ML16342C125
| ML16342C125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon, Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 06/21/1999 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16342A839 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9906290323 | |
| Download: ML16342C125 (24) | |
Text
The subject head circumferential welds are the farthest from the "beltline" region of the shell and therefore see th'e least neutron fluence.
In addition, the bottom head weld area is visually examined as required by Code Category B-N-1 and all welds are subject to visual examination conducted during pressure test per Code Category B-P. These visual examinations and the volumetric examination of all other accessible weld areas on the reactor vessel provide continued assurance of weld integrity.
Based on the above evaluation, the staff concluded that performing the Code-required volumetric examination of the reactor pressure vessel circumferential head welds at Diablo Canyon Power Station, Units 1 and 2, is impractical and the licensee's proposed alternative provides reasonable assurance of structural integrity of the reactor vessel.
Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i), relief is granted.
Request for Relief NDE-03, R1: The ASME Code,Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-A, Item B1.22 requires 100 percent volumetric coverage of the acce'ssible portions of the reactor"pressure vessel (RPV) head welds as defined by Figure IWB-2500-3.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), the licensee requested relief from the Code coverage requirements for RPV bottom head meridional Welds 1-443A through F (Unit 1) and 1-202A through F (Unit 2), and closure head Weld 1~6A through F (Unit 1) and 1-205A through F (Unit 2).
The Code requires 100 percent volumetric examination of the accessible lengths of the subject RPV bottom head and closure head meridional welds. The licensee has requested relief from the Code-required 100 percent volumetric coverage due to physical limitations that restrict scanning.
Examination of the bottom head meridional welds was partially obstructed by the bottom head instrument penetrations and examination of the closure head welds is limited by the closure head CRDM penetrations, cooling duct shroud, and closure head lifting lugs. These restrictions make volumetric examination impractical to perform to the extent required by the Code. To meet the Code requirements, the RPV heads would have to be redesigned and modified. Imposition of this requirement would result in a burden on the licensee.
The licensee proposed to perform the volumetric examinations to the extent practical on the subject welds and estimates that 39 percent volumetric coverage of the bottom head meridional
'welds, 68 percent of three closure head welds, and 29 percent of the remaining three closure head welds can be obtained.
In additio'n, accessible portions of the vessel interior receive a VT-3 visual examination in accordance with Examination Category B-N-1. Therefore, the partial volumetric examinations, in conjunction with the visual examination, willdetect any existing patterns of inservice degradation and provide reasonable assurance of continued structural integrity of the bottom head and closure head meridional welds.
Based on the above evaluation, the staff concluded that obtaining the Code coverage requirements are impractical to meet for the bottom-head and closure-head meridional welds at Diablo Canyon Power Plant.
Furthermore, it is concluded that the volumetric examinations completed, in conjunction with the VT-3 vis'ual examination provide reasonable assurance of the continued structural integrity. Therefore, relief is granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i).
990b290323 990b2i PDR ADOCK 05000275 P
of.Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds, Inside Radius Sections, and Nozzle-to-Safe End Welds of Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Vessel.
Code Case N-521 has been found acceptable at other plants providing licensees meet all the conditions of the Code Case, and ensure that no more than ten years elapses between "examinations.
This essentially requires that nozzle examinations must be repeated at the end of the previous interval. The licensee states that they cannot meet this latter provision and states that performing the examination of two nozzles in the first period constitutes an extreme burden.
However, the licensee has not provided adequate justification to support that burden, or provided an alternative that would provide an acceptable level of quality and safety.
Therefore, the licensee's proposed alternative is denied.
Request for Relief NDE-10: Request for Relief NDE-10 was withdrawn by the licensee in its letter dated August 13, 1997.
Request for Relief NDE-27: The ASME Code,Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-A, Item B1.30, requires 100 percent volumetric examination of the reactor pressure
.vessel shell-to-flange weld as defined by Figure IWB-25004 Examinations can be performed in conjunction with the examination ofthe nozzle-to-vessel welds.
In accordance with Note (3),
, ifpartial examinations are conducted from the flange face, the remaining volumetric examinations required to be conducted from the vessel wall may be performed at or near the end'of each inspection interval; Examination Category B-G-1, Item B6.40, requires 100 percent volumetric examination of the threads in the reactor pressure vessel flange as defined by Figure IWB-2500-12.
The Code, requires 100 percent volumetric examination of a portion of the vessel-to-flange weld and threads in the flange each p'enod.
Deferral to the end of the interval for examination of the vessel-to-flange weld is permissible when a'partial examination is performed from the flange face.
The licensee has proposed to defer the examination of these areas until the end of the interval.
However, the licensee has not demonstrated that compliance would result in an undue hardship without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety. Therefore, the licensee's proposed alternative is denied, bec'ause the burden associated with performing the subject examinations has not been adequately provided.
Request for Relief NDE-S, R1: ASME Code,Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Ite'm B3.120 requires 100 percent volumetric examination of pressurizer nozzle inner radius sections as defined by Figure IWB-2500-7. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii),
the licensee requested relief from performing the volumetric examination to the extent required
'y the Code for the pressurizer surge line nozzle inner radius sections.
The Code requires 100 percent volumetric examination of the pressurizer surge line nozzle inner radius sections.
However, examination of subject inner radius sections is restricted by adjacent heater penetrations that preclude performance of the Code-required volumetric
'examination.
Therefore, the Code examination requirements are impractical for these areas at Diablo, Canyon Power Plant. To meet the Code requirements, the pressurizer would have to be
redesigned and modified to allow access for examination.
Imposition of this requirement would result in a considerable burden on the licensee.
Although the surge line nozzle inner radius sections are inaccessible for examination, the licensee can perform the inner radius examinations on the top head nozzles and can examine approximately 50 percent of the surge line nozzle-to-vessel weld in the Unit 2 pressurizer (the Unit 1 pressurizer is integrally cast and has no nozzle-to-vessel weld). These examinations will detect any significant patterns of inservice degradation occurring at the pressurizer nozzles and provide i'easonable assurance of the continued structural integrity.
The staff concluded that considering the impracticality of meeting the Code examination requirements for the surge line nozzle inner radius sections and the reasonable assurance of the structural integrity provided by the examination of other pressurizer nozzles and the Unit 2 suige lin'e nozzle-to-vessel weld, relief is granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i).
Request for Relief NDE-11: Request for Relief NDE-11 was withdrawn by the licensee in its letter dated August 13, 1997.
Request for Relief NDE-25, (Unit 2 Only): The Code,Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Item B3.110 requires 100 percent volumetric examination of pressurizer nozzle-to-vessel welds as defined by Figure IWB-2500-7(b). Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), the licensee requested relief from performing the volumetric examination of the
'Unit 2 pressurizer surge line nozzle-to-vessel weld to the extent required by the Code.
The Code requires that the subject pressurizer surge nozzle-to-shell weld receive 100 percent volumetric examination.
However, the design of the pressurizer surge line nozzle-to-vessel configuration and the pressurizer heater penetrations adjacent to the weld preclude complete volumetric examination.
As a result, Code volumetric coverage is impractical ~ To obtain complete volurn'etric coverage, design modifications or replacement of the nozzle-to-vessel design with one of a design providirig for complete examination would be required.
Imposition of this requirement would cause a considerable burden on the licensee.
The licensee can obtain 50 percent coverage by performing the Code-required volumetric examination in the circumferential direction.
In addition, the Code-required volumetric examinations can be completed on the other pressurizer nozzle-to-vessel welds. Therefore, significant patterns of degradation would be detected by the pressurizer examinations that can be performed and reasonable assurance of continued structural integrity willbe provided.
The staff determined that considering the impracticality of meeting the Code coverage requirements for the subject welds, and the reasonable assurance of the structural integrity provided by the examinations that can be completed, relief is granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i).
Request for Relief NDE-26, R1 (Unit 2): The Code,Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1,
.Examination Category B-H, Item B8.20 requires 100 percent volumetric or surface examination of the pressurizer support skirt weld as defined by Figure IWB-2500-13, -14, or -15, as applicable.
0 Request for Relief NDE-14, R1: Request for Relief NDE-14, Revision 1 was withdrawn by the licensee in its letter dated August 13, 1997.
Request for Relief NDE-16, (Unit 1): ASME Code,Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-J, Item B9.40 requires 100 percent surface examination of Class 1
socket welds as defined by Figure IWB-2500-8. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), the licensee requested relief from the Code required surface examination of certain Class 1 socket welds.
Design of certain socket welds limits access for surface examination due to the presence of physical obstructions such as welded supports, Code nameplates, adjacent piping, or'tructures.
These conditions or combination of conditions may physically prevent access to portions of the required examination area.
The Code requires that the subject pipe socket weld receive 100 percent surface examinations.
However, due to the weld joint configuration, complete surface coverage is impractical
~ To obtain complete Code 'coverage, design modifications or replacement of the subject areas with one of a design providing for complete examination would be required.
Imposition of this requirement would cause a burden on the licensee.
The licensee proposed to perform the surface examinations to the extent practical, resulting in estimated coverage of 75 percent.
Based on the percent of coverage obtainable, in combination with the other examination areas receiving complete Code coverage, it is reasonable to conclude that significant degradation, ifpresent, willbe detected.
The staff determiried that the licensee's proposed alternative provides reasonable assurance of structural integrity of the subject components.
The staff concluded that based on the above evaluation, that performing the Code-required surface examination of the subject pipe welds is impractical for Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2. Therefore, relief is granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(l).
Request for Relief NDE-16: ASME Code,Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-K-1, Item B10.20 requires 100 percent volumetric or surface (as applicable) examinations of pump integrally welded attachments as defined by Figure IWB-2500-13, -14, and -15. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), the licensee requested relief from the Code required 100 percent examination of the reactor coolant pump integrally welded attachments.
The Code requires that the integral attachment welds to the RCP receive 100 percent surface examination.
However, due to the support structure design, access for complete surface coverage is restricted.
As a result, it is impractical to perform the surface examination to the extent required by the Code. To obtain complete Code coverage, design modifications or
'eplacement of the subject areas with one of a design providing foicomplete examination would be required.'mposition of this requirement would cause a considerable burden on the licensee.
The licensee proposed to perform the surface examinations to the extent practical, resulting in estimated 70 percent coverage.
Based on the percent of coverage obtainable, it is reasonable to conclude that significant degradation, ifpresent, willbe detected.
The staff determined that the licensee's proposed alternative provides, reasonable assurance of structural integrity of the subject components and performing the Code-required surface examination of the subject RCP integral attachment welds is impractical for Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Therefore, relief is granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i).
Request for Relief NDE-17 (Part 1): ASME Code,Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category C-A, Items C1.10, C1.20, and C1.30 require 100 percent volumetric examination of Ciass.2 vessel shell circumferential, head, and tubesheet-to-shell welds as defined by Figures IWC-2500-1, and -2. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), the licensee requested relief from the volumetric examination to the extent required by the Code for the following welds:
Unit 182 Component Steam Generator (Figure 2.1-1)
RHRHX (Figure 2.1-6)
Welds Girth Weld W1-3 Girth Weld W2%
Girth Weld W3-5 Girth Weld W4-7 Shell-to-flange Weld ¹1 Head-to-shell Weld ¹2 Limitation Permanent insulation Component configuration The Code requires 100 percent volumetric examination of the subject welds.
- However, examination of thes'e Welds is restricted by either permanent insulation or by component configuration. Therefore, the Code coverage requirements are impractical to meet. To examine these welds to the extent required by the Code, the steam generator permanent insulation would have to be redesigried and replaced, and the RHR heat exchangers would require design modification to allow access for examination.
Imposition of these requirements would result in a considerable burden on the licensee.
The licensee can examine 20 percent of each of the subject steam generator welds in Unit 1 and'can examine the equivalent welds in Unit 2 to the extent required by the Code.
For the RHR heat exchangers, the licensee has proposed to perform an alternative surface examination on approximately 80 percent of the shell-to-flange weld and shell-to-head welds.
The performance of these examinations should detect any significant patterns of degradation that may occur and proVide reasonable assurance of the structural integrity of the subject steam generator and RHR heat exchanger welds.
The staff concluded that based on its evaluation the Code coverag'e requirements are impractical and that'the licensee's proposed alternative provides reasonable assurance of the structural integrity of the subject components.
Therefore, relief is granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i).
local leak rate and integrated leak rate tests.
In Appendix J pressure tests, containment isolation valves and connecting pipe segments must withstand the peak calculated containment jnternal pressure related to the maximum design containment pressure.
In addition, the NRC staff has determined that the Appendix J test frequencies are acceptable for assuring containment integrity. Therefore, use of Appendix J is considered acceptable for the subject penetration piping.
Ti.. licensee has committed to perform the Appendix J testing at no less than the peak calci.".~ted containment pressure and will.use test procedures that provide for the detection and location of through-wall leakage.
Therefore, the staff concludes that an accpetable level of quality and safety is provided by the licensee's proposed alternative since it willtest the subject penetrations for their intended function. In addition, the staff concludes that based on the evaluation above, the proposed alternative provides an acceptable level of quality and safety.
Therefore, the licensee's proposed alternative pressure test is authorized pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i).
The use of this Code Case is authorized for the second 10-year interval at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant or until the Code Case is approved for general use by reference in Regulatory Guide 1.147. Afterthat time, the licensee may continue to use Code Case N-522 with the limitations, ifany, listed in Regulatory Guide 1.147.
Request for Relief PRS-5: ASME Code,Section XI, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-H, Item C7.30 requires a system pressure test once each inspection period. For open ended portions of discharge. lines beyond the last shut-off valve in nonclosed systems, IWC-5222(d) requires a demonstration of an open flow path test in lieu of the system hydrostatic test.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii), the licensee proposed to perform the required demonstration on the subject piping once each inspection period. The examination would be performed using system engineers, not certified VT-2 examiners.
The Code requires a syste'm pressure test once each inspection period in accordance with IWC-5221. The Code. also. requires a system hydrostatic test once each inspection interval for the subject piping in accordance 'with IWC-5222. For open ended portions of discharge lines beyond the last shut-off valve in non-closed systems, IWC-5222(d) requires a demonstration of an open flow path test in lieu of the system hydrostatic test. Although specified for the 10-year hydrostatic test, this approach should also be considered acceptable to satisfy the periodic pressure test requirement for the subject piping.
In lieu of the periodic pressure tests, the licensee has proposed to perform a demonstration of an open flow path once during the 10-year interval using non-certiflied personnel.
However, the licensee has not presented the burden associated with performing the demonstration using certified 'personnel or with meeting the periodic frequency specified by the Code. As stated by the licerisee, plant technical specifications require the demonstrations at least once during the 10-year interval. There is no discussion precluding performance on a more frequent schedule.
The staff concluded that based on its evaluation that the proposed alternative has not been adequately justified. Therefore, the licensee's proposed alternative is denied.
As an alternative, the licensee has proposed to perform the leakage test with the insulation in place with a 4-hour hold time, and with the rea'ctor vessel flange leakage monitoring system to assure that there in no leakage past the inner 0-ring seal.
This approach willallow leakage to be det'ected without removal of the insulation; therefore, it provides reasonable assurance of the operational readiness of the RPV closure flange joint.
The staff concluded that considering the burden associated with removal of the insulation from the RPV closuie head, and the reasonable assurance provided by the licensee's proposed alternative, that ii position of the Code requirements would result in hardship without a compensating increase in quality and safety. Therefore, the licensee's proposed alternative is authorized pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii).
Request for Relief PRS-1C, R1: ASME Code,Section XI, IWA-5242(a)(2), Insulation Removal For VT-2 Visual Examination Of Bolting In Class 1 and 2, Borated Systems.
Request for Relief PRS-1C, R1, was evaluated and authorized in NRC SE dated May 1, 1998.
Request for Relief PRS-1D:
Use of Code Case N-533, Alternative Requirements for VT-2 Visual Examination of Class 1 Insulated Pressure-Retaining Bolted Connections,Section XI, Division 4, for Class 2 Systems.
Request for Relief PRS-1D was evaluated in NRC SE dated May 1, 1998 and denied.
Request for Relief PRS-1E: ASME Code,Section XI, Paragraph IWA-5250(a)(2), Corrective Measures for Bolted Connections.
Request for Relief ¹PRS-1E was evaluated and authorized in NRC SE dated May 1, 1998.
. Request for Relief CNT-1: ASME Code,Section XI, Examination Categories IWE and IWL, Examination of.the'Containment Structure, Including the Concrete Shell and Metal Liner.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(vi),'icensee's shall implement Subsections IWE and IWLof the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of ASME Section XI when performing containment examination.
Subsection IWE contains requirements for Class MC and metallic liners of Class CC components.
Subsection IWLcontains requirements for Class CC concrete components.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii), the licensee proposed an alternative to the repair and replacement provisions, VT-1, VT-3, and visual examiner definitions, ANIIqualifications and surface examinations for dissimilar metal welds as specified in subsections IWE and IWLof the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda.
The licensee stated:
"The VT-1 and VT-3 examination rules in subsection IWA, including examiner qualification details, willconform to the 1989 Edition. These are the same requirements that apply for all other components in the ISI program'.
Examination extent and all other requirements willconform to the 1992'Edition except for surface examination of dissimilar metal welds, which may instead be included in the general surface visual.
The regulations require that licensee's implement the provisions of Subsections IWE and IWL of the 1992 Edition, with the 1992 Addenda of ASME Section XI. The licensee stated that some of the imposed requirements were a burden without a compensating increase in the level of
0 Longitudinal welds are produced during the manufacture of the piping, not in the field as is the case for circumferential welds. Consequently, longitudinal welds are fabricated under'strict manufacturing standards, which provide assurance of structural integrity. These welds have also been subjected to the preservice and initial inservice examinations as applicable, which provide additional assurance of structural integrity.
No significant loading conditions or material degradation mechanisms have been identified to date, that specifically relate l~ longitudinal seam welds in Class 1 and 2 nuclear plant piping.
The most critical region of the.'longitudinal weld is the portion that intersects the circumferential weld. Ifdegradation associated ivIth a longitudinal weld were to occur, it is expected that it would be located at the intersection with a circumferential weld. Since this region willbe examined during the examination of the circumferential weld, the licensee's alternative provides reasonable assurance of the continued structural integrity.
The staff concluded that, based on its evaluation the use of Code Case N-524 provides an acceptable level of quality and safety. Therefore, the licensee's proposed alternative, to use
'ode Case N-524, is authorized pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i).
The use of this Code Case is authorized for the second 10-year interval at Diablo Canyon Power Plant, or until the Code Case is approved for general use by reference in Regulatory Guide 1.147. Afterthat time, the licensee must followthe conditions, ifany, specified in the regulatory guide.
3.0 CONCLUSION
The staff concluded that based on the review of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Second 10-Year lriterval Inservice.lnspe'ctI'on Program Plan, Revision 0, the licensee's response to the NRC's request'for additional information, and the recommendations for granting relief from the ISI examinations that cannot be performed to the extent required by Section XI of the ASME Code, no'eviations from regulatory requirements or commitments have been identified except as noted below.
l Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(A)(1), the staff has concluded that certain inservice examinations cannot be performed to the extent required by Section XI of the ASME Code.
In the case of Requests for Relief NDE-02, NDE-03 R1, NDEA, NDE-5, NDE-6B, NDE-8 R1, NDE-9, NDE-13.1 R8, NDE-15 (Unit 1), NDE-16, NDE-17 R1 (Part 1), NDE-18 R1 (Part 1),
NDE-19 R1, NDE-20 R1, NDE-21.1R8, NDE-22 and NDE-25 (Unit 2), the licensee has demonstrated that specific Section XI requirements are impractical. Therefore, relief is granted as requested pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i). The granting of relief willnot endanger life,.
property, or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest, giving due consideration to the burden upon the licensee that could result ifthe requirements were imposed on the facility.
The staff concluded that the licensee's proposed alternatives contained in Requests for Relief NDE-26 R1 (Unit 2), NDE-29 (Unit 2), PRS-2 R1, PRSP R1'and PA N-524 (NDE-31), provide an acceptable level of quality and safety. Therefore, the licensee's proposed alternatives contained in Requests for Relief NDE-26 R1 (Unit 2), NDE-29 (Unit 2), PRS-2 R1, PRSQ R1 and PA N-524 (NDE-31), are authorized pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i).
I ~
The staff,concluded that the, Code requirements contained in Requests for Relief NDE-17 R1 (Part 2), NDE-18 R1 (Part 2), NDE-30, PRS-1A and PRS-3, would result in hardship without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety. The alternatives contained in Requests for Relief NDE-17 R1 (Part 2), NDE-18 R1 (Part 2), NDE-30, PRS-1A and PRS-3 are authorized Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii).
The staff determined that the requirements'of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) were not met for Request for Relief NDE-01, and that the licensee must propose an alternative that provides an acceptable level of quality'and safety.
In tl... April 10, 1998, submittal, the licensee stated that it has met and willcontinue to meet the augmented requirement.
However, no alternative to augmented RPV examination has been proposed and until the licensee satisfies the augmented examination requirements of the regulations, reliefs to Code requirements cannot be evaluated.
, Section 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A)(1) revokes ail previous requests for reliefs for Item B1.10 wetds and relief cannot be granted to Code requirements until the augmented rule is satisfied.
Requests for Relief NDE-6, NDE-10, NDE-11, NDE-12. and NDE-14 R1'were withdrawn by the licensee's letter dated August 13, 1997.
Requests for Relief NDE-24, NDE-28, PRS-1 R1, and DOC-1'ere withdrawn by the licensee's letter dated April 10, 1998. Requests for Relief PRS-1C, PRS-1F, and PRS-1E were evalu'ated and authorized by the staff's safety evaluation dated May 1, 1998.
Requests for Relief NDE-6A, NDE-7, NDE-23, NDE-27, PRS-5, and CNT-1 are
'denied by the staff. Request for Relief PRS-1D was denied by the staffs safety evaluation dated May 1, 1998.
Attachment:
Table 1 - Summary of Relief Requests Principal Contributor: T. McLellan Date: October 15, 1998
I P'
DIABLOCANYON POWER PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 Second 10-Year ISI Interval TABLE 1
SUMMARY
OF RELIEF REQUESTS Page 2 of ~
,.'elief
- Request
=
.Number
'DE-13.1RB NDE-14, R1 NDE-15 (Unit 1)
NDE-16 NDE-17, R1 (Part 1)
NDE-17, R1 (Part 2)
NDE-18, Rl (Part 1)
NDE-18, R1 (Part 2)
NDE-19, R1 NDE-20, R1 System or
- Component Class 1
Piping Class 1
Piping Class 1
Piping Class 1
Pump Class 2 Class 2 Class 2 Vessels Class 2 Class 2 Class 2 Exam Category B-J B-J B-K-1 C-A C-A C-B C-B C-B C-C Item
'o.
B1.11 B1.12 89.31 B9.40 B10.20 C1.10 C1.20 C1.30 C1.10 C1.20 C2.21 C2.21 C2.22 C3.10 C3.20 C3.30 Volume or Ar'ea to be Examined Circ and longitudinal weids Branch Connections Socket Welds Integral Attachments Vessel Welds Seal Injection Filter Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds Nozzle-to-Vessel Weids RHRHX and Seal Injection Filter IR Sections Integral attachments to vessels, pumps and piping Required Method Volumetric and Surface Surface Volumetric or Surface Volumetric Volumetric Volumetric and surface Volumetric and surface Volumetric Surface Licensee Proposed Alternative Volumetric and surface exams to extent practical Surface exam to extent practical Volumetric or surface to extent practical Volumetric exam to extent practical Code-required pressure testing Volumetric and urface to extent practic'.I Code-required pressure testing Volumetric exam to extent practical Surface exams to extent practical Relief Request Status Granted Withdrawn Granted Granted Granted Authorized Granted Authorized Granted Granted NDE-21.1 R8 NDE-22 NDE-23 Class 2 Class 2 Class 1,2 and 3 C-F-1 C-F-2 C5.20 C5.51 Piping Wetds Piping Welds Scheduling Requirements IWB-2412-1 Volumetric and surface Volumetric and surface Volumetric and surface exams to extent practical Volumetric and surface exams to extent practical Granted Granted Denied
DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 Second 10-Year ISI Interval TABLE 1
SUMMARY
OF RELIEF REQUESTS Page 3 of 4 NDE 24 Class 1,2 and 3 Relief -;
. 'equest System or Exam Number Component Category Item No.
'.Volume or Area to be Examined,.;
Successive Examinations per IWB-2420, IWC-2420 and IWD-2420 Required
- Method,
'icensee Proposed..-
Altemative
'Relief Request Status Withdrawn NDE-25 (Unit 2)
NDE-26, R1 (Unit 2)
Pressurizer Pressurizer B-D B3.110 Nozzle-to-vessel welds B8.20 Support Skirt Volumetric Volumetric or surface Volumetric exam to extent practical Volumetric and surface Granted Authorized NDE-27 NDE-28 RPV Supports B-A B-G-1 F-A B1.30 B6.40 F1.20 F1.30 Shell-to-flange weids and threads in flange Volumetric Deferral to end of interval Not Authorized Withdrawn NDE-29 (Unit 2)
Class 2 C-F-1 C-F-2 Piping Weids Volumetric and/or surface Exams on single stream Authorized NDE-30 Supports F-A F1.10 Mechanical Connections to Pressure VT-3 Visual Retaining Components and Structures Visual exam with insulation in place Authorized PRS-1, R1 Successive Examinations per IWB-2420, IWC-2420 and IWF-2420 Withdrawn PRS-1A PRS-1B Class 1
Insulated bolted connections B15.70 Pressurizer Relief Valve Insulated Bolted Connections IWA-5242(a)
VT-2 Visual VT-2 with insulation in place VT-2 with insuiation in place Authorized Authorized PRS-1C, R1 Insulation Removal IWA-5242(a)(2)
Authorized in SER dated 5/1/98 PRS-1D PRS-1E Insulation Removal Corrective Measures for Bolted Connections IWA-5250(a)(2)
Code Case N-533 Evaluated in SER dated 5/1/98, Not Approved Authorized in SER dated 5/1/98
4
DIABLOCANYON POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 Second 10-Year ISI Interval TABLE 1
SUMMARY
OF RELIEF REQUESTS Page 4 of 4 Relief Request
. System or
- 'umber -;
Component Exam-Category Item No.
Volume or Aria to be Examlned;-
Required ":
Method -';-=
- Licensee Proposed-
""'. Alternative Relief Requ'est Status PRS-1F PRS-2, R1 Class 1,2, and 3 Class 2 8-P C-H D-A,B,C C-H B15.X Pressure Boundary C7.X DX.10 C7.30 Containment Penetrations C7.40 VT-2 Visual VT-2 Visual Code Case N-498-1 Code Case N-522 Authorized Y
Authorized PRS-3 Class 1 &2 B-P C-H B15.51 Piping Segments C7AO System Pressure test at reduced Hydrostatic Test pressure Authorized PR&4, R1 PRS-5 Class 2 Class 2 C-H C-H C7.30 FuelTransfer Tube to Refueling Canal VT-2Visual Open Ended portions of discharge Demonstration lines each period Code Case N-522 Demonstrations once per interval with non-certified engineers Authorized Not Authorized CNT-1 Containment IWE IWL Dissimilar Metal Welds, Personnel Qualifications 1992 Addenda VT-1 and VT-3 per 1989 Code Not Authorized DOC-1 Alternative to Code Recording and Reporting Requirements Withdrawn N-524 NDE-31 Class1 & 2 B-J C-F-1 C-F-2 Longitudinal Welds Surface and/or Volumetric Code Case N-524 Authorized
~ A
'I t
~"
E l
r