ML19332B880

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Technical Evaluation Rept on First 10-Yr Interval Inservice Insp Program Plan:Duke Power Co,Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2, Technical Evaluation Rept
ML19332B880
Person / Time
Site: Catawba  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 05/31/1989
From: Beth Brown, Mudlin J
EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:
NRC
Shared Package
ML19332B878 List:
References
CON-FIN-D-6022 EGG-SD-7849, NUDOCS 8911210214
Download: ML19332B880 (19)
v • d • e


Text

. _ . . _ _ _ __ .__ ____ _ _ _ ._ . _ .. _ __ .._.. _ _ _ _ .._ . ___. _ . _ _ _ ... ._. ._ ..

...f,3 . -p .

1 EGG-SD-7849 May 1989 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT i

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ON THE FIRST 10-YEAR

/daho INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN:

DUXE POWER COMPANY, CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, Nat/onal UNITS 1 AND 2, DOCKET NUMBERS 50 413 AND 50-414 1

Engineering Laboratory

)

Managed B. W. Brown l by the U.S. J. D Mudlin l

Department  :

ofEnergy l

e i

f1 g g g y ,,,,, Prepared for the

?

  • U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Work pedormed under l,

OOE Contract No. OE AC07 76/D01570 l.

8911210214 891103 PDR ADOCK 05000413 Q PDC

- .. [

, 31

  • EGG-SD-7849 l t

L f p

[

L TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ON THE i FIRST 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN: .

DUKE POWER COMPANY, +

J CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, '

DOCKET NUMBERS 50-413 AND 50-414 0

i B. W. Brown J. D. Mudlin -

i

Published May 1989 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 '

Prepared for:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i under

! DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761D01570 FIN No. 06022 (Project 5) l l

I

.n ; 4 a

3 ABSTRACT This report presents the results of the evaluation of the Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, First 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection (ISI)

Program Plan, through Revision 4, submitted June 14, 1988, including the request for relief from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI requirement which the Licensee has determined to be impractical. The Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, First.10-Year Interval ISI Program Plan ~is evaluated in Section 2 of this report. The ISI Program Plan is evaluated for (a) compliance with the appropriate editien/ addenda of Section XI, (b) acceptability of examination sample, (c) correctness of the application of system or component examination exclusion criteria, and (d) compliance with ISI-related commitments identified during the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review before granting an Operating License. The request for relief from the ASME ,

requirement which the Licensee has determined to be impractical for the first 10-year inspection interval is evaluated in Section 3 of this report.

This work was funded under:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission FIN No. D6022, Project 5 Operating Reactor Licensing Issues Program, Review of ISI-for ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components 11

p. ,

t  : r. , .

r o i; o

SUMMARY

The Licensee Duke Power Company, has prepared the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, First 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection (ISI) Program

~

Plan, through Revision 4, to meet the requirements of the 1980 Edition, Winter 1981 Addenda of the ASME Code Section XI except that the extent of  ;

examination for Code Class 2 piping welds in the Residual Heat Removal (RHR), Emergency Core Cooling (ECC), and Conttinment Heat Removal (CHR)'

systems has been determined by the 1974 Edition through Summer 1975 Addenda as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(b). The Catawba, Unit'1, first 10 year  !

interval began June 29, 1985 and ends June 29, 1995. The Catawba, Unit 2, first 10-year interval began August 19, 1986 and ends August 19, 1996.

The information in the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, First 10 Year Interval ISI Program Plan, through Revision 2, submitted August 18, 1986, .

was reviewed, including the request for relief from the ASME Code Section XI requirement which the Licensee h:s determined to be impractical. As a result of this review, a request for additional information (RAI) was prepared describing the information and/or clarification required from the ,

licensee in order to complete the review. Revision 4 to the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, First 10-Year Interval ISI Progrtm Plan was received in a submittal dated June 14, 1988.

Based on the review of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, First l_ 10-Year Interval ISI Program Plan, through Revision 4, the Licensee's j responses to the NRC's RAI, and the recommendation for granting relief from L the _ISI examination requirement that has been determined to be impractical, it is concluded that the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, First 10-Year Interval ISI Program Plan, Revision 4, is acceptable and in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4).

l-l l

iii

, a3 ', . .

5,>

CONTENTS ABSTRACT..-.............................................................11

SUMMARY

................................................................ iii

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................... I
2. EVALUATION OF INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN ..................... 4 2.1 Do c ume n t s E v a l u a t e d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2.2 Compl i ance wi th Code Requi rement s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2.1 Compliance with Applicable Code Editions ..................... 4 2.2.2 Acceptabili ty of the Examination Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.3 E xc l u s i o n C r i t e ri a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.4 Augmented Examination Commitments ............................

5 2.3 Conclusions ...................................................... 6

3. EVALVATION OF RELIEF REQUESTS ....................................... 7 3.1 C l a s s 1 C omp o n e n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.1 Reactor Pressure Vessel (No relief requests) 3.1.2 Pressurizer ................................................... 7 3.1.2.1. Request for Relief, Examination Category B-H, Item B8.20, Pressurizer Integrally Welded A t t a c hme n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.3 Heat Exch,ngers and Steam Generators (No relief requests) 3.1.4 Piping Pressure Boundary (No relief requests) 3.1.5 Pump Pressure Boundary (No relief requests) 3.1.6. Valve Pressure Boundary (No relief requests) 3.1.7 General (No relief requests) 3.2 Class 2 Components (No rolief requests) 3.3 Class 3 Components (No relief requests) 3.4 Pressure Tests (No relief requests) h

,, . ,, --,-e,.- - 8,

. ,e .

i.

, r.)

3.5 Generall (No relief requests) 4 CONCLUSION ........................................................... 9

5. REFERENCES ......................................................... 11 e

i 1

t l-

.i-F.

8 Ik V

.n.

7

'1 e-

.f.

o. .

i b

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ON THE- i FIRST 10 YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN: i DUKE POWER COMPANY,

CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2,  ;

DOCKET NUMBERS 50 413 AND 50 414  !

1. INTRODUCTION p Throughout the service life of a water-cooled nuclear power facility, i

10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) (Reference 1) requires that components (including  ;

e supports) which-are classified as American Society of Mechanical Engineers L (ASME) Boiler and Pressure vessel Code Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 meet i the requirements, except the design and access provisions and the preservice  !

examination requirements, set forth in the ASME Code Section XI, " Rules for f

Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components," (Reference 2) to '

the extent practical within the limitations of design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components. This section of the ,

regulations also requires -that inservice examinations of components and system pressure tests conducted during the initial 120-month inspection I l-interval shall comply with the requirements in the latest edition and addenda of the Code incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a(b) on the date 12 months prior to the date of issuance of the operating license, suWect to the limitations and modifications listed therein. The components (including supports) may meet requirements set forth in subsequent editions and addenda of this Code which are incorporated by reference in  !

L 10 CFR 50.55a(b) subject to the limitations and modifications listed therein. The Licensee, Duke Power Company, has prepared the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, First 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection (ISI)

Program Plan, through Revision 4 (Reference 3), to meet the requirements of the 1980 Edition, Winter 1981 Addenda of the ASME Code Section XI except that the extent of examination for Class 2 piping welds in the Residual Heat Removal (RHR), Emergency Core Cooling (ECC), and Containment Heat Removal (CHR) systems has been determined by the 1974 Edition through Summer 1975 Adderda as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(b). The first 10-year interval for Catawba, 'init 1, began June 29, 1985 and ends June 29, 1995. The first 10-year interval for Catawba, Unit 2, began August 19, 1986 and ends August 19, 1996.

I

c 1 <

I As required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5), if the licensee determines that certain l Code examination requirements are impractical and requests relief from them, the licensee shall submit information and justifications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NR*) to support that determination, j

I Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6), the NRC will evaluate the licensee's determinations under 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5) that Code requirements are 1

[ impractical. The NRC may grant relief and may impose alternative  ;

requirements that are determined to be authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest, giving due consideration to the burden upon the licensee that could result if the requirements were imposed on the facility.  ;

The information in the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, First 10-Year .

Interval ISI Program Plan, through Revision 2 (Reference 4), submitted .

August 18, 1986, was reviewed, including the request for relief from the ASME Code Section XI requirement which the Licensee has determined to be impractical. ,The review of the ISI Program Plan was performed using the Standard Review Plans of NUREG 0800 (Reference 5), Section 5.2.4, " Reactor Coolant Boundary inservice Inspections and Testing," and Section 6.6,

" Inservice Inspection of Class 2 and 3 Components." ,

In a letter dated June 8, 1987 (Reference 6), the NRC requested the l additional information that was required in order to complete the review of the ISI Program Plan. Most of the requested information was provided by the Licensee in a letter dated July 20, 1987 (Reference 7).

l l As a result of a January 26, 1988 telephone conversation, in a submittal dated June 14, 1988 (Reference 8), the Licensee provided boundary diagrams and isometric drawings showing the Code classification boundaries and location of the Class 1 and Class 2 piping welds requiring ISI examinations during the first 10-year interval. In this submittal, the Licensee also i included Revision 4 of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, First 10-Year Interval ISI Program Plan.

2

. ,y v ;. <

, ,- e The Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, First 10-Year Interval ISI Program Plan is evaluated in Section.2 of this report. The ISI Program Plan is evaluated for (a) compliance with the appropriate edition / addenda of Section XI, (b) acceptability of examination sample, (c) correctness of the application of system or component examination exclusion criteria, and (d) compliance with ISI-related commitments identified during the NRC's review before granting an Operating License, The request for relief is evaluated in Section 3 of this report. Unless otherwise stated, references to the Code refer to the ASME Code,Section XI, 1980 Edition including Addenda through Winter 1981. Specific inservice test (IST) programs for pumps and valves are being evaluated in other reports.

1 1

I l

l I

3

.4

2. EVALVATION OF INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN  ;

This evaluation consisted of a review of the applicable program documents to  !

determine whether or not they are in compliance with the Code requirements i and any license conditions pertinent to ISI activities. This section describes the submittals reviewed and the results of the review.

2.1 Documents Evaluated i

Review has been completed on the following information from the Licensee: 5 (a) " Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. First 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan," Revision 2, submitted .

August 18, 1986; (b) Letter, dated July 20, 1987, containing the Licensee's " Responses to

  • NRC Request for Additional Information" with regard to the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, ISI Program Plan; *

(c) Letter, dated June 14, 1988, containing additional responses to the "NRC Request for Additional Information" based on a January 26, 1988 telecon; '

(d) Color coded boundary diagrams _(PNIDs) showing the Class 1 and Class 2 pressure boundaries, and isometric drawings showing the piping welds selected for examination during the first 10-year interval; and '

(d) " Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, First 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan," Revision 4 dated April 7, 1988.

2.2 Comoliance with Code Recuirements 2.2.1 Cocoliance with Aeolicable Code Editions The. Inservice Inspection Program Plan shall be based on the Code editions defined in 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) and 10 CFR 50.55a(b). Based on the 4

e .

], 9 3 r -

4 operating license date of December 6,1984 for Catawba, Unit 1, and  :

February 24, 1986 for Catawba, Unit 2, the Code applicable to the first  ;

interval-ISI program is the 1980 Edition with Addenda through Winter 1981. As stated in Section 1 of this report, the Licensee has prepared the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2 First 10 Year Interval 151 Program Plan, through Revision 4, to meet the requirements of the 1980 I Edition, Winter 1981 Addenda of the ASME Code Section XI except that  ;

- Class 2 portions of the Residual Heat Removal (RHR). Emergency Core Cooling (ECC), and Containment Heat Removal (CHR) systems were selected / exempted based upon the 1974 Edition through the Summer 1975 '

Addenda of ASME Section XI as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(b).

'2.2.2 Acceptability of the Examination Samole Inservice volumetric, surface, and visual examinations shall be performed ,

on ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components and their supports using .

sampling schedules described in Section XI of the ASME Code and [

10 CFR 50.55a(b). Sample size and weld selection have been implemented in accordance with the Code and 10 CFR 50.55a(b) and appear to be correct.

2.2.3 Exclusion Criteria -

The criteria used to exclude components from txamination shall be ,

consistent with Paragraphs IWB-1220 IWC-1220, IWD 1220, and 10 CFR 50.55a(b). The exclusion criteria have been applied by the Licensee in accordance with the Code as discussed in Section 2.1,

" Components Exempted From Examination," of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, First 10 Year Interval 155 Program Plan, Revision 4, and appear.to be correct.

1 2.2.4 Auamented Examination Commitments L The Licensee has stated, in the ISI Program Plan, that the following augmented examinations are being implemented during the first 10-year inspection interval:

l l

, 5 1

( '

o 1

' o :. ,

  • j

,..t h (a) Reactor coolant pump flywheels will be inspected as required by  ;

Regulatory Guide 1.14. " Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheel Integrity,"

Revision 1 (Reference 9), and the Technical Specifications for i L Catawba Nuclear Station.

i

[ (b) Reactor Pressure Vessel welds will be examined to the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.150, " Ultrasonic Testing of Reactor Vessel Welds

'During Preservice and Inservice Examination" (Reference 10), to the l extent committed in the June 14, 1988 submittal (Reference 8).

_(c) Steam Generator tubing will be inspected as required by the Code and  ;

the Technical Specifications for Catawba Nuclear Station. Rows 48  :

and 49 of the preheater section will be examined to comply with a Licensing commitment to the NRC.

(d) Augmented examinations per NUREG-0800 (Reference 5), Section 3.6.1,  ;

" Plant Design for Protection Against Postulated Piping Failures in -

Fluid Systems Outside Containment."

(e) Augmented ultrasonic examinations will be performed on selected

2.3 Conclusions

  • Based on the review of the documents listed above, it is concluded that the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, First 10 Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan, Revision 4, is acceptable and in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4).

1 ll 6

w=

g .

'C

  • v;( 4 :
3. EVALUATION OF RELIEF REQUESTS p

The request for relief from the ASME Code requirement which the Licensee has F' determined to be impractical for the first 10-year inspection interval is evaluated in this section.

i-3.1 Class 1 Comoonents -

L .

( 3.1.1 Reactor Pressure Vessel (No. relief requests) l 3.1.2 Pressurizer L

3.1.2.1 'Recuest for Relief. Examination Cateaory B H. Item B8.20.

Pressurizer Intearally Welded Attachments .

Code Reauirement: Section XI, Table IWB-2500 1, Examination Category B H, Item B8.20 requires 100% of the weld length of Pressurizer integrally welded attachments to be surface'or volumetrically examined (as applicable), as defined by Figures IWB 2500-13, -14, or 15.

Licensee's-Code Relief Recuest: Relief is requested from performing 100% of the Code-required surface examination, as defined by Figure IWB 2500-13 in Section XI of the Code, of the following Pressurizer support' skirt-to-lcwer head welds:

Unit 1 -- National Board Number W18589 Unit 2 -- National Board Number W26949 Licensee's Procosed Alternative Examination: None. The Licensee reports that area A-B, as shown in Figure IWB-2500-13, will receive a magnetic particle surface examination, as required by the Code. ,

Licensee's Basis for Reauestino Relief: Surface area C-D, as shown in Figure IWB-2500 13, is inaccessible for surface examination.

7

y

... -g; .,

ej . q- . '

c .+

\

(

Evaluation: Based on the design of the support skirt i attachment, the surface examination of t;e subject welds is impractical to perform to the extent required by the Code. A significant percentage of the Code-required surface examination.

can and'will be performed. The remainder of the weld is inaccessible for surface examination.

Conclusions:

Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded

'that the Code requirement is impractical to perform to the extent required by the' Code and that the limited Section XI surface examination will provide reasonable assurance of the continued, inservice structural integrity. Therefore, it is recommended that relief be granted as requested.

3.1,3 Heat Exchanaers and Steam Generators (No relief requests) 3.1.4 Pioino Pressure Boundary (No relief requests) 3.1.5- Pumo Pressure Boundarv (No relief requests) 3.1.6 Valve Pressure Boundary (No relief requests) 3.1.7 General '(No relief requests) 3.2 Class 2 Comoonents (No relief requests) 3.3 Class 3 Comoonents (No relief requests) 3.4 Pressure Tests (No relief requests) 3.5 General (No relief requests) 8

p m

c. , *-

E, j, b tj i

4. CONCLUSION Pursuant,to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6), it has been determined that certain L Section XI required inservice examinations are impractical to perform. In the case of the Pressurizer support skirt integral attachment welds, the L Licensee has demonstrated that specific Section XI requirements are impractical. +

This technical evaluation report has not identified any practical method by which the Licensee can meet all the specific inservice inspection .

I requirements of Section XI of the ASME Code for the existing Catawba Nuclear I l Station, Units 1 and 2, facilities. Requiring compliance with all the exact Section XI required examinations could require redesign of a number of plant  !

systems, sufficient replacement components to be obtained, installation of the new components, and a baseline examination of these components. Even -

after the_ redesign efforts, complete compliance with the Section XI examination requirements probably could not be achieved. Therefore, it is concluded that the public interest is not served by imposing certain

_ provisions of Section XI of the ASME Code that have been determined to be  !

impractical. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6), relief is allowed from these requirements which are impractical to implement if granting the relief will not endanger life or 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 if the requirements were imposed on the facility.

The development of new or improved examination techniques should continue to be monitored. As improv6ments in these areas are achieved, the Licensee should incorporate these techniques in the ISI program plan examination l requirements.

Based on the review of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, First 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan, through Revision 4, the Licensee's responses to the NRC's request for additional information, and I

the recommendation for granting relief from the ISI examination requirement l

9

p; ,

o y .

.c .

+,  :*

' s.,_c_ .

that has been determined to be-impractical, it has-been concluded that the i E . Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, First 10-Year Interval Inservice  :

h' i

Inspection Program Plan, Revision 4, is acceptable and in compliance with [,

s.: : .

10 CFR 50,55a(g)(4).

  • f-

'i c.

p

! f i

i

.i

[

b

) .-

h c . ,

+

s 4 4

J\'

l 6

l

(. t l'

l l .'-

l 10

ho j .

e.,' i t-3 0

5. REFERENCES
1. Code of Federal Regulations, Volume 10, Part 50.

i

.2. American Society of Mechanical Engineers-Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, Division 1: '

1980 Edition through Winter 1981 Addenda 1974 Edition through Summer 1975 Addenda

3. Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, First 10 Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan,' Revision 4, submitted June 14, 1988.

4.~ Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, First 10 Year Interval Intervice Inspection Program Plan, Revision 2, submitted August 18, 1986.

~

5. NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plans, Section 3.6.1, " Plant Design for Protection Against Postulated Piping Failures in Fluid Systems Outside l Containment," Section 5.2.4, " Reactor Coolant Boundary Inservice Inspection and Testing," and Section 6.6, " Inservice Inspection of Class 2 and 3 Components," July 1981. ,
6. Letter, dated June 8, 1987, K. N. Jabbour (NRC) to H. B. Tucker (Duke-Power Company (DPC)), " Request for Additional Information regarding the Inservice Inspection Program Plan for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 i and 2."
7. Letter, dated July 20, 1987, H. B. Tucker (DPC) to Document Control Desk (NRC), response to the NRC's June 8, 1987 " Request for Additional Information regarding the Inservice Inspection Program Plan for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2."
8. Letter, dated June 14,-1988, H. B. Tucker (DPC) to Document Control Desk (NRC), containing additional responses to the NRC request for additional information.

11

Y? c 3 .'; 9 l

.;: 1 R ,

9. Regulatory Guide 1.14, " Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheel Integrity," ,

Revision 1, dated August 1975.

a i

10. Regulatory Guide 1.150, " Ultrasonic Testing of Reactor Vessel . Welds j During Preservice and Inservice Examinations," Revision 1, dated
February'1983.

4 s.

12

_i'

.k . . [r Q [.; l[ ~asas as

' ;y ens.6 is e v me.. ...v6.vo , :  :: < e.o. , . . . . - r .oc .. .. . .,

E." 7 SIBUOGRAPHNll OATA SHEET B3G-SD-7849 j 840 etst.vC?iosul 0eit.g ag v g sg a ti,La e. 34 ,it6e 3 ,g.,ggg. .

'IW2nical Evaluation Report on the First 10-Year 1 Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plant Duke Power Ccrpany, . Catawba Nuclear Station, . .. .....,:c. 6....

Units l'and 2,~ Docket Numbers 50-413 and 50-414 m e- g

..,-c...

]

May 1989 j

. .. . . ..u , u. a .

B.W. Brown, J;D. Mudlin oo=,. . .a l j

May 1989

, .. o....o o. Q .. 4. r .o. . ... ..o .. . ..r. . o o.i n ,,,,. <. c , . o. c.v... .o....., .....

. D3&G Idaho, Inc.

P. O. Box 1625 ea o. ea.., w=m

. Idaho Falls, ID 83415-2209 FIN-D6022 (Project 5)

,,. ....o0.<,.~.4... ....~ ....o.co.. ,,. .< . ,,, ,...Q......,

. Materials Engineering Bren t Technical Office of Nuclear Recctor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission """*'**'*""**'**"

Washington, D.C. 20555. .

it sw 6tweg,..,%Q,tt 1

, a ..s , . . c , m . .

'Ihis report presents the results of the evaluation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, First 10-Year Interval Inservice Irwien (ISI) Program Plan, through ,

Revision 4, submitted June 14, 1988, includirq the request for relief from the ,

American Society of Mechanical Ergineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI requirement whid the Licensee has deternined to be impractical. 'Ihe i

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Fizst 10-Year In*A' val ISI Program Plan is '

evaluated in Section 2 of this report. 'Ihe ISI Program Plan is evaluated for (a) compliance with the appropriate 6ditiorVaddenda of Section XI, (b) acceptability '

of examination sarple, (c) correctness of the application of system cr cc=penent examination exclusion criteria, and (d) compliance with ISI-related comitments identified during the Nuclear Regulatcry M1 Mien's (NRC) review before granting an Operatirg License. 'Ihe request for relief fIun the AS:C Code requirement which the Licensee has detemined to be inpractical for the first 10-year inspection interval is  !

evaluated in Section 3 of this report. "

,. Oc:......~... s.. ....c.: one...o..

i p,. g ,f-Unlimited.

is $3 0..i?. CL.ts s c.0;g r .s .es.,

. .cg gt<s.g.S<C't % G Not. TE.wl *

. f.s ,e.. e, Unclassified TN..e t. :. e.;n is .. igg

_ . _ _ _ _ . - , _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ ~ . . . . , , . _ . . _ _ _ . . . , . .r,-._ -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19332B880&oldid=2484110"