ONS-2015-087, Fourth Ten-Year Inservice Inspection Plan, Relief Request No. 15-ON-003, Limited Volume Inspections from 3EOC27 Outage

Fourth Ten-Year Inservice Inspection Plan, Relief Request No. 15-ON-003, Limited Volume Inspections from 3EOC27 Outage

ML15202A052
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	07/15/2015
From:	Batson S Duke Energy Carolinas
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
ONS-2015-087
Download: ML15202A052 (56)

Text

Scott L.Batson 1 DUKE Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station ENERGY. Duke Energy ONOIVP I 7800 Rochester Hwy Seneca, SC 29672 ONS-2015-087 o: 864.873.3274

f. 864.873. 4208 July 15, 2015 Scott.Batson@duke.energy.com ATTN: Document Control Desk 10 CFR 50.55a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy)

Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 3 Docket Number 50-287, Renewed License Numbers DPR-50

Subject:

Fourth Ten-Year Inservice Inspection Plan, Relief Request No. 15-ON-003, Limited Volume Inspections from 3EOC27 Outage Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), Duke Energy hereby requests NRC approval of the following relief from 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.

The attached Relief Request applies to limited volumetric examinations performed on welds associated with various systems and components during Unit 3, EOC27 outage. The relief request details are provided as an enclosure to this letter.

This submittal document contains no regulatory commitments.

If there are any questions or further information is needed you may contact David Haile at (864) 873-4742.

Sincerely, Scott L. Batson Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station Enclosure Relief Request Serial #15-ON-003:

Limited volume examinations per 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii) for Unit 3, Fourth Inservice Inspection Interval AýW7 "a

ONS-2015-087 July 15, 2015 Page 2 cc (with enclosure):

Mr. Victor McCree, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region II Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE Suite 1200 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1257 Mr. James R. Hall, Project Manager (ONS)

(by electronic mail only)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Mail Stop O-8B1 Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. Jeffery Whited (by electronic mail only)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Mail Stop O-8B1A Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. Eddy Crowe NRC Senior Resident Inspector Oconee Nuclear Station

Enclosure to ONS-2015-087 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 3 Relief Request Serial #15-ON-003:

Limited volume examinations per 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iiU) for Unit 3, Fourth Inservice Inspection Interval

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 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 3 Fourth 10-Year Inservice Inspection Interval Interval Start Date: Unit 3 January 2, 2005 Interval End Date: July 15, 2014 Table 1 Relief Oconee Examination Weld ID Item/Summary Examination Request Unit Performed Number Number Data Section Number (Refueling Number Outaqe) 2.0 3 3EOC27 3-RPV-WR18 03.B1.11.0003 See Attachment A Pages 1-3 3.0 3 3EOC27 3-RPV-WR34 03.B1.11.0004 See Attachment A Pages 4-8 4.0 3 3EOC27 3-RPV-WR35 03.B13.21.0001 See Attachment A Pages 9-12 5.0 3 3EOC27 3-LDCA-IN-1 03.B2.51.0001 See Attachment A Pages 13-17 6.0 3 3EOC27 3-LDCA-OUT- 03.B2.51.0002 See Attachment WJ35V A Pages 18-22 7.0 3 3EOC27 3-LDCB-IN- 03.B3.150.0003 See Attachment WJ33V A Pages 23-29 8.0 3 3EOC27 3-LDCB-OUT- 03.B3.150.0004 See Attachment WJ36V A Pages 30-36 Page 1 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 2.0 Weld # 3-RPV-WR18 2.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Reactor Vessel Upper Nozzle Belt to Upper Shell Weld, Reactor Coolant System, Weld # 3-RPV-WR18, Summary Number 03.B1.11.0003, and ASME Code Class 1.

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 IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-A, Item Number B1.11 Fig. IWB-2500-1, 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D.

2.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

a Surface 1: Upper Nozzle Belt - Carbon steel 0 Surface 2: Upper Shell Weld - Carbon steel 0 Diameter: 167.63 in.

0 Thickness: 12.00 in.

This component was scanned with automated methods from the Reactor Vessel interior. 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. These requirements describe and are specific to scanning components in two axial and two circumferential directions. This component was scanned to the extent possible to meet these requirements. The aggregate coverage that was obtained is described and calculated from the following:

• Inner 15% Thickness coverage using 45' & 70' longitudinal waves for axial scans (S1, S2), and circumferential scans (CW, CCW) obtained 83.2% coverage.

• Outer 85% Thickness coverage using 45' longitudinal waves and 45' shear waves for axial scans (S1, S2), and circumferential scans (CW, CCW) obtained 77.8% coverage.

" The aggregate coverage was calculated to be 79.00%. See attached examination coverage sheet for calculations.

The impracticality was caused by the Reactor Vessel Outlet Nozzle Boss configuration that does not allow meaningful interrogation. The current configuration does not allow scanning of all of the required volume for this weld.

The weld configuration would have to be redesigned and replaced, which is impractical.

Page 2 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. The achieved coverage did not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

This relief request is specific to examination volume coverage limitations only. All other Code requirements were satisfied.

Forty six Indications were recorded during this examination and determined to be acceptable per IWB-3510-1.

2.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better results. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Use of other manual or automated UT techniques, whether conventional or phased array, were considered, but would not increase coverage due to the limitation created by the component configuration. The use of any other UT technique available would incur the same physical scanning limitations. The UT technique applied is considered best effort.

2.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the fourth inservice inspection interval. The interval ended on July 15, 2014.

2.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.B13.11.0003 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 and Reactor Building process radiation monitoring contribute to ensuring pressure boundary integrity by providing means to detect reactor coolant leakage and take prompt corrective actions. Operating experience for this weld did not find any previous failures.

Duke Energy has examined the weld 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 3 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 2.8. References Also in Duke Energy Relief Request 94-01 was approved by the NRC during the second inspection interval. The previous approved SE is documented in Docket No. 50-287, TAC No.M89366 dated June 12, 1995.

3.0 Weld # 3-RPV-WR34 3.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Reactor Vessel Lower Shell to Transition Piece Weld, Reactor Coolant System, Weld # 3-RPV-WR34, Summary Number 03.B13.11.0004, and ASME Code Class 1.

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 IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-A, Item Number B1.11 Fig. IWB-2500-1, 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D.

3.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Lower Shell - Carbon steel

• Surface 2: Transition Piece - Carbon steel

• Diameter: 170.25 in.

• Thickness: 5.5 in.

This component was scanned with automated methods from the Reactor Vessel interior. 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. These requirements describe and are specific to scanning components in two axial and two circumferential directions. This component was scanned to the extent possible to meet these requirements. The aggregate coverage that was obtained is described and calculated from the following:

0 Inner 15% Thickness coverage using 450 & 700 longitudinal waves for axial scans (S1, S2), and circumferential scans (CW, CCW) obtained 35% coverage.

0 Outer 85% Thickness coverage using 450 longitudinal waves and 450 shear waves for axial scans (S1, S2), and circumferential scans (CW, CCW) obtained 44% coverage.

0 The aggregate coverage was calculated to be 42.7%. See attached examination coverage sheet for calculations.

Page 4 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 The impracticality was caused by the Reactor Vessel interior configuration (Guide Lugs and Flow Stabilizers) that does not allow meaningful interrogation.

The current configuration does not allow scanning of all of the required volume for this weld. The weld configuration would have to be redesigned and replaced, which is impractical.

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

This relief request is specific to examination volume coverage limitations only. All other Code requirements were satisfied.

Four indications were recorded during this examination and determined to be acceptable per IWB-3510-1.

3.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better results. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Use of other manual or automated UT techniques, whether conventional or phased array, were considered, but would not increase coverage due to the limitation created by the component configuration. The use of any other UT technique available would incur the same physical scanning limitations. The UT technique applied is considered best effort.

3.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the fourth inservice inspection interval. The interval ended on July 15, 2014.

3.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.81.11.0004 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 and Reactor Building process radiation monitoring contribute to ensuring pressure boundary integrity by providing means to detect reactor coolant leakage and take prompt corrective actions. Operating experience for this weld did not find any previous failures.

Duke Energy has examined the weld 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, Page 5 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

3.8. References Duke Energy Relief Request 05-ON-002 was approved by the NRC during the last inspection interval. The previous approved SE is documented in Accession Number ML062270661, TAC No.MC7996 dated August 30, 2006. Also in Duke Energy Relief Request 94-01 was approved by the NRC during the second inspection interval. The previous approved SE is documented in Docket No. 50-287, TAC No.M89366 dated June 12, 1995.

4.0 Weld # 3-RPV-WR35 4.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Reactor Vessel Transition Piece to Lower Head Weld, Reactor Coolant System, Weld # 3-RPV-WR35 Summary Number 03.B1.21.0001, and ASME Code Class 1.

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 IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-A, Item Number B1.21 Fig. IWB-2500-3, 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D.

4.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

" Surface 1: Transition Piece - Carbon steel

• Surface 2: Lower Head - Carbon steel

• Diameter: 143.00 in.

• Thickness: 5.375 in.

This component was scanned with automated methods from the Reactor Vessel interior. 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. These requirements describe and are specific to scanning components in two axial and two circumferential directions. This component was scanned to the extent possible to meet these requirements. The aggregate coverage that was obtained is described and calculated from the following:

• Inner 15% Thickness coverage using 45' & 70' longitudinal waves for axial scans (S1, S2), and circumferential scans (CW, CCW) obtained 32.7% coverage Page 6 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 Outer 85% Thickness coverage using 450 longitudinal waves and 45' shear waves for axial scans (S1, S2), and circumferential scans (CW, CCW) obtained 37.1% coverage.

The aggregate coverage was calculated to be 36.4%. See attached examination coverage sheet for calculations.

The impracticality was caused by the Reactor Vessel interior configuration (Incore Nozzles and Flow Stabilizers) that does not allow meaningful interrogation. The current configuration does not allow scanning of all of the required volume for this weld. The weld configuration would have to be redesigned and replaced, which is impractical.

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

This relief request is specific to examination volume coverage limitations only. All other Code requirements were satisfied.

Sixteen indications were recorded during this examination and determined to be acceptable per IWB-3510-1.

4.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better results. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Use of other manual or automated UT techniques, whether conventional or phased array, were considered, but would not increase coverage due to the limitation created by the component configuration. The use of any other UT technique available would incur the same physical scanning limitations. The UT technique applied is considered best effort.

4.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the fourth inservice inspection interval. The interval ended on July 15, 2014.

4.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.B13.21.0001 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 and Reactor Building process radiation monitoring contribute to ensuring pressure boundary integrity by providing means to detect reactor coolant leakage and take prompt corrective actions. Operating experience for this weld did not find any previous failures.

Page 7 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 Duke Energy has examined the weld 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.

4.8. References Duke Energy Relief Request 05-ON-002 was approved by the NRC during the last inspection interval. The previous approved SE is documented in Accession Number ML062270661, TAC No.MC7996 dated August 30, 2006.

5.0 Weld # 3-LDCA-IN-1 5.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Letdown Cooler 3A, Chemical Connector to Channel Body Weld, High Pressure Injection System, Weld # 3-LDCA-IN-1, Summary Number 03.B2.51.0001, and ASME Code Class 1.

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 IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-B, Item Number B2.51 Fig. IWB-2500-1 (b), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D.

5.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Chemical Connector - Stainless steel

" Surface 2: Channel Body - Stainless steel

• Diameter: 8.625 in.

" Thickness: 0.875 in.

This component was scanned manually with conventional methods. 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. These requirements describe and are specific to scanning components in two axial and two circumferential directions. This component was scanned to the extent possible to meet these requirements. The aggregate coverage that was obtained is described and calculated from the following:

• Axial scan coverage (S1,S2) using 450 Shear and Longitudinal and 600 &

700 Longitudinal waves obtained 97.2% coverage.

• Circumferential scan coverage (CW, CCW) using a 450 shear wave obtained 78.1% coverage.

Page 8 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (97.2% + 78.1%)/2 87.7%.

The impracticality was caused by the weld taper configuration and nozzle on the chemical connector that does not allow meaningful interrogation. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld. The shell to sampling nozzle weld would have to be redesigned and replaced, which is impractical.

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

This relief request is specific to examination volume coverage limitations only. All other Code requirements were satisfied.

No indications were recorded during this examination.

5.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better results. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Use of other manual or automated UT techniques, whether conventional or phased array, were considered, but would not increase coverage due to the limitation created by the component configuration. The use of any other UT technique available would incur the same physical scanning limitations. The UT technique applied is considered best effort.

5.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the fourth inservice inspection interval. The interval ended on July 15, 2014.

5.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.B2.51.0001 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section Xl, 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 and Reactor Building process radiation monitoring contribute to ensuring pressure boundary integrity by providing means to detect reactor coolant leakage and take prompt corrective actions. Operating experience for this weld did not find any previous failures.

Duke Energy has examined the weld 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 Xl, and the leakage monitoring, Page 9 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

5.8. References None.

6.0 Weld # 3-LDCA-OUT-WJ35V 6.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Letdown Cooler 3A, Chemical Connector to Channel Body Weld, High Pressure Injection System, Weld # 3-LDCA-OUT-WJ35V, Summary Number 03.B2.51.0002, and ASME Code Class 1.

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 IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-B, Item Number B2.51 Fig. IWB-2500-1 (b), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D.

6.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

" Surface 1: Chemical Connector - Stainless steel

• Surface 2: Channel Body - Stainless steel

" Diameter: 8.625 in.

" Thickness: 0.875 in.

This component was scanned manually with conventional methods. 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. These requirements describe and are specific to scanning components in two axial and two circumferential directions. This component was scanned to the extent possible to meet these requirements. The aggregate coverage that was obtained is described and calculated from the following:

" Axial scan coverage (S1,S2) using 450 Shear and Longitudinal and 600 &

700 Longitudinal waves obtained 97.2% coverage.

" Circumferential scan coverage (CW, CCW) using a 450 shear wave obtained 78.1% coverage.

" The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (97.2% + 78.1%)/2 =

87.7%.

The impracticality was caused by the weld taper configuration and nozzle on the chemical connector that does not allow meaningful interrogation. In order to scan Page 10 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 all of the required volume for this weld. The shell to sampling nozzle weld would have to be redesigned and replaced, which is impractical.

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

This relief request is specific to examination volume coverage limitations only. All other Code requirements were satisfied.

No indications were recorded during this examination.

6.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better results. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Use of other manual or automated UT techniques, whether conventional or phased array, were considered, but would not increase coverage due to the limitation created by the component configuration. The use of any other UT technique available would incur the same physical scanning limitations. The UT technique applied is considered best effort.

6.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the fourth inservice inspection interval. The interval ended on July 15, 2014.

6.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.B2.51.0002 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 and Reactor Building process radiation monitoring contribute to ensuring pressure boundary integrity by providing means to detect reactor coolant leakage and take prompt corrective actions. Operating experience for this weld did not find any previous failures.

Duke Energy has examined the weld 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 11 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 6.8. References None.

7.0 Weld # 3-LDCB-IN-WJ33V 7.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Letdown Cooler 3B, Nozzle to Channel Body Weld, High Pressure Injection System, Weld # 3-LDCB-IN-WJ33V, Summary Number 03.B3.150.0003, and ASME Code Class 1.

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 IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Item Number B3.150, Fig. IWB-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-l.

7.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

0 Surface 1: Channel Body - Stainless steel 0 Surface 2: Inlet Nozzle - Stainless steel

• Diameter: 8.625 in.

• Thickness: 0.875 in.

This component was scanned manually with conventional methods. Scanning requirements are described in ASME Section XI, Appendix III, 111-4420 and III-4430. These requirements describe and are specific to scanning components in two axial and two circumferential directions. This component was scanned to the extent possible to meet these requirements. The aggregate coverage that was obtained is described and calculated from the following:

" Axial scan coverage: 45' shear waves and 600 and 70* longitudinal waves in the S1 and S2 direction obtained an aggregate coverage of 52.6%.

" Circumferential scan coverage: 450 shear and longitudinal waves obtained an aggregate coverage of 68.6%.

" The total aggregate coverage was calculated to be (52.6% + 68.6%)/2 =

60.6%.

The impracticality was caused by the weld taper configuration of the inlet nozzle to the channel body that does not allow interrogation from Surface 2 nozzle side.

In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld. The channel body to inlet nozzle weld would have to be redesigned and replaced to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical Page 12 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. The achieved coverage did not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

This relief request is specific to examination volume coverage limitations only. All other Code requirements were satisfied.

No indications were recorded during this examination.

7.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better results. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Use of other manual or automated UT techniques, whether conventional or phased array, were considered, but would not increase coverage due to the limitation created by the component configuration. The use of any other UT technique available would incur the same physical scanning limitations. The UT technique applied is considered best effort.

7.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the fourth inservice inspection interval. The interval ended on July 15, 2014.

7.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.B3.150.0003 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section Xl, 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 and Reactor Building process radiation monitoring contribute to ensuring pressure boundary integrity by providing means to detect reactor coolant leakage and take prompt corrective actions. Operating experience for this weld did not find any previous failures.

Duke Energy has examined the weld 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 13 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 7.8. References Duke Energy Relief Request 1 1-ON-002 was approved by the NRC during the last inspection interval. The previous approved SE is documented in Accession Number ML13025A291, TAC No.ME8433 and ME8434 dated February 4, 2013.

8.0 Weld # 3-LDCB-OUT-WJ36V 8.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Letdown Cooler 3B, Nozzle to Channel Body Weld, High Pressure Injection System, Weld # 3-LDCB-OUT-WJ36V, Summary Number 03.B3.150.0004, and ASME Code Class 1.

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 IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Item Number B3.150, Fig. IWB-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I.

8.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:

• Surface 1: Channel Body - Stainless steel

" Surface 2: Outlet Nozzle - Stainless steel

" Diameter: 8.625 in.

• Thickness: 0.875 in.

This component was scanned manually with conventional methods. Scanning requirements are described in ASME Section XI, Appendix III, 111-4420 and III-4430. These requirements describe and are specific to scanning components in two axial and two circumferential directions. This component was scanned to the extent possible to meet these requirements. The aggregate coverage that was obtained is described and calculated from the following:

" Axial scan coverage: 450 shear waves and 600 and 700 longitudinal waves in the S1 and S2 direction obtained an aggregate coverage of 52.6%.

• Circumferential scan coverage: 45' shear and longitudinal waves obtained an aggregate coverage of 68.6%.

" The total aggregate coverage was calculated to be (52.6% + 68.6%)/2 = 60.6%.

The impracticality was caused by the weld taper configuration of the inlet nozzle to the channel body that does not allow interrogation from Surface 2 nozzle side.

In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld. The channel body to inlet Page 14 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 nozzle weld would have to be redesigned and replaced 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. The achieved coverage did not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.

This relief request is specific to examination volume coverage limitations only. All other Code requirements were satisfied.

No indications were recorded during this examination.

8.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better results. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Use of other manual or automated UT techniques, whether conventional or phased array, were considered, but would not increase coverage due to the limitation created by the component configuration. The use of any other UT technique available would incur the same physical scanning limitations. The UT technique applied is considered best effort.

8.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the fourth inservice inspection interval. The interval ended on July 15, 2014.

8.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.B3.150.0004 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section Xl, 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 and Reactor Building process radiation monitoring contribute to ensuring pressure boundary integrity by providing means to detect reactor coolant leakage and take prompt corrective actions. Operating experience for this weld did not find any previous failures.

Duke Energy has examined the weld 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 Xl, 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 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 8.8. References Duke Energy Relief Request 1 1-ON-002 was approved by the NRC during the last inspection interval. The previous approved SE is documented in Accession Number ML13025A291, TAC No.ME8433 and ME8434 dated February 4, 2013.

Page 16 of 16

Attachment A to Relief Request 15-ON-003 UT Detail Data sheets from 3EOC-27 Limited Exam Coverage

A Document No.: 51-9222850-000(

AREVA

-3 Duke Energy/ Oconee Unit 3 EOC27 10 Year ISI Final Report OCONEE - UNIT 3 EXAMINATION COVERAGE FORWELD: V02:

UPPER NOZLE BELT TO UPPER SHIELL WELD Summary Number. 03.81.11.0003 ConmpwsentlD: 3.RPV.WRI8 Scan Plan a rawing Number 8060030 Sheets7 & 10 WELD\VOLUME COVERAGE OBTAINED: 79%

Zone*coverage Obtaine*

inner i 1/%T: 83.2% Outr 85Y.T: 77.8% Aggregate: 78.8%

Examitnation Volume Definition Weld Le UM L 252 17'~n Area Measurement (axial plane) lVoiume calculation inner 15%T 27863 sq. in. itnna, 15%T 6967.32 cu in.

Outer 85%T 15730 sq in, Outer 85%T 39668558 cu in.

Limltatlons IUmits scan by: iCompensationfl bossw nozl intrfeenc confi....... on O nzle boss lit reduction in axial aqacent to otk nozts due to nozie boss None Examination Coverage Calculations INNER 15%T Axial Bem Direction Coverages Exam. Ama Length Volume Volume Angle Beam Exainned Examined Examined Requfired Percent Entry # (djg2 In,cinm isq in'- 6n) (cu in (cuuin)ý Examinnd Um,:ed Commen 1 70U45L Up/oown F2763- 22284 6157 17 615717" 1000% No None 2 70U45L UplDown 6.35' 6 29,32 186,34 810 15 r 230% Yes Out'* Nozzle Boss limits scan Total Axial Coverage 252.17 0343.51 6967.32 91.0%

C.rcumferentfat BSem Dircdon Coveragex Exam Area CQrcFxlernt A"d Extent AV@l Beam Exarruned 6xamnarl Examined Percent EntT', # eg;) .Drect'im (* n (%)  % .. Examined Lt-rtnfed ~ r" 3 70U45L CWICCW " ¢g.00 8.6%

& 100.0% 68.6% Yes Cowrage between lInet/Out* Nozzles 4 70L/45L CWICCW 148.20' We.% 100,0% 88.5% Yes Coverage between Inlet Nozzles Total Clrc. Beam Direction Coverage: 75.3%

Inner 1S1% coeag3.2%

iOUTER 8MT Axial Beam Oifction Coverages Exam. Area Length Volume VOlW Angle Beam Examined Examined ESamned ReqiiAd Peicent Einn'# (ldeo. C.n,-ction ( n in (cu. on C n Examinied Limited comment 45IJ45S Up/On 15730 222,84 3506273 355.273" 100.0% No None 2 451U45S UplOn " 36.18 29.32 "1060.77 4612 04r 2&0% Yes OCilet Nozzle Boss limits scan Total Axial Coverage 252.18 30113.50 39484.77 91.0%/0 Ctrcumirerendal sao" Direction Coverages Exam Area Circ Extent Axial Extent Angie Beam Examined Exarmined Examined Percent Ent~t (feg,) Dtreofro ... in.) 1%) M%} Examnned Limited Comment 3 4545S CWiCCW 105480" 60.2% 1000% 60.2% Yes Covrage between hnlet/Outiet Nozzles 4 45L/45S CW/CCW 744,60' 71.7% 100,0% 71,7% Yes Covrage between inlet Nozzles Total Clrc. Beam DIraction Coverage:' 64.5%

Ouwl 85% covierege r 77.8%

51-9222850-000 rcý Iý -3ý

Re. Scan Plan NSOM03 Exantnabon Suttace tO0ID ~6 ~ta*s 1J~~$b~h4~i l~xamnsfitonCOwmage: lg9% W~1 IEzamndMUon ntatmu OUtle NOZZle SOaW( See Adachad Flow Evauatlen Suammary Shats)

ýExaminlabn Datao): Apr#I 26-27,20M4 Namres of date analyts forttts vW amwe~Med on the atlacdd speets A,;mrar~s: see afttacd -Tws cqIaaanLgGga otadwna Ifimti kutlyzed br Soot wawhoz Level: A~ j10t 4127124 Ablyle " e Bazu Level: [it IDat 412712014 IRe¶%ewed by. Rickis Rose Level: If 1 2014, 5ORW 51-9222850-000 2j3~

8w0g0MAZL.t AR EADocument No.: 51-9222850-00 Duke Energy / Oconee Unit 3 EOC27 10 Year ISI Final Report OCONEE *UNIT 3 EXAMINATION COVERAGE FOR WELD: W05 LOWER SHELL TO LOWER HEAD WELD Summary Number: 0B5I1d0004

~omnponent ID: 3-RPV-WR34 scan Plan rawingNumbe. 8NS03D Sheets 11, IZ &14 WELD VOLUME COVERAGE OBTAINED: 43%,

Zone Coverage Obtained inner 15%T: 35.0%/ outer 85%T. 44, 1 Aggragate: 42.7%..

. 4Examlnation Volume Definition Weid Lerai 53X4006 i Area Measurement (axial plane) jvolume Calculation inner !5%T 10 54 sq in jinner1ST 567480cu.i Outer 85%T 44 46 sq, A Outer 85%T 23937.54 cu. in.

Limitations Limits scan by Compens lon(at Core Guide Lugs Guide Lugs and Flow Stabilizers featnct UT j7ead movement None Ffow Stabiizer Guide Lugs and Flo Stabilizem reaslct UT head movement None Examination Coverage Calculations INNER15%T

Axial Beam Direction Coveaiges Exam, Aea Length Volume Volure Angte Beam Examined Examnerd Examined Required Percent Entry4 Weg CkLreon ,Sq, m2 in nj ý" if?) 'cu Eaind LiedCmmn 1 70L/45L Up/on 1054 6430 677.72 677.72 100.0% NO Coverage between lugs and stabWizers 2 70U45* UpiON 695 19340 1344,13 2038 44' 659% yes Coverage gs-ove stabitize-s 3 70U45. UplOn 000' 280,71 000 2958,64' 0.0% Yes Obstructed Total Axial Coverage 538&41 2021.85 5674.80 35.8%

CircumferentialBeam Direction Coverages Exam. Area Clrc Extent Axial Extent Angle Beam Examined Examined ExamIned Percent Ents (doug) Diet~on (sqg 'n (%) I%) Examined Limtied COMMeNt 4 70U45L. CWICCW 8844' 20-1% 430% 86% Yes Coverage between lugs and stablizer.

5 70U45L CWICCW 345,72' 445% 57 0% 25,4% Yes Coverage above stabizers Total Cirr. Beam Direction Coverage:' 34.0%

inner 15% covera,* 35.0%

OUTER 85%T Axial Beam DirectionCoverages Exam Area Length Volume Volume Angle Beam Examnned Examined Examined Reaqumd Percent Er#ry *iz) Dircon lag-In) Mn- 1cu.in.) u. in) Exarined umited Commer 1 45U45S UptOn 44,46 64.30 2858 78 2858,78' 100a0% No Coverage between fugs anmstabilizes 2 451)45S Uptn 28,28 193 40 546935 8598.56' 636% Yes Coverage above stabiiizers 3 451145S Up/D* 0,00' 28071 0.00 12480 20' 00% Yes Obstructed Total Axial Coverage 538.41 8328.13 23937.54 34.8%

circumferentialBoam Direction Coverages Exam, Area Carc Extent Axia Extent Angle Beam Examined Examined Examined Pewent Entry ti do) Direction t  %

Ms Examined Limited contmel" 4 451145S CWICCW 146280 313% 43.0% 135% Yes Coverage between jugs ano stabilizers 5 45L145S CW/CCW' 3250.44 69.5% 57.0% 396% Yes Coverage above stabilizers Total CiOr.Beam Directtion Coverage;' 53,1%

Outer 8501. covernoe: 44"0%..

51-9222850-000

A AREVA Document No.: 51-9222850-000 Duke Energy / Oconee Unit 3 EOC27 10 Year ISt Final Report Figure 1-2: TWS Weld W05 - Lower shell to Lower Head Weld View of TWS robot in vessel lower head region showing scan limitations caused by the Core Guide Lugs and Flow Stabilizers. The weld is partially covered by the Core Guide Lugs. Flow Stabilizers welded to the head below the weld and the Core Guide Lugs restrict the UT head from scanning the entire weld. These limitations occur between each lug set. Single sided scan parameters are used near obstructions to improve examination coverage. Coverage obtained on this weld is 43%.

ax-4Wy, 51-9222850-000

?d SY,36

514OMWS.~OO Pap47 of1026 11 -- ~~

0 ,64 -fl ISS

~ -------- - ---- -- --------- w~

OM-x-V "I# =I-

1INane of dats wial9U (or theWel aM IMW oe an~ie attadu m~~fli(~D. r...

a.. mgLmwmw IWO n~qu..au.IrI LUU Wi *iUJ1 *iiWflhSsfl.

arna S: lwamquýonLog pages ra on- n -

Analyzed bir soot avldz ILaveb 1 = Date: 4127J2O4 An~tV-d bir HC0 Bezf Level:

ILevel:

10I II jDte:

Oet 4110=14 5=214 ReVeWNWdy RickesRose 51-9222850-000

r-A Document No.: 51-9222850-000 AR EVA Duke Energy I Oconee Unit 3 EOC27 10 Year ISI Final Report OCONEE- UNIT 3 EXAMINATION COVERAGE FOR WELD: W06 LOWER HEAD TORUS TO LOWER HEAD DOME WELD Summary Number* ol.t2i.0o01 Component 10* 34PV-WRft35 Scan Plan Drawing Number 8019090 Sheets 13&£14 WELD VOLUME COVERAGE OBTAINED: 36%

Zone Coverage Obtained Inner 15%T* 32.7%, Outer $5%T: 37.1% Aggregate: 36.4W Examination Volume Definiltion WeldLenoth 449 248 i Vnner 15%T Outer 85%T Ares Measurement (aJxial plane) 5.77 sq.

3304 s*.

in T [Volume Calculation 15%T Me IOuter85%Tn 2592.16 cu in 14843.15 cu. in Urmitadon$L Umits scan by: !Compeniseton(*i fnore Instrumenltaton Nozzies Ilncom Nozzles restict. UT head movent None Flow StablIzers Flow Stabltwa restrct UT head niomvnent None Examination Coverage Calculations INNER 16%T Axial Beam Directfon Coverages Exam Area Length Volume Voiume Angle Beam Examined Examiined Examined Requued Percent Enhy#0 (io. timeo tsqý 6n cu~iA

'b (Ou in) Lmitead Lx~se Comment 1 70U145L UpOn . 677- 160061 92570 92V10' 1000% No covrage between nozzles and stleszere 2 70U45L UP1On 3.28' 3444 11297 19873' 56,8% Yes Coverage above nozzles 45 and 52

7) 3 70L/45L UDiDn 1 07' 1123 1202 6480 185% Yes Cowrage above nozzle 46 4 701145L UloDn n0'0 2429? 0,00 1401,93' (10% Yes Obsltructed Total Axial Coverage 449.25 1051.69 2592.16 40.6%

. tal S~ain Direcfion Coveeam Circumiret, Exam, Area Qro Extent Axial Extent Angle Beam Examined Examined Examined Per0e"t E&lr U (ds CJeto (sc. lt tl (%v Examined Limited Comment 5 701145 CWICCW ' 9072 2013% 100.0% E 20,3% Yes Cover baeweee nozzles and stabilizers 6 70U45L CWICCWC 2016' 4.5% 80.0% 336% Yes Covrage above nozzles 45 and 52 7 70U45L CW/CCW 10 08' 2.3% 420% 19% Yes Coverage abowe nozzle 46 Total arc. Beam Direction Coverage:' 2,,C1%

Inner 16% moarme ' 32.%

OUTER 86%T Axial Seem Direci*on Covierae Exan Area Length Volume Volume Ane Beam Examned Exarrmned Examined Required PeroeV Enhivg (-g. (qI. in

'2eto o (cur1a) Exatlined ýimited Comment 1 451U455 Ui n 33'04" 16061 530642 5306 42' 1000% NO Coverage between nozzles and stablzers 997.45 1137,97' 877% Yes Comage above nozzles 45 and 52 2 8 .9 6 2 45U45S Uptlo 34,44 3 45U45S UplOn 17 91' 1123 201.15 371.08' 542% Yes Coerage aboe nozzle 46 4 45U45S UplDn 000' 242.97 0.00 8027.67-' 00% Yes Obstinicted Total Axial Coverage 449.25 6505.03 14843.15 43.8%

Cfrcumrratandal Seem Direation Coviages Exam Area COr Extent Axial Extent Angre Beam Examrined Examined Examined Percent Ent,# fd . Ereion (,g in) 1%) (%) Examined Limited Comment 5 45U45S CW/CCW ' 638.28h 24.8% 00.0% P 24.8% Yes Coverage between nozzles and slabWizers 6 451145S CW/CCW ' 141.14 5.5% 81.0% r 4.5% Yes Coverage ato*e nozzles 45 and 52 7 451145S CWfCCW ' 70.92' 2.8% 39,0% 1 1.1% Yes Coverage ate nozzle 46 Total Circ. Beam Direction Coverage:' 30.3%

Outir 8M% caeage 37.1%

51-9222850-000 73

Controlled Doc ment SCan Speed: 4 RS (MTPI c.hInterval 10. IndeX VaUe: 02' opat Water JVassa Tep 7$%F Scan Spe: 4 tPS (MAPI MAW~ iS . Int"Ai: W0 'Index Value: 0 21c.51 Transducer Menufactuten &vwT*GST UT Head: Head S41elScars RED TW'S 3 45* AxialI CIrc, 1.0MHz 0-0 GSTft a 89-011310 5 1 7B'J9)5(1 "3Fi2-1. 1.0 3 73' L I AXW I Qro. 1.3MHz O2SIML GSTý 3BM-42-010 5* ll5ft3r(lQ). t5"x.rVkI) 100 734~- L Axial) Circ- 13HiZ 021M GFs 389-042-010 _____________ ____O 8 47dlr i. .7MHz 2iJIw 02520K GEIT:389-03"IO 4 I.i"1g15'(x2) 0.90" Re(. Scan Plan 8068903D Examintiaon Surfame ID 0 ow.b li.tn Ruifen t Examination Coverag: 38V% z" plt Exinsinllan Umlitation: Inre Nomes and Row SWaOMSr ( SeaAttachied Flaw Ev~aluton Summar Selte~()

Exarnainson Dab*s): ApO~ 25, 204 Names of del. aia~sis forth.s wWlamincluded on the afttead whees.

• marOks: See aftached IMS AcquisIl~on !5g" page. for additona Infbwtonale iAnsyznd by., Scot MrhazI Lovall: i Dale: 4125=214 Analye by. Hryi a~ Lawa: ili Date 412=1 Reviewed by Ric4ve Ross, Lvaft it Dabi: 5r21= 4 51-9222850-000

13ý04 /4

A Document No.: 51-9222850-000 AR EVA Figure 1-3: TWS Weld WOO - Lower Shell to Lower Head Weld View of TWS robot in vessel lower head region showing scan limitations caused by the Incore Nozzles and Flow Stabilizers. The weld is partially covered by the Flow Stabilizers. Flow Stabilizers welded to the head above the weld and the Incore Nozzles restrict the UT head from scanning the entire weld.

The Core Guide Lugs also provide some interference with robot movement. These limitations occur between each Flow Stabilizer/Core Guide Lug set. Single-sided scan parameters are used near obstructions to improve examination coverage. Coverage obtained on this weld is 36%.

4 /y.

51-9222850-000

3 I A I a I

• I Si aw 13 wabWU u1 QEIL

,. - o r tovs

-- S *Mm It i i I I I " I 514222050,=N Pop.48.of0I t( wo 6ý l- /

plev 00% af 11 Total = (97.2 + '2 a87.7% Aggregate erage N

Inspector I Oats:**.NPg Pageb-of I id

'0q, I -S 1,134

i-edow ColerChemical Cudrt Total Exam Area WeId No.: 3-LDC--1N-I Ch!a Scale: I" =JV

Letdown Cooler Area W&d No.: 3-LDCA-IN-1 Oanical Com 600

..etdowAn Cooler Chemical C ;,

Area Exmn d ýNozzle WeldNo. : 3-LDCA--11 QW =AreaNot Examned= 0.05 +0.01+ 0.02 = 0.08 sq.

Eli =Area Ecarined =2.28-O0.081/2.28 x100 =96.5%

700-CanJical Connector - Si

Letdown Cooler Ch Area

-WedNo. : 3-LDCA-IN-1

I length x 78.1% of the volume of length 1100 =78.1%

= (97.2+ 78.1) 12 = 87.7% Aggregate Coverage Inspector I Date:___________a,_A Page y of 14 4 Itr

~~etdox~ Cooler Chemical

• • etdown CoolerChmclotL.W Total Exam Area VkIdNo.-

Letdown Cooler C Area Examix Weld No.: 3;T-sCA-OUT-WJ35V

-- reaNotExamined=0. 5 +0.

LIII =Area Examnined =2.28 - 0.08/ 2.28 x 100 =

709-Chenical Connector - SI

i etdown Cc Area eddNo.* --

3-L~cA-Frl*i i ,

5V~fl Chemical Connector - SI Scale: 1"= If

Letdown CO V*dNo..t 3-.LCA -O0f-N E

WdN~

cw=

I,'

Inspector I Page -IL of j" di

LetownCooler No:

Weld No.- _3-[:f,&f N-W33V Total Exam Area= 2.72 sq. in.

chQanwl Boo - Si s

4Z

Letdovdi An Weld No.: 3:LD.kR--W33V LIZ Area not Examined = 1.78 sq. in.

Area Examined= 2.72 - 1.78 / 2.72 x 10

Letdown Cooler No4e' to Ch Area - Circ.

V&ld tNo.:_3-LDrCB-ZN-WJ3V

[J AreanotFamined = 0.81+ 0.40= 121sq. in.

Area Examined = 2.72- 1.21 / 2.2 x 10 = 55.

Qannel Body-SSI Scale: III= 1"I

Letdown Cooler Nozzle to C3 Weld No. :_N-MD*N-W33Y

/ I Total ExamArea= 2.30 sq. in.

Scale: Ito 1=

~2Z~

retdown Cooler Nozzle to C Area WeldNo.": 3*4*B-MN-J33V Area not Examiined 1.2 1 ;q.in.

[I Area Examined = 2.30 - 1.2 1 cZZa.. o

,%, 'r Letdown Cooler vWed No.: 3-B-jN-WJ33V

/

II Area notE LIZ Area

~ZZ::NS)

@ Inspector I Dat:e 0 ec AsL, Page jL otfLI 5rfi6

LetownCooler

• Vied No. : LcBOIW1V Total ExamArea =2.72 sq. in.

Rnrviv I Scale- t t

Letdown Cooler Nozzle to Ch Area Exmnd - Axial !

Weld No.: 3LG-U-16 LIIArea not Fxan-inedl= .78 sq. in.

mArea Examined=2.72 - 1.78 /2.72 x aiannel Body - SI Scale: " = 1" N

At )o1er I

Weld No.:3LC-LW16 LI] Area not Examine d= 081+O0.40= 1.21 sq. ixr.

LIIArea n~ned =*' ~.72 -1.21 /2.72 x 100= 55.

Scale: I" '=P

Letdo&n Cooler No7zle +^ fr WeId No. :__3-LDCtB-OUwJ36V I

Total FxamArea 2 230 sq. in I I

Scale: 1"-= P Si

• .,etdown Cooler Nozzle to Chruiel Bo Area Examine Axial Sca Weld No..: 3-LDC&6V-WJ3V

[I Area not Examined 1.21 sq. in.

Area Examined= 2.30 - 1.21 /230x 100

Ledoym Co Veid No. :

EAreaE

~Area E