage Base Material Coverage SI 450,600& 700 75.2 Cw & CCw 45°&60o 47.5 Total 122.7 122.7 - 2 = 61.4  % Coverage f0, Scan ("Overage 42.6  % Coverage Aggregate Coverage = Weld + Base Material + 00 + 3 46.1  % Coverage Inspector / Date " ixjs1.0- Page 7-of (o

ATTACHMENT PAGE I? cF,5C

[tern No.: 03.13.110.0002 Pressurizer Spray Nozzle to Shell Weld No.: 3-PZR, N Inspector/Date: -- *t'j°- ozzle L3 U, Total Exam Area Weld Metal = 6.86 sq. in. 13.22 sq. in.

Total Exam Area Base Metal 11.97+ 13.22 = 25.19 sq. in.

Total Exam Area Weld and Base Metal 6.86 sq. in.

=6.86+25.19=32.05 sq. in.

11.97 sq. in Shell Scale: 1"= 2" 12ALtf -3OF(a~

AI1ACHMENT C.

PAGE /3 OF

• Item No. : 03.B3.110.0002 Pmesurier Spray Nozze to Shell Weld No.: 3-PZR-WJ*4 /il nspectorfDate: - I IL~o101 Nozzle Surface 2 Total Weld Metal Examined Axial scans from Surface I with a combination of 450,60 and 70' angles. 6.06 / 6.86 x 100 = 88.3%.

Total Weld Metal Examined Axial scans from Surface 2 = 0%.

A11ACHHENT C

[tern No.: 03.B3.110.0002 Pressurizer Spray Nozzle to Shell Weld No. : 3-PZR-WP34, nspector/Date: Nozzle Surface 2

] Total Base Metal Examined Axial scans from Surface 1 with a combination of 45',60 and 70' angles. 11.97 + 6.97 / 25.19 x 100 = 75.2%.

450, 60' and 70' t 1.97 sq. in.

Shell I

6.97 sq. in. J Scale: " = 2"

aL 0 1oý

PAGE /5 OF AITACHMENT tern No.: 03.B3.110.0002 Pressurizer Spray Nozzle to Shell Weld No.: 3-PZR-WP34 I nspector/Date: Ty-. Nozzle Surface 2

• Total Base Metal Examined Circ scans 3 and 4 with 450 and 600 angles

= 11.97 / 25.19 x 100 = 47.5%.

Total Weld Metal Examined Circ scans 3 and 4 with 450 and 60' angles

= 1.67 / 6.86 x 100 = 24.3%.

Total Examined 0' scan 45°, 6( )0 and 00

= 11.97+ 1.67/32.05 x 100 =42.6%.

I 1.97 sq. in.

Shell Scale: 1"= 2"

?4 (aor(

UT Vessel EAamination A11ACHt4ENTC PASE /ý, 0F Site/Unit: Oconee / 3 Procedure: NDE-640 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No. 03.B3.110.0003 Procedure Rev.: 4 Report No.: UT-07-134 Workscope ISI Work Order No.: 01733140 Page: 1 of 1 Code: 1998 Cat./Item: B-D /B3.110 Location:

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN3-002

Description:

Nozzle to Head System ID: 50 Component ID: 3-PZR-WP33-3 Size/Length: NIA Thickness/Diameter: 4.750 / 6.875 Limitations: Yes - See Limitation Report Attached to Report No. UT-07-139 Start Time: 0900 Finish Time: 1100 Examination Surface: Inside [] Outside [] Surface Condition: GROUND FLUSH Lo Location: 0* Line of Vessel o Locatiori: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32811 Surface Temp.: 90 -F Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-15St Angle Used 0 45 45T 060 Scanning dB 41.8.!

Indication(s): Yes [] No W Scan Coverage: Upstream ] Downstream [ CW[] CcwiE Comments:

See Attached Coverage Sheets Additional Inspector: TI, uhe Level Il-N Results Accept L- Reject W3 Info [

Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 30.0%

Examiner Level II-N Signature -

Howard, Dean M.

• Examiner Level li-N Griebel, David M. Z Other Level il-N

A71ACHMENT C PASE /7 OF W.e UT Vessel EAamination Site/Unit: Oconee 1 3 Procedure: NDE-820 Outage No-. 03-23 Summary No.: 03,13.110.0003 Procedure Rev.: 2 Report No.. UT-07-139 Workscope: IS1 Work Order No.: 01733140 Page: I of 6 Code: 1998 Cat./Item: B.D /B3.110 Location:

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN3-002

Description:

Nozzle to Head System ID: 50 Component ID: 3-PZR.WP33-3 Size/Length: NIA Thickness/Diameter: 4.750/ 6.875 Limitations Yes - See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 0900 Finish Time. 1100 Examination Surface Inside "] Outside Iv[ Surface Condition: GROUND FLUSH Lo Location" 0' Line of Vessel Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant; ULTRAGEL II Batch 'No 05125 Temp Tool Mfg D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32811 Surface Temp.: 90 'F Cal. Report No CAL-07-152. CAL-07-153, CAL.07-154 Angle Used 0 45 45T 60 60T - 70" Scanning dB 55.0 65.0 67.7 87.7 74.0 tndication(s) Yes ' No 1I. Scan Coverage: Upstream :vI Downstreamrn I CW. CCW I!

Comments See Attached Coverage Sheets Additional Inspector: Troy Huhe Level 11-K Results Accept lI Reject L.-t] Info F __

Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 30.0% Reviewed Previous Data Yes Examiner Level 11-N SignaL.,- 9 Date .....ev.e. _ Sfonature Date Howard, DeanM. -,,11/112007 IJ1. 7 Examiner Level Il-N SrauDate jSite Rev, V Signature Dat Griebel, David M. 11/112007 NIA Other Level II-N Date ANII, II Sicrnature Date I

.rnatuý*

Kelly, Alan J. 1/1/2007 .,X,-/

/ C> /'/'~~~

'-- PZR Relief Nozzle to Shell % of Coverage LO Cx.-,t:

Item No.: 03.B3.110.0003 Weld No.: 3-PZR-WP33-3 Weld Coverage Scan Angle  % Coveraie Obtained Si 450,600 & 700 70.2 S2 450,600 & 700 0 Cw 600 & 450 0 CCw 600 & 450 0 Total 70.2 70,2 -4= 17.6  % Coverage Base Material Coverage SI 450,600& 700 63.3 Cw & CCw 450&60° 31.5 Total 94.8 94.8 ÷2= 47.4  % Coverage 00 Scan Coverage 24.9  % Coverage Aggregate Coverage = Weld + Base Material + 00 + 3 30.0  % Coverage Inspector / Date - Page -.- of (P

Pressurizer R( f Nozzle to Shell Summary No.: 03. .110.0003 Scale.. " = 311 Weld No.: 3-PZR-WP33-3 R. ill.

Note: "

Calculated from both sides of the nozzle

),1.2 ,A ii, to obtain an average % coverage due to configuration. ATTACHMENT C-13.65 sq. il.

Shell Surtkce I .. - 6~.96 - iL.

Total Weld Metal Exam Area

= 9.12 + 6.96 = 16.08 sq. in.

Total Base Metal Exam Area

=20.80 + 15.73 + 13.65 + 10.84 =61.02 sq, mn.

Total Exam Area

= 16.08 +61.02 =77.10 sq. in.

Inspector / Date: _____ ____ ____Page 3of(4

Pressurizer R f Nozzle to Shell Summary No.: 03. 110.0003 Weld No.: 3-PZR-WP33-3 Scale: I" = 3" Al 1ACHMENT C-PABE ').oj q

450.60° & 70° She;U sur"Ihce i 45°,600 & 70O 5.83 sq. in.

Total Weld Metal Examined from Surface I 'ShlL

= (5.46 + 5.83) / 16.08 x 100

= 70.2%

00/a of Weld MetalExamined from unirface 2 Inspector/Date: __ .C_,--. i t I(o(0-7 Page ' ofQ.

Pressurizer R( f Nozzle to Shell Summary No.: 03. 110.0003 Weld No.: 3-PZR-WP33-3 Scale: 1" 3 ATTACHMEN PASE O2Fo C

45",60'( & 700 20.56 sq. ifI.

sh-ell surfiact I 45°,600 & 700 1.99, sq. in.

Total Base Metal Examined from Surface 1 Shdl

= (20.56 + 1.99 + 5.25 + 10.84) / 61.02 x 100

= 63.3%

7 Impector / Date: Inspector

/Date: I I'~kII~Up 107 o-i Page Page 55 of of G

Pressurizer Rc f Nozzle to Shell Summary No.: 03. 110.0003 Weld No.: 3-PZR-WP33-3 Scale: 1"=3" PAStE 2)D0F C A11ACHMENT

ýp 45060° & 0=

8.3?

, I. iI.

Shelf Surfa~ce I 45c "gJ & 0'° Total Base Metal Examined Scans 3 & 4 with 45' and 60'

= (8.37 + 10.84) / 61.02 x 100

= 31.5%

0% of Weld Metal Examined Scans 3 & 4 with 45' and 60' Total Examined 00 scan

=(8.37 + 10.84)/77.10 x 100

= 24.9o/o Inspector / Date: Page (g,of ý,

Mil UT Vessel _Aamination A11ACHMENT PABE 2_3 F Site/Unit: Oconee / 3 Procedure: NOE-640 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No.: 03.83.110.0004 Procedure Rev.: 4 Report No.: UT-07-135 Workscope: ISI Work Order No.: 01733140 Page: 1 ' of I Code: 1998 Cat./Item: B-D 1B3.110 Location:

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN3.002

Description:

Nozzle to Head System ID: 50 Component ID: 3-PZR-WP33-2 Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 4.750 16.875 Limitations: Yes - See Limitation Report Attached to Report No. UT-07-14Q Start Time: 0900 Finish Time: 1100 Examination Surface: Inside [] Outside P] Surface Condition: GROUND FLUSH Lo Location: 0°Line of Vessel Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL 11 Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32811 Surface Temp.: 90 °F Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-151 Angle Used 10 45 145T 60!60Ti Scanning dB 41.8 Indication(s): Yes F1 NoW . Scan Coverage: Upstream J Downstream E CWL.[ CCWL._i Comments:

See Attached Coverage Sheets Additional Inspector: Troy Huhe Level II-N Results: Accept [ Reject J/J Info f-_

Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 30.0% Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Level Ii-N Signature Date Reviewer .r. Signature Date Howard, Dean M. 11/1/2007 -7.~J-LOL~1 Examiner Level i-.N Sign ure,, Date Site Review Signature Date GrIebel, David M. ..- 7 1111/2007 NIA 0 Other Level Il-N re Date A Nil I~9¶iEv

. Signature Date Kelly, Alan J. /2007 4/ /

ATTACHMENT PAGE~ 7 I OF ý,

UT Vessel Examination

• uke Site/Unit: Oconee I 3 Procedure; NDE-820 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No 03,B3.110.0004 Procedure Rev.: 2 Report No: UT-07-140 Workscope: ISI Work Order No.: 01733140 Page: 1 of 6 Code: 1998 Cat./Item: B-D /83.110 Location:

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN3-002

Description:

Nozzle to Head System ID: 50 Component ID: 3-PZR-WP33-2 Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 4.750/ 6.875 Limitations: Yes - See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 0900 Finish Time: 1100 Examination Surface: Inside r- Outside 9) Surface Condition: GROUND FLUSH Lo Location: 0° Line of Vessel Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32811 Surface Temp.: 90 -F Cal. Report No CAL-07-152, CAL-07-1i53, CAL-07-154 AngleUsed 0j 45 145T 60 60T -70 Scanning dB 65.0 65.0 67.7 r67.7 74.0 Indication(s) Yes [_ No LI Scan Coverage: Upstream fv* Downstream R CW - CcW L]

Comments:

See Attached Coverage Sheets Additional Inspector: Tro T uhe Ltevel 9ll-N Results Accept FrI Reject GI Info D__

Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No. 30.0% Reviewed Previous Data, Yes Examiner Level ti-N Signature Date 'v cSignature / / Date Howard, Dean M. . 11/1/2007 U /o 7 Examiner Level ,I-N Sg2ý"se Date Site Review Signature Date Griebet. David M.,,l.' -' 1111/2007 N/A X. I Other Level UI.N ,,, t ure Date A w,. Signature Date Kelly, Alan J. 1111.,: a0

/

(J cm PZR Relief Nozzle to Shell % of Coverage LU-)

Item No. : 03.B3.110.0004 Weld No.: 3-PZR-WP33-2 Weld Coverage Scan Ang]e  % Coverage Obtained S1 450,600 & 700 70.2 S2 450,600 & 700 0 Cw 600 & 450 0 CCw 600 & 450 0 Total 70.2 70.2 +4 = 17.6  % Coverage Base Material Coverage S1 450,600& 700 63.3 Cw & CCw 450&60° 31.5 Total 94.8 94.8 +2= 47.4  % Coverage 00 Scan Coverage 24.9  % Coverage Aggregate Coverage = Weld + Base Material + 00 + 3 30.0  % Coverage

_____ fl ~Mo Inspector / Date: Pagc -Z of C'

Pressurizer RE f Nozzle to Shell .Summary No.: 03. 110.0004 Scale. ,"= 3" Weld No.: 3-PZR-WP33-2 15.73 sq. in.- - --

Note:

~s"n Calculated from both sides of the nozzle to obtain an average % coverage due to configuration. AITACHMENT C.

Nod-Ie PASEEZ(p oF 6,*

Surtfcc 2 13,65 sq. i6.

Total Weld Metal Exam Area

= 9.12 + 6.96 = 16.08 sq. in.

Total Base Metal Exam Area

= 20.80 + 15.73 + 13.65 + 10.84 = 61.02 sq. in.

ShelI SLr}-cci Total Exam Area

= 16.08 +61.02 = 77.10 sq. in.

Inspector / Date: 'V1 II L~ Cs ~ Page 3 of . 0

Pressurizer R1 f Nozzle to Shell Summary No.: 03. 110.0004 Weld No.: 3-PZR-WP33-2 Scale: 1"= 3" ATIACHMENT C PASE J 7 OF ý09 450.600 & 700 sheWi C, I SU!1is 450,60r & 700 5.,S. Sq. in.

Total Weld Metal Examined from Surface 1

= (5.46 + 5.83) / 16.08 x 100

= 70.2%

0% of Weld MetalExamined from Surface 2 Inspector / Date: / !6 ="7 ii~v t "1 Page t4 of&(

Pressurizer Rc f Nozzle to Shell Summary No.: 03. 110.0004 Weld No.: 3-PZR-WP33-2 Scale: 1" = 3" ATTACHHENTC.

PAMEZB OF 450.600 & 70° 20.56 sq. in.

Shell SurfaceI 450,600 & 70O 1}9 sq. in.

Total Base Metal Examined from Surface 1 ShelI

= (20.56 + 1.99 + 5.25 + 10.84) / 61.02 x 100

= 63.3%

Inspector / Date: Page 5 of (,

Pressurizer Re [Nozzle to Shell Summary No.: 03. 110.0004 Weld No.: 3-PZR-WP33-2 Scale: F"=3" ATIACHMENT (.

PAGEy. OF 6,J/

45°.600 &00 Sheli Surface 405°60` & 00 Total Base Metal Examined Scans 3 & 4 with 450 and 600

=(8.37 + 10.84)/61.02 x 100

= 31.5%

0% of Weld Metal Examined Scans 3 & 4 with 45' and 60' Sn! L!

Total Examined 00 scan

=(8.37+ 10.84)/77.10 x 100

=-24.9%

Inspector / Date: Inspec-or / Date:7Page _( of (o

UT Vessel E~amination ATIACHMENT PAGE30 OF 4c Site/Unit: Oconee I 3 Procedure: NDE-640 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No.: 03.B3.110.0005 Procedure Rev.: 4 Report No.: UT-07-136 Workscope: ISl Work Order No.: 01733140 Page: 1 of 1 Code: 1998 Cat./Item: B-D /B3.110 Location:

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN3-002

Description:

Nozzle to Head System ID: 50 Component ID: 3-PZR-WP33.1 Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 4.750 / 6.875 Limitations: Yes-See Limitation Report Attached to Report No. UT-07-141 Start Time: 0900 Finish Time: 1100 Examination Surface: Inside C) Outsside R] Surface Condition: GROUND FLUSH Lo Location: 0' Line of Vessel Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL I1 Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32811 Surface Temp.: 90 °F Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-151 AngleUsed 1 0 45 45Tf 60 60T Scanning dB 41.8 Indication(s): Yes [ No 9- Scan Coverage: Upstream R Downstream R CWfl CCWE Comments:

See Attached Coverage Sheets Additional Inspector: Tro Huhe Le II-N Results: Accept [I Reject [] Info *7 Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No-30.0%

A1IACHMENT C UT Vessel Examination Duke.

Site/Unit: Oconee / 3 Procedure: NDE-820 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No.: 03.B3.110.0005 Procedure Rev.: 2 Report No.: UT-07-141 Workscope: ISI Work Order No.: 01733140 Page: 1 of 6 Code: 1998 Cat./Item: B-D IB3.110 Location:

Drawing No: ISI-OCN3-002

Description:

Nozzle to Head System ID: 50 Component ID: 3-PZR-WP33-1 Size(Length: NIA Thickness/Diameter 4.750 / 6.875 Limitations. Yes - See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 0900 Finish Time, 1100 Examination Surface Inside *j Outside F. . Surface Condition: GROUND FLUSH Lo Location. 0' Line of Vessel Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No. 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32811 Surface Temp.: 90 'F Cal. Report No: CAL-07-152, CAL-07.153. CAL-07-154.

Angle Used 0 45 45T 60 60T

• 70 Scanning dB 65.0 65.0 67.7 67.7 74.0 Indication(s): Yes [* No [,- Scan Coverage: Upstream 0] Downstream R CW [V CCW 21 Comments:

See Attached Coverage Sheets Additional Inspector: Troy Huhe Level II-N Results Accept K_ Reject [] Info [_J Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 30.0% Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Level li.N Signature Date Rev~ewer i /Signature -Cat-Howard, Dean M. 11/112007 ' c ,//

• Examiner Level II-N Sig t Date Site Review S;qnaure Date Griebel, David M. .,-__,d/7 111112007 NIA Other Level 1-N . *-re Date AN - . Signature Date I Kelly, Alan J. 11/112007 -7

PZR Relief Nozzle to Shell % of Coverage LLgS 4=

Itemi No. :03.133-110.0005 Weld No.: 3-PZR-WP33-1 Weld Coverage Scan Angle  % Coverane Obtained S1 450,600 & 700 70.2 S2 450600 & 704 0 Cw 600 & 450 0 CCw 600 &450 0 Total 70.2 70.2 ÷4 = 17.6  % Coverage Base Material Coverage S1 450,60°& 700 63.3 Cw & CCw 45'&600 31.5 Total 94.8 94.8 +2= 47.4  % Coverage 0' Scan Coverage 24.9  % Coverage Aggregate Coverage = Weld + Base Material + 0' + 3 30.0  % Coverage Inspector / Date : Page -L of

Pressurizer Re f Nozzle to Shell Summary No.: 03. 110.0005 Scale. '=3" Weld No.: 3-PZR-WP33-1

-L Note:

Calculated from both sides of the nozzle to obtain an average % coverage due to configuration. AI IAC2HM NTG PAGE 3 _ F F

Surikicv 2 13.65 sq.i.

Total Weld Metal Exam Area

=9.12+6.96= 16.08 sq. in.

Total Base Metal Exam Area

=20.80 + 15.73 + 13.65 + 10.84 =61.02 sq. in.

SIMI Total Exam Area sw i I

= 16.08 + 61.02 = 77.10 sq. in.

Inspector / Date: _ _________________ Page S of (o

Pressurizer RE f Nozzle to Shell Summary No.: 03. 110.0005 Weld No.: 3-PZR-WP33- 1 Scale: 1"= 3" AlII ACHME NJC.

PASE3L/ OF6,c 0.6P &-,70" Sheli surftace 1 45.0& 700

.,**sq. :i Total Weld Metal Examined from Surface 1 sndI

= (5.46 + 5.83) / 16.08 x 100

= 70.2%

0% of Weld MetalExamined from S uwfce 2 Inspector / Date: ilia w~j~~c7Page j of Lo II]V

Pressurizer Rc i Nozzle to Shell Summary No.: 03. 110.0005 Weld No.: 3-PZR-WP33-1 Scale: " =Y3 AI IACHMEN TC PA6E 3 5 0FF9 450.6C0 & 700 20,56 sq. in.

Shell Surface I 45".600 & 700 1.99 sq. ill.

Total Base Metal Examined from Surface 1

= (20.56 + 1.99 + 5.25 + 10.84) / 61.02 x 100

= 63.3%

Inspector / Date: ___ __ __ ___ __ __Page of (,

Pressurizer Re PNozzle to Shell Summary No.: 0-3). 110.0005 Weld No.: 3-PZR-WP33-1 Scale: I" =3" AT ACHMENTOC PASE 34,o~

OF (OC 45'.60'&0 8.37 sq. in.

Shell Sunkae I 45",6Tc 8&00 Total Base Metal Examined Scans 3 & 4 with 450 and 60'

= (8.37 + 10.84) / 61.02 x 100

= 31.5%

0% of Weld Metal Examined Scans 3 & 4 with 450 and 600 Total Examined 00 scan

=(8.37+ 10.84) / 77.10 x 100

=24.90

/

inspector / Date: U I kp[07 Page Lo of ý,-

UT Pipe Wbd Examination AT 1AtHMEV4C MAE 37 OF ý5c Site/Unit: Oconee / 3 Procedure: NDE-830 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No.: 03.B9.11.0007 Procedure Rev.: 1 Report No.: UT-07-203 Workscope: ISl Work Order No.: 01733566 Page: 1 of 2 Code: 1998 Cat./Item: B-J /89.11 Location:

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN3-007

Description:

Safe End to Nozzle System ID: 50 Component ID: 3-PIA1-8 Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 2.330 / 33.500 Limitations; Yes - See Attached Coverage Calculation Report Start Time: 1037 Finish Time: 1107 Examination Surface: Inside Q Outside [] Surface Condition: GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.1 Wo Location: Centedine of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 07125 Temp. Tool Mfg: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32B06 Surface Temp.: 72 -F Cal. Report No,: CAL-07-207, CAL-07-208 AngleUsed 0 45 45T 60 60L I 70L Scanning dB' 79.5 77.5 Indication(s): Yes [] No [] Scan Coverage: Upstream [ Downstream rn CW W1 CCW []

Comments:

"Scanned at 79.5 dS to set noise level 0 30% FSH.

• Scanned at 77.5 dB to set noise level 0 30% FSH

"*"Best effort exam of upper 2/3 of weld to supplement coverage from Outage 1. The exam in Outage 2 does not count in the percentages.

Results: Accept 0 Reject D Info nj Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Level IllI-N ,9 f S" Date Reviewer , Signature Date Cochran, Lonnie D. 11'1512007 .i a.-, J-t oV y. A -

Examiner Level ll-N .3J, ature! Date Site Review -/ Signature Date Ellis, Ken 11/1t20 N/A Other Level N/A Signature 11/5/00Date ANI ReviewSignaturee/

Revie / ' SgaueDt 7/q"

Al lACHMRTN C-PASE38 OF (,7 Weld No.: -) IA,1-8 Scale: 1'"= 1" Best effort Exam with 70'RL and 600 RL per procedure NDE-830 for the upper 2/3 of the area off interest.

Inenrintr / T).tel.: Page Z-of Z

ATTACHMENTC-PAGE 3' OFý UT Pipe WbLd Examination Site/Unit: Oconee / 3 Procedure: NDE-600 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No.: 03.89.11.0007 Procedure Rev.: 17 Report No.: UT-07-199 Workscope: ISI Work Order No.: 01733566 Page: 1 of 3 Code: 1998 Cat./Item: B-J /B9.11 Location:

Drawing No.: ISI-OCN3-007

Description:

Safe End to Nozzle System ID: 50 Component ID: 3-PIA1-8 Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 2.330 / 33.500 Limitations: Yes - See Attached Sketch Start Time: 1030 Finish Time: 1354 Examination Surface: Inside 7 Outside 7v Surface Condition: GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.2 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 07125 0

Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32BOO Surface Temp.: 72 F Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-199, CAL-07-200, CAL-07-201 Angle Used 10 145 145T 601 60L I Scanning dB 60 70 70 Indication(s): Yes E] No 21 Scan Coverage: Upstream W Downstream L] CW [J CCW [

Comments:

• Per note in ISI Plan this examination does not count in the percentages in Outage 2. This exam Is to help justify limited coverage from Outage 1.

Results: Accept ['/ Reject D] Info __

Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 37.5 % Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Level Leeper, Winfred C.

Examiner Ii-N Level Ill-N

.,at e D Da.e 11115/2007 Daze Revie-wcr Site Review V L j( - Signature ..

Signature Date Daie Eaton, Jay A. 11/1512007 N/A Other Level N/A Signature Date ANtI Revi Signature Date N/A 11115120071 R U 'A (

Al IACHME 4T C2-PASEý(D Of ý No Coverage Claimed Supplemental coverage Coverage Claimed = 50%

with 60' RL Wave Only See Note:

Note: 60' RL scan not included in percentage coverage due to requirements of 10CFRS0.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(l). Best effort scan with 600 RL obtained 44.3% coverage in on axial direction.

InsDector / Date: /D -(To Z-of7 Page Z-P of 3

cU-Summary No.: 03.B9.11.0007 Weld No.: 3-PIAI-8 4MJ ch..

SI =Safe End = 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S2 = RCP = 0% (0% of the length x 0% of the volume)

S3 = CW = 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S4 = CCW = 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

Total = 150 / 4 = 37,5 % Aggregate Coverage liii U Page j 3 of,3 Inspector / Date: Inspector / Date: Page of 3

UT Pipe Weid Examination AlIACHMEN1T PA6E ý12.. 0F (,,e Site/Unit: Oconee 1 3 Procedure: PDI-UT-2 Outage No.: 03-23 I"

Summary No.: 03.B9.11.0035 Procedure Rev.: C Report No.: UT-07-126 Workscope: ISt Work Order No.: 01733655 Page: 1 of X' 7.

,ode: 1998 Cat/item: B-J /B9.11 Location: P-"111"-10-7

)rawing No.: 3HP-241

Description:

Valve 3HP-194 (forged SS) to Pipe

ystem ID

51A

'omnponent ID; 3HP-241-3 Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 0.531 / 4.000

.imitations: None Start Time: 0850 Finish Time: 0910 Examination Surface: Inside C3 Outside [] Surface Condition: Buffed Lo Location: 9.1.1.1 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL I1 Batch No.: 07125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: 0.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32800 Surface Temp.: 77 -F Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-1 49. CAL-07-1 50 Angle Used i o 45 45T 1 60 1 Scanning dB 41.0 47.5 Indication(s): Yes [] No R Scan Coverage: Upstream f Downstream ] Cw C] ccw []

Comments:

Procedure PDI-UT-2 to be used to perform exam during outage 2.The exam for outage 2 is to be performed from the valve side. Jim McArdle requested this exam to help justify the limited coverage that was achieved during the outage I exam. The exam during outage 2 will not be counted in the percentages. The valve body is forged not cast.

Results: Accept 2j Reject C] Info jj Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Level 11-N ,SIt Date ReviewAl Signature Date Howard, Dean M. e - _/ 1115/2007 , / / /1/A/

Examiner Level N/A Signature Date Site Review 4 Signature Date N/A 1115/2007 N/A Other Level N/A Signature Date ANI, )f,,

2/#,/'./¢- Signature Date.

N/A 11/5/2007 //J'/Y~I

LSJ~ Summary No.: 03.B9.11.0035 Weld No.: 3HP-241-3

.- .~

t*f,: Shear Scale: L"'= 1"

% Coverage Calculations S I =Pipe -- 100% (100% of the length x 100% of the volume)

S2 = Valve 100% (100% of the length x 100% of the volume) 83 =CW - 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S4 = CCW 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

Total - 300 / 4 = 75.0 % Aggregate Coverage This weld was examined in Interval 4 Outage 1 from the pipe side only obtaining 37.5% coverage. The weld was examined this outage from the forged valve side to gain additional scan coverage as calculated above.

hispector / Date : 0spto-7 Page-ofZ

UT Vessel l-*amination ATTACHMENT Site/Unit: Oconee I 3 Procedure: NDE-3630 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No.: 03.C1.20.0006 Procedure Rev.: 1 Report No.: UT-07-237 Workscope: ISI Work Order No.: 01732211 Page: 1 of 4 Code: Cat./item C-A IC1.20 Location:

Drawing No.: OM 2201-14

Description:

Head to Shell System ID: 51A Component ID: 3.LST-HD-SH-2 Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 0.375 196.000 Limitations: Yes - Soo Attached Uimitation Report Start Time: 1015 Finish Time: 1105 Examination Surface: Inside [] Outside &d Surface Condition: GROUND Lo Location: 9.2.1 Wo Location: Centerine of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 07125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32796 Surface Temp.: 76 -F Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-239 Angle Used 0 45 145T 60 60T Scanning dB . 5.9 55.9 Indication(s): Yes C] No &D Scan Coverage: Upstream R Downstream [ CW 6] CCWR]

Comments:

Scanned at reference dB to maintain 2:1 ratio Results: Accept Sd Reject El Info (] Initial Section Xl Exam Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 80.26% Reviewed Previous Data: No

Determination of Percent Coverage for px=rvoy- UT Examinations - Vessels Site/Unit: Oconee / 3 Procedure: NDE-3630 Outage No,: 03-23 2 Summary No.: 03.C1.20.0006 Procedure Rev.: 1 Report No.: UT-07-237 4-2 Workscope: IS' Work Order No.: 01732211 Page: 2 of .1 0 deg Planar Scan  % Length X  % volume of length /100 =  % total for 0 deg 45 deg Scan 1  % Length X  % volume of length / 100 =  % total for Scan I Scan 2  % Length X  % volume of length / 100 =  % total for Scan 2 Scan 3  % Length X  % volume of length / 100 =  % total for Scan 3 Scan 4  % Length X  % volume of length / 100 =  % total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans =  % total for 45 deg Other deg 60 Scan 1 80.260  % Length X 100.000  % volume of length / 100 = 80.260  % total for Scan 1 Scan 2 80.260  % Length X 100.000  % volume of length 1100 = 80.260  % total for Scan 2 Scan 3 80.260  % Length X 100.000  % volume of length / 100 = 80.260  % total for Scan 3 Scan 4 80.260  % Length X 100.000  % volume of length / 100 = 80.260  % total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans = 80.260  % total for 60 deg Percent complete coverage Add totals for each angle and scan required and divide by # of angles to determine; 80.260  % Total for complete exam Note:

Supplemental coverage may be achieved by usfi of other angles I methods. When used, the coverage for volume not obtained with angles as noted above shall be c" 'ulated and added to the total to provide the percent total for the complete examination.

Site Field Supervisor: Date:  !\ -

AT IAIHME.UI (

PAGE44 OF (r4,9 DUKE ENERGY COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Summary #: 03.CI.20.0006 Component ID 3-LST-HD-SH-2 {remarks:

0 NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 4 equally spaced pads for legs LI LIMITED SCAN 12 [ cw [ ccw 15 Inc. each FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO (Dia. 8' 3/4")

• CL to Beyond

% of length examined ANGLE: 0 LI 45 0I Z 60 C)ther FROM N/A DEG to N/A DEG L' NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION = (303.949-60) / 303.949 x 100 LI LIMITED SCAN -l 1 [1 2 [ 1 21cw El ccw =80.26%

FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: [3 0 E] 45 L] 60 other FROM DEG to DEG L- NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION LI LIMITED SCAN L1 I 2 El I El 2 LIcwC [] ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: [1 0 LI 45 [3 60 e1ther FROM DEG to DEG LI NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION LI LIMITED SCAN LI 1LI2 0 1 [12 EDcw []ccW FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to Sketch(s) attached ANGLE: I0 [L 45 L60 0ther FROM DEG to DEG LI yes O No Date: 11/29/2007 1 Prepared By: Winfred Leeper/iJ1*  !., Level: 11 Sheet 3 _,,Of 4 Reviewed By: , ./ I ..... " + Date: Authorized Inspector:* ,,-, Date:

AITAtMENT C PAGE -#7 OF (Yý DEdw Suppleme,,aal Report Report No.: UT-07-237 j*AiFGTW. 4 oi 4 Page:

Summary No.: 03.Cl.20.0006 Examiner: Leeper, Winfred C. Level: IM- Reviewer:

Examiner; Muirhead. Ryan,....... Level: 1l-N Site Review: N/A Oatel Other: N/A Level: NIA ANII Review: DOale:

VI Comments:

Sketch or Photo: Z:\UnIDDEAL\ProfileLine2.jpg L. oWe.. r QL h'~=a~1 I

I I

I I

K ~ ~ k

AT IACHiMENT C&

M'AE 4/8 BF G9 UT Pipe Weid Examination Site/Unit Oconee I 3 Procedure: NDE-600 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No.: O3.CS.1 1.0015 Procedure Rev.: 17 Report No.: UT-07-153 Woic, r.s : Isl Work Order No.: 01733937 Page: 1 of 3 Code: 1990 Cat./it em: C-F- fCt5.11 Location:

Drawing No.: 3LP-132 Descrlption: Reducer to Valve 3LP-17 (cast as)

System ID: 53A Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter. -. 1-"0 ,C.0*I3 Limitations: Yes - Sea Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 0930 Finish Time: 1107 Eiw adot Surface: Inside C) Outside 21 Surface Condition: GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.1 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant; ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 07125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32800 Surface Tennp.: 77 "F Cal. Report No.: CAL.07.171. CAL-07-177. CAL-07-178 Angle Used 0 45 45T 80 60L Scouting dB 1 145 421 4T.51 indcation(): Yes Q No @ Scan Coverage: Upstream Oownstrearr 0C D CW p] CCW 2 Conments:

Resuts: Accpt 3 Reject 2) info Q]

Pecent Of Coverage Obained 3 80%: No - 37.5% Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Level lI-N ur Date Roviewor Signature Date Leape~r, Winfred C. LL/-11/10/2007 1

!b13b Examiner Leyel Uj-Nr Signature-' Dale Site Review Signature Date Howard, DomA M.. ýLV 110/2007 NIA "Izlt(

Olter Level NIA Signature Date AN, ReviS/i'.

. .Sgnatue Dale WA ¶1/11=007 I/

AIIACHMENT C PA6E*/5* OFF DUKE ENERGY COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Summary#: 03.C5.11.0015 Component ID 3LP-132-23 [remarks:

[ NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Due to valve configuration

[I LIMITED SCAN [D1 Z2 Z 1 [El 2 Z cw Zc Cw FROM L N/A to L N/A INCHES FROM WO .2 to Beyond ANGLE: [1 0l 0 45 Z 60 other FROM N/A DEG to N/A DEG 01 NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION OLIMITED SCAN D1 02 1 R 2 [] cw E] ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 00 C] 45 060 other FROM DEG to DEG 0 NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION fLIMITED SCAN 1 0] 2 -1 []-. 2 [] cw ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 00 45 0 60 other FROM DEG to DEG 0] NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION _

0 LIMITED SCAN 01 0 2 [1 1 [] 2 R cw E] ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to Sketch(s) attached ANGLE: DEGto DEG [ yes E] No ANLE 0 E] 45 [] 6.0 ot,*r FRG Prepared By: Winfred L if Date: 11-10-2007 Sheet Prep3red Bo: Wied/e* L. of

,,ýt-' A.<

ReiwdBy: Date:Atoie Inspector: Date:

SurrawryNo. 03.C5.1I1.0015 Weld No. 3LP-132-23 60P RLNive 0-0 600 Shear ive 3LP-17 hst Material)

IS2 Coverage Claimed= 50%o No Coverage Claimed Supplemental coverage Scale: 1"= 1" with 600 RL Wave Only See Note:

Note: 600 RL scan not included in percentage coverage due to requirements of IOCFR50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(I). Best effort scan with 600 RL obtained 50% coverage in one axial direction.

SI = Reducer= 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S2 = Valve = 0% (0% of the length x 0% of the volume)

S3 = CW = 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S4 = CCW = 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

Total = I 50 / 4 = 37.5 % Aggregate Coverage i"\

3 5r3

/. ;lk..i Inspector / Date:

II

UT Pipe Wed Examination ATTACHMENT C PA6E I OF Site/Unit: Oconee / 3 Procedure: NDE-600 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No.: 03.C5.11.0032 Procedure Rev.: 17 Report No.: UT-07-233 Workscope: ISI Work Order No.: 01733812 Page: 1 of 2 Code: 1996 Cat./ftem: C-F- 1/CS.1 1 Location:

Drawing No.: 3LP-221

Description:

Valve 3LP-177 (forged ss) to Pipe System ID: 53A Component ID: 3LP-221-27 Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 1.000 / 10.000 Limitations: Yes - See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 1230 Finish Time: 1300 Examination ESurface: Inside [J Outside W Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.1 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 07125 0

Temp. Tool M'tg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32806 Surface Ternnp.: 68 F Cal. Report N o.: CAL-07-229, CAL-07-230, CAL-07-231 Angle Used 0 45 45T 601 60L I Scanning dB 45r 50.9 60 Indication(s): Yes [ No R] Scan Coverage: Upstream 2 Downstrean 1] C W~ CCW R Comments:

Results: Accept [] Reject 2 Info Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%:

Scale : 1F= 1" Summary No.: 0.C5.I11.0032 Weld No.: 3-LP-221-27 t" C AXi41t (7ON-nifge Orc Coverage 50% coverage scans S3 and S4

% Coverane Calculations SI =Valve 100% (100% of the length x 100% of the volume)

S2 = Pipe - 100% (100% of the length x 100% of the volume)

S3 = CW 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S4 = CCW 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

Total 300/4 = 75.0 % Aggregate Coverage Inspector / Date: S Page zof.

UT Pipe Weid Examination AI'IACHMENIT PAGE5 a-F G' Site/Unit: Oconee / 3 Procedure: NDE-600 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No,: 03.C5,11.0033 Procedure Rev.: 17 Report No.: UT-07-234 Workscope: 0SI Work Order No.: 01733812 Page: 1 of 2 Code: 1998 Cat./Item: C-F-1/C5.11 Location:

Drawing No.: 3LP-221

Description:

Pipe to Pipe Flow Restrictor System ID: 53A Component ID: 3LP-221-18 Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 1.000/10.000 Limitations: Yes - See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 1230 Finish Time: 1300 Examination Surface: Inside E] Outside [] Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.1 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 07125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32806 Surface Temp.: 68 'F Cal. Report No,: CAL-07-229, CAL-07-230. CAL-07-231 Angle Used 00145 45T 60[ 60L I Scanning dB 45 50.9 60 Indication(s): Yes -- No [ Scan Coverage: Upstream E] Downstream [ CW [] CCW []

Comments:

Results: Accept E] Reject 7] Info __

Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: ilNo - 37,5% Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Level II-N nature Dame Reviewer Signature Date Eaton, Jay A. 6 11/2612007 ILL e,.

Examiner Level 1l-N Signature .Date Site Review '/Signature Date Tucker, David K. 11/26/2007 N/A Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Review Signature Date N/A 11/26/2007 ...... Si.na.ur

-V/

Summary No. 03.C5.11.0033 Weld No. 3LP-221-18 Coverage Claimed = 501/o No Coverage Claimed Supplemental coverage with 60' RL Wave Only Scale: 1V = I" See Note:

Note: 60' RL scan not included in percentage coverage due to requirements of I0CFR50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(l). Best effort scan with 600 RL obtained 50% coverage in one axial direction.

Aggregate Coverage Calculation S1 = Pipe 50 % (100% of the Length x 50% of the Volume)

S2 Restrictor 0% ( 0% of the Length x 0% of the Volume )

S3 = CW 60*% ( 100% of the Length x 50% of the Volume)

S4 = CCW 50 % ( 100% of the Length x 50%/o. of the Volume )

Total = 150 + 4 = 37.5% Aggregate Coverage Inspector / Date: __ itIV, 10-7 Page: Z of 7..

ATIACHMENT C UT Pipe Weid Examination WAE 5;-5 OF 6 Site/Unit: Oconee / 3 Procedure: NDE-600 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No.: 03.C5.11.0034 Procedure Rev.: 17 Report No.: UT-07-235 Workscope: ISI Work Order No.: 01733812 Page: 1 of 2 Code: 1998 Cat./Item: C-F-1/C5.11 Location:

Drawing No.: 3LP-221

Description:

Pipe to Pipe Flow Restrictor System QD: 53A Component ID: 3LP-221-17 Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 1.000 /10.000 Limitations: Yes - See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 1230 Finish Time: 1300 Examination Surface: Inside E Outside [] Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.1 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 07125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32806 Surface Temp.: 68 -F Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-229, CAL-07.230, CAL-07-231 Angle Used 0 45 45T 60 60L Scanning dB 45 50.9 60 Indication(s): Yes ED No 0 Scan Coverage: Upstream E2 Downstream E CW R) CCW EV]

Comments:

Results: Accept [ Reject vi Info [

Percent Of Coverage Obtained :>90 No - 37.5 % Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Level IlI-N Anature gV Date Revilewer It , , Signature Date Examiner Level 11-N

• S,

• Date Site Review Signature Date Tucker, David K. *" ,/*_-_-- 11/26/2007 N/A Other Level N/A Signature Date I A111Review ,k /f .. Signature Date N/A 11/26/2007

Snninuni-v No. 0)3,(";. 11.00)34 Weld No. 3LP-221-17 L&J~

4-Z ir No Coverage Claimed Coverage Claimed = 501/6 Supplemental coverage with 600 RL Wave Only Scale: l"= P" See Note:

Note: 600 RL scan not included in percentage coverage due to requirements of IOCFR50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). Best effort scan with 600 RL obtained 50% coverage in one axial direction.

Aggregate Coverage Calculation SI = Restrictor 0% (0% of the Length x 0% of the Volume)

S2 = Pipe 50 % (100% of the Length x 50% of the Volume )

S3 = CW 50 % (100% of the Length x 50% of the Volume )

S4 = CCW 50 % (100% of the Length x 50% of the Volume)

Total 150 +4= 37.5% Aggregate Coverage hispector / Date: Page : Z. of Z-

UT Pipe Weid Examination At TACIIMENT t:*

PABE*-7 OF6I7 Site/Unit: Oconee / 3 Procedure: PDI-UT-2 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No.: 03.C5.1 1.0049 Procedure Rev.: C Report No.: UT-07-206 Workscope: ISl Work Order No.: 01733813 Page: 1 of 2 Code: 1998 Cat./Item: C-F-1/C5.11 Location:

Drawing No.: 3LP-222

Description:

Pipe to Valve 3LP-179 (forged ss)

System ID: 53A Component ID: 3LP-222-15 Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diametert 1.000/ 10.000 Umitations: Yes - See Attached Coverage Sheet Start Time: 1316 Finish Time: 1337 Examination SSurface: Inside C3 Outside 0 Surface Condition: GROUND FLUSH Lo Location: 9.1.1.1 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 07125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No,: MCNDE32796 Surface Temp.: 70.4 °F Cal. Report Nio.: CAL-07-21 1. CAL-07-212, CAL-07-213 Angle Used 0 45 145T1 60 6ORL Scanning dB 43.9 43.9 1 49.4 66.4 Indication(s): Yes[] No R Scan Coverage: Upstream RJ Downstream 21 CW 23 CCW W]

Comments:

Results: Accept [D Reject nv Into 0]

Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 75% Reviewed Previous Data: Yes

Scale: 1"= 1" Weld No. : 3-LPU4222-1:

60" Sheor IN S2 Ore Coverage Valve Sl (Forged Material.)

W1.covecage usca S3 and S4

% Coverape Calculations 100% (100% of the length x 100% of the vol ime)

~ '~I--SL- Valve * . 100% (100% of the length x 100% of the vGI jine)

S3=CW 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the voh ine)

S4 = CCW 50% (100% of the length x 50% of thie voli .te)

Total -: 300/4 = 75.0 % Aggregate Coverage Inspector / Date: ___1_ Page 19 -700-7 Z. & 2-

UT Pipe Weid Examination A17ACHMENT C ES9 OF 7 Site/Unit: Oconee / 3 Procedure: PDI-UT-2 Outage No.; 03-23 Summary No.: 03.CS.11.0050 Procedure Rev,: C Report No.: UT-07-207 Workscope: IsI Work Order No.. 01733813 Page: 1 of 4 Code: 1998 Cat./item C-F-1/C5.11 Location:

Drawing No.: 3LP-222 .

Description:

Valve 3LP-179 (forged ss) to Pipe System ID: 53A Component ID: 3LP-222-16 Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 1.000/ 10.000 Limitations: Yes - See Attached Coverage Sheet Start Time: 1305 Finish Time: 1329 Examination Eurface: Inside [ Outside 21 Surface Condition: GROUND FLUSH Lo Location: 9.1.1.1 Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 07125 Temp, Tool MItg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32796 Surface Ten np.: 70.4 -F Cal. Report Ni3.: CAL-07-21 1, CAL-07.212. CAL-07-213 Angle Used 01 45 45T1 60 6ORL I Scanning dB 43.9 43.9 49.4 66.4 Indication(s): Yes W No *. Scan Coverage. upstream [j Oownstrearr CW W ccw ov Comments.

Results: Accept [] Reject W Info RI Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 75%

PASE ýo OF(0 Ultrasonic Indication Report Site/Unit: Oconee 3 Procedure: PDi-UT-2 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No.: 03.C5.11.0050 Procedure Rev.: C Report No.: UT-07-207 Workscope: 'St Work Order No.: 01733813 Page: 2 ot 4 Wo wilial Search Unit Angle: 60 .; Piping Welds CL Ferritic Vessels > 2"T Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Ln I nr~ati(n: .q lii_ Other MP Metal Path Wmax Distance From Wo To S.U. At Maximum Response RBR Remaining Back Reflection Wl Distance From Wo At Of Max (Forward) " K;Li L Distance From Datum W2 Distance From Wo At Of Max (Forward)

L2. ............ D.A:r[3IU L ,

Comments:

Scan Indication  % W Forward Of Maxj f Backward O Max Li Of L

Max 1L2 O

RBR Amp.

Remarks No. of Max __

DAC W MP WI MP W2 MP Max Max 2 1 80% 2.3 2.7 N/A NIA N/A N/A 360* 0 INT. Geometry Examiner Level Ill-N ,Sigriature Date Revi*,* / Signature Dale Cochran. Lonnie 0. ...... .. 11/19/2007 */. . 0"7 Examiner Level 1i-N ,__nalul Date Site Review Signature Date Heffron, Jason ..,-' f ,-- 11/19/2007 N/A Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Review 7,49 Signature Dale WA 11/1912007 04d 27 I

VIr

AT1ACHMENTc*

MAE4(, OF 49 Supplemental Report Report No.: UT-07-207 Page: 3 o! 4 Summary No.: 03.C5.11.0050 Examiner: Cochran, Lonnie D. ,) Level: III-N Reviewer: Date: (0' 25s .O Examiner: Heffron, Jason Level: II-N Site Review: N/Aov2o4 Date:

I, Date: L-17-612 C Omnsther:0 eNIAclrfetrcasdb emLevel:

eieto N/A wlANIInefc/vlecniurto.Sga Review: 0 VZZ de o odupt kw O Comments: Ind. #1 - 60" - Geometrical reflector caused by beam redirection at weld interfacelvalve configuration. Signal does not hold up to skew. 70' produces less amplitude. Indication seen 360'. Plot of indication supports this determination.

Sketch or Photo: Z:\UT\1DDEAL\PrfiieLbne2 jpg

---

S1.

5

Scale I"= I" Summary No.: 03.C5. I1.0050 Weld No.: 3-LP-0222-16 "J-LAS

.r- Axial Coverage 4:5':Shear OreCo%

S2 7 (Forged Material) 50% cove rage scans S3 arad S4

% Coverage Calculations SI = Pipe 100% (100% of the length x 100% of the volume)

S2 = Valve -= 100% (100% of the length x 100% of the volume)

S3 =CW 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

S4 =CCW = 50% (100% of the length x 50% of the volume)

Total = 300/4 = 75.0 % Aggregate Coverage

-7 lrisýtor / Date :Inspecto / ae:I L920 II-1j-,000-7 Page Pg L4 -foiof 'j

UT Pipe Weki Examination A11ACHMEKT6 PASE 6SOF 5 Site/Unit: Oconee / 3 Procedure: NDE-600 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary.No.: 03.CS.21.0019 Procedure Rev.: 17 Report No.: UT-07-111 Workscope: ISI Work Order No.: 01736153 Page: 1 of 2 Code: 1998 Cat./Item: C-F-1/C5.21 Location:

Drawing No.: 3-51A-52

Description:

Pipe to Valve 3HP-148 (forged ss)

System ID: 51A Component ID: 3-S1A-52-29 Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 0.531 / 4.000 Limitations: Yes - See Attached Limitation Calculation Start Time: 0954 Finish Time: 1011 Examination Surface: Inside Outside V Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.1 Wo Location: Weld Centerline Couplant: ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 05125 0

Temp. Tool Mtg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE 27217 Surface Temp.: 106 F Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-129. CAL-07-130, CAL-07-131 Angle Used 0 45 45T 60 60L Scanning dB 50 50 60 Indication(s): Yes No v Scan Coverage: Upstream v Downstream v CW ' CCW v Comments:

Results: Accept Reject ve Into Percent O Coverage Obtained > 90%: No - 83.9% Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Level Ill-IN 7\ [Sgaue Date Reviewe A/Signature Dt Eaton, Jay A. 8/7/2007 L/(-':

Examiner Level III-N //, Signature Date Site Review Signature Date Cochran, Lonnie D. 8/7/2007 N/A Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Review Signature Date NIA a/7/2007 L

Item No. 03.C.21.0019 MWed No. 3-51A-52-29 LA-I 6wYShc-tI to

...',---A 9- q S2 A Li.1 S I

" , Valve S2

.... ( Forged Material)

Coverage Claimed = 50%/o 45' scans 3 and 4 C.'overage Clam . d 17.%

45 scai ) and 4 circ.. Scans Scale: j'%= I"

% Coverage,Calculations 91-' Mt:,c It/000 S I =++bow, 100% ( 100% of the length x 100% of the vo ume)

S2 = Valve [00% (100% of the length x 100% of the vo ume)

S3 = CW 678"/ (100% of the length x 67.8% of the vw lume)

S4 = CCW (100% of the length x 67.8% of the vwlume)

Total = 335.45/I 4 83.9 % Aggregate Coverage Inspector / DaIte" ..- ET J-11 0 Page Z. of Z

UT Pipe Weed Examination AIIACHMEHI 0-PASE (OS OF (0q Site/Unit: Oconee / 3 Procedure: NDE-600 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No.: 03,C5.21.0032 Procedure Rev.: 17 Report No,: UT-07-107 Workscope: ISI Work Order No.: 01736158 Page: 1 of 3 Code: 1998 Cat./Item: C-F-1/C5.21 Location:

Drawing No.: 3-51A-59

Description:

Tee to Elbow System ID: 51A Component ID: 3-51A-59-87 Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 0.674 / 4.000 Limitations: Yes - See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 1440 Finish Time: 1450 Examination Surface: Inside [] Outside [] Surface Condition: AS GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.1.1 Wo Location: Weld Centerline Couplant: ULTRAGELII Batch No.: 05125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE 27217 Surface Temp.: 101 'F Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-119, CAL-07-120, CAL-07-121 Angle Used O 45 45T 60 38 60L7 Scanning dB 50 50 70 Indication(s): Yes (.3 No Rj Scan Coverage; Upstream WI Downstream ov CW 91 CCW 2 Comments:

% Coverage Calculations "J

Item No. : 03.C5.21.0032 Weld No.: 3-51 A-59-87 Pipe 0 = 4.5"

.t"= 0.674" Weld Length = 14.2" Limited scan on Surface 2 due to the throat of the tee for 6' of the weld length.

% of Length at throat of Tee = 6 / 14.2 x 100 = 42.3%.

% of Length examined 100% = 100 - 42.3 = 57.7%.

Aqqreqate Coverage Calculation S1 = Elbow 57.7 % (57.7% of the Length x 100% of the Volume)

S1 = Elbow 9.8 % (42.3% of the Length x 23.1% of the Volume)

Total S1 67.5 %

S2 = Tee 57.7 % (57.7% of the Length x 100% of the Volume)

S2 = Tee 0% (42.3% of the Length x 0% of the Volume )

Total S2 57.7 %

S3 = CW 100% (100% oa the Length x 100% of the Volume)

S4 = CCW 100% (100% of the Length x 100% of the Volume)

Total = 325.2 -4= 81.3% Aggregate Coverage Inspector / Date: Inspector I Date: - &iol Page Z of 3 Page Z 3

Item No. 03.C5.21.0032 Weld No. 3-51A-59-87 61, IUAv Scale: 1"= I" Coverage Claimed with OW'P Shear No Supplemental Coverage 60&Shear Wave = 23.1% claimed with 600 RL due to weld configuration.

See Note:

Note: 60' RL scan not included in percentage coverage due to requirements of I OCFR50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(A)(1). Best effort scan with 600 RL obtained 0% coverage in one axial direction.

Limited Area Side View- Not to Scale Limited 6" in the throat area oft e Tee. From Lo + 4.1" to 10.1" on Surface 2.

Inspector / Date: _. Page 3 of 3

UT Pipe Weid Examination PA11ACHKH Site/Unit: Oconee / 3 Procedure: POI-UT-2 Outage No.: 03-23 Summary No.: 03.C5.21.0058 Procedure Rev.: C Report No.: UT-07-232 Workscope: ISI Work Order No.: 01733902 Page: 1 of 2 Code: 1998 Cat,/Item: C-F-11C5.21 Location:

Drawing No.: 3HP-501

Description:

Pipe to Reducer System ID: 51A Component ID: 3HP-501-23 Size/Length: N/A Thickness/Diameter: 0.344 / 2.000 Limitations: Yes - See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 0530 Finish Time: 0845 Examination Surface: Inside [ Outside [ Surface Condition: GROUND Lo Location: 9.1.! Wo Location: Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL I1 Batch No.: 07125 D.A.S Seda) No.: MCNDE32800 Surface Temp.: 66 °F Temp. Tool Mig.:

Cal. Report No.: CAL-07-227. CAL-07-228 Angle Used 0 45 45T 60 1 Scanning dB 45 45 150 Indication(s): Yes 1. No [ Scan Coverage: Upstream [] Downstream [ CW [ CCW [

Comments:

Results: Accept U Reject 2) Into 0 'L.

W,.*7 \10 Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No gW-W Reviewed Previous Data:

Examiner Level Il-N Signatur, Date ReviewerQ' _ . Signature Date Howard, Dean M. 92'=J24 11/26/2007 1 P-;,7-a_-

Examiner Level Ill-N ..... Signalure Date Site Review Signature Date Stauffer, Lester, E.1- - --- * " 11/26/2007 N/A Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Review Signature Date NIA 11/26/2007 - /% 76

~Aa~.AA~4 Aos p~c~ Zi.oo~

~A~o ja bp

. l_^° A./I ...-

_wu 1.

Ar v %0.

I-I e'.',_

Ll A a A V/IA t , 7

-- , ./JLI. a. ,

A A\

.ie Cir . - c.(l cc -*, 0 1 - / A 2

.50t I~. vlao #-I= Ifax

<-(~A4OtZJ'" ) 1 ""/ *C,1 *_h,,, .*,kr_ - ,,rr

-1,Es W