Text

Technical Evaluation Rept,Second Interval Inservice Insp Program,Peach Bottom Units 2 & 3
	ML20141F627
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	09/30/1985
From:	; SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (FORMERLY
To:	; NRC
Shared Package
ML20141F605	List: ML20141F601; ML20141F607; ML20141F627;
References
	CON-NRC-03-82-096, CON-NRC-3-82-96 SAIC-84-1657, NUDOCS 8604230101
	Download: ML20141F627 (55)
	v • d • e

..

I e. Q[

-s A

4,

,m_

z.. 1

-_r me

,u

%d JMlRiipfMMi@ "NN" i

s m m W.A.'4:wmTUN. M y.

nMp

+

uw6 E

AM %

%e M. Q;'

.;9p+9@y'

%@~a%m%% % %g,,W W K s@ p w

yQ bMf Q wvn

4

[

'N b....

h Q

a:M

. f;h

g.

. em=

=%qg-

.... hk

$mk

.Y___ m_-L SEF pa 1

gp 9:% ';

g

?:

'( ~ &g:.:.%

A yd gy

-^

g7 p~g p -

D: w

. a 4,..,

y Wa QW W

j%

{WML g

%, Keij 4

4 d

~ :y m m.

_~

u

..,,s DWMCD*e $[ye y$h%$[m s A.x[%_k.

k y%w, m%:wan,:

fwem

,a l,

. e n mm%'

M w a4 gg _

mg~:a pr

~. wpp

,~

\\

r n9 g

yg g%;9 7;py gaggw i g; pq p, 3l n v:.

Q"W&g$W$p@m$$ $@W&W%R&gw$l&L a

n

\\

f G

i qw MMMMMQ

-hk

-)$yt

_?

f w~29W & w?+ % w $ m%p f %f M M S W M afmM w e % %

r.

l Q

I s a ych QfQnMhW Ugp4M%g&pwyWh%swA9gi;MFMM.W gMW 7%Q@mMNQy%i I

L I

9, h myMW ae eSi Q

v' g

]

i l

p-.

H C%bWghNifa wmd s :mOnum. wnMy%..

M wh:un-ngl 1

.., ".. w.p 4

. m. -

y A m%$a%p; : : y ww&Jng

&MWMn&y%N L ffWQR

-$.L lk&Q

.% 3 k

N u,=

Q*f'JWhWW yW h W p%"? % Q,[Q 3

q,,A

AWMW(e hg[9&WM"M@:cy 46,.

wn-W Kg ew h[@Y i.

WNM kMMhh[MWdggw - 2N.

kWi

[C%

f p

N hy k

Nh@&WW%dfWAQf@h@'h(k 7

?

l

! Ay MW NE

%%:hM:

g %.W R 44tQ W W V # EQM2 Q $ h D MMg M

. Mkn(( g" 3 AnWQWWMMWM%MW&%N%j%n@c i a i.

4 f,

%Q h

M%M:]e [w;r un m%n g&wwyFNyQgy.pygggq p

Q*w,j;frwg we[U:

QgQ9ypaQYQWg Wm-fd pud-M

.s h-M IMND MMMM D

4p 1 %[y &gvW @Q hyQ @~Q % y; &g W m,y "gn&w l*

Q f^

6 _ QgQ%Q Q fQQQff%,

w

3h y;

M MM&QMWF6&y%:%%%Q9e%?WWW.

a.

%MpyQ %

M F:*1%N M:.W6/~'Mg & @@;WsO@n aE # Q r

q 6&f GMNWE

" M%%%Ey r ghw$%MVM+4 Tif@F m%%$$@ Msg %e 0

WAW4/

+

3,p Sy a%,:iQMn 4 7;

mQp a g.% T &f.,. yy

'>W M.

g Qmym.W w

w,

' g 8%yMf,(AQ^3% QWMQ % 2l%@:k%&@3 e+f - #c M. wdw v,i,9n 2 QP??-

g, v w

-m.

, gMWm m

,M,5 A.

u i ff;TQ MM -- 6k JWQ y LWy%%C%@%%Mp&QMM@p.

u g.h ~ Jk 1

I M & W l1 W e is ; l Q F M 9 $l@3 N @ g M

.g!

W 75 NQ9 WjMQWMMi W

CE? ff Y QlGBfFQ WM%VW MpyM%Y;'f%Q'

'l

'^

JG%W[4 W YQ

%6Q

' Md&W lM DMh a

w W%NR yy 4$p4 vW W95 &y@?"p fM @h m}M@v% sGWPMM #

4; yyWQiQ.p gf W, Q f C, W j jeb%QM$$7s p

' W4' & : s%9&M WWh h WWMMtv?

i 8a WmuWe A Wb W# l%%M:R%QF cMQ%%3%

d:t. h

" W,& I v

y@4.QC6n W@ nim yLQ W;g % A%v.Sp@?e%2~Y" qjs ;

r MM GM Ok V

W,x L 4

p y y a gg?.

+

y

.? & %g%. pw h.

r92d n,.

+~

. m w

,T s

, - g.,$ e Jb,,'"_'

4 w g;1j

' m:M j w v s&"@ps

?wSg.!"g i a< +M,w,e g,m y y

>~1

~ -w ri i

UNW; e,f

' s. 6 e php 4.% m,sp@h Cv

3.

.O W

4 ;$u,M. d

,J w

MC s

. w,,

k h h h N k k h ;;N N W h h

+ 7 o g

m. <

A

%f v

h hy% M 93%%y'pfj

.gf N WlQ

- g@&um&:SW SnWMLOGA"pty% fWl:

"%%p&$ Aa f -E%n:'W;jgi&y j%d%:Q R@

$ hWEdb%: 4!%f A

n wgpf43pg qq r g%g3+g@w g, j g$w 3

y g,;g W

gh 3 q A

w

~ ' ~

hd 8604230101 860408 a

jg y3pg.

I M

PDR ADOCK 0500027

',;ddW '+:W ViL* W W. W_ % y g y g m y, g&

g

> V$6m$DQP g[h.QW:

r*Wu t W1

??

M W&

'1WU%fW ~

%?W ' 47 W

W

.we ep. weyw

SAIC-84/1657

)

P TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT SECOND INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGIAM PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNITS 2 AND 3

)

3 Submitted to U.S. tbclear Regulatory Commission Contract fb. PRC-03-82-096 b

Submitted by Science Applications International Corporation Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 D

September 1985 J

J

CONTENTS

)

I N TR O D U CT IO N............................

1 I.

CLASS 1 COMPONENTS.......................

3 g

A.

Reactor Vessel 3

1.

Relief Request 2.4.1, Reactor Pressure Yessel (RPV)

Circumferential and Longitudinal Welds, Category B-A, I te ms B1.11 an d Bl. 2 2..................

3 g

B.

Pressurizer (?bt applicable to BWRs)

C.

Heat Exchangers ( No relief requests)

D.

Piping Pressure Boundary 5

g 1.

Relfef Request 2.4.5, Circumferential Piping Welds Inside Containment Penetrations, Category B-J, Item B9.11 5

2.

Relief Request 2.4.6, Physically Obstructed Circumferential and Longitudinal Piping Welds, b

Category B-J, Items B9.11 and B9.12...........

8 3.

Relief Requests 2.4.7 and 2.4.8, Circumferential and Longitudinal Pipe Welds with Examinations Due to Material or Obstructions, Category B-J, Items 89.11 an d B9.12..................

11 b

4.

Re1ief Requests 2. 4.9, 2. 4.10, an d 2. 4.11, Integral Attachments for Piping, Category B-K-1, Item B10.10.

15 g

E.

Pump Pressure Boundary 18 1.

Relief Request 2.4.2.2, Reactor Recirculation Pump Casing Welds, Category B-L-1, Item B12.10 18 2.

Relief Request 2.4.2.5, Recirculation Pump Internal Examination, Category B-L-2, Item B12. 20....

20 F.

Valve Pressure Boundary...................

23 1.

Request for Relief 2.4.3, Class 1 Valves Exceeding 4 In. NPS, Internal Visual Examinations, Cate go ry B -M-2, Item B12. 50...............

23

-i -

\\

h I

II. CLASS 2 COMPONENTS (tb relief requests)

III. CLASS 3 COMPONENTS ( Pb relief requests)

IV. PRESSURE TESTS 26 I

fg A.

General (tb relief requests)

B.

Cl as s 1 Sy s tem P res s ure Tes ts...............

26 1.

Re1ief Request 2.4.4, C1 ass 1 System Hydrostatic Testing, IWB-5222 and Table IWB-5220-1 26 9

C.

Class 2 System Pressure Tests (tb relief requests)

O.

Class 3 System Pressure Tests.......

30 1.

Relief Request 4.4.1, C1 ass 3 System Hydrostatic I];

Testing, IWD-5223(a )

30 Y. GENERAL.

33 A.

Class 1, 2, and 3 Component Support Program........

33 i

1.

Relief Request 5.3.1, Hydraulic and Mechanical Shock Suppressors for Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping, Punps, and Valves, Table IWF-2500-1, Category F-C, Item F3.50 33 R EF ER E N C ES.............................

35 ATTA CR'4 E N T 1............................

A-1 k

4 1

/*

-f i -

h TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT SECOND INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGIAM o

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3 INTRODUCTION 2

(

This report evaluates requests for relief from certain examination and l

pressure test requirements of Section XI of the American Society of Mech-l anical Engineers ( ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code

by the licensee, Philadelphia Electric Company ( PECo), of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3.

The relief requests cover the second 120-month g

inspection intervals starting July 6,19M, for Unit 2, and Decenter 13, 1984, for Unit 3.

The requests are based upon the 1980 edition of Section XI, with Addenda through Winter 1981, as speci fied in the applicable revision of 10 CFR 50.55a.

j~

The rest of this introduction sumerizes (a) the scope of this report, (b) the previous review of re ief requests by Science Applications Inter-f' 3 national Corporation (SAIC)(I and (c) the history of Peach Bottom 2 and 3 since the earlier reviewt 2-8),

i The current revision to 10 CFR 50.55a requires that Inservice Inspec-tion (ISI) programs be updated each 120 months to meet the requirements of g

newer editions of Section XI.

Speci fically, each program is to meet the

[

requirements (to the extent practical) of the edition and addenda of the Code incorporated in the regulation by reference in paragraph (b) 12 months before the start of the current 120-month interval.

The regulation recognizes that the requirements of the later editions g

and addenda of the Code might not be practical to implement at facilities because of limitatiens due to design, geometry, and materials of construc-tion of components and system.

There fore, the regula tion permi ts exceptions to impractical examination or testing requirements to be eval ua ted.

Relief from these requirements can be granted, provided the health and safety of the public are not endangered, giving due considera-h tion to the burden placed on the licensee if the requirements were imposed.

This report only evaluates requests for relief dealing with inservice examinations of components and with system pressure tests relating to Peach Bottom's second ISI interval.

The inservice test programs for pumps l

and valves (IST programs) for this interval are being evaluated separately.

l N

Hereinafter referred to as Section il or Code.

D 1

ss

The current revision of the regulation also provides that ISI programs may.neet the requirements of subsequent code editions and addenda, incor-g porated by reference in paragraph (b) and subject to MJclear Regulatory Commission ( tRC) approval.

Portions of such editions or addenda my be used pe 'ided that all related requirements of the respective editions or addenda are met.

If applicable, these instances are addressed on a case-by-case basis in the body of this report.

g Finally,Section XI of the Code provides for certain components and systems to be exempted from its requirements.

In some instances, these exemptions are not acceptable to tRC or are only acceptable with re-s trictions. As appropriate, these instances are also discussed in this report.

g In its previous report dated August 27, 1982(l), SAIC evaluated relief requests for Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 covering the last 80 months of the first inspection interval ( Noventer 5,1977, to July 5,1984, for Unit 2, and April 23, 1978, to December 12, 1984, for Unit 3).

These requests were based on the 1974 Edition of the Code with Addenda through Summer 1975.

The applicable Code and interval were in accordance with the revision of g

10 CR 50.55a in effect at that piqie.

On May 2,1983, the PRC issued i ts formal Safety Evaluation Report, 2' which included SAIC's Technical Evaluation Report (TER) as an appendix.

The ISI program for e second interval, incipdtng relief requests, was submitted June 28, 1984.

1 On October 29,1984,t 4J the IRC reques ted g

additional information to complete the review of the relief requ s.

The information w

) furnished in lette I and March 6,1985.

These da ted Decenter 21, 4

January 31, 1985, February 1,1985, letters contained seven additional second interval relief requests.

References 5 and 7 also submitted four additional first interval relief requests, and these are being addressed separately in an addendum to SAIC's g

first interval TER.

As a result of the above submittals,14 second interval relief requests have been identi fied as requiring disposition.

These requests are evaluated in the following sections of this report.

Unless otherwise noted, all items in this report pertain to both Peach Bottom units.

I b

2 o

h I.

CLASS 1 COMPONENTS A.

Reactor Vessel 1.

Relief Request 2.4.1, Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) Circumferen-O tial and Longitudinal Beltline Welds, Category B-A, Items B1.11 and 81.12 i

i

]'<

Code Requirement i

One circumferential and one longitudinal weld in the beltline region of the reactor vessel shall be volumetrically examined in accordance with Figures IWB-2500-1 and -2 over 100% of their

~

lengths each interval.

Examinations nuy be performed at or near the end of the interval.

l Code Relief Request Relief is requested from examining 100% of the shell weld l en gths.

Proposed Alternative Examinations l

There are various windows in the biological shield which permit limited access to the RPV shell welds.

An attempt will be made to obtain the maximum examination weld length for the circumferential and longitudinal welds, k

i Licensee's Basis for Requesting Relief The space between the insulation and the RPV outside surface, nominally four inches, has been measured in some areas to be significantly less.

The circumferential and longitudinal welds b

have been examined in accordarce with previous Code requirements I

(i.e., 5 and 10 percen t wel d length).

The design of the bio-logical shield precludes 100 percent access to the RPV shell wel ds.

The vessel cladding and internal structure prevent examinations from the vessel interior.

U Eval ua tion The Peach Bottom reactor vessels are provided with access to limited areas of their external surfaces.

The access allows examination of at least those areas required to be examined by h

the 1974 Edition of the Code, Summer 1975 Addends (i.e., 5% of the circumferential and 10% of the longitudinal welds).

The licensee I

3

0 has proposed to examine the accessible portions of the welds to the maximum extent practical.

Because the proposed examinations will meet the requirements of the older Code, they provide a

/}

reasonable alternative to the required examinations.

Visual (VT-2) examination of the vessel / shield annulus area should also be conducted during each system pressure test, which could provide initial evidence of seepage from a through-wall perforation.

g Conclusions and Recommendations Based upon the above evaluation, it is concluded that for the vessel welds discussed above, the Code requirements are imprac-tical. It is further concluded that the alternative volumetric and visual examinations discussed will provide necessary added assur-g ance of structural reliability.

Therefore, it is recommended that relief be granted from the Code-required volumetric examinations on reactor vessel shell welds.

Relief should be contingent upon performing the following alternative examinations:

(a) The accessible weld areas should be volumetrically examined

]

to the maximum extent practical as proposed and at least to the requirements of Category B-A of the 1974 Edition, Sunner 1975 Addenda.

(b) The vessel and shield annulus area should be visually (VT-2) examined during system pressure tests.

Re ferences References 3 and 5.

I b

B.

Pressurizer ibt applicable to BWRs.

5 C.

Heat Exchangers Pb relief requests.

>O 4

O

D.

Piping Pressure Boundary g

1.

Relief Request 2.4.5, Circumferential Piping Welds Inside Containment Penetrations, Category B-J, Item B9.ll Code Requirement For circumferential welds in pipe of nominal pipe size 4 in.

l and greater, surface plus volumetric examinations shall be i

performed in accordance with Figure IWB-2500-8 over essentially 100% of the weld length during each inspection interval.

Exami -

nation shall include the follovng:

(a)

All terminal ends in each pipe or branch run connected to vessel s.

l (b) All terminal ends and joints in each pipe or branch run con-nected to other components where the stress levels exceed b

the follcwing limits under load associated with specific seismic events and operational conditions.

l l

(1 ; primary plus secondary stress intensity of 2.4Sm for ferritic steel and austenitic steel, and

( 2) cumulative usage factor U of 0.4.

(c)

All dissimilar metal welds between cortinations of (a) carbon or low alloy steels to high alloy steels, (b) carbon or low alloy steels to high nickel alloys, and b

(c) high alloy steels to high nickel alloys.

(d)

Additional piping welds so that the total number of circum-ferential butt welds selected for examination equals 25% of the circumferential butt welds in the reactor coolant piping sys tems.

This total does not include welds excluded by IWB-b 1220.

These additional welds may be located in one loop (one 1 cop is currently defined for both PWR and BWR p1 ants in the 1980 Edi tion).

For welds in carbon or low alloy steels, only those welds showing reportable preservice transverse indications need be 3

examined for transverse reflectors.

The initially selected welds shall be reexamined during each inspection interval.

5 7-

Code Relief Request Relief is requested from performing the Code-required g

examinations of circumferential pipe welds that are enclosed in contain nent penetrations. See Attachment 1 (Category B-J, Relief Pequest 2.4.5) for a 1isting of pipe welds needing relief.

Proposed Al ternative Examination Piping at the ends of containment pcnetrations will be visually examined during routine system leakage and hydrostatic pressure tests.

S l

Licensee's Basis for Requesting Relief The subject welds are physically inaccessible for examination due to the containment penetrations.

Eval uation If it is assumed that the workmanship and quality assurance l

of the welding were adequate, then examining other welds in these i

lines should reflect their overall material condition.

Thus, the b

first pressure boundary weld outside each penetration should be Code examined, where practical, over 100% of its length during each inspection interval.

Such an examination would maintain sample size.

This alternative examination is consistent with those imposed on and agreed to by other licensees.

The proposed visual (VT-2) examinations coincident with IWB-5000 pressure b

testing should also be performed, which would provide ini tial evidence of seepage from a through-wall perforation.

Conclusions and Recommendations b

Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that for the welds discussed above, the Code requirements are impractical.

It is further concluded that the alternative examination discussed above will provide necessary added assurance of structural rel iabil ity.

Therefore, relief should be granted from the volumetric examina tion of the identi fied wel ds wi th the following provisions:

(a) The first pressure boundary weld outside the containment on each of the process pipes should be volumetrically and I

surface examinea, where practical, over 100% of its length during each interval.

6

(b ) The proposed visual (VT-2) examinations should be performed on the containment penetration assemblies when leakage and hydrostatic tasts are conducted in accordance with IWB-5000.

'}'

Re ferences O

References 3 and 6.

S a

4 De D

O 7

h 2.

Relief Request 2.4.6, Physically Obstructed Circumferential and Longitudinal Piping Welds, Category B-J, Items B9.11 and B9.12 Code Requirements For circumferential welds in pipe of nominal pipe size 4 in, and greater, surface plus volumetric examinations shall be performed in accordance with IWB-2500-8 over essentially 1007, of the weld length during each inspection interval.

Examina tion shall include the following:

(a) All terminal ends in each pipe or branch run connected to vess el s.

4 (b ) All terminal ends and joints in each pipe or branch run con-nected to other components where the stress levels exceed the following limits under load associated with specific seismic events and operational conditions.

)

(1 ) primary plus seconda'ry stress intensity of 2.4Sm for ferritic s teel and aus tenitic steel, and

( 2) cumulative usage factor U of 0.4.

(c)

All dissimilar metal welds between combinations of (a) carbon or low alloy steels to high alloy steels, (b) carbon or low alloy steels to high nickel alloys, and (c) high alloy steels to high nickel alloys.

(d)

Additional piping welds so that the total nunber of circum-ferential butt welds selected for examination equals 257, of the circumferential butt welds in the reactor coolant piping sys tems.

This total does not include welds excluded by IWB-1220.

These additional welds may be located in one loop (one loop is currently defined for both PWR and BWR plants in the 1980 Edition).

For welds in carbon or low alloy steels, only those welds showing reportable preservice transverse indications need be examined for transverse reflectors.

For longitudinal welds in pipe of nominal pipe size 4 in, and greater, surface plus volumetric examinations shall be performed in accordance with IG Figure IWB-2500-8 for at least a pipe-diameter length, but not more than 12 in. of each longitudinal weld intersecting the circumferential welds required to be examined by Exami-nation Categories B-F and B-J.

For welds in carbon or low alloy steels, only those welds showing reportable preservice transverse indications need be examined for transverse

()

re fl ectors.

The initially selected welds shall be re-examined during each inspection interval.

8

O Code Relief Request Relief is requested from performing 100% of the Code-required examinations of circumferential and longitudinal n

pipe welds that are obstructed (completely or partially) by adjacent components.

See Attachment 1 (Category B-J, Relief Request 2.4.6) for a listing of pipe welds needing relief.

O Proposed Alternative Examinations Partial examinations will be performed at accessible weld loca ti ons.

Inaccessible locations will be visually examined during routine system leakage and hydrostatic tests.

O Licensee's Basis for Requesting Relief The subject welds are entirely or partially obstructed from examination by whip restraints, pipe supports, or containment O

penetration lugs.

Evaluation O

There are many Class 1 pipe joints that are obstructed to some degree by adjacent components.

It would not be reasonable to expect the licensee to remove the obstructions because of difficulties with pipe movement and reinstallation.

The licensee has committed to Code examining those areas of C

each weld that are accessible and visually examining the joints for leakage during pressure tests.

The visual (VT-2) examina-tions would provide initial evidence of seepage from a through-wall perforation.

The licensee should also ensure that enough other Class 1 pipe welds are examined to maintain a sample size o f 257, o f Category B-J wel ds.

O Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that for the

'O welds discussed above, adherence to the Code requirements is impractical.

It is further concluded that the discussed

~

alternative examinations will provide necessary assurance of structural reliability during this interval.

Therefore, relief is recommended as requested provided:

O (a) The subject welds are Code examined to the extent practical, as proposed.

9 O

O (b) The number of welds examined ~is increased to n.3fntain a sample size as large as that required by the Code.

O (c) The subject welds are visually (VT-2) examined as proposed during pressure tes ts in accordance with T48-5000.

O References References 3 and 6.

O O

)

0 O

lO o.

10

O i

I 10 g

f 3.

Relief Requests 2.4.7 and 2.4.8, Circumferential and Longitudinal Pipe Welds with Examination Limitations Due to Material or Ob-structions, Category B-J, Items B9.11 and B9.12 O

Code Requirements For circumferential welds in pipe of nominal pipe size 4 in.

and greater, surface plus volumetric exaninations shall be J

performed in accordance with INB-2500-8 over essentially 100% of the weld length during each inspection interval.

Examina tion shall include the following:

(a) All terminal ends in each pipe or branch run connected to vessels.

(b) All terminal ends and joints in each pipe or branch run con-nected to other components where the stress levels exceed the following limits under load associated with specific seismic events and operational conditions.

O (1 ) primary plus secondary stress intensity of 2.4s for m

ferritir steel and austenitic steel, and

( 2) cumulative usage factor U of 0.4.

(c)

All dissimilar metal welds between combinations of (a) carbon or low alloy steels to high alloy steels, (b) carbon or low alloy s teels to high nickel alloys, and (c) high alloy steels to high nickel alloys.

(d)

Additional piping welds so that the total nurber of circum-

'n ferential butt welds selected for examination equals 25t of the circumferential butt welds in the reactor coolant piping sys tems.

This total does not include welds excluded by IWB-1220.

These additional welds may be located in one loop (one loop is currently defined for both PWR and BWR plants in the 1980 Edition).

O For welds in carbon or low alloy steels, only those welds showing reportable preservice transverse indications need be examined for transverse reflectors.

For longitudinal welds in pipe of nominal pipe size 4 in, and greater, surface plus volumetric examinations shall be performed in accordance with a

Figure IWB-2500-8 for at least a pipe-diameter length, but not more than 12 in. of each longitudinal weld intersecting the circumferential welds required to be examined by Exami-nation Categories B-F and D-J.

For welds in carbon or low alloy steels, only those welds showing reportable preservice transverse indications need be examined for transverse oV re fl ectors.

The initially selected welds shall be re-examined during each inspection interval.

O 11

O Pcge 12 of 14 ATTACHMENT l~

TABLE 2.2.2 UNIT 2 CLASS I COMPONENTS AND WELDS FOR WHICH CODE RELIEF IS REQUESTED Section XI Section XI Weld Percent Not Relief Item No.

Category Number Method Accessible Request 7O B10.10 B-K-1 1-C-9RL-2-2 Sur 40 2.4.11 B10.10 B-K-1 1-C-14HL-1 Sur 100 2.4.9 Thru 4

.O B10.10 B-K-1 1-C-16CL-1 Sur 50 2.4.9 Thru 4 B10.10 B-K-1

'l-D-llHL-1 Sur 100 2.4.9 Thru 4

O B10.10 B-K-1 1-D-13CL-1 Sur 50 2.4.11 Thru 4 B10.10 B-K-1 el-D-5HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10

. Thru 4 O

B10.10 B-K-1 1-D-7RL-1-1 Sur 40 2.4.11 1-D-7RL-1-2 Sur 40 2.4.11 B10.10 B-K-1 B10.10 rB-K-1 1-D-7RL-2-1 Sur 40 2.4.11

+ -

1-D-7RL-2-2 Sur 40, 2.4.11 B10.10 B-K-1 B10.10 B-K-1 1-D-7RL-3-1 Sur 40 2.4.11

'O B10.10 B-K-1 1-D-7RL-3-2 Sur 40 2.4.11 B10.10 B-K-1 6-A-12HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 Thru 4 B10.10 B-K-1

'6-A-4HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10

O Thru 4 B10.10 B-K-1 6-A-9CL-1 Sur 50 2.4.9 Thru 4

O A-12

'O l

,0 Page 13 of 14 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 2.2.2 O

UNIT 2 CLASS I COMPONENTS AND WELDS FOR WHICH CODE RELIEF IS REQUESTED Ssction XI Section XI Weld Percent Not Relief Item No.

Categorv Number O

Method Accessible Request B10.10 B-K-i 6-AA-3HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 Thro 5 B10.10 B-1(-l 6-AB-lHL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 O

Thru 5 B10.10 B-K'-l 6-AC-lHL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 Thru 8 I

B10.10 B-K-1

'6-ASU-lHL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 lO Thru 4 B10.10 B-K-1 6-B

.h.HL-1 Sur 20 2.'4.10 Thru 4 B10.10 B-K-1 6-B-3HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10

'O Thru 4 B10.10 B-K-1

'6-B-8CL-1 Sur 50 2.4.9

/

Thru 4 B10.10 2B-K-1 6-BD-4AHL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10

'O

' Thru 4 B10.10 B-K-1 6-BE-lHL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 l

Thru 5 B10.10 B-K-1 6-BSU-lHL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 0

Thru 4 B10.10 B-K-1 10-HS-12HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 Thru 4 t

B10.10 B-K-1 10-HS-3CL Sur 50 2.4.9 lO 1 Thru 4 B10.10 B-K-1 10-IA-2CL-1 Sur 50 2.4.9 i

Thru 4 O

O

^-13

C)

Page 14 of 14 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 2.2.2 UNIT 2 CLASS I COMPONENTS A$D WELDS FOR WHICl! CODE REL EF IS REQUESTED Section XI Section XI Weld Percent Not Relief Item No.

Category Number Method Accessible Request B10.10 B-K-l 10-IB-2CL-1 Sur 50 2.4.9 Thru 4 B10.10 B-K-1 10-0-16CL-1 Sur 20 2.4.9

()

Thru 4 B10.10 B-K-1 12-0-20HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 Thru 4 c,

B10.10 B-K-1 12-0-35HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 Thru 4 B10.10 B-K-1 12-0-37CL Sur 50 2.4.9 1 Thru 4 310.10 B-K-1

~ 14-A-10HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10

)

Thru 4 B10.10 B-K-1 14-A-3CL Sur 50 2.4.9 1 Thru 4

()

310.10 B-K-1

14-A-38HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 Thru 4 310.10 B-K-1

'14-B-llHL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 i

Thru 4

()

310.10 B-K-1 14-B-3CL Sur 50 2.4.9 1 Thru 4 310.10 B-K-1 14-B-3GHL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 Thru 4 O

()

A-14

O Code Relief Request Relief is requested from performing 100% of the Code-required examinations of circumferential and longitudinal pipe

.O welds that have examination limitations due to (a) material constraints (relief request 2.4.7) or (b) material constraints coupled with physical obstructions (relief request 2.4.8).

See (Category B-J, Rel fof Pequests 2.4.7 and 2.4.8) for a listing of pipe welds needing relief.

lO Proposed Al ternative Examination Those welds that can be partially examined from the pipe side (relief request 2.4.8 only) will be examined to the extent lq practical.

All subject joints will be visually examined during N

routine system leakage and hydrostatic pressure tests.

l f

Licensee's Basis f r Requesting Relief 0

(a) The welds of relief request 2.4.7 cannot be examined due to material and/or design configuration (i.e.,

valve-to-containment penetration).

(b) The welds of relief request 2.4.8 cannot be examined O

from one (component) side due to material and/or design configuration and, in addition, the other (pipe) side is partially obstructed (i.e., valve-to-pipe with support lug).

t%

V Evalua tion The licensee does not give details on the material and design limitations that pr(qplude 1007, examination of these welds.

i In his program submittal, O these limitations were characterized 85 f 11 "5:

O

"(1) Cast fittings and structures which are not amenable to UT examination and which are in a system which cannot be drained without draining the RPV, and

( 2) Any weld which during the preservice examination ( PSI)

O was found not suitable for UT examination (and continu-ous eyaluation indicates that the state-of-the-art techniques do not allow UT examination) and which cannot be radiographed due to (a) geometry and/or interference from surrounding structures, or (b) the system cannot be drained without draining the RPV."

O 12 O

.O Those welds joining cast components and/or involving systems that cannot be drained nuy be able to be examined by HINAC/

Shrinkac.

Historically, radiographic testing is not normally O

considered as a method for reactor piping I3I.

Under normal ISI conditions reactor piping, valves, and pumps remain filled with water, and it is frequently impractical to drain all or any part of a system. Coherent or Rayleigh scattering in water from regular X-ray beams and/or radiography sources usually reduces or effectively eliminates discontinuity imaging except for large, O

gross discontinuities.

Also, thick sectioned piping, valves, and pump bodies require extended radiographic exposure time to acquire optimum film densities.

Radiographic testing using a MINAC/Shrinkac X-ray system should, however, be considered as an alternative.

The use of

.O MINAC/Shrinkac eliminates the problem of Coherent or Rayleigh sca ttering. Frequently, 2-2T radiographic quality is possible pipes.pogting double-walled radiography in water-filled when s I ell J J. A. Jones reports exposure times for 7.5-inch weld thickness and distance.(om) 10 to 110 minutes, depending on to 12-inch welds that vary fr 9

The relatively small size of a lO Shrinkac head makes it possible to Dosition the head in all but the most dif ficult positions.L10,11)

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) reports that l

MINAC/Shrinkac radiography has been accomplished)in the presence l

of high (1 to 2 rem /h) radiation backgrounds.(10 O

For those welds not considered suitable for complete ultrasonic testing because of geometry or space restrictions, the 1icensee should attempt to examine the subject areas to the extent "ractical, as proposed, by either ultrasonic or radio-graphi means.

There are automatic ultrasonic testing systems 10 being aveloped that use mul tiple probes and mul tiple frequen-l cies.

These systems are equipped to process the large amounts of data necessary to detect flaws under the adverse conditions

(

described by the licensee.

Efforts should therefore be made to l

use suitable new ultrasonic testing equipment when it becomes commercially available.

'O The applicability of current ultrasonic testing systems and MINAC/Shrinkac to the subject weld examinations is uncertain.

Also, the examinations for which relief is requested are not generally allowed to be deferred to the end of the interval (July 5,1994, and December 12, 1994, for Units 2 and 3, respec-O tively ).

Therefore, relief is warranted this interval but only for the Code-required volume that cannot be achieved with current me thods.

Based on available infornation, relief is not considered for the surface examinations, because none cf the above general limitations necessarily precludes the Code-required surface exaainations.

Also, the alternative visual (VT-2) examinations O

during pressure tests proposed by the licensee should be 13 0

O per formed. These examinations would provide initial evidence of seepage from a through-wall perforation.

O Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that for the welds discussed above, the Code requirements are impractical.

It es is further concluded that the alternative examinations discussed in the evaluation above will provide necessary added assurance of structural reliability.

Therefore, relief is recommended from the volumetric examination of the Code volume of the identified welds that cannot be achieved with current methods with the following provisions:

O-(a) The ifcensee should make a reasonable effort to examine the subject welds to the extent practical by modern ultrasonic testing equipment or MINAC/Shrinkac as appropriate.

(b) The Code-required surface ar.d proposed alternative visual

()

(VT-2) examinations during pressure tests should be performed.

{}

Re ferences References 3, 6, 9,10, and 11.

l O

i

'O l

O O

()

n 4.

Relief Requests 2.4.9, 2.4.10, and 2.4.11, Integral Attachments for Piping, Category B-K-1, Item B10.10*

O Code Requirements Volumetric or surface examinations, as applicable, per Figures IWB-2500-13, -14, and -15 of essentially 100% of the weld length are required for all integrally welded support attachments of piping.

Includes the welded attachments of piping required to O

be examined by Examination Category B-J and the weld attachments of associated pumps and valves integral to such piping.

Includes those attachments whose base material design thickness is 5/8 in.

or greater.

O Code Relief Request Relief is requested from performing the Code-required examination of inaccessible weld volumes.

See Attachment '

(Category B-K-1, Relief Requests 2. 4.9, 2. 4.10, and 2. 4.11, o f O

this report for a listing of the specific welds.

Proposed Al ternative Examinations Partial examinations will be perforned at accessible weld O

loca tions. Whenever pipe clamps are removed for maintenance or other reasons, the welds labeled relief request 2.4.10 in Attach-ment 1 will be Code-examined in their entirety. Otherwise, a visual examination will be performed during routine pressure tes ting.

'O Licensee's Basis for Raquesting Relief The listed integral attachments are completely or partially inaccessible to Code examination for the following reasons:

O 2.4.9: Obstruction (partial or complete) of attachments by pipe whip restraints or containment penetrations.

O I

The text of the licensee's relief requests 2. 4. 9, 2. 4.10, and 2. 4.11 discuss Category B-J pipe welds., which lists specific welds, however, identifies the welds associated with these relief requests as Category B-K-1 welds.

Thus, because B-J pipe welds were covered in other relief requests, these relief requests are treated as O

Category B-X-1 requests.

15 O

O 2.4.10: Partial obstruction due to position of pipe clamp.

To perform an entire examination on these hanger lugs would necessitate removing the clamp from the pipe.

'O This disassembly would involve performing an engineering analysis to ensure proper support of pipe, and in addition, a temporary support may have to be installed.

A job of this scope represents an unnecessary risk of an O

industrial accident, radiation exposure, and extensive expense, solely to perform approximately 20% of the required examination.

In view of the minimal benefits to be obtained, it is concluded that this Code requirement is impractical at Peach Bo ttom.

O 2.4.11:

Partial obstruction from examination due to TiisiitTicient space between adjacent lugs.

n Evalua tion As the licensee states, increased radiation exposure and expense is not justified to perform the additional 20% of the required examination. However, whenever an attachment weld O

becomes more (or entirely) accessible for any other reason, such as maintenance, a Code-required examinatf or. should be performed.

The proposed alternative examinations should provide adequate indication of the integrity of the attachment welds.

In those few instances (a total of sixteen completely inaccessible supports under relief request 2.4.9) where no alternative examination is O

proposed, enough similar supports are being examined to indicate the integrity of the supports.

The proposed visual (VT-2) exami-nation during pressure tests would provide initial evidence of seepage from a through-wall perforation.

O Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that for the welds discussed above, adherence to the Code requirements is impracti cal.

It is further concluded that the proposed O

examinations will provide necessary assurance of structural reliability during this interval.

Therefore, relief is recommended as requested provided (a) The accessible portions of the welds are Code-examined as proposed.

O 16 O

O -

i l

(b) ' Any welds made accessible by maintenance or other activities are Code-examined (including the proposed exar.inations when pipe clamps are removed).

4 to (c) All subject attachment welds are visually examined during pressure tests in accordance with IWB-5000 as proposed.

i i

'G Re ferences Reference 6.

'!O

}-

4 4

iO 1

1 I

f iO i

i r

f

!O i

~O i

,O l

O 4

17 f0

'O E.

Pump Pressure Boundary 1.

Relief Request 2.4.2.2, Reactor Recirculation Pump Casing Welds, O

Category B-t-1, Item B12.10 Code Requirement Essentially 100% of the pressure retaining welds in at least one pump in each group of pumps performing similar functions in O

the system (e.g., recirculating coolant pumps) shall be volumet-rically examined in accordance with Figure IWB-2500-16 during each inspection interval.

The examinations may be performed at or near the end of the inspection interval.

A supplementary sur-face examination may be performed as required in IWB-3518.1(d).

O Code Relief Request Relief is requested from the Code-required volumetric exami-nations of pump casing welds in the reactor recirculation pumps.

Proposed Alternative Examination Pressure-retaining welds in the pump casing will be O

subjected to a surface examination.

Licensee's Basis for Requesting Relief O

The pump casings are constructed of stainless steel castings which, due to their large grain structure, are highly attenuative to high frequency ultrasonic beams.

Casting base metal-to-weld metal interfaces tend to be reflective to ultrasound, producing false echoes which aggravate the attenuation problem.

The interface cannot be reliably distinguished from either lack of ed fusion or incomplete penetration and prevents interpretation of signals.

Therefore, angle beam longitudinal and shear wave ultrasonic examinations of welds in static cast steel have not proven to be feasible.

O E_ val ua tion The metallurgical characteristics of cast and electroslag welded stainless steel materials are such that ultrasonic signals are greatly dispersed and attenuated in these media.

Conse-quently, ultrasonic testing is not a practical method for O~

volumetrically examining components of this construction.

O

O On the other hand, radiographic examination of the RCP casing welds appears technically difficult, even if the pump is disassembled. Such examinations are time-consuming and expensive in exposure and dollars.

At Point Beach, radiographic exami-V, nation of welds on one RCP casing and visual examination of the pump inside pressure-retaining surfaces were performed using MINAC and a manipulator.

This examination required about 25 days (including pump disassembly and reassembly).

It resul ted in a total accumulated radiation exposure of 36 man-rem and a cost of about $700,000.

Radiographing through two wall thicknesses to O

examine a weld in one wall requires further development work, which the EPRI POE Center hopes to undertake shortly.

The MINAC has been used at Ginna, Turkey Point, Point Beach, and Robinson.

No notable indications were found in any of the pumps examined.

At this time, disassembly of pumps solely for making this volumetric examination does not appear warranted in view of the radiation exposure and downtime. However, an examination by MINAC or other suitable method should be done if a pump at Peach Bottom requires disassembly for maintenance. At this stage of O,

technology development, a surface examination of at least a portion of these welds, where practical, would be most approp-riate. The inspection intervals considered in this report end in 1994.

No pumps were disassembled for maintenance or examination during the last interval.

Since the examination technology is only currently being actively developed, it is reasonable to give n

relief for the present inspection interval.

v Conclusions and Recommendations O

Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that for the welds discussed above, the Code requirements are impractical.

It is further concluded that the alternative examination discussed above will provide necessary added assurance of structural reli-abil ity.

Therefore, relief should be granted from the volumetric examination of the subject welds for the current inspection g

interval, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The proposed surface examinations should be performed.

(b) The 1icensee should volumetrically examine these welds on the first such pump disassembled for maintenance during this

'O in terval.

Re ferences

,0 Reference 3.

19 O

2.

Ralfof Request 2.4.2.5, Recirculation Pump Internal Examination, i

Category B-L-2, item B12. 20 0

Code Requirement The internal surfaces of at least one pump in each group of pumps performing similar functions in the system (e.g., recircu-lating coolant pumps) shall be visually examined (VT-3) during each inspection interval.

The examination may be performed on

-U the same pump selected for volumetric examination of welds.

The examinations may be performed at or near the end of the inspec-tion interval.

Code Relief Request g

Relief is requested from the Code requirement to visually examine the recirculation pump internal surfaces.

1 O

Proposed Alternative Examination The internal surfaces of the recirculation pump casings will be visually inspected whenever these surfaces are accessible as a result of disassembly for other maintenance purposes.

In the interim, annual performance tests will be conducted to verify fd pumping capability and to indicate the condition of internal cl earances.

An ultrasonic surveillance program will be imple-mented as the primary alternative examination.

These da ta,

coupled with the hydrostatic tests performed once per inspection interval and the external inspections performed during seal maintenance, will provide adequate assurance of structural V-in tegrity.

Licensee's Basis for Requesting Relief This requirement, in absence of other required maintenance,

'g would necessitate dismantling a recirculation pump solely to per-form a VT inspection of internal surface, and as such, represents an unnecessary exposure to radiation and contamination and an excessive expense. A job of this scope also presents an unneces-sary risk of an industrial accident due to the cramped quarters and limited visibility resulting from the use of full anti-c O

protective equipment.

The disassembly of this pump constitutes a maintenance job of major proportions that, due to plant design, involves removing the motor and transporting it outside the containment. Movement f such large, heavy components within the drywell with the O

20

!O

O attendant hazard of accidental damage to other safety-related piping and equipment constitutes a risk to reactor safety.

It is estimated that the dismantling and reassembly of one pump would consume more than 10,000 man-hours and in excess of one month of n

M round-the-clock effort and would result in a cumulative dose of between 100 and 500 man-ren.

The net result of this major effort would be a VT inspection consuming about eight man-hours.

The questionable benefit to be obtained from such an inspection, when measured against the cost Uc in man-rem, appears to be in conflict with the concept of "As Low As Reasonably Achievable " In view of the cost in dollars, potential hazards, and man-rem, and in view of the minimal bene-fits to be obtained, it is concluded that this Code requirement is impractical for PBAPS.

O Eval uation The visual examination is to determine whether unanticipated severe degradation of the casing is occurring due to phenomena 7V such as erosion, corrosion, or cracking. However, previous experience during examinations of pumps at other plants has not shown any significant degradation of casings.

The disassent)1y of the reactor recirculation pumps to the degree necessary t inspect the internal pressure-retaining sur-O faces is a major effort, involving large personnel exposures and the generation of large amounts of radioactive waste.

In view of the effort required to disassemble a pump, the information returned from visual examination of its internal surfaces would be marginal.

oV The licensee has committed to an ultrasonic surveillance program and visual examination if a pump is disassembled for maintenance and to visual (YT-2) examinations during pressure tests, which could provide initial evidence of seepage from a through-wall perforation. These alternatives coupled with pump test data (as required by IWP) should provide adequate infor-

'g mation about the interior surfaces of the recirculation pump.

Conclusions and Recommendations O

Based upon the above evaluation, it is concluded that for the pumps discussed above, the Code requirements are impracti cal.

It is further concluded that the alternative O

21 O

i

e examinations discussed will provide necessary added assurance of structural reliability.

Therefore, it is recommended that relief

()

be granted from the Code-required visual examinations. The relief should be contingent upon the licensee's performing the Code examinations upon any recirculation pump disassembled for any other purpose. The proposed ultrasonic surveillance of the pump casings should also be conducted, as well as the Code-required pump tests and visual examinations ( VT-2) during

()

pressure tests.

References O

Reference 3.

O

.O i.

O O

'.C) iO h

22

O

-+

,y,-,,,-,

y-rw-w. - - - ---y y

,.,_-.y-

F.

Valve Pressure Boundary l

l 1.

Request for Relief 2.4.3, Class 1 Valves Exceeding 4 In. NPS,

)

Internal Visual Examinations, Category B-M-2, Item B12.50 l

Code Requirement

)

Visual inspection (VT-3) shall be performed of the internal pressure boundary surfaces, on valves exceeding 4-in. nominal pipe size.

One valve in each group of valves of the same constructional design, e.g., globe, gate, or check valve, manufacturing method

)

and manufacturer, that performs similar functions in the system, shall be examined during each inspection interval.

The examinations may be performed at or near the end of the inspection interval. The examination may be performed on the same valve selected for volumetric examination of welds.

Code Relief Request l

Relief is requested from the Code requirement to visually l) examine the internal surfaces of the subject Class 1 valves.

I Proposed Alternative Examination

)

Class 1 valves exceeding 4 in, nominal pipe size are subjected to VT inspection of the internal surfaces of the valve body when disassembled for maintenance in accordance with an established program and documented procedures.

However, an ultrasonic surveillance program will be impiemented as the primary alternative examination.

These data, coupled with

')

periodic leak tests and hydrostatic tests, will provide adequate assurance of the structural integrity of the Class 1 valve bodies, while keeping exposure to radiation and contamination "As Low As Reasonably Achievable."

)

Licensee's Basis for Requesting Relief Valves on the recirculation loop suction piping would require off-loading the fuel elements and draining the reactor prior to disassembly. Work on recirculation pump discharge valves, equ311 zing valves, and RHR injection valves would require installation of plugs in the jet pump risers.

Preparatory work I'

23 b

l L

J

O of this scope is considered impractical for the sole purpose of conducting a VT examination.

Contamination levels in the valves associated with the recirculation loops are particularly Q

high due to the physical location of these valves at the bottom of the system.

During routine maintenance, when valves are disassembled, VT-3 examinations are performed on valve body internal sur-faces. Disassembly of other Class 1 valves solely for internal

'Q' inspection is impractical in view of the fact that most of these valves, particularly the containment isolation valves, are disassembled frequently for maintenance of leak-tightness.

Disassembly of these valves solely for YT inspection, in absence of other required maintenance, would be extremely im-O practical and unjust.

The cost of personnel exposure, potential hazards, time and radioactive waste would be excessively high and in direct violation of the concept of "As Low As Reasonably Achievabl e. "

O Eval uation The disassembly of large valves to the degree necessary to inspect the internal pressure retaining surfaces (bodies) is a major effort in terms of exposure of personnel.

To do this

'O disassembly solely to perform a visual examination of the internal body is impractical.

The licensee has committed to visual examination of any valve disassembled for other reasons and to an ultrasonic surveillance program. The proposed alternative visual (VT-3)

O examinations and normal visual (VT-2) examination during system pressure tests (which could provide initial evidence of seepage from a through-wall perforation) are reasonable substitutes for the Code-required examinations.

O Conclusions and Recommendations Based upon the above evaluation, it is concluded that for the valves discussed above, the Code requirements are impractical.

It is further concluded that the alternative O

visual examinations discussed will provide necessary added assurance of structural reliability.

Tnerefore, it is recom-mended that relief be granted from performing the Code-required examinations in valve categories where valves are not examined during the interval with the following provisions:

O 24

~O

6 f

(a) The licensee should perform the Code examination on any valve disassembled for any other purpose dJring

g the interval.

(b) The proposed ultrasonic surveillance of valve bodies should be conducted.

i

.O -

References l

Reference 3.

O J

f id 4

l l

II.

CLASS 2 COMPONENTS lO No relief requests.

i 2

III.

CLASS 3 COMP 0NENTS

'O No relief requests.

Y I.]

O 25

O

,0 IV. PRESSURE TESTS 1

A.

General O-2 relief requests.

B.

Class 1 System Pressure Tests

!'O 1.

Relief Request 2.4.4, Class 1 System Hydrostatic Testing, NB-5222

]

and Table IWB-5220-1

O Code Requirements i

NB-5222 - System Hydrostatic Test:

(a)

The system hydrostatic test may be conducted at any test pressure specified in Table NB-5220-1 corresponding to the iO selected test temperature, provided the requirements of NB-5230 are met for all ferritic steel components within the boundary of the system (or portion of system) subject to the test pressure (see NA-5245).

(b) Whenever a system hydrostatic test is conducted in

!O which the reactor vessel contains nuclear fuel and the vessel is within the system test boundary, the test pressure shall not exceed the limiting conditions specified in the plant Technical Specifications.

-O TAB LE NB-5220-1.

TEST PRESSURE Test Temperature, OF Test Pressure, Pn 1,2 100 or less 1.10

!O 200 1.08 300 1.06 i

400 1.04 500 or greater 1.02 4

!O M)TES:

(1 ) Po is the nominal operating pressure corresponding with j

100% rated reactor power.

l

( 2)

Linear interpolation at intermediate test temperatures is

O-permissibl e.

lO 26

O Code Relief Request O

Relief is requested from the test pressure requirements above for Class 1 system hydrostatic tests.

i Proposed Alternative Examinations O

The Class 1 hydrostatic test will be run at a temperature between 1850F and 2120F.

The Code-required test pressure at a temperature of 2120F is 1082 psig.

It is alternatively proposed to run the test at a nominal 1075 psig.

O Licensee's Basis for Requesting Relief Plant Technical Specifications require primary containment integrity to be maintained whenever reactor water temperature is above 2120F when fuel is in the vessel.

Primary containment integrity requires the drywell to be intact and all automatic O

primary containment isolation valves to be operable or de-activated in the isolated position.

During the hydrostatic test, l

the drywell head must be removed to allow inspection of the reactor vessel head flange area and reactor head spray nozzle.

Also, during the hydrostatic test, several primary containment isolation valves are either deactivated in the open position or O

are bypassed by pipe jumpers to extend the test boundary to include all Class 1 piping.

For these reasons, the hydrostatic test cannot be done at temperatures above 2120F.

A test temperature of 2120F corresponds to a test pressure of 1082 psig on Table IWB-5220-1.

This pressure is unaccept-O ably close to the installed RV settings of 1105 psi (+ 11 psi) and 1115 psi ( + 11 psi). We propose to conduct the hydrostatic test with the relief valves in place at a test pressure of 30 psig below the lowest actual relief valve setting. The lowest actual relief valve setting will be determined from the latest available bench test data.

Thirty psig is considered a minimal O

margin to allow for pressure control while recognizing the tolerance of the relief valve settings and the accuracy of the pressure-indicating devices.

Hence, the test pressure will actually be approximately 1075 psig.

The temperature will be maintained below 2120F and above 1850F, which is the minimum vessel temperature allowed by Technical Specifications at O

1075 psig reactor pressure.

We believe that this method is acceptable for the following reasons:

O 27 O

O The purpose of the hydrostatic test is to verify primary coolant boundary integrity.

Performing the test with portions of the primary boundary removed (relief valves) lessens our assur-ance of that integrity.

O Performing the hydrostatic test with the relief valves in place has enabled us to detect potential mal functions.

Primary boundary valve-to-pipe flange leaks and premature relief valves

" lifting" can be identified for correction to prevent the con-sequences of these malfunctions during power operations.

O Half of the relief valves are removed from each refueling outage for bench testing. They are installed prior to performing the hydrostatic test.

Because these valves cannot be gagged without designing and manufacturing special gagging devices,*

four or more relief valves would have to be removed just to per- _

O form the test. The radiation dose incurred due to this additional removal and reinstallation activity is 15 man-rem, and is contrary to good ALARA practices.

The reinstallation of the relief valves would require 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> to complete and would have to be performed on critical path.

'O The difference between the Code test pressure (1082 psig) and the proposed test pressure (30 psig less than lowest relief valve settings) is nominally 12 to 18 psig.

This pressure di f-ferential will not significantly affect any leakage rate or our ability to detect it.

O It is concluded that adequate confidence in the structural integrity of the Class 1 systems and components can be gained by the proposed hydrostatic test and that removal or gagging of the relief valves to permit testing to a slightly higher pressure is not justified.

O Eval uation For the reasons stated above, technical specifications preclude performance of the hydrostatic test and visual O

examinations when primary temperature is greater than 2120F.

At this temperature, the required test pressure is 1082 psig.

At 1850F (the lowest permissible test temperature), the required test pressure is 1088 psig, per linear interpolation in Table IWB-5220-1.

Because of relief valve constraints, the ifcensee O

The manufacturer of the safety relief valves subsequently advised the licensee that the safety relief valves can, using a O

special tool, be gagged safely for any hydrostatic pressprg up to the valve inlet hydrostatic test pressure of 2,375 psig.t 8; 28 O

.O proposes an alternative test pressure of nominally 1075 psig, but no less than 1064 psig (1105-11-30).

The alternative pressure is at most 24 psi less than required, and relief is justified jc) because of this small pressure difference.

Conclusions and Recommendations

()

Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that for Code Class 1 hydrostatic testing, the Code requirements are impracti-cal.

It is further concluded that the alternative examination discussed above will provide necessary added assurance of struc-tural reliability.

Therefore, relief is recommended from the pressure requirements of Table IWB-5220-1, provided the testing

()

is done at a nominal pressure of 1075 psig.

References

O References 3, 5, and 6.

"O C.

Class 2 Pressure Tests No relief requests.

O

!C) a O

i 29 O

O 0.

Class 3 Pressure Tests 1.

Relief Request 4.4.1, Class 3 System Hydrostatic Testing, O

IW0-5223( a )

Code Requirements O

IWD-5223 - System Hydrostatic Test (a) The system hydrostatic test pressure shall be at least 1.10 times the system pressure P v for systems with Design s

Temperature of 2000F (930C) or less, and at least 1.25 times the

.O system pressure Psv for systems with Design Temperature above 2000F (930C). The system pressure Psv shall be the lowest pressure setting among the number of safety or relief valves provided for overpressure protection within the boundary of the system to be tested.

For systems (or portions of systems) not provided with safety or relief valves, the system design pressure O

Pd shall be substituted for Psv-Code Relief Request O

Relief is requested from hydrostatically testing three Class 3 systems to 110% of their design pressures.

These systems are

1. High Pressure Service Water (HPSW)

2. Emergency Service Water ( ESW)

3. Emergency Cooling System (ECS).

Proposed Al ternative Examination The HPSW system, the ESW system, and their respective O

portions of the Emergency Cooling Systems will be pressure-tested to 1.10 times the system operating pressure.

Licensee's Basis for Requesting Relief The following table 1 sts the pump shutoff head, the lowest-set relief valve setting, and the 1980 Code-required test pressure for each Class 3 system.

O 30 0

O The table demonstrates that testing these systems to 110%

of the lowest-set relief valve setting (Psv) is beyond the cap-ability of the system pumps and therefore would require the use

~O of a special hydrostatic test pump.

110% of Psv System Pump Lowest-Set 1980 Code O

System Shutoff Head Relief Valve (Psv)

Test Pressure HPSW (high 430 PSI 450 PSI 495 PSI pressure service water)

O ESW (emergency 65 PSI 125 PSI 137.5 PSI service water)

ECS 65 PSI 125 PSI 137.5 PSI O

Since valve leak tightness is not a requirement for these Cla;s 3 systems, considerable effort would be required to make thr: valves sufficiently leak-tight to match the inflow capability of the hydrostatic test pump.

The maximum capacity of the hydro-

.O scatic test pump is limited by tne available 3/4" and 1" pipe connections.

Consequently, testing at pressures required by the Code is not feasible.

Testing to 110% of operating pressure is practical and could be accomplished using the system pumps and throttling at the

O cooling tower inlet valves: M0-48-0502 ( A, B, C) for the HPSW system, and M0-48-0501 ( A, B, C) for the ESW system.

Testing in this manner will provide adequate assurance of the structural integrity of these systems.

lQ Eval uation The leak tightness of system valves, the small pipe sizes of test connections, and system pump head limitations prevent Code-

.O required pressures from being achieved during hydrostatic tests of the subject systems.

The Code requirements are therefore impractical.

The licensee's proposed alternative pressure tests are rrasonable substitutes for the Code-speci fied tests.

.O 31 v

O Conclusions and Recommendations O

Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that for Code Class 3 hydrostatic testing of the subject systems, the Code requirements are impractical.

It is further concluded that the alternative testing proposed will provide necessary added assur-ance of structural reliability.

Therefore, relief is recommended from the pressure requirements of the Code as requested.

The

,0 proposed alternative tests should be performed each interval as a condition of relief.

-O References References 3 and 5.

[O O

O

.I 32

'O

V.

GENERAL A.

Class 1, 2, and 3 Component Support Program 1.

Relief Recuest 5.3.1, Hydraulic and Pbchanical Shock Suppressors for Class 1, 2, and 3 Piping, Putr.ps and Valves, Table IWF-2500-1, Category F-C, Item F3.50 0

Code Requirements Table IWF-2500-1, Category F-C, Item F3.50 requires visual examination (VT-4) of spring-type supports, constant load-type supports, shock absorbers. and hydraulic and mechanical-type nV snubbers once per inspection interval.

The extent of examination is based on the examination requirements and similarities of supported components.

Code Relief Request ov Relief is requested from performing examinations of Class 1, 2, and 3 hydraulic and mechanical shock suppressors according to the above Code requirements.

O Proposed Al ternative Examination Hydraulic and mechanical shock suppressors will be inspected and tested in accordance wi th Technical Speci fication g

requiremen ts.

Licensee's Basis for Requesting Relief a

The hydraulic and mechanical shock suppressors for Class 1, 2, and 3 systems are currently subjected to an ongoing inspection and testing program detailed in the plant Technical Specf fica-tions.

This program is designed to demonstrate continued operational readiness and structural integrity of the shock suppressors.

n i

The current technical specifications for snubber surveil-lance conform to )RC requirements contained in a generic letter from D.G. Eisenhut, USfRC, to all licensees dated Pbvember 20, 1980.

These Technical Specifications were approved by the Conuission as Amendment tbs.101 and 103 to the Peach Bottom O

Technical Specifications as of July 2,1984.

33 O

O Eval uation The licensee's inservice inspection and testing program for fd snubbers, as described in the Technical Specifications, has the approval of the RC staff.

Additionally, the visual inspection program appears to exceed the requirements of the Code.

Because the program conforms to requirements that have been imposed by RC, relief is warranted.

O Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that for visual examination of mechanical and hydraulic snubbers, the Code O

requirements are impractical.

It is further concluded that the alternative testing proposed will provide necessary added assurance of structural reliability.

Therefore, relief is recommended from the visual examination requirements of Category F-C as requested. Alternatively, Class 1, 2, and 3 snubber examinations should be performed using the procedures of the

O plant's Technical Specifications.

References

'g References 3 and 5.

O i

.O i

O

.4 0

--c

-w--.-

y

-r-,

+-c--

-r-w, yy

-w

- + -

7,

y..-+&+-

'O REFERENCES O

1.

SAIC, Technical Evaluation Report, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Inservice Inspection Program, August 27, 1982.

2.

Letter, J.F. Stolz (EC) to E.G. Bauer (PECo), May 2,1983;

O transmits SER on first interval program.

3.

Letter, S.L. Daltroff (PECo) to J.F. Stolz (EC), June 28, 1984; transmits second interval program for both units.

4.

Letter, J.F. Stolz (RC) to E.G. Bauer (PECo), October 29, 1984; O

request for additional information.

5.

Letter, S. L. Daltroff (PECo) to J.F. Stolz (EC), December 21, 1984; partial response to request for information.

6.

Letter, S. L. Dal troff (PECo) to J.F. Stolz ( EC), ~ January 31, 1985;

.O remaining response to request for information.

7.

Letter, S. L. Daltroff (PECo) to J.F. Stolz ( RC), February 1,1985; additional first interval relief requested.

8.

Letter, PECo to J. F. Stolz (RC), March 6,1985; response to

'O cequest for information.

9.

J. A. Jones Applied Research Services Company, "MINAC", an unpublished report on the use of MINAC Radiographic Systems; Available from J. A. Jones Applied Research Services Company, 1300 Harris Boulevard, P.O. Box 217097 Charlotte, North Carolina

.O 28221.

10.

M. E. Lapides, " Radiographic Detection of Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking: Analysis, Qualification, and Field Testing",

EPRI NP-3164-SR, October 1983.

I

O 11.

M. E. Lapides, " Radiographic Detection of Crack-Like Defects in Thick Sections,": Materials Evaluation, May 1984, Vol. 42, Number 6.

O

O 35

!O

o u

&n--

>w---+w-n.wa-su.

+

a m=,.-

--ss--

u m

aas--

n-aAA"-m>=sa-t--nk--rwaa,'-

a.~As--a-

.s_-a-a----as-6 w

.:S 6

i t

4 4

n

9 i

i 4

19 i

I t

I s,9

(

i ATTACliMENT 1 i

l 4

k i

l ie 4

4 i.

4 4

e i

4

S i

4 a

4 t

1

!9 i

f f

i i,

S 4

i i

3 t

4 5

6:S f

__n--,n-wn,--

-,,--n..,

-n,--

_... - - - - -, - -., - - -. - - - - - - - -- - - -n- - - - - ~. - - - - -

O Page 1 of 14 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 2.2.2*

O UNIT 2 CLASS I COMPONENTS AND WELDS FOR WilICl! CODE RELIEF IS REQUESTED Section XI Section XI Weld Percent Not Relief

' Item No.

Category Number Method Accessible Recuest_

O B9.12 B-J l-A-7LD Vol/Sur 62.5 2.4.6 B9.ll B-J 1-A-8 Vol/Sur 52.7 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-A-8LD vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 O

B9.ll B-J 1-A-9

'Vol/Sur 60 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-A-9LU Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 39.11 B-J 1-B-10 Vol/Sur 26 2.4.6 O

B9.12 B-J 1-B-10LU Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 B9.ll B-J 1-A-llA.

Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 O

B9.12 B-J 1-A-llALD Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-A-llALUI Vol/Sur 30 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-A-llALUO vol/Sur 30 2.4.6 O

B9.ll B-J 1-A-12 Vol/Sur 100 2.4.8 B9.12 B-J 1-A-12LU Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 B9.ll B-J 1-A-13 Vol/Sur 100 2.4.8 25 2.4.6 O

B9.12 B-J 1-A-15LU Vol/Sur B9.ll B-J 1-B-4 Vol/Sur 18 2.4.6 B9.ll B-J 1-B-7 Vol/Sur 14 2.4.6 O

B9.12

,B-J 1-B-7LD Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-B 8LU Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 O

Table copied from Reference 6 Although not clearly identified in the reference, pp. A-1 to A-7 are assumed to apply to Unit 2, and pp. A-8 to A-14 apply to Unit 3.

A-1 0

O Page 2 of 74 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 2.2.2 UNIT 2 CLASS I COMPONENTS AND WELDS FOR WHICH CODE RELIEF IS REQUESTED Section XI Section XI Weld Percent Not Relief

' Item No.

Catecory Number Method Accessible Recuest lO B9.12 B-J 1-B-9LD Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 B9.11 B-J 1-B-14 Vol/Sur 50 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J' l-B-14LD Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6

O B9.11 B-J.

1-B-15 Vol/Sur 100

2. 4. 8 -

B9.12 B-J 1-B-15LU Vol/Sur 33 2.4.6 B9.11 B-J.

1-B-16 Vol/Sur 100 2.4.8 -

!O B9.12 B-J 1-B-18LU Vol/Sur 25 2.4.6 l

B9.ll B-J 1-C-7 Vol/Sur 27 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-C-7LD Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 O

B9.ll B-J 1-C-8 Vol/Sur 27 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-C-OLU Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 B9.ll

B-J 1-C-10 Vol/Sur 26 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-C-10LU Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-C-14LD Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-C-15LU Vol/Sur 25 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-C-18LU Vol/Sur 50 2.4.6 B9.11 B-J 1-D-8 Vol/S 2r 50 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-D-8LD vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 O

B9.11

'B-J 1-D-9 Vol/Sur 50 2.4.6 B9.12i B-J 1-D-9LU Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 O

A-2 O

}

Page 2 of 14 ATTACHMENT l TABLE 2.2.2

)

UNIT 2 CLASS I COMPONENTS AND WELDS FOR WHICH CODE RELIEF IS REQUESTED Section XI Section XI Weld Percent Not Relief

' Item No.

Category Number Method Accessible Request

)

B9.12 B-J l-B-9LD Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 B9.ll B-J 1-B-14 Vol/Sur 50 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J'

'l-B-14LD Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 3

B9.11 B-J.

1-B-15 Vol/Sur 100

2. 4. 8 -

B9.12 B-J 1-B-15LU Vol/Sur 33 2.4.6 B9.ll B-J.

1-B-16 Vol/Sur 100 2.4.8 J

B9.12 B-J 1-B-18LU Vol/Sur 25 2.4.6 B9.ll B-J 1-C-7 Vol/Sur 27 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-C-7LD Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 J

B9.ll B-J 1-C-8 Vol/Sur 27 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-C-OLU Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 l

B9.ll

B-J 1-C-10 Vol/Sur 26 2.4.6 i

B9.12 B-J 1-C-10LU Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-C-14LD vol/Sur:

100 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-C-15LU Vol/Sur 25 2.4.6

)

B9.12 B-J 1-C-18LU Vol/Sur 50 2.4.6 B9.11 B-J 1-D-8 Vo /Sur 50 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-D-8LD Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 g

D9.ll B-J 1-D-9 Vol/Sur 50 2.4.6 B9.12 i B-J 1-D-9LU Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6

)

A-2

Page 3 of 14 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 2.2.2

)

UNIT 2 CLASS I COMPONENTS AND WELDS FOR WHICH CODE RELIEF IS REQUESTED I

I l

Section XI Section XI Weld Percent Not Relief

' Item No.

Category Number Method Accessible Request 3

B9.ll B-J 1-D-llA Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-D-11ALUI Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 B9.12 Bik 1-D-llALUO Vol/Sur 100 2.4.6 d

1 B9.ll B-J 1-D-12 Vol/Sur 100 2.4.8 l

B9.11 B-J 1-D-13 Vol/Sur 100 2.4.8 B9.12 B-J 1-D-15LU Vol/Sur 25 2.4.6 B9.12 B-J 1-D-bLD Vol/Sur 100 2.'4. 6 B9.ll B-J 6-BSU-3 vol/Sur.

100 2.4.7 B9.ll B-J 10-IA-2 Vol/Sur 100 2.4.7 g

I B9.ll B-J

,10-IA-2A Vol/Sur 100 2.4.5 B3.ll B-J 10-IA-2B Vol/Sur 100 2.4,5 g

B9.11 B-J 10-IB-2 Vol/Sur 100 2.4.7 B9.ll B-J 10-0-16A Vol/Sur 100 2.4.5 89.11 B-J 10-0-16B Vol/Sur 100 2.4.5 g

B10.10 B-K-1 1-A-5HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 Thru 4 i

B10.10 B-K-1 1-A-7RL-1 Sur 40 2.4.11 B10.10 B-K-1 1-A-7RL-2 Sur 40 2.4.11

)

B10.10 B-K-1 1-A-7RL-3 Sur 40 2.4.11 e

A-3

. _ _. 7 O

Page 4 of 14 ATTACHMENT 1 O

TABLE 2.2.2 UNIT 2 CLASS I COMPONENTS AND WELDS FOR WHICH CODE RELIEF IS REQUESTED 3ection XI Section XI Weld Percent Not Relief Q

Item No.

Category Number Method Accessible Recuest 310.10 B-K-1 1-A-llHL-1 Sur 100 2.4.9 Thru 4 310.10 B-K-1 1-A-13CL Sur 50 2.4.9 O

310.10 B-K.-l 1-B-5HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 Thru 4 l

B10.10 B-K-1 1-B-5RL-1 Sur 40 2.4.11

()

310.10 B-K-1 1-B-7RL-1 Sur 40 2.4.11 310.10 B-K-1 1-B-7RL-2 Sur 40 2.4.11 310.10 B-K-1 1-B-7RL-3 Sur 40 2.4.11 (3

310.10 B-K-1 1-B-9RL-1 Sur 40 2.4.11 310.10 B-K-1 1-B-9RL-2 Sur 40 2.4.11 310.10 B-K-1 1-B-14HL-1 Sur 100 2.4.9 Thru 4

)

310.10 B-K-1 1-B-16CL Sur 50 2.4.9 510.10 B-K-1 1-C-SHL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 Thru 4 O

310.10 B-K-1 1-C-SRL-1 Sur 40 2.4.11 310.10 B-K-1 1-C-7RL-1 Sur 40 2.4.11 310.10 B-K-1 1-C-7RL-2 Sur 40 2.4.11 310.10 B-K-1 1-C-7RL-3 Sur 40 2.4.11 310.10

~B-K-1 1-C-9RL-1 Sur 40 2.4.11 l

310.10.

B-K-1 1-C-9RL-2 Sur 40 2.4.11 O

l lO A-4 e

()

Page 5 of 14 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 2.2.2

()

UNIT 2 CLASS I COMPONENTS AND WELDS FOR WHICH CODE RELIEF IS REQUESTED Section XI Section XI Weld Percent Not Relief

' Item No.

Category Number

_ Method Accessible Request O

B10.10 B-K-1 l-C-14HL-1 Sur 100 2.4.9 Thru 4 B10.10 B-K.-l 1-C-16CL' Sur 50 2.4.9

()

B10.10 B-K-1 1-D-SHL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 Thru 4 B10.10 B-K-1 1-D-7RL-1 Sur 40 2.4.11

{)

B10.10 B-K'-l 1-D-7RL-2 Sur 40 2.4.11 B10.10 B-K-1 1-D-hRL-3 Sur 40 2.'4.11 B10.10 B-K-1 1-D-llHL-1 Sur 100 2.4.9 Thru 4 B10.10 B-K-1 1-D-13CL Sur 50 2.4.9 B10.10 B-K-1 6-A-12HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 l

l Thru 4 (j

B10.10

'B-K-1 6-A-4HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 Thru 4

)

B10.10 B-K-1 6-A-9CL Sur 50 2.4.9 B10.10 B-K-1 6-AA-5HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10

()

Thru 4 B10.10 B-K-1 6-AB-lHL-2 Sur 20 2.4.10 Thru 5 B10.10 B-K-1 6-AC-4HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 C)

Thru 4 B10.10 B-K-1 6-ASU-lHL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 Thru 4 0

A-5

)

l C)

Page 6 of 14 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 2.2.2

()

UNIT 2 CLASS I COMPONENTS AND WELDS FOR WHICH CODE RELIEF IS REQUESTED, l

3cction XI Section XI Weld Percent Not Relief I

' Item No.

Category Number Method Accessible Recuest O

310.10 B-K-l' 6-B-llHL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 Thru 4 310.10 B-K-1

'6-B-3HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 C)

Thru 4 310.10 B-K-1

'. 6-B-8CL Sur 50 2.4.9 1 Thru 4 l

i 310.10 B-K-1 6-BD-4HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 l

C)

Thru 4 310.10 B-K-1 6-BE-l!!L-1 Sur 20 2.'4.10

)

Thru 5

' ;6-BF-3HL 110.10 B-K-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 C) 1 Thru 5

(

310.10 B-K-1 6-BSU-lHL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 Thru 4

{

310.10 B-K-1 10-HS-12HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10

-C)

Thru 4 310.10 B-K-1 10-HS-17HL-1 Sur 20 2.4.10 Thru 4 310.10 B-K-1 10-HS-3CL Sur 50 2.4.9

()

1 Thru 4 l

310.10 B-K-1 10-IA-2CL Sur 50 2.4.9 1 Thru 4 310.10 B-K-1 10-IB-2CL Sur 50 2.4.9-()

1 Thru 4 310.10 B-K-1 10-0-lCCL Sur 50 2.4.9 1 Thru 4 0

()

A-6

p#

~

Page 7 of 14 ATTAC!! MENT 1

()

TABLE 2.2.2 UNIT 2 CLASS I COMPONENTS AND WELDS FOR WHICl! CODE RELIEF IS REQUESTED Section XI Section XI Weld Percent Not Relief Number Method Accessible Request Item No.

ML20141F627

Text

Navigation menu

Search