ML13228A263
| ML13228A263 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 08/11/2013 |
| From: | Batson S Duke Energy Carolinas |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML13228A263 (7) | |
Text
DUKE Scot L.
Baon 4nENERGY.ie rsbn Oconee Nuclear Stahio Duke Energy ONO1VP I 7800 Rochester H-"
Seneca, SC 29672 August 11, 2013 864.873.3274 864,873.4208 Scott. Batson@duke-energy, com ATTN: Document Control Desk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2746
Subject:
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy)
Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 Docket Numbers 50-269, 50-270 Relief Requests 12-ON-001 and 12-ON-002 Request for Additional Information (RAI) Response On January 31, 2013, Duke Energy submitted Relief Requests 12-ON-001 and 12-ON-002 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML13038A152 and ML13038A150) pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), requesting 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 XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, 1998 Edition with 2000 Addenda (as modified by Code Case N-460).
On June 6, 2013, the NRC Staff electronically requested additional information regarding these relief requests. The enclosure provides the additional information.
This submittal contains no regulatory commitments.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Corey Gray at (864) 873-6325.
Sincerely, Scott L. Batson Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station
Enclosure:
Duke Energy's Response to Request for Additional Information related to Relief Request 12-ON-001 and 12-ON-002 wwwduke-onergy.com04 LA &L
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 11, 2013 Page 2 xc (w/enclosure):
Victor McCree Region II Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 John Boska Project Manager (by electronic mail only)
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2746 Ed Crowe NRC Senior Resident Inspector Oconee Nuclear Station Susan Jenkins Section Manager Division of Waste Management Bureau of Land and Waste Management SC Dept. of Health & Environment Control 2600 Bull St.
Columbia, SC 29201 cc: (w/o enclosure)
Enclosure Oconee Nuclear Station Unit I and 2 Duke Energy's Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI)
Relief Request 12-ON-001 and 12-ON-002 I EOC-26 and 2EOC-25 Limited Weld Examinations RAI IIIONO1 n I2ON00 RepnsIag RAI / 12-ON-001 and 12-ON-002 Response Page I
DUKE ENERGY'S REPONSES to REQUESTS for ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RAI Question I Reoauest for Relief 12-ON-001. Part A. Examination Cateaorv B-B.
Item B2.51, Pressure Retalnina Welds In Vessels Other than Reactor Vessels. ONS 1 The Letdown Cooler N32389-1 Inlet and Outlet Channel Body-to-Chemical Connector Welds WJ-32 and WJ-35 required preservice examination.
Briefly describe nondestructive examinations that were performed on the subject welds during the replacement process, including examinations for construction code acceptance and/or preservice inspection in accordance with ASME Code Section X1.
Please state whether any indications, discovered as a result of ASME Code-required construction and/or preservice examinations, could interfere with inservice ultrasonic examinations of the subject welds, and if these exist, how these flaws will be accounted for during inservice inspection.
Duke Energy's Response: Welds WJ-32 and WJ-35 (Relief Request 12-ON-001 I Sections 17 and 19) were preservice examinations. These welds were procured by Duke Energy as part of a code stamped pressure vessel manufactured to the 1989 Edition of ASME Code Section III, Division I, Subsection ND(Class 3). The manufacture drawing specifies a surface and visual examination for these welds. The vessel manufacturer supplied an ASME form N-I, as required by the code.
The N-I Data Report certifies the manufacturer performed all construction code required examinations. Per the N-I Data Report, all construction examinations were acceptable. The preservice examinations were Ultrasonic (UT) to satisfy ASME Code Section XI requirements, and the results are included in the Relief Request 12-ON-001. There were no indications discovered during construction or pre-service examination that are known to interfere with in-service UT examinations of the subject welds using current techniques.
RAI Question 2 Reauests for Relief 12-ON-001 and 12-ON-002. Part B. Examination Cateaorv B-D. Items 83.110 and B3.150. Full Penetration Welded Nozzles In Vessels.
ONS I and2 The Letdown Coolers N32389-1 and 1-N-37804-2 Inlet and Outlet Nozzle-to-Channel Body Welds WJ-33 and WJ-36 required preservice examination.
Briefly describe nondestructive examinations that were performed on the subject welds during the replacement process, including examinations for construction code acceptance and/or preservice inspection in accordance with ASME Code Section XI.
Please state whether any indications, discovered as a result of ASME Code-required construction and/or preservice examinations, could interfere with inservice ultrasonic examinations of the subject welds, and if these exist, how these flaws will be accounted for during inservice inspection.
RAI / 12-ON-001 and 12-ON-002 Response Page 2 WIT, I "T ENM17-771TITT 7 r =
.I 17 M, IZ Vý
Duke Energy's Response: The welds WJ-33 and WJ-36 (RFR Sections 18 and 20 for 12-ON-001, RFR Sections 15 and 16 for 12-ON-002) were preservice examinations. These welds were procured by Duke Energy as part of a code stamped pressure vessel manufactured to the 1989 Edition of ASME Code Section III, Division I, Subsection ND (Class 3). The manufacture drawing specifies a surface and visual examination for these welds. The vessel manufacturer supplied an ASME form N-I1, as required by the code. The N-1 Data Report certifies the manufacturer performed all construction code required examinations. Per the N-1 Data Report, all construction examinations were acceptable. The preservice examinations were Ultrasonic (UT) to satisfy ASME Code Section XA requirements, and the results are included in the Relief Requests 12-ON-001 and 12-ON-002. There were no indications discovered during construction or pre-service examination that are known to interfere with in-service UT examinations of the subject welds using current techniques.
RAI Questlon 3 Reouests for Relief 12-ON-001 and 12-ON-002. Part C. Examination B&.11. Pressure Retalnina Welds In Pli=,na. ONS I and 2 The licensee stated that these relief requests are specific to examination volume coverage limitations only. AMl other Code requirements were satisfied.
Verify and state specifically whether a full surface examination was performed on each of the circumferential piping welds and describe any indications that were detected as a result of the surface examinations.
Duke Energy's Response: Welds 1-PIB1-9 and 1-PDBI-I (Relief Request 12-ON-001 Sections 4 and 5) and Welds 2-PDA1-1, 2-PIA2-8, 2HP-215-3 and 2-53A-8-61 (Relief Request 12-ON-002 Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6) did not receive a surface examination based on application of ASME Code Case N 663, Altemative Requirements for Classes I and 2 Surface Examinations, Section Xl, Division 1. Since no surface examinations were performed, no surface indications were discovered.
RAI Question 4 Reauests for Relief 12-ON-001 and 12-ON-002. Part D. Examination Cateaorv C-F-1. Items C5.11 and C5.21. Pressure Retainina Welds In Austentic Stainlers Steel or Hiah Alloy Pinina. ONS I and 2 The licensee stated that these relief requests am specific to examination volume coverage limitations only. All other Code requirements were satisfied.
Verify and state specifically whether a full surface examination was performed on each of the Class 2 austenitic stainless steel or high alloy circumferential piping welds, and RAI / 12-ON-001 and 12-ON-002 Response Page 3
describe any indications that were detected as a result of the surface examinations.
Duke Energy's Response: Welds I LP-1 28-80, 1 LP-209-117, 1 LP-209-18, 1 HP-1 92-15, 1-51A01-91A, I HP-324-118B, 1 HP-193-12 and 1-51A-01-103A (Relief Requestl2-ON-001 / Sections 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14) and Welds 2LP-150-70, 2LP-189-15, 2LP-216-17, 2LP-216-18, 2LPS-723-1, 2LPS-723-2, 2LPS-723-3 and 2-51A-17-20A (Relief Request 12-ON-002 / Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14) did not receive a surface examination based on application of ASME Code Case N 663, Alternative Requirements for Classes I and 2 Surface Examinations,Section XI, Division 1. Since no surface examinations were performed, no surface indications were discovered.
A surface exam was performed on Weld 1-51A-02-34B / Section 12.
No surface indications were discovered.
RAI Question 5 Reauest for Relief 12-ON-001. Part E. Examination Cateaorv C-F-2. Item CU.51.
Pressure Retalnina Welds In Carbon or Low Alloy Steel Pih~na. ONS I The licensee stated that these relief requests are specific to examination volume coverage limitations only. All other Code requirements were satisfied.
- 5. 1. Verify and state specifically whether a full surface examination was performed on each of the Class 2 carbon steel or low alloy steel circumferential piping welds, and describe any indications that were detected as a result of the surface examinations.
Duke Energy's Response: Welds I LPS-563-14 and 1 LPS-702-50 (Relief Request 12-ON-001 I Sections 15 and 16) did not receive a surface examination based on application of ASME Code Case N 663, Alternative Requirements for Classes I and 2 Surface Examinations,Section XI, Division 1. Since no surface examinations were performed, no surface indications were discovered.
5.2. The text of the licensee's submittal states that the subject weld areas were interrogated with a combination of 45-and 60-degree shear waves, but in the data sheet the licensee also listed 0-, 45-, and 60-degree longitudinal waves (L-waves) being applied to detect circurnferentially-oriented flaws. The licensee's submittal further states that examinations were performed in accordance with ASME Code Section Xl Appendix VIII (performance demonstration), and consisted of single-sided examinations from the pipe side of the welds.
Clarify and confirm the insonification angles and wave modalities used to examine each of the subject welds.
Duke Energy's Response: Two welds 1LPS-563-14 and ILPS-702-50 were included as Category C-F-2, Item C5.51 (Relief Request 12-ON-001 Sections 15.0 and 16).
These welds were examined to Appendix VIII qualified Procedure RAI / 12-ON-001 and 12-ON-002 Response Page 4
PDI-UT-10. For components with a nominal thickness of 0.50 inches, the axial scans required are 45* and 60° longitudinal waves, along with a 45* or 60°shear wave for examination. These examinations were all performed for each weld. The coverage obtained in Section 15.4 and 16.4 identified that coverage was obtained by use of a combination of these angles and wave modalities for the SI and S2 axial scans.
The 00 examination was performed to Procedure NDE-640 for the examination of laminations for each weld, and was not used to calculate the obtained coverage.
Snd llO0 ResponseIPageI RAI / 12-ON-001 and 12-ON-002 Response Page 5