ML20236P711
| ML20236P711 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1987 |
| From: | Beth Brown, Mudlin J EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236D168 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6022 EGG-SD-7669, TAC-62971, TAC-64826, NUDOCS 8708130021 | |
| Download: ML20236P711 (63) | |
Text
T u-s
.o
. EGG-SD-7669 l
1
' TECHNICAL EVALUATION 'EPORT ON~THE' R
FIRST 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN:
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY, RIVER BEND STATION UNIT 1, o
DOCKET NUMBER 50-458 1
B. W. Brown J. D. Mudlin-Published July 1987 l
l Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 j
under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761D01570 l
FIN No. D6022 (Project 5)
_ 3' shapar'
ABSTRACT This report presents th'e results of the evaluation of the River Bend Station
{
Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection (ISI) Program Plan through Revision 2, including the requests for relief from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Ves'sel Code Section XI requirements which the Licensee has determined to be
{
impractical.
The River Bend Station Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval ISI Program Plan, Revision 2, is evaluated in Section 2 of this report.
The ISI i
Program Plan is evaluated for (a) compliance with the appropriate edition / addenda of Section XI, (b) acceptability of examination sample, I
(c) exclusion criteria, and (d) compliance with ISI-related commitments identified during the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review before granting an Operating License.
The requests for relief from the ASME Code requirements which the Licensee has determined to be impractical for the first 10-year inspection interval are evaluated in Section 3 of this report.
i 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 ii
I
~
SUMMARY
The Licensee, Gulf States Utilities Company, has prepared the River Bend Station Unit 1 First 10 Year Interval Inservice Inspection (ISI) Program Plan, Revision 2, to meet the requirements of the 1980 Edition, Winter 1981 Addenda (80W81) of the ASME Code Section XI except that the extent of examination for Code Class 2 piping welds in Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and Emergency Core Cooling (ECC) systems has been determined by the 1974 Edition through Summer 1975 Addenda (74S75).
The first 10-year interval began June 16, 1986 and ends June 16, 1996.
The information in the River Bend Station Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval ISI Program Plan, through Revision 2, was reviewed, including the requests for relief from the ASME Code Section XI requirements which the Licensee has determined to be impractical.
Based on the review of the River Bend Station Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval ISI Program Plan, Revision 2, the Licensee's response to the NRC's RAI, and the recommendations for the granting of relief from the ISI examination requirements that have been determined to be impractical, it has been concluded that the River Bend Station Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval ISI Program Plan, Revision 2, is acceptable and in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4).
k G
iii
'h1
,$ 4,
CONTENTS'
. ABSTRACT..................................................................i1.
SUMMARY
...................................................................iii l '.
INTRODUCTION..........................................................
1.
4 2 ~.
EVALUATION OF INSERVICE. INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN........................
4 2.1 D o c ume n t s E v a 1' u a t e d................................................ 4 2.2 :. Compl i ance wi th Code Requirements.................................. 4
' 2.2.1' Comoliance with Applicable Code Editions....................... 4 1,
o 2.2.2 Acceptabil ity. of the Examination ~ Sampl e........................ 5 l
2.2.3 Exclusion Criteria.............................................
5 i
i 2.2.4 Augmented Examination Commitments...............................
5 2.3 Conclusions........................................................
6 4
.3.
E'VALVATION OF RELIEF REQUESTS.........................................
7 3.1 Class 1 Components.................................................
7 l
3.1.1 ' Reactor Pressure Vesse1........................................
7
^
3.1.1.1 Request for Re'ief RR0012A, Revision 2, Examination Category B-A, l..em Bl.12, Reactor Pressure Vessel l
Long i tud i n al Shel l We1 d.................................... 7 l
1 3.1.1.2 Request for Relief RR00128, Revision 2, Examination Category B-D, Item B3.90, Reactor Pressure' Vessel N :zle-to-Vessel We1ds.....................................
8 3.1.1.3 Request for Relief RR0012C, Revision 2, Examination Category B-A, Item 81.11,' Reactor Pressure Vessel Ci rcumferenti al Shell We1ds... t........................... 10 3.1.1.4 Request for Relief RR0012D, Revision 2, Examination Category B-A, Item B1.11, Reactor Pressure Vessel Shell-to-Bottom Head We1d.................................
12 3.1.1.5 Request for Relief RR0012E, Revision 1, Examination Category B-A, Item Bl.40, Reactor Pressure Vessel Top Head-to-Flange We1d.......................................
14 3.1.1.6 Reauest for Relief RR0012F, Revision 1, Examination Category B-H, Item 88.10, Reactor Pressure Vessel Support Ski rt Attachment Wel d............................. 15
.V g.
iv
=
cw Jw w
i 4-9 3.1;1.71 Request for Relief RR0012G,-Revision'1,-Examination
~
4
- Category F-A,. Reactor Pressure Vessel Support' Skirt-to-Base' Plate Weld, Base Plate Seam Welds' and Base Plate Bolting Ring........................,..........
171 3.1 1.8' Request for Relief. RR0012H, Revision 1, Examination
.l Category B-A, Item Bl.22, Reactor Pressure. Vessel
+
7 L,
' Bottom Head Meridi onal Welds.............................. 18.-
T 3.1.1.9 Request' for Relief RR0004, Revision 2, Examination U
Category B-0,-Item B14.10,.-and Ex' amination Category B-G-2, Item 87.10, Peripheral Control Rod Drive Housing. Welds and Bolting for Control Rod Drive
- Housi ng and In-core Housings.............................. 20
-3.1.2: Pressurizer (Does not apply to BWRs) 3 3.1.3 Heat Exchangers and' Steam Generators (No. relief requests) 1 3.1.4 Piping Pressure Boundary......................................
22 f
3.1.4.1 Request. for Relief RR0001, Revision.2, Examination Category B-J, Item B9.11, Pressure Retaining Circumferential Welds in Cl ass 1 Piping................... 22 l
31.4.2' Request for Relief RR0002, Revision 2, Examination Category B-J, Item B9.11, Pressure Retaining Circumferential Welds in Cl ass l' Piping................... 24 3.1.4.3. Request for' Relief RR0006,. Revision 2, Examination Category B-J, Item B9.11,. Pressure Retaining-Di ssimil ar Welds - in Cl ass.1 Piping........................ 25 3.' 1. 4. 4 Request for Relief RR0007, Revision 2, Examination Category B-J, Items 89.11 and 89.12, Pressure Retaining Welds in Cl ass 1 Piping......................... 26
~
3.1.4.5 Request for Relief RR0008, Revision 2, Examination Category B J, Item B9.11,' Pressure Retaining Welds i n Cl a s s 1 P i p i ng......................................... 2 8 i
3.1.4.6 Request for Relief RR0013, Revision 2, Examination Category B-J, Items 89.11 and B9.12, Pressure Retaining Circumferential and Longitudinal Welds in Cl a s s 1 P i p i n g............................................ 31 3.1.4.7 Request for Relief RR0014, Revision 2, Examination Category B-J, Items 89.21 and 89.31, Pressure Retaining Circumferential and Branch Pi Welds in Class 1 Piping................pe Connection
................... 32 3.1.5 Pump Pressure Boundary................................
....... 34 3.1.5.1 Request for Relief RR0009, Revision 2, Examination Categories B-L-2 and B-M-2, Items B12.20 and B12.50,
.i d Class 1 Pump Casings and Valve Bodies.....................
34 v
l
.2L._._-.__='.___-
+ 7 ;,2 9
v 4
{
{
nl, F.
c-q 4
{
3.1.61 Val ve Pres sure; Bound ary....................................... 36 g
7 t
i
?
3.1.6.1.: Request.-for ReliefoRR0009 Revision *2,~ Examination 1 l
L Categories'B L-2 and B-M-2,' Items 812.20 and 812.50, t
~
Class luPump Casi~ngs and Valve Bodies-H*"
- (See the evaluation of this request for relief a~
N under Section 3.1.5.-1)
^A 3.1.7' General........................................................
37 3.1.7.1 Request for Relief RR0005A, Revision 2,. Examination 3
Category B-K-1, Items _B10.10 and B10.20, Integral Welded Attachments for Class l ' Piping. ar.d Pumps........... 37 3.2 Class 2' Components................................
............... 39 J
3.2.1 Pressure Vessels..........
................................... 39
-3.2.1.1 Request for Relief RR0011, Revision 2 Examination 1
Category C-A, Item C1.20,. Pressure Retaining; Head Circumferential Welds in Class 2 Vessels, and Examination Category C-B, Items C2.21 and C2.22, i
- Pressure Retaining Nozzle-to-Shell. Welds and Nozzle Inside Radius Sections in Class 2 Vessels............. ;... 39 3.2.2 Piping........................................................
41 i
3.2.2.1: ~ Request for Relief RR0010, Revision 3, Examination Category C-F, Item C5.11, Pressure Retaining j
q Circumferential Welds in Class 2 Piping................... 41 -
R 4
3.2.3 Pumps.........................................................
43 I
j 3.2.3.1 Request for Relief RR0003, Revision 2,. Examination
- Category C-G, Item C6.10, Pressure Retaining Welds in
~
Pumps..................................................... 43' 3.2.4 -Valves (No relief requests) l 3.2.5 General.......................................................
46 f
3.2.5.1 Request for Relief RR00058, Revision 2, Examination j
Category C-C, Items C3.10 and C3.20, Integral Welded j
Attachments for Cl ass 2 Vessels and Piping................ 46 3.3 Class 3 Components (No relief requests)
J 3.4 Pressure Tests (No relief requests) 3.5 General...........................................................
48 3.5.1 Ultrasonic Examination Techniques (No relief requests) 3.5.2 Exempted Components (No relief requests)
I
- a Vi
2
$ _ fl-
<4, i,6 14.
3.5'3 0ther.........................................................
48-j q
~3.5.3.1 : Request for Relief RR0015,Section XI, Paragraphs IWA 2610
-i and IWA-2641,. Requirements for Establishment'of a System
- c
. for Layout of Reference Points on the Center Line of
- Class l'and 2 Welds (Withdrawn by'the Licensee -. 2/27/87)................ 48' l
i
- 3.5.3.2. Request: for Relief RR0016, Revision'1, Notches in
- Ultrasonic Examination Calibration Blocks.................
48 4.
CONCLUSION............................................................ 52' 5.
REFERENCES............................................................
54 1
1 e
1 1
1
<4
<l
~
l l
\\
'I I
1 I
i l
1
\\
6 m
O.
l vii i
4 i
l TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ON THE FIRST 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN:
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY, RIVER BEND STATION UNIT 1, DOCKET NUMBER 50-458 1.
INTRODUCTION
\\
Throughout the service life of a water cooled nuclear power facility, 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) (Reference 1) requires that components (including suppo ts) which are classified as ASME Code Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 meet the requirements, except tae design and access provisions and the preservice examination requirements, set forth'in ASME Code Section XI, f
" Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components,"
}
I (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 1
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 tne date of issuance of the operating license, subject to the limitations and modifications listed therein.
The components (including supports) may meet requirements set fortli in subsequent editions and addenda of this Code which are incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a(b) subject to the limitations and modifications listed therein.
The Licensee, Gulf States Utilities Company, has prepared the River Bend Station Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection (ISI)
Program Plan, through Revision 2, to meet the requirements of the 1980 Edition, Winter 1981 Addenda (80W81) of the ASME Code Section XI except that I
the extent of examination for Code Class 2 piping welds in Residual H' eat Removal (RHR) Systems and Emergency Core Cooling (ECC) Systems has been determined by the 1974 Edition through Summer 1975 Addenda (74S75).
The first inspection interval began June 16, 1986 and ends June 16, 1996.
As required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5), if the licensee determines that certain Code examination requirements are impractical and requests relief from them,
[
the licensee shall submit information and justifications to the Nuclear
)
n 1
)
Regulatory Commission-(NRC) to support that determination.
l Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6),: the NRC will evaluate the licensee's i
determinations under 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5) that Code requirements are impractical.
The NRC may grant relief and may impose alternative requirements as it determines are authorized by law and 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 R.iver Bend Station Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval ISI Program Plan, through Revision 1 (Reference 3), submitted July 16, 1986 was reviewed including the requests for relief from the ASME Code Sect c XI requirements which the Licensei has determined to be impractical.
This review was performed using the Standard Review Plans of NUREG-0800 (Reference 4), 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 January 21,1987 (Reference 5), the NRC requested the additional information that was required in order to complete the review of the ISI Program Plan.
The requested information was provided and Revision 2 j
of the ISI Program Plan was submitted by the Licensee in letters dated February 27,1987 (Re,ference 6), March 10,1987 (Reference 7), and l
June 2,1987 (Reference 8).
The River Bend Station Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval ISI Prcgram Plan,
)
through Revision 2, 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) exclusion criteria, and (d) compliance with ISI-related commitments identified during the NRC's review before granting an Operating License.
The requests for relief from the ASME Code Section XI requirements which the Licensee has determined to be impractical are evaluated in Section 3 of this report.
Unless otherwise stated, references to the Code refer to the ASME i
2
_ _ _ _ -. _. _. -. _ ~ - - - -.
i Code,Section XI, 1980 Edition including Addenda throu;'1 Winter 1981.
~
Specific inservice test (IST) programs for pumps and valves are being j
evaluated in other reports.
.)
2 i
i 8
4
/
D e
N 3
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - = _ _. -. _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _. _ -
~ ~ ~ ~
2.
EVALVATIONLOF-INSERVfCE INSPECTION PRMRAM PLAN i
This evaluation consisted of a review of.the applicable program documents to
~
determine whether or not they are in. compliance with tFe Code requirements i
1
~
and any' license conditions: pertinent to'ISIsactivities.: This section
]
i describes the submittals reviewed and the results of tne review.
2.1 Documents Evaluated A
j 1
Review has been completed'on the following information:
l (a)
River Bend Station Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval ISI Program Plan, i
Revision 1, submitted July 16, 1986; (b) Letter, dated February 27, 1987, Licensee's submittal of a preliminary copy of Revision 2 to the ISI Program Plan and response
- j to NRC's RAI; (c) Letter, dated March 10, 1987, supplemental information to the Licensee's February 27, 1987 submittal of Revision 2 to the ISI Program Plan; and 1
(d). Letter, dated June 2,1987, Licensee's official submittal of Revision 2 to the ISI Program Plan.
2.2 Como11ance with Code Requirements 2.2.1 Como11ance with Aeolicable Code Editions The Inservice Inspection Program Plan shall be based on the Code editions defined in 10 CFR 50.55a(b).
Based on the Operating License date of November 20, 1985, 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 written the River Bend Station Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval ISI Program Plan, through Revision 2, to meet the requirements of the 1980 Edition, Winter 1981 Addenda of the Code 4
-1 l
1 l
1 except' that the extent of examination for Code Class 2 piping welds in Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and Emergency Core Cooling (ECC) Systems has been determined by the 1974 Edition through Summer 1975 Addenda.
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 appear to be correct.
d 2.2.3 Exclusion Criteria The criteria used to exclude components from examination shall be consistent with Paragraphs IWB-1220, IWC-1220, IWC-1230. 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 Sections 8.1 and 9.1 of the ISI Program Plan and appear to be correct.
f i
2.2.4 Auamented Examination Commitments j
i j
The following augmented examinations will be implemented during the first 10-year inspection interval:
(a) To provide assurance against postulated piping failures of high energy fluid systems, augmented inservice inspection will be performed, l
]
(b)
Inservice inspection of the feedwater nozzle blend radii will be performed by using automated ultrasonic examination from the exterior surface of the nozzle (s) in accordance with NUREG-0619, "BWR Feedwater Nozzle and Control Rod Drive Return Line Nozzle Cracking" (Reference 9).
(c) NUREG/CR-3052, "Closecut of IE Bulletin 80-07:
BWR Jet Pump
~
b 2
i
?
J Assembly Failure"-(Reference 10), addresses the subject of BWR jet I
l pump assembly failure River Bend Station, BWR/6, has installed j
jet pump beams with a reduced preload of 25 KIPS.
The Licensee I
1
- ~
shall perform approved remote ultrasonic examination five years after commercial operation and subsequently at interval's of two i
years.
(d) The ASME Code Section XI Class 1, reactor coolant pressure boundary piping of River Bend Station meets the guidelines of Part III, 4
Alternate 1 of NUREG-0313, " Technical Report on Material Selection s
and Processing Guidelines for BWR Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping" 1
(Reference 11).
y 2.3 Conclusions Based on the review of the documents listed above, it is concluded that the River Bend Station Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan, through Revision 2, is acceptable and in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4).
The requests for relief from the ASME Code requirements which the Licensee has determined to be impractical are evaluated in the following sections, i
l e
9 6
______._____.____J
re <
..=
- 3.: EVALUATION OF RELIEF REQUESTS ~
[
p The: requests for relief from the-ASME Code requirements which the Licensee-has determined to be. impractical.for: the first 10-year -inspection-interval are.ovaluated in the following sections.
_d, 3.1 Class l'Comconents 3.1.1 Reactor Pressure Vessel i
t I
3.1.1.1 Reauest for Relief RR0012A, Revision 2. Examination Cateaory B-A. Item Bl.12. Reactor Pressure Vessel longitudinal Shell l
Etid
~
Code Requirement:
Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-A,. Item B1.12 requires a 1007. volumetric examination of all longitudinal shell welds as defined by Figure IWB-2500 2.
Licensee's Code Relief Reauest:
The Licensee requests relief from exhmining 100% of the Code-required volume of Reactor Pressure Vessel- (RPV) longitudinal shell weld BG.
Licensee's Procosed Alternative Examination:
None.
The Licensee states that the subject weld will receive a volumetric examination to the maximum extent possible.
I i
licensee's Basis for Reauestina Relief: The Licensee states that inservice volumetric inspection coverage of longitudinal shell weld BG will be reduced at an adjacent nozzle due to interference with the automated ultrasonic inspection equipment.
Complete preservice ultrasonic examination coverage i
was achieved for transverse reflectors for longitudinal shell weld BG. Coverage for parallel reflectors included 100!; of the weld and was approximately 95?; for adjacent metal in the 1/2 t 1
zone due to interference with the automatic examination
- m. ; m7 a
1 j ;.s
~
-i
. equipment; caused.by. adjacent nozzle. (The.intervice inspection
.P coverage for. weld BG will be. the same-as;that obtained during -
the preservice ultrasonic examination of the weld.
Completion:
m
'off the' remaining portion of the ' required examination is
~
impractical 1andwouldresultinunduehardsnip'witi1outa compensating iricrease in safety.
- Evaluation:.The' Licensee's submittal has been reviewed, including the sketch which shows the scan area not covered for parallel reflectors. The volumetric examination of the subject weld, to the extent required by the Code, is impractical j
' because of the interference caused by a nozzle adjacens to the
.l weld. A significant percentage of ~the inservice volumetric I
. examination, as required by the. Code, can and will be I
performed.
The RPV and/or the nozzle would have to be redesigned and prefabricated in. order to complete the remainder.
Concl usiop.1:
Based on the above evaluation, it is-concluded that the limited Section XI ultrasonic examination provides an i
a'cceptable. level of inservice. structural integrity and that
{
compliance with specific requirements of Section XI would result in hardship or' unusual difficulties without a I
(
compensating increase in the level of quality and safety.
u Therefore, it is recommended that relief be granted as requested.
3.1.1.2 Reouest'for Relief RR00128. Revision 2. Examination Cateaorv B-0. Item 83.90 Reactor Pressure Vessel Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds Code Requirement:
Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-0, Item B3.90 requires a 100% volumetric examination I
of all nozzle-to-vessel welds as defined by Figure IWB-2500-7.
Licensee's Code Relief Reouest:
The Licensee requests relief from examining 100% of the Code-reouired volume of the
.following nozzle to-vessel welds:
I-y..
8 4
(-
NIA & B N2A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, & K N3A, B, C, & D g
.N4A, B, C, & D NSA & B N6A, B,'& C N7 N8 N9A & B y
NIO N16 i
licensee's prooosed Alternative Examination:
None.
The Licensee states that the subject welds will receive' volumetric examination to the fullest extent possible.
Licensee's Basis for Reouestino Relief: The Licensee states that, due to the geometry of the nozzles, the ultrasonic examination from the outside surface is only possible from the vessel side of the nozzle-to-vessel welds.
The preservice ultrasonic examination of the nozzle-to-vessel welds listed above achieved full coverage for parallel and transverse reflectors from the vessel side of the welds.
Approximately 50% of the required volume on the nozzle side of the weld was inspected for parallel reflectors from the vessel side of the welds.
All of the weld metal was examined.
The inservice volumetric ultrasonic examination coverage for the listed nozzle-to-vessel welds will be the same as that obtained for the preservice inspection of the welds.
Completion of the remaining portion of the required examination is impractical and would result in undue hardship without a compensating increase in safety.
Evaluation:
The Licensee's submittal has been reviewed, t
including the sketch which shows the areas not covered for parallel and transverse reflectors.
The volumetric examination of these areas, to the extent required by the Code, is impractical because of the design of the nozzles.
A 9
l 1
I
i significant percentage of the inservice volumetric examination, as' required by the Code, will be performe:.
The RPV and/or nozzles would have to be redesigned and prefabricated in order to complete the remainder.
==
Conclusions:==
Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that the limited Section XI ultrasonic examination provides an acceptable level of inservice structural integrity and that f
compliance with specific requirements of Section XI would result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety.
Therefore, it is recommended that relief be granted as requested.
3.1.1.3 Reouest for Relief RR0012C Revision 2. Examination Cateaorv B-A. Item 81.11. Reactor pressure Vessel Circumferential Shell Welds l
Code Requirement: Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-A, Item Bl.11 requires a 100% volumetric examination of all circumferential shell welds as defined by Figure IWB-2500-1.
1 i
Licensee's Code Relief Reouest:
The Licensee requests relief f
from examining 100% of the Code-required volume of RPV circumferential shell weld AB, j
Licensee's Procosed Alternative Examination:
None.
The Licensee states that the subject weld will receive the volumetric examination to the maximum extent possible.
Licensee's Basis for Recuestina Relief: The Licensee states that the reactor vessel circumferential shell weld AB is locted in a beveled area, i.e., a transition in wall thickness. Due to the physical geometry cf the weld, it is not possible to pass an automated ultrasonic examination (AUT) head 10
i l
~
over the weld and maintain couplant and transducer orientation.
During the preservice ultrasonic examination of weld AB, the AUT. coverage'was 'sepplementef by manual ultrasonic inspection and full coverage of weld AB was obtained.
During inservice ultrasonic examination of weld AB, high I
radiation levels will prohibit manual UT examination, and coverage will be limited to that which can be obtained by automated UT examination.
It is estimated that for parallel reflectors, the root of the weld and approximately 67% of the remaining weld metal will be examined by both 45 and 60 degree 1
angle beams from both sides of weld AB.
For transverse reflectors, virtually no coverage of the weld metal will be obtained, and approximately 90% of the adjacent metal will be examined.
Completion of the remaining portion of the required examination is impractical and would result in undue hardship without a compensating increase in safety.
Evaluation: The Licensee's submittal has been reviewed, including the sketch which shows the geometry of the weld.
3 Based on the weld geometry, an acceptable percentage of the j
Code-required volumetric examination will be performed on weld AB.
The RPV would have to be redesigned and prefabricated in order to complete the remainder.
Also, supplementing the j
automated ultrasonic examination with a manual ultrasonic examination in order to obtain full coverage of weld AB could result in large amounts o' radiation exposure to personnel.
l l
1
==
Conclusions:==
Based on the above evaluation, ic is concluded l
that the limited Section XI ultrasonic examination provides an accep+able level of inservice structural integrity and that compliance with specific requirements of Section XI would result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety.
Therefore, it is recommended that relief be granted as requested.
l 11 1
j 1
l y
l 3.1.1.4 Reouest for Relief RR00120, Revis,on 2. E/ amination Cateoorv B-A, Item 81,11 Reactor Pressure Vessel Shell-to-Botton Head '
i Wild Code Rectirement:
Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-A, Item Bl.11 requires a 100% volumetric examination
{
of the reactor vessel shell-to-bottom head weld as defined by Figure IWB-2500-1.
Licensee's Code Relief Reouest:
The Licensee requests relief from examining 100% of the Code-required volume on the bottom head-to-reactor vessel circumferential weld AA.
Licensee's Procosed Alternative Examination:
None.
The Licensee states that the accessible portion of the subject weld will receive volumetric examination.
Licensee's Basis for Reouestina Relief:
The Licensee states that the bottom head-to-reactor vessel circumferential weld AA is located at the edge of a bevel or transition in vessel diameter.
The geometry is such that it could be examined from only the vessel side of the weld.
Preservice ultrasonic examination coverage for weld AA is shown in the figure attached to the relief request. All of the required adjacent base metal on the shell side of the weld and essentially 100% of the weld itself were examined by 45 and 60 degree angle beams normal to the weld. Approximately 50% of the adjacent base metal on the bottom head side of the weld was examined using 45 and 60 degree angle beams normal to the weld from the shell side of the weld.
The weld was examined 100%
for transverse reflectors in both directions on the shell side o
There was essentially no coverage for transverse l
reflectors from the bottom head side of the weld and there was j
f no ; overage using 45 and 60 degree angle beams from the bottom heat side of the weld.
During inservice ultrasonic inspection of the weld, the examination coverage will be similar to that l
l 12
obtained during the preservice inspection, j
i During inservice inspection, automated ultrasonic examination will be performed from one side (vessel shell side).
This is required because of surface irregularity (handgrinding causing l
pitch and roll profile) in the immediate weld area and the material transition area below the weld.
The weld centerline location (measurement from tangent of transition) on the vessel shell may vary up to 2 inches along the vessel circumference (730.42 inches).
The pitch and roll profile along the slope transition supplements the insufficient surface measurement to provide a meaningful ultrasonic (45 and 60 degree) examination.
I Additional manual ultrasonic examination in this area would increase the total radiation exposure for the examination personnel at River Bend Station.
Evaluation: The Licensee's submittal has been reviewed, including the sketches which show the examination limitations, and it has been concluded that the volumetric examination of weld AA, to the extent required by the Code, is impractical because of the component and/or weld geometry.
A significant 1
percentage of the inservice volumetric examination, as required by the Code, will be performed.
To obtain information from the j
bottom head side of weld AA, a transducer would need to be l
placed between weld AA and the vessel skirt.
This is a relatively small area, the surface of which is irregular due to hand grinding and presents a pitch and roll profile along the j
slope transition.
The distance between the weld AA and the top of the skirt weld can also vary so that there would be t
insufficient space to place a transducer for a meaningful examination form the bottom head side of weld AA.
==
Conclusions:==
Based on the aoove evaluation, it is concluded that the limited Section XI ultrasonic examination provices an acceptable level of inservice structural integrity and that 13
compliance with specific requirements of Section XI would result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality 'and safety.
Therefore, it is recommended that relief be granted as requested.
3.1.1.5 Recuest for Relief RR0012E, Revision 1. Examination Catecory B-A, Item B1.40 Reactor Pressure Vessel Too Head-to-Flance kl.d Code Requirement:
Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-A, Item 81.40 requires a 100% surface and volumetric examination of the head-to-flange weld as defined by figure IWB-2500-5.
Licensee's Code Relief Recuest: The Licensee requests relief from examining 100% of the Code-required volume on the RPV top head-to flange seam weld AG.
Licensoe's Procosed Alternative Examination: None. The Licensee states that the subject weld will receive the Codc-required surface examination and a partial volumetric examination.
Licensee's Basis for Recuestino Relief:
The Licensee states that, due to the configuration, there is sufficient area to perform a meaningful ultrasonic examination from the top head side of the weld only.
The weld was examined volumetrically (manual ultrasonic) from the top head side.
There was no ultrasonic examination coverage from the flange side of the weld.
Full ultrasonic examination coverage was obtained for transverse and parallel reflectors from the top head side of the weld. During inservice ultrasonic examination of weld AG, the examination coverage will be similar to that obtained during the preservice inspection of the weld from the top head side.
~.
14
Evaluation:
The Licensee's submittal has.been reviewed, including the sketch which shows the examination limitations, and it has been concluded that the volumetric examination of L
weld AG, to the extent required by the Code, is impractical i
because of the position of the weld in relation to the flange.
l A significant percentage of the Code required inservice volumetric examination will be performed.
==
Conclusions:==
Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that the limited Section XI ultrasonic examination, along with j
g the full' Code surface examination, provides an acceptable level i
of inservice structural integrity and that compliance with specific requirements of Section XI would result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the
. level of quality and sa'ety.
Therefore, it is recommended that
. relief be granted as requested.
3.1.1.6 Reauest 'for Relief RR0012F. Revision 1. Examination Cateoorv I
B-H. Item 88.10. Reactor Pressure Vessel Succort Skirt Attachment Weld Code Requirement:
Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-H, Item B8.10 requires a 100% volumetric or surface-examination, as applicable, on the RPV integrally welded attachments as defined by Figures IWB 2500-13, -14, and -15.
Licensee's Code Relief Recuest: The Licensee requests relief l
from examining 100% of the Code-required volume on the support f
skirt-to-bottom head weld CG.
i Licen,ee's Procosed Alternative Examination: None. The Licensee states that the subject weld will receive a partial volumetric examination.
Licensee's Basis for Recuestina Relief:
The Licensee states that, due to the skirt attachment configuration, there is only sufficient area on one side (support skirt side) to perform a 15
l meaningful ultrasonic examination from'the outside diameter (00) surface.
l During preservice inspection, the weld was-examined volumetrically (manual ultrasonic) from the 00 surface, ~ support
~#:
skirt side of-the weld.
Examination limitations were noted at-
.the frontal weld profile of the inside weld and at' the area.
immediately adjacent to the support notch. Discounting.the small: limiting percentage, a meaningful examination was
. performed.
i During inservice inspection, the weld will be examined volumetrically (automated ultrasonic) from the 00 surface, support skirt ' side of the weld.
Examination. limitations are
\\
located' at' the frontal weld profile of the inside weld and at i
the area immediately adjacent to the suppcrt notch. The-examination coverage. is illustrated in the sketch attached to' i
the relief request.
Additional manual ultrasonic examination in this area will increase the total exposure rate for personnel at River Bend Station.
Em luation:
The Licensee's submittal has been reviewed, including the sketch which shows the examination limitations.
Based on the design of the support skirt attachment, the volumetric examination of the subject weld, to the extent required by the Code, is impractical.
A significant percentage of the inservice volumetric examination, as required by the Code, can and will be performed.
The RPV and/or vessel support would have to be redesigned and prefabricated in order to I
complete the remainder.
==
Conclusions:==
Based on the above evaluatien, it is concluded that the limited Section XI ultrasonic examination provides an acceptable level of inservice structural integrity and that 16
_L_______.-____
)
compliance with specific requirements of Section XI would result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety.
Therefore, it is recommended that relief be granted as requested.
3.1.1.7 Peauest for Relief RR0012G. Revision 1. Examination Cateaory F-A. Reactor Pressure Vessel Succort Skirt-to-8ase Plate Weld.
Base Plate Seam Welds, and Base Plate Boltina Rina Code Requirement: Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category F-A requires a 100% visual examination (VT-3) of plate and shell type supports to the extent indicated in paragraphs IWF-1300 and IWF-2510 and as defined by Figure IWF-1300-1.
Licensee's Code Relief Reauest:
Relief is requested from performing 100% of the Code-required visual examination of the vessel support skirt-to base plate attachment weld CT (inside portion), the base plate seam welds CK, CM, CN, CP, CR, and CS (inside portion), and the base plate bolting ring (inside portion).
Licensee's Procosed Alternative Examination:
None. The accessible portions' of these components will receive the visual examination as required by the Code.
Licensee's Basis for Reauestina Relief:
The Licensee states that the vessel support skirt to tase plate weld (inside portion), the base plate seam welds (inside portion), and the base plate bolting (inside row) are located beneath the support skirt and in close proximity to the control rod drive (CRD) assemblies penetrating through the bottom head.
During preservice inspection, the welds were surface examined by magnetic particle (MT) method.
The bolts / nuts were visually inspected.
Both examinations were found acceptable in accordance with ASME Section III Class I requirements and
. ~.
17
served as the preservice baseline documentation.
Performing the required inservice inspection visual examinations is
)
impractical and would result in undue hardship because of ALARA considerations and extended outage duration.
l Evaluation:
The Licensee's submittal has been reviewed, I
including the drawing which shows the examination limitations.
Based on the design of the RPV supports, it has been concluded that the visual examination of the subject welds and bolting, i
to the extent required by the Code, is impractical and that an acceptable portion of the inservice visual examination, as required by the Code, will be performed. Failure to perform a 100% inservice examination of these welds and bolting will not
~
significantly affect the assurance of the structural integrity.
==
Conclusions:==
Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that the limited Section XI visual examination provides an acceptable level of inservice structural ir.tegrity and that compliance with specific requirements of Section XI would result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a l
compensating increase in the level of quality and safety.
Therefore, it is recommended that relief be granted as requested.
i i
3.1.1.8 Recuest for Rolief RR0012H. Revision 1. Examination Catecory B-A. Item Bl.22. Reactor Pressure Vessel Bottom Head Meridional W 1ds 9
Code Requirement:
Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-A, item Bl.22 requires a 100% volumetric examination on the RPV meridional head welds as defined by Figure IWB-2500-3.
licensee's Code Relief Recuest.:
The Licensee requests relief 4
from performing the Code required volumetric examination of the bottom head meridional seam welds DG and DH.
l.
18
1 y..
],1censee's Prooosed Alternative Examinatio :
None.
Licensee's Basis for Reouestina Relief:
The Licensee states that inservice volumetric (ultrasonic) exa:ination coverage of meridional welds OG and DH cannot be achieved due to installed
. control rod drive (CRO) assemblies penetrating thrcugh the
- bottom-vessel head.
Preservice inspection was performed by manual ultrasonic 4
examination with full weld coverage and no recordable a
indications. This inspection was performed prior to CR0 installation.
Inservice inspection of the welds from beneath the bottom head a
will require removal of portions of the CRD.
Performing the
]
required examinations is impractical and would result in undue hardship (increase ALARA consideration and extended outage duration) without a compensating increase in safety.
Evaluation: The Licensee's submittal has been reviewed, including the drawing of the examination limitations.
Based on the desig'n of the RPV bottom head assembly and the high radiation levels in that area, it has been concluded that the Code-required volumetric examination of the bottom head meridional welds OG and OH is impractical.
==
Conclusions:==
Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that the Section XI volumetric examination of welds OG and DH is impractical and that compliance with specific requirements of Section XI would result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety. Therefore, it is recommended that relief be granted as requested.
+ '
)
I 19
, ~T, ;
-I-
.4?
\\
-3.1.1.9 Reauest for Relief' RR0'004. ~ Revision 2. ExNination Cateaory 1
~B-0. item 'B14,10 and Examination Cateaory B-G-2, item B7.10. '
Perioheral Control Rod Drive Housina Welds-and Boltino for j
m Control: Rod' Drive'Housino and in-core Housina's 1
j Code Requirement:
Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1,. Examination Category B-0,' Item B14.10 requires a 100% volumetric or surface examination of the welds of 10% of peripheral CRD housings as defined by. Figure IWB-2500-18.
l I
Examination Category B-G-2, Iten 87.10 requires a 100% visual i
examination (VT-1) of the surfaces of all bolts, ' studs,.and i
nuts.
Licensee's Code Relief Reauest:- The Licensee requests relief
.from performing-the volumetric or. surface examinations on the-peripheral CRD h'ousing welds (tube-to-tube, tube-to-flange) and from visually examining 100% of the surfaces of eight (8) bolts associated with each flange'of 145 CRD housings and four (4) bolts. associated with each flange of 45 in-core housings.
i Licensee's Procosed Alternative Examination:
None.
If the CRD assembly is replaced,100% of the Code-required volumetric or surface examinations will be performed prior to re-installation. A (VT-1) visual examination will be substituted for 100% of the tube-to-flange weld area and 20% of the tube-to-tube weld area on the CRD assembly. A limited (VT-1) visual examination will be performed on.the lower flange bolting from the bottom side of the CRD assembly.
This 1
variable examination is based upon the angle of vision due to 4
interference with the adjacent CRD assemblies. A (VT-2) system pressure test will be performed and will insure the integrity of the lower flange connection on the CRD assembly.
Licensee's Basis for Reauestino Relief:
The Licensee states that the subject welds and bolting are not accessible for 20
~
]
.o u
p inspection unless-the CRD support structure.is removed.
l Volumetric or surface examination cannot be accomplished from
.the outside due to interference from adjacent CR0 housings.
,C
. Inspection of the welds from the inside of.the CR0 housings would require removal of the CRD mechanism, which could result-in possible damage.to the drive.
Due to interference from adjacent CRD housiag, only limited. visual (VT-1) examination of the bolting can be performed.
The Licensee has determined that performing' the required examinations is impractical.and would l
result in undue herdship (increase ALARA consideration and extend outage duration) without a compensating increase in safety.
Evaluation: The Licensee's submittal has been reviewed and it
'has been concluded that the Code-required volumetric or surface i
examination of the subject welds.and the visual examination of the subject bo'lting, to the extent required by the Code, are 4
impractical because the welds and bolting are obstructed by the CRD housings and support structure.
The remeval of the CR0 structure solely for the purpose of examining the subject welds is a major effort and, in addition to the possibility of damage to the components, could result in large amounts of radiation exposure to personnel.
In the event that the CRD housings are disassembled for inservice repair or maintenance, such that the subject welds and bolting are accessible, the Licensee has committed to performing the Code-required inservice examinations at that time.
I
==
Conclusions:==
Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that the limited Section XI visual examination (VT-1) of the bolting and the visual examination (VT-1) of the rubject welds, along with the required system pressure test, provide an acceptable level of inservice structural integrity and that compliance with the specific requirements of Section XI would j
result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety.
l 1
21
my,,
l
. Q.i j
ju Therefore, it:is recommended that relief he granted as requested;
)
- 4 L3.1.2 Pressurizer (Does'not apply:to'BWRs)
' 3.1' 3-Heat Exchanaers and' Steam Generators (No relief requests) 2>
q 3.1.4. Pioino Pressure Boundary 1
3.1.4.1..Recuest for Relief 'RR0001. Revision 2. - Examination 'Catecorv
-B-J. Item B9;11. PressureLRetainino Circumferential Welds in-i Class 1 Pioina Code Requirement: Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination' l
Category B-J,' Item B9.11 requires a 100% surface and volumetric-examination.on circumferential piping welds, 4 inches nominal-
. pipe size and greater, as defined by Figure IWB-2500-8.
Licensee's Code Relief'Reauest:
The Licensee requests relief-from. examining 100% of the Code-required volume on the following tee-to-flange welds:
Component or
% of Weld Line Number
- Weld Number Examinable 1813*D020 ICS-006A-SW002 25%
1B13*D020.
ICS-006A-SWOO3 50%
1813*D020 ICS-006A-SWOO4 25%
Relief is also requested from performing the Code-required volumetric examination on the following circumferential welds:
' Component or Line Number Weld Number Tvoe of Weld 1813*D020 ICS-006A-SW001 Tee to-flange 105-006-057-1 0578-FWOO4 Pipe-to-flange MSS 024-600-1 600A2-SWOSE Sweapolet-to-flange
+
MSS-024-700-1 700A2-SWO8M Sweepolet to-flange MSS-024-800-1 800A2-SWO7J Sweepolet-to-flange MSS-024-800-1 800A2-SWO7P Sweepolet-to-flange Licensee's Procesed alternative Evaminatien:
None.
The L; "
Licensee states that the tee-to-flange welds will receive a 22 p
R,,,
s e
s 1
y 6
g 5
r
- 1
. partial volumetric examination and that all'of the welds will receive'the full Code-required' surface' examination.
i Licensee's Basis for Reouestino Relief:
The' Licensee states.
A that cdue to the weld and component configuration, there'is.not 1
sufficient' surface. area to perform a meaningful. Code-required ultrasonic examination.
i Evaluation: The Licensee'.s submittal has.been reviewed, including the sketches which show the configuration of each
- weld, and it has been concluded that-the ultrasonic examination
{
of tee-to-flange weld 2, 3, and 4, to the extent required by -
J the Code,.is impra.ctical because of the design of the welded components. Based on the design of these components, an-acceptable portion of.the inservice volumetric examination, as
- required by the Code,. will be performed.
These components would have to be. redesigned and prefabricated in order to
. complete the remainder.
Based on the design of the rest of the components listed above, the Code-required ultrasonic examination of the subject welds is) impractical.
The components would have.to be redesigned and prefabricated to provide an inspectable weld surface for ultrasonic inspection.
==
Conclusions:==
Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded j
that the full Code surface examination, along with the limited Section XI visual examination of tee-to-flange welds 2, 3, and 4, provides an acceptable level of inservice structural integrity and that compliance with specific requirements of Section XI would result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and-safety.
Therefore, it is recommended that relief be granted as requested.
s
. g 23
__m____
4 m
' 3.1'.4.2 Reaue'st for Relief RR0002. Revision 2. Examination Cateaory
~
B-J. Item B9.11. Pressure Retainino Cirev-ferential Welds in Class 1 Pioina Code Requirement: Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-J, Item 89.11 requires-a 100% surface and volumetric examination on circumferential piping welds, 4 inches nominal l
pipe size and greater, as defined by F_igure IWB-2500-8.
Licensee's Code Relief Reauest: The Licensee requests relief from examining 100% of the Code-required volume on the following Class.1 circumferential piping welds:
% of. Weld l
Line Number Weld Number Examinable-J SLS-150-037-1 037C-FW004 55%
SLS-002-042-1 0428-FWOO9 50%
1 SLS-002-042-1 0428-FW016 70%
Licensee's Prooosed Alternative Examination:
None.
The i
Licensee states that the subject welds will receive a partial volumetric examinati'on (accessible portion listed above) and j
the full Code-required surface examination.
Licensee's Basis for Reouestino Relief: The Licensee states
.f that, due to location and configuration of the component support,100% of the weld length required for Code examination cannot'be achieved.
Evaluation:
The Licensee's submittal has been reviewed, l
including the sketches which show the restrictions from adjacent structures.
Based on the design configuration of the adjacent structures, the volumetric examination of the subject welds, to the extent required by the Code, is impractical. A e
significant percentage of the Code-required inservice volumetric examination will be performed. Other similar welds in the same piping runs will receive full Code examinations.
L Thus, the overall inservice integrity of the pressure boundary will be verified by sampling.
24
==
Conclusions:==
Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that the limited Section XI ultrasonic examination, along with '
l the full Code surface examination, provides an acceptable level j
of inservice structural integrity and that compliance with specific requirements of Section XI would result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety.
Therefore, it is recommended that relief be granted as requested.
3.1.4.3 Reouest for Relief RR0006. Revision 2. Examination Cateaory B-J. Item B9.11. Pressure Retainina Dissimilar Welds in Class 1 Pioina 1
i Code Requirement:
Section XI, Table IWB 2500-1, Examination l
Category 8-J, Item B9.11 requires a 100% surface and volumetric examination on circumferential piping welds, 4 inches nominal l
1 pipe size and greater, as defined by Figure IWB-2500-8.
Examination Category B-J, Note 1(c) states that examinations
, shall include all dissimilar metal welds between combinations of:
(1) carbon or low alloy steels to high alloy steels; (2) carbon or low alloy steels to high nickel alloys; and (3) high alloy steels to high nickel alloys.
Licensee's C]de Relief Reouest:
The Licensee requests relief from examining 100% of the Code-required volume on the following Class 1 dissimilar metal piping welds:
1 Line Number Weld Number RHS-018-053-1 RCS-900A-FWB22 WCS-004-001-1 RCS-800A-FWA24 WCS-004-003 1 RCS-900A-FWB25 l
l Licensee's Proposed Alternative Examination:
None.
The Licensee states that the subject welds will receive the full Code-required surface examination and a volumetric examination of the accessible portions.
4 Licensee's Basis for Reouestina Relief:
The Licensee states 25
R b
that, due to the' configuration of. the welds (fitting-to-pipe),
i meaningful ultrasonic examination can.only be performed from ane side of the welds.
Evaluation:
The Licenseefs submittal has been reviewed, including the sketches which show the configuration of.aach weld.
Based on the design configuration of the. subject welds, the volumetric examination, to the extent required by the Code,
-)
is_ impractical.
A significant percentage of the Code-required inservice volumetric examination will be performed.
I 1
==
Conclusions:==
Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that the limited Section XI ultrasonic examination, along with the full Code surface examination, provides an acceptable level of inservice structural integrity and that compliance with-specific requirements of Section.XI would result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety.
Therefore, it a recommended that relief be granted as requested.
i 3.1.4.4 Reauest for Relief RR0007. Revision 2 Examination Cateoorv B-J. Items 89.11 and 89,12, Pressure Retainino Welds in Class 1 Pioina Code Requirement:
Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-J, Items B9.11 and B9.12 require a 100% surface and volumetric examination on circumferential and longitudinal piping welds, A inches nominal pipe size and greater, as defined by Figure IWB-2500-8, 1
Licensee's Code Relief Recuest: The Licensee requests relief from examining 100% of the Code-required volume on the following Class 1 piping welds:
Circumferential Weld (Item 89.11)
% of Weld Location and Exam-Line Number Weld Number Restriction inable RCS-020 80A-1 RCS8006-FWA06 12" to 16" cw from 40%
V-stamp (branch conn.)
26
i Longitudinal Welds (Item 89.12)
% of.
Weld Location and Exam-Line Number Weld Number Restriction inable fiSS-024-600-1 MSS 600A2-SW)SBL1 8.5" from cire, weld 65%
(restraint / lugs)
MSS-024-600 1 MSS 600A2-SWO5BL2 9.0" from cire, weld 75%
(restraint / lugs)
MSS-024-700-1 MSS 700A2-SWO88L1 8.25" from circ. weld
- 705, (restraint / lugs)
MSS-024-700-1 MSS 700A2-SWO88L2 8.5" from cire, weld 60%
(restraint / lugs)
MSS-024-900-1 MSS 900Al-FWD 03L 37" from cire. weld 85%
(branch conn.)
'RCS 020-80A-1 RCS8008-SWO7ABL 8.0" from cire. weld 75%
(1.0. tag)
RCS-010-80C-1 RCS800C-FWA12L 12.25" from cire. weld 75%
(I'D. tag)
RCS-010-800-1 RCS800C-FWA13L 8.5" from cire, weld 90%
(I.D. tag)
RCS-010-80E-1 RCS800C-FWA14L 10" from cire, weld 85%
(I.D. tag)
RCS-010-80F-1 RCS800C-FWA15L 9.75" from cire. weld 90%
(I.D. tag)
RCS-010-80G-1 RCS800C-FWA16L 10.5" from cire weld 90%
l (I.D. tag)
RCS-010-90C 1 RCS900C-FWB12L 10.75" from cire, weld 90%
(I.0. tag)
RCS 010-900-1 RCS900C-FWB13L 11" from cire, weld 90%
(I.D. tag)
RCS-010-90E-1 RCS900C-FWB14L 9.5" from circ. weld 85%
(I.D. tag)
RCS 010-90F-1 RCS900C-FWB15L 12.75" from circ. weld 90%
(I.D. tag)
RCS-010-90G-1 RCS900C-FWB16L 9.5" from cire. weld 90%
(I.D. tag)
RCS-020-800-1 RCS800A SWOO2ABL 9.75" from cire. weld 85%
(I.D. tag)
RCS-020-800-1 RCS800A-SWOO3ABL1 30" from cire, weld 90%
(branch conn.)
RCS 020-800-1 RCS800A-SWOO3ABL2 13.75" from cire, weld 85%
(branch conn.)
RCS 020-800-1 RCS800A-FWA04L 2.5" from cire. weld 75%
(branch conn.)
RCS-020-900-1 RCS900A SWOO2 BBL 9.0" from cire, weld 85%
(I.D. tag)
RCS 020-900-1 RCS900A-SWOO4 BBL 1 29" from cire, weld 90%
(branch conn.)
RCS 020-900-1 RCS900A-SWOO4 BBL 2 11" & 2.5" from cire.
80%
weld (branch conn.)
RCS 020-900-1 RCS900A-SWOO4BCL 9.5" from cire. weld 85%
(I.D. tag)
RCS-020-900-1 RCS900A-FWB04L 31" from cire, weld 65%
(branch conn.)
27
g y
q Licensee's Procosed Alternativ'e Examination:
None.
The I
' Licensee states that the subject welds will receive the full Code-required surface examination and a volumetric-examination of the accessible portions as identified in the table above.
Licensee's Basis for Recuestino Rel'ief:
The Licensee: states that, due to the location of integral attachments, branch i
connes:tions, and Code plates, portions of the subject welds are inaccessible' for volumetric examination.
Evaluation:
The Licensee's. submittal-has been reviewed and it -
has been concluded that the valueetric examination of the subject' welds, to the extent required by the Code, is impractical because of the examination limitations listed above. A significant percentage of the Code-required inservice volumetric examination will be performed.
Failure to per' form a 100%' inservice examination of these welds will not significantly affect the assurance of the structural integrity.
==
Conclusions:==
Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that the limited Section XI ultrasonic examination, along with the full Code surface examination, provides an. acceptable level of inservic~e structural integrity and that compliance with specific requirements of Section XI would result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in tha level of quality and safety. Therefore, it is recommended that i
relief be granted as requested.
i 3.1.4.5 Recuest for Relief RR0008. Revision 2. Examination Catecorv l
B-J. Item 89.11. Pressure Retainino Welds in Class 1 Picina Code Requirement:
Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-J, Item 89.11 requires a 100% surface and volumetric examination on circumferential piping welds, 4 inches nominal pipe size and greater, as defined by Figure IWB-2500 8.
N 2B
6 Licensee's Code Relief Recuest:
The Licensee requests relief from examining 100% of the Code-required volume on the following Class 1 piping welds:
% of Weld line Number Weld Number Weld Configuration Examinable RCS-020-80A-1 RCS800B-FWA06 Pipe-to-pump 50?.
RCS800B-FWA07 Pipe-to-valve 50%
RCS800B-FWA08 Pipe-to-valve 50%
RCS800B-FWA09 Pipe-to-valve 50%
RCS800B-FWA10
' Pipe-to-valve 50%
RCS800C-FWA11 Pipe-to-tee 50%
RCS800CX-SWO13CA Reducer to tee 50%
RCS-016-808-1 RCS800CX-SWO13A Pipe-to-tee 50%
RCS800CX-SWO138 Pipe-to-tee 50%
RCS800CX-SWO13AB Pipe-to-sweepolet 50%
RCS800CX-SWO13AC Pipe-to-sweepolet 50%.
RCS800CX-SWO13BB Pipe-to-sweepolet 50%
RCS800CX-SWO13BC Pipe-to-sweepolet 50%
RCS-010-80C-1 RCS800C-FWA12 Pipo-to-sweeoolet 50%
RCS800C-FWA17 Pipe-to-nozzle 50%
{
RCS-010-800-1 RCS800C-FWA13 Pipe-to-sweeoolet 50%
RCS800C-FWA18 Pipe-to-nozzle 50%
RCS-010-80E-1 RCS800C-FWA19 Pipe-to-nozzle 50%
RCS-010-80F-1 RCS800C-FWA15 Pipe-to-sweepolet 50%
RCS800C-FWA20 Pipe-to-nozzle 50%
RCS-010-80G-1 RCS800C-FWA16 Pipe-to-sweepolet 50%
RCS800C-FWA21 Pipe-to-nozzle 50%
RCS-020-90A-1 RCS9008-FWB06 Pipe-to-pump 50%
RCS9008-FWB07 Pipe-to-valve 50%
RCS900B-FWB08 Pipe-to-valve 50%
RCS900B-FWB09 Pipe-to-valve 50%
RCS900B-FWB10 Pipe-to-valve 50%
RCS900C-FWB11 Pipe-to-tee 50%
RCS900CX-SWO14CA Reducer-to-tee 50%
RCS-016-908-1 RCS900CX-SWO14A Pipe-to-sweepolet 50%
RCS900CX-SWO14B Pipe-to-sweepolet 50%
RCS900CX-SWO14AB Pipe-to-sweepolet 50%
RCS900CX-SWO14AC Pipe-to-sweepolet 50%
RCS900CX-SWO14BC Pipe-to-sweepolet 50%
RCS900CX-SWO14CB Pipe-to-sweepolet 50%
RCS-010-90C-1 RCS900C FWB12 Pipe-to-sweepolet 507.
RCS900C-FWB17 Pipe-to-nozzle 50%
RCS-010-900-1 RCS900C-FWB13 Pipe-to-sweeoolet 50%
RCS900C-FWB18 Pipe-to-nozzle 50?.
RCS-010-90E-1 RCS900C-FWB19 Pipe-to-nozzle 50%
RCS-010-90F-1 RCS900C-FWB15 Pipe-to-sweepolet 50%
RCS900C-FWB20 Pipe-to-nozzle 507.
RCS-010-90G-1 RCS900C FWB16 Pipe-to-sweepolet 507.
RCS900C-FWB21 Pipe-to-nozzle 5 0.
~
RCS-020-800-1 RCS800A FWA01 Pipe-to-nozzle 50f.
RCS800A-FWA03 Pipe-to-valve 50%
RCS800A-FWA04 Pipe-to-valve 50%
i RCS800A-FWA05 Pipe-to-pump 50%
29
s.
4 c
i
% of Weld line Number Weld Number Weld Configuration Examinable RCS-020 900-1 RCS900A-FWB01 Pipe-to nozzle 50%
RCS900A FWB03 Pipe-to-valve 50%
RCS900A-FWB04 Pipe-to-valve 50%
RCS900A-FWB05 Pipe-to-pump 50%
RCS900A-SWOO4BA Pipe-to-tee 50%
RCS900A-SWOO4BC Pipe to-tee 50%
RCS-020-800-1 RCS800A-FWA04 Pipe-to-valve.
50%
RCS800A-SW005AA Pipe-to-elbow 50%
RCS 020-90A-1 RCS9008-FWB06 Pipe-to-pump 50%
RCS9008-FWB07 Pipe-to-valve 50%
j RCS900B-FWB08 Pipe-to-valve 50%
RCS-020-900-1 RCS900A-FWB04 Pipe-to-valve 50%
RCS900A-SWOO5BA Pipe-to-elbow 50%
Licensee's Proocsed Alternative Examination:
None. The
. Licensee states that the' subject welds will receive the full Code required surface examination and a volumetric examination of the accessible portions.
d Licensee's Basis for Reauestino Relief: The Licensee states that, due to component weld configuration, the Code-required volumetric examination can only be performed'by ultrasonic testing using' the 1-1/2 V technique from 'one side of the weld area and a 100% Code-required examination is not obtainable in the weld examination area due to weld overlay conditions.
Evaluation: The Licensee's submittal has been reviewed, including the sketches which show the examination limitations, and it has been concluded that the Code-required volumetric examination of the subject welds, using ultrasonic techniques, is impractical from the fitting side and in the weld examination area because of the design of the component and the configuration of overlay in the weld area. A significant percentage of the Code-required inservice volumetric 3
examination will be performed, along with the full Code surface examination. These components would have to be redesigned and I
prefabricated in order to complete the remainder.
1
(
==
Conclusions:==
Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded I
I I
30 L
u___
1 s
that the limited Section XI ultrasonic examination, along with the full Code surface examination,. provides an acceptable level of inservice structural integrity and'that compliance with specific requirements of Section XI would result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the level, of quality and safety. Therefore, it is recommended that 1
relief be granted as requested.
l 1
I 3.1.4.6 Recuest for Relief RR0013. Revision 2. Examination Cateaorv B-J. Items 89.11 and 89.12. Pressure Retainino Circumferential and Longitudinal Welds in Class 1 Pioina Code Requirement: Section X1, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-J, Items 89.11 and 89.12 require a 100% surface and volumetric examination on circumferential and longitudinal piping welds, 4 inches nominal pipe size and greater, as defined by Figure IWB-2500-8.
3 Licensee's Code Relief Recuest:
The Lice'nsee requests relief
)
from examining 100% of the surface and volume of the following welds:
% of Weld Line Number Weld Number Item Number Examinable IRCS-020 800-1 FWA01 89.11 0%
FWA01L B9.12 0%
SW002AA B9.11 0%
1RCS-020-900-1 FWB01 B9.11 0%
FWB01L 89.12 0%
SWOO28A B9.11 0%
1RCS-020-800-1 SWOO2AAL1 89.12 65%
SWOO2AAL2 B9.12 15%
1RCS-010-80C-1 SWO17AL 89.12 30%
1RCS-010-800 1 SWO18AL B9.12 30%
1RCS-010-80E-1 SWO11AAL 89.12 30%
1RCC2010-80F-1 SWO19AL B9.12 30%
1RCS-010-80G-1 SWO20AL B9.12 30%
1RCS-020-900 1 SWC02BAL1 B9.12 65%
SWOO2BAl2 89.12 15%
1RCS-010-90C-1 SWO21AL 89.12 30%
Licensee's Procosed Alternative Examination:
None.
The Licensee states that the accessible portions of the subject 31
__m.
welds will receive the Code-required surface and volumetric examinations.
licensee's Basis for Reauestino Relief:
The L'icensee states
)
that, due to the installation of radiation shielding plugs, 100% of the Code-required examinations cannot be performed.
These welds have been surface and volumetrically examined in accordance with Section XI requirements during preservice j
inspection.
i Evaluation:
The Licensee's submittal has been reviewed, including the sketches which show the examination limitaticos.
These sketches show that +M only accessible areas are those outside of the radiation shielding plugs.
It is shown that 6 j
welds are totally inaccessible and a partial examination can be l
performed on only 10 of the subject welds (percentages are listed above). The surface and volumetric examination of the subject welds, to the extent required by the Code, is impractical because of the radiation shielding plugs. An acceptable percentage of the Code-raquired inservice surface and volumetric examinations will be performed.
l
==
Conclusions:==
Based on the above evaluation, it 1:: concluded that the limited Section XI surface and volumetric examinations provide an acceptable level of inservice structural integrity and that compliance with specific requirements of Section XI would result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety.
Therefore, it is recoramended that relief be granted as requested.
3.1.4.7 Recuest for Relief RR0014 Revision 2. Examination Catecoty_.
B J. Items 89.21 and 89.31. Pressure Retainino Circumferentia_L and Branch Pioe Connection Welds in Class __1 Pioino Code Requirement:
Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination 4
32 4
Category B J, Item 89.21 requires a 100% surfaca examination of circumferential welds, nominal pipe size less than 4 inches, as defined by Figure IWB-2500-8.
Item B9.31 requires a 100%
~
surface and volumetric examination of branch pipe, connection welds, nominal pipe size equal to or greater than 4 inches, as i
defined by Figures IWB-2500 9,, -10, and -11.
Licensee's Code Relief Recuest:
The Licensee requests relief from performing the Code-required volumetric and/or surface examinations on the following welds on line i
number IWCS-003-006-1:
i Weld Number Item Number l
1WCS-006A-FWOO2 B9.21 1WCS-006A-FWOO3 B9.21 IWCS-006A-FWOO5 89.21 IWCS-006A-FWOO7 B9.21 1WCS-006A-FWOO8 89.21-IWCS-006A-FWO11 89.21 i
IWCS-006A-FW013A 89.21 l
1WCS-006A SW001 89.21 IWCS-006A-SWOO2 89.21 l
IWCS-006A-SWOO3 89.21 IWCS-006A-SWOO4 89.21 IWCS-006A-SW005 89.21 1WCS-006A-SWOO9 89.21 1WCS-006A-SWO10 89.21 IWCS-006A-SWO34 B9.21 IWCS-006A-FWO14 B9.31 Licensee's Proposed Alternative Examination:
None.
Licensee's Basis for_.R.ecuestino Relief:
The Licensee states that the subject welds are not accessible for inspection unless the CR0 support structure is removed.
A total 360 degree surface and volumetric examination cannot be accurately accomplished from the outside, due to interference from the adjacent CR0 housing.
Inspection of the welds from beneti.h the CR0 housing would require removal of the mechanism, which could result in damage to the drive.
Because the respective welds are on a vertical run of piping within the CRD housing structure and a sufficient annulus does not exist to perform 33
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _. - _ - _ _ ~.. - _. - -
, - = -
7
/-
the required Code examinations, the Licensee has determined
/
that. performing the. required examinations (removal of CRD structure) is impractical =and would result'in undue hardship
'(increase-ALARA consideration and extended outage duration) withoutr a compensating increase in safety, j
Evaluation:
The Licensee's submittal has been reviewed and it I
has 'been concluded that the Code-required volumetric and/or surface examination of the subject welds is impractical because the welds are obstructed by the CR0 housings and support j
structure. The removal of the CRD structure solely for the purpose of examining the subject-welds. is a major' effort and, f
in addition to the possibility of damage to the components, lcould result in large amounts'of radiation exposure to.
personnel.
==
Conclusions:==
Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that the Code-required inservice volumetric and/or surface examination of the subject welds is impractical and that l
compliance with the specific requirements of Section XI would I
result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety.
Therefore, it is recommended that relief be granted as requested.
3.1.5 -Pumo Presiure Boundary 3.1.5.1 Recuest for Relief RR0009. Revision 2. Examination Cateoories B-L-2 and 8-M-2. Items 812.20 and 812.50 Class 1 Pumo Casinos and Valve Bodies Code Requirement:
Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-L-2, Item B12.20 (pump casings) requires a visual examination (VT-3) of the internal surfaces of at least one pump in each group of pumps performing similar functions in the system.
This examination may be performed on tne same pump l
34
-x__.-_.-.-
i selected for volumetric examination of welds.
A 1
Examination Category-B-M-2, Item B12.50 (Valve Body, Exceeding 4 in. Nominal Pipe Size) requires a visual, examination (VT-3) of the internal surfaces of valve bodies. 'The examinations are limited to one valve within each group of valves that are of j
the same constructional design, such as globe, gate, or check valve, and manufacturing method, and that perform similar functions.in the system, such as containment isolation and system over-pressure protection.
The examination may be performed on the'same valve selected for volumetric examination. These examinations may be performed at the end of..
tne 10-year interval.
Licensee's Code Relief Recuest:
The Licensee requests relief from performing the Code-required visual examination (VT-3) of internal surfaces of pump casings and valve bodies.
Licensee's Procosed Alternative Examination:
None. The Licensee states that, if the pumps and/or valves are disassembled for other plant reasons, the Code-required inservice visual examinations will be performed.
Licensee's Basis for Reouestina Relief: The Licensee states that the visual examination of the internal surfaces of the pumps and valves would require disassembly of the components.
The Licensee has determined that the disassembly of these pumps and valves would impose an undue burden on the plant and may I
increase the probability of pump or valve failure.
Evaluatiqn:
The visual examination is to determine whether.
unanticipated severe degradation of the casing is occurring due l
to phenomena such as erosion, corrosion, or cracking.
- However, previous experience during examination of pumps and valves at j
other plants has not shown any significant degradation of pump casings or valve bodies.
The concept of visual examination if i
35
r.p.
~ *'
- the pump is disassembled for maintenance is acceptable. 'The.
disassembly of the' pumps and valves solely for the purpose of '
inspection is a major effort and, in addition to the possibility of additional wear or damage to the internal
. surfaces of the ~ pumps or valves, could result in large amounts of radiation exposure to personnel. However, if.the pumps or valves are disassembled for maintenance, the internal surfaces would be' examined, in which case relief would not be required for those particular pumps or valves.
Conclusions _:
Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded
' that compilance with the specific requirements of Section XI would-result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a
. compensating increase in the level of quality and safety.
Therefore, it is recommended that:
(1) The Licensee's proposal to perform the visual examination (VT-3) of the internal surfaces of the pumps and valves, whenever they are made
. accessible due to disassembly for maintenance purposes, should be accepted; and (2) Relief should be granted at the end of the interval if one of the subject pumps and/or valves, for which a i
visual examination is required, has not been disassembled for
)
~
maintenance.
3.1.6 Valve Pressure Boundary 3.1.6.1 Reouest for Relief RR0009. Revision 2. Examination Cateaories B L-2 and B-M-2. Items B12.20 and B12.50 Class 1 Pumo Casing L and Valve Bodies' 1
NOTE:
See the evaluation of this request for relief under Section 3.1.5.1.
1 1
a V
36 m
3.1.7 General p
3.1.7.1 Reauest for Relief'RR0005A Revision 2. Examination Cateoorv i
B-K-1. Items B10.10 and B10.20. Intearal Welded Attachments for Class l'Pioina and Pumos Code' Requirement:
Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-K-1, Items B10.10 and 810.20 require a 100%
volumetric or surface examination, as applicable, of the integrally welded attachments of Class 1 piping and pumps as defined by Figures IWB-2500-13, -14, andt -15.
Examinations include.the welded attachments of piping required to be examined by Examination Category B-J and the welded attachments of associated pumps integral to such piping.
Licensee's Code Rel~ief Reauest:
The Licensee requests relief from examining 100% of the Code-required surface of the i
following integral welded attachments for Class 1 piping and pumps:
%'of Weld line Number _
Ueld Number Item Number Examinable 11CS 008-001-1 FW017AA B10.10 70%
FWO17AB B10.10 70%
FWO17AC B10.10 70%
FWO17AD B10.10 70%
IICS-006-057 FWOOSA 810.10 70%
IMSS-024-600-1 SW35C B10.10 70%
SW358.
B10.10 70%
SWO5G B10.10 70%
SWO5H B10.10 70%
SWO5J B10.10 70%
SWO5K B10.10 70%
1 MSS-024-700-1 SW35C B10.10 70%
SW355 810.10 70%
SWO8SS 810.10 70%
SWOBTT B10.10 70%
SWO8VV B10.10 70%
SWO8XX B10.10 70%
IMSS 024-800-1 SW35C B10.10 70%
SW35B B10.10 70%
SWO75 B10.10 70%
SWO7T B10.10 70%
SWO7U B10.10 70%
SWO7V B10.10 70%
~
37 1
% of Weld' line Number Weld Number Item Nu-ber Examinable IMSS-024-900-1 SW35C B10.10 70%
SW35B B10.10 70%
j SWO6J B10.10 70%
4 SWO6X B10.10 70%
SWO6Y B10.10 70%
SWO6Z B10.10 70%
o GE-RECIRC-LOOP A SWOO3A-G B10.10 70%
SWOO3A-H B10.10 70%
SWOO3A-J B10.10 70%
SWOO3A-K B10.10 70%
% of Weld Comoonent Weld Number item Number Examinabl IRCS-1833-PC001A WJ-l 810.20 65%
WJ-2 B10.20 65%
WJ-3 B10.20 65%
WJ-4 B10.20 65%
WJ-5 B10.20 65%
WJ-6 B10.20 65%
1RCS-1833 PC0018 WJ-l 810.20 65%
WJ-2 B10.20 65%
WJ-3 B10.20 65%
}
WJ-4 B10.20 65%
WJ-5 B10.20 65%
WJ-6 810.20 65%
Licensee's Procosed Alternative Examination:
None.
The Licensee states that the accessible portions (percentage listed above) of the integral welded attachments will receive the Code-required surface examination.
Licensee's Basis for Recuestina Relief:
The Licensee states that; due to the configuration of the attachments,100% of the weld examination area, as required by the Code, cannot be performed.
Eva;uation:
The Licensee's submittal has been reviewed, incitidlng the sketches which show the examination limitations, and it has been concluded that the surface or volumetric examinations of the subject welds, to the extent required by the Code, is impractical because of the component configuration.
A significant percentage of the Code-required inservice surface examinations will be performed.
Failure to perform a 100% inservice examination of these welds will not 38
..b.
{'
significantly af'fect the assurance of the structural integrity.
~
Conclusions:
Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded
~
that the limited Section XI surface examination provides an acceptable level of inservice structural. integrity and that compliance with the specific requirements of Section XI would result'in hardship or unusual difficulties without a compensat'ing increase in.the ievel of quality and safety.
Therefore, it is recommended that relief be granted as requested.
^
3.2 Class 2 Comoonents 3.2.1' Pressure Vessels 3.2.1.1 Rggggst for Relief RR0011. Revision 2. Examination 'Cateaory C-A. Item C1.20. Pressure Retainina Head Circumferential Welds in Class' 2 Vessels, and Examination Cateoorv C-B. Items C2.21 and C2.22. Pressure Retainina Nozzle-to-Shell Welds and Nozzle Inside Radius Sections in Class 2 Vessels Code Requirement: Section XI, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-A, Item C1.20 requires a 100% volumetric examination of head circumferential welds (head-to-shell weld)'of Class 2 vessels as defined by Figure IWC-2500-1.
Examination Category C-8, Item C2.21 requires a 100% surface and volumetric examination of nozzle-to-shell welds and Item C2.22 requires a 100% volumetric examination of the nozzle inside radius sections, as defined by Figure IWC 2500-4, of all nozzles at terminal ends of piping runs.
Licensee's Code Relief Reauest:
The Licensee requests relief from examining 100% of the Code-required volume of the
~
following heat exchanger welds and nozzle inside radius sections:
39 i
~
1 1
-Q ; _
I x.
a
..a i
W. N "
. Weld Number item Numbe*
Examinable-
-i Comoonent'
- of Weld n1RHS-1E12-EB001A
'3.706 C1.20.
50%
3.709' C1.20 50%
3.743" C2.21 50%
3.744 C2.21 50%
N3-C2.22-50%
N4.
C2.22
- 50%.
q
.t Licensee's Procosed Alternative Examination: None. -The Licensee _ states that accessible portions'of the subject welds, j
and nozzle' inner radius. sections will receiv'e the the
. Code-required volumetric examinations.
The nozzle-to-shell j
welds"willireceive the full Section XI surface examinations,
)
If the heat: exchanger is disassembled,..a surface e,xamination 1
" will-be performed' on' the nozzle inside radius sections to supp1ement.the' par.tial volumetr,ic examination.
~
(
Licensee's Basis for Reouestina Relief:
The Licensee states
']
that'100% of-the Code-required volumetric examination of the head circumferential welds is not possible due to the location
]
of lifting lugs and nozzle configuration. The nozzle side of j
nozzle-to-shell weld No. 3.743 cannot be examined due to the 1
nozzle outside diameter configuration.
The head side of weld No. 3.744 cannot be examined due to the branch connection. -The I
nozzles contain inherent geometric constraints (e.g. compound curvature) which limit the' ability to perform the Code-required volumetric examination of the nozzle inside radius sections.
To perform a surface examination -(to supplement the partial volumetric examination) would require removing the tube bundle from the heat exchanger.
i 1
1 Evaluation:
The Licensee's submittal has been reviewed, L
including the sketches which show the examination limitations, and it has been concluded that the volumetric examination of the subject welds-and inner radius sections, to the extent r,c required by the Code, is impractical because of the weld and/or component configuration. An acceptable percentage of the
['
Code-required inservice volumetric examinations will be
'l performed.
Failure to perform a 100% volumetric examination of 40 L
2 3
1 4.;
these. welds and inner radius sections will.not significantly.
affect the' assurance of the inservice structural integrity..
==
Conclusions:==
Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded
.{
that the limited Section XI volumetric examinations of the subject welds and inner radius sections,.along with the full Code-required surface examination-of the nozzle-to-shell welds, 1
provides an' acceptable level of inservice structural integrity q
and that compliance with the specific requirements of I
l
..Section XI would result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase.in the level of quality and i
safety.. Therefore, it is recommended that relief be granted as
]
requested, l
t
^
3.2.2 Pioina l
3.2.2.1 Reouest for Relief RR0010. Revision 3. Examination Cateaory C-F. Item C5.11. Pressure Retainina Circumferential Welds in
.l Class 2 pioina I
q Code Requirement:
Section XI, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F, Item C5.11 requires a 100% surface examination of Class 2 circumferential piping welds,1/2 inch or less nominal wall thickness, as defined by Figure IWC-2500-7.
1 Licensee's Code Relief Reouest: The Licensee requests relief I
from performing the Code-required surface examination of the following welds that are underwater and/or open ended systems:
Line Number Weld Numbers ICSH-010 018-2 1CSH-017A-FWOO3 1CSH 020-019-2 1CSH-019A-FW001 & SWOO1 1CSL-020 051-2 1CSL-012A-FW001 & ICSL-051A-SWOO3 l
11CS-012-018-2 11CS-052A-FW001A, FWOO3, FWOO4, & FW005 l
11C5-012-052-2 IICS-052A-FWOO2, FWOO6, FWOO7, FWOOS, FWOO9, l
SWOS2, & SWO53 e
l' 1RHS-006-202-2 1RHS-201A-FWOO3, SWO13, & SWO14 l_
1RHS-006-203-2 1RHS-201A-FWOO2, SWO17, & SWO18 s
41 l
7, line Number Weld Numbers 1RHS-006-206-2 1RHS-205A FWO11, SWO24, & SWO25 1RHS-006-207-2 1RHS-205A FWOO2, SWO28, & SWO29 1RHS-006-210-2 1RHS-209A-FWOO2, FWO12, & SWO27
=
1RHS-006-211-2 1RHS-209A-FWOO3, FW013, & SWO51 1
1RHS-006-213-2 1RHS-212A-FWOO3, SWO35, & SWO36 1RHS-006-214-2 1RHS-212A-FWOO2, SWO39, & SWO40 IRHS-008-204-2 1RHS-154A-SWO19, SWO20, & SWO21 1RHS-008-205-2 1RHS-205A-FW001, SWO22, SWO23, SWO26,
& SWO27 1RHS-010-154-2 1RHS-154A 'iW001, FWOO2, SWOOS, SWOO6, SWOO7, SWOOS, SWOO9, SWO10, SWO51, & SWO52 1RHS-1548-FWOO1A, FWOO2A, SWO30, SWO31, SWO32, & SWO54 1RHS-010-158-2 1RHS-158A-FWOO4 & FWOO7 1RHS-010-201-2 1RHS-201A-FW001, SWO11, SWO12, SWO15,
& SW016 1
1RHS-010-208-2 1RHS-1548-SWO41, SWO42, & SWO43 i
IRHS-010-209-2 1RHS-209A-FW001, SWO44, SWO45, SWO48,
& SWO49 1RHS-010-212-2 1RHS-212A-FW001, SWO33, SWO34, SWO37, a
& SWO38
{
1RHS-012-007-2 1RHS-007A-FW001, SWOO3, & SWOO4 1RHS-012-059-2 1RHS-059A-FW001, SWOO1, & SWOO2 1RHS-012-145-2 1RHS-007A-FWOO4, FWOO5, FWOO6, FWOO7,
& FWOO8 i
1RHS-012-148-2 1RHS-059A-FWOO3, FWOO4, FW005, FWOO7, d
& FWOO8 l
1RHS-014-009-2 1RHS-009A-FW001, SWOO1, & SWOO2 l
1RHS-014-011-2 1RHS-011A-FW001, FWOOSA, & SWOO4 1
1RHS-014-062-2 1RHS-062A-FW001, FWOO2, FWOO6, & SWOO1 1RHS-014-146-2 1RHS-009A-FWOO2, FWOO3, FWOO5, & FWOO6 1RHS-014-147-2 1RHS-011A-FWOO3, FWOO4, & FWOO6A l
1RHS-014-149-2 1RHS-062A-FWOO3A, FWOO4, & FW005 l
1RHS-020-001-2 1RHS-001A-FW001, FWOO2, FWOO3, FWOO4, FW005, FWOO6, FWOO7, FWOO8, FWOO9, FWO10, FWO11, FWO12, FWO13, FWO14, FWOIS, FW016, FWO17, & FW018 1RHS-020-001-2 1RHS-0018-FW001, FWOO2, FWOO3, FWOO4, FW005, FWOO6, FWOO7, FWOO8, FWOO9, FWO10, FWO11, FWO12, FWO13, FWO14, FWO15, FW016, FWO17, FW018, FWO20, FWO21, FWO23, FWO24, FWO25, FWO26, FWO27, FWO28, FWO29, SWOO4, SWOO8, SWOO9,
& SWO10 1RHS-020-004-2 1RHS-004A-FWOO3, FWOO4, FW005, FWOO6, SWOO2,
& SWOO3 1RHS-020-056-2 1RHS-056A-FWOO1, FWOO2, FWOO3, FWOO4, FW005, FWOO6, FWOO7, FWOO8, FWOO9, FWO10, FWO11, FWO12, FW013, SW001, SWOO2, SWOO7, SWOO9, SWO10, SWO11, SWO12, 1 SWO13 G
l 42
)
Line Number Weld Numbers IRHS-020-056-2 1RHS-0568-FW001, FWOO2, FWOO3, FWOO4, FWOO5, FWOO6, FWOO7, FWOO8, FWOO9, FWO10, FWO11,.FWO12, FWO13, FWO14, FW015, 1
FW016, FWO17, FWO18, FWO]9, FWO26, J
'SWO20, SWO?l, SWO22, SWO23, SWO24, j
1RHS-020-325-2 1RHS-004A-FW001 & FWOO2
)
3 Licensee's Prooosed Alternative Examination 0 None.
s i
licensee's Basis for Recuestina Relief:
The i.f censee states
]
that the subject welds and associated supports and components
]
are underwater and are completely inaccessible for the Code-required examination. These systems are also open ended.
j s
Evaluation:
The License)u s submittal has been reviewed an
?
1 1
i s
has been concluded that the Code-required surface examinatioth i +
,ofthesubjecthe%'is'impracticalbecausethesubjectwelds
)
are underwater cpd open,fndad.
The Class 2 piping systems i
would have to be redesisS d and prefabricated in order to perform the Code-requfred surface examinations.
l
,["
Based o}Nthe above evaluation, it is concQled '
]
N, (onclusions:
n
)
l that comp 11ance with,the specif,it' requirements of Section Xh j
y would result in hardship or unu'dal difficuitie.s without a
)
+
j compensating increase in the level of quilt'_y and safety.
q Therefore, it is re.omended that relief M'oranted as
]
requested.
j
\\
r, I
\\
\\
3.2.3 Pumos D
i
.,,, ' s x
3.,2.3.1 Recuest for 'Rdip? 'RRFN1. R_gv_,igigr '2. Examination Cv3co v J
\\
C-G. Item C6. R Pressurg_ s ta din b ilds in Pumoi
<\\
t '
j i
s s
Code Recuiremertt:
Section XI., Tabl'e IWC-2500-1, Endnation j
Category C-G, Item C5.10 reglires :.'100% surface enn.inition of
~
Class 2 pump casing welds as defined by Figure IW(-25UC-S.
1
)
1 43 1
Qf
,'.,f, Tr t
,..t L :*
.I a
,m 1
c{
c_
^
j N
Licensee's' Code Relief Recues_t,:.The-License'e requests relief j
i from' examining 100*LLof; the Code required. surface of the.
.]
[
.following C1.a'ss(2Lpump casing welds ~~:
l 1
D4
.'Pumou
- Pump Number Weld' Numbers Examina_blg
-j
' % of. Weld High Pressure '1CSH-1E22-PC001
.0H-1 1 L, *
.i
~ Core' Spray
'0H-2,-3,-4,&-6.
20% w A
- j DH-7 8&
, ^.
DH-8,-9,-.19,&-20 0% each.
- )
+
DH-21,-22,-23,&-24 0% each i
i Low' Pressure-,ICSL-1E21-PC001:
DH-1.
10%
- OH - 2, - 3,' - 4,' & - 6 20% each OH-7 80%
OH-8,-9.-19,&-20 g;
DH-21,-22,-23,&-24.
0% each' l
, o.
0% each q
Residual Heat 1RHS-1E12-PC002A OH-1 10%
l Removal-
-DH-2,-3,-4,&-6 20% each OH-5 60%
r 3
OH-7 80%
DH-8,-9,-19,&-20 0% each DH-21 -22,-23,&-24 0% each Licensee's Prooosed' Alternative Examination:- None. The-e Licensee states that the accessible portions-(listed above) of a
lthe subject welds wi11' receive the Code-required surface
{
examination.
If-the pump.is disassembled for normal l
. maintenance, the complete surface examination of the subject weld areas'will,be performed at that time.
_d i
fij j
Licensee's' Basis for Reouestino Relief:
The Licensee states that, due to the close proximity oi adjacent structures, there s
m 4
is no. access to welds located behinj flanges (bolting interference) and welds located beF.ind the Residual Heat
(
Removal pump heat exchangers.
Pump casing welds are I
inaccessible due to concrete encasement.
Examination of g
required welds would require complete disassembly of pumps.
d A
Evaluation:
The Licensee's submittal has been reviewed, including the sketches which show the examination limitations, j
p ;).
QS ao and it has been concluded that the surface examination of the subject welds, to the extent required by the Code, is i
(
5.
3 44 i
a impractical. because the welds are encased in concrete.
Disassembly of the pumps would be necessary to perf:rm the required examination from the inside.
The failure of these welds, thus leading to failure of the pump, would have no adverse affect on plant safety because redundant ECC systems are provided.
In the event that these pumps are disassembled for inservice repair or maintenance, such that the subject welds are accessible, the Licensee has committed to performing the complete Code-required inservice examinations at that time.
The concept of surface examination if the pump is disassembled for maintenance is acceptable.
The disassembly of the pumps solely for the purpose of inspection is a major effort and, in addition to the possibility of additional wear or damage to the pumps, could result in large amounts of radiation excosure to personnel. However, if the pumps are disassembled for j
maintenance, the subject welds would be examined, in which case relief would not be required for those particular welds.
==
Conclusions:==
Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that compliance with the specific requirements of Section XI would result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a l
compensating increase in the level of quality and safety.
Therefore, it is recommended that:
(1) The Licensee's proposal to perform the surface examination of the pump casing welds, whenever they are made accessible due to disassembly of the l'
pumps for maintenance purposes, should be accepted; and (2) Relief should be granted at the end of the interval if one of the subject pumps has not been disassembled for maintenance.
3.2.4 Valves (No relief requests) l 1
49 45
3.2.5 General 3.2.5.1 Reauest for Relief RP00058. Revision 2. Examination Cateaory C-C. Items C3.10 and C3.20. Inteoral Welded Attachments for Class 2 Vessels and Picina Code Requirement:
Section XI, Table IWC-2500-1, examination Category C-C, Items C3.10 and C3.20 require a 100% surface 4
I examination of integrally welded attachments for Class 2 j
pressure vessels and piping as defined by IWC-2500-5.
Licensee's Code Relief Reauest:
The Licensee requests relief from examining 100% of the Code-required surface of the following integral welded attachments for Class 2 vessels and piping:
% of Weld Comoonent Weld Number Item Number fy_ amin a bl e 1RHS-1E12-EB001A 3.803-1 C3.10 50%
j 3.803-2 C3.10 50%
3.803-3 C3.10 50%
1 3.803-4 C3.10 50%
]
3.804-1 C3.10 50%
1 3.804-2 C3.10 50%
3.804-3 C3.10 50%
3.804-4 C3.10 50%
% of Weld line Number Weld Numbers Item Number Examinable l
ICSH-016-002-2 FWOO8A,B,C,& D C3.20 70% each 1
FWOO8E,F,G,& H C3.20 70% each ICSH-014-C14-2 FWO17A,B,C,& D C3.20 70% each FWO17E,F,G,& H C3.20 70% each ICSH-010-012-2 FWOO3A,B,C,& D C3.20 70% each FWOO3E,F,G,& H C3.20 70% each
]
ICSH-020-020-2 FWO12AA,AB,AC,& AD C3.20 70% each FW016A,B,C,& D C3.20 70% each IICS-012-012-2 FWO11A,B,C,& D C3.20 70% each 1RHS-020-003-2 FWO15A,B,C,& D C3.20 70% each FWO15E,F,G,& H C3.20 70% each 1RHS-010-021-2 FWO25A,B,C,1 D C3.20 70% each 1RHS-016-023-2 FWOO6A,B,C,& O C3.20 70% each 1RHS-014-044-2 FWO15A,B,C,& D C3.20 70% each FWO24A,B,C,& D C3.20 70% each 46
jj n;l
't g
-line Number
.." Weld Numbers
.% of Weld:
d Item Number-Examinable j
o 1RHS 014-044 FWO24E,F,G,& H C3.20 70% each l
L.
21RHS;014-050-2 FWOO4A,B,C,& D-
.C3.20 70% each FWOOSA,B,C,& D C3;20-70% each' 3
1RHS-018 055-2
.FWO14A,B,C,& D
- C3.20 70% each i
'FWO14E,F,G,& H' C3.20
- 70% each
- l 11RHS-014-074-2 FWO19A,B,C,& D C3.20 70% each 1
1RHS-014-107-2 FWO18A,B,C,&LD' C3.20 70% each 1
.FWO18E,F,G,& H C3.20 70% each 1
FWO19A,B,C,& 0-C3.20 70% each l
FWO19E,F,G,&.H C3.20 70% each-i 1RHS-010-150 FW005A,B,C,&'D C3.20 70% each-(
FWOO5E,F,G,& H C3.20 70% each 1WCS-006-139-2
.FWO14A,B,C,& D C3.20 70% each Licensee's Proposed Alternative Examination: None.
The
-l Licensee states that the accessible portions ~ (percentage listed 1
above) of the integral welded attachments will receive the Code-required surface examination.
Licensee's Basis for Reouestino Relief: The-Licensee states.
that, due.to the configuration of the attachments, 100% of the
-l weld examination area, as required by the Code,.cannot be performed.
s j
Evaluation: The Licensee's submittal has been reviewed, including the sketches which show the examination limitations, I
and it has been concluded that the surface examination of the subject welds, to the extent required by the Code, is impractical because.of the component configuration. A significant percentage of the Code-required inservice surface examinations will be performed.
Failure to perform a 100%
4 inservice examination of these welds will not significantly affect the assurance of the structural integrity.
==
Conclusions:==
Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded I
that the limited Section XI surface examination provides an acceptable level of inservice structural integrity and that compliance with the specific requirements of Section XI would result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a
\\
47
)
4
g /
+
- x; a
w
.y.
- compensating-increase in' the level of qualityLand
- safet'y.
Thereforen itLis recommended that relief be' granted a's;
' requested.:
m
-3.3 Class 3 Comeonents-(No' relief requests)
)
J 3.4l ~ Pressure Testsi(No relief requests)
. 3.5. General
-1 3.5;1 Ultrasonic Examination Techniaues -(No relief. requests)'
3.5.'2.
Exemoted Comeonents (No relief requests)
.)
3.5.3 Other j
I 3.5.3.1 Reauest for Relief RR0015.Section XI. Paraaraohs IWA-2610 and IWA-2641'. Requirements for Establishment'of a System for layout
. ;l of' Reference Points on the Center Line of Class 1 and 2 Welds l
-1 NOTE:
This request for relief was withdrawn by the Licensee in the February 27, 1987 submittal.
1, 3.5.3.2 Reauest for Relief RR0016. Revision 1. Notches in Ultrasonic
.Examinat'on Calibration Blocks l
Code Requirement:
Ultrasonic calibration block notches are required to comply with formula and tolerances provided in the ASME Code (80W81),Section XI, Appendix III, Article III-3000, l
Table III-3430-1, 1
I l
Licensee's Code Relief Reauest:
The Licensee requests relief from the ultrasonic examination calibration block notch depths as required by the formula and tolerances in Table 111-3430-1 j
for the following calibration blocks:
48 s
l l
e___-_---______
.r Cal.ibration. Description.
Notch As-Built
. 80W81 Notch 3
Block No.
of Use location Dimensen Deoth/ Tolerances j
RBS-05 8" diam. pipe Cire. ID-
+. 006
{
(Ferritic)- (Depth)
.069~
.059 -.012 4
.RBS-19
.16" diam, pipe Cire. 00'
+.010 f
(Ferritic)
(Depth)-
.109.
.098. 020
{
h RBS 20" diam. pipe. Axial 00-
+.012
(
(Ferritic)- (Depth)
.134
.118 -.024 j
RBS-21 20" diam, pipe Cire. ID
+.012c
-(Ferritic)
(Depth)
.131
.118
.024 RBS-21 20" diam. pipe Cire. OD
'+.012 (Ferritic)
(Depth)
.134
.118
.024 RBS 20" diam pipe Axial. ID
+.014
{
(Ferritic)
(Depth)
.155
.136
.027-
-j RBS-22 20" diam, pipe - Axial OD
+.014 I
(Ferritic)
(Depth)
.156
.136
.027 RBS-22
~ 20" diam. pipe Cire. ID
+.014 (Ferritic)
(Depth)
.156
. 135
.027 RBS-22 20" diam, pipe Cire. OD
+.014
-(Ferritic)
(Depth)
.158
.136
.027 RBS-23 24" diam. pipe Axial 00
+.011 I
(Ferritic)
(Depth)
.125
.113
.023 RBS 12" diam.. pipe Cire. ID
+.006 (Ferritic)
(Depth)
.064
.056
.011 RBS-28 5" diam. pipe Axial ID
+.004 (Ferritic)
(Depth)
.027
.038
.008 RBS 5" diam. pipe Cire. OD
+.004 (Ferritic)
(Depth)
.029
.038
.008 RBS-30 12" diam. pipe Axial OD
+.004 l
(Ferritic)
(Depth)
.031
.041
.008 i
RBS-32 16" diam. pipe Axial OD
+.004 (Ferritic)
(Depth)
.026
.033
.008 RBS-34 10" diam. pipe Cire. ID
+.004 (Ferritic)
(Depth)
.027
.037
.007 Licensee's Prooosed Alternative Examinatica:
The Licensee
~
states that the inservice ultrasonic examinations will be performed utilizing thv existing calibration blocks.
49 l
w
) ' o:.
1 Licensee's Basis for Reauestino Relief: The. Licensee states that the ultrasonic calibration block notches were fabricated in accordance with Table III-3430-1 of 77578.
Due to the.
- ri change in the notch depth formula, existing notch depth
^ dimensions exceed. tolerances required by 80W81.
Baseline examinations were performed utilizing the existing calibration i
blocks. To maintain consistency in calibration as well as examination sensitivity and to ensure meaningful comparisons between inservice inspection examinations, these calibration blocks will be utilized in-all subsequent ISI examinations for this interval. The Licensee has determined that manufacturing new calibration blocks to incorporate minor deficiencies would result in hardship or unusual difficulties without a l
i compensating increase in the level of quality or safety.
1 I
l Evaluation: An evaluation of the 77S78 vs. 80W81 Code j
requirement for calibration block notch depth shows the formula
.l and tolerances to be the same.
In'any case, requiring the I
l Licensee to manufacture new calibration blocks to incorporate the noted deficiencies in notch depth is impractical because
)
the deviations which exist between the notch as-built dimensions and the Code-required notch dimensions / tolerances l
are trivial and the existing calibration blocks were used for
]
the baseline examinations.
l
[
The subject calibration blocks should be considered acceptable provided the following is incorporated in the ultrasonic
)
examination procedures:
(a) Any crack-like indication, regardless of ultrasonic amplitude, discovered during examination of piping welds j
or adjacent base metal materials should be recorded and
{
investigated by a Level II or level III examiner to the extent necessary to determine the shape, identity, and
)
location of the reflector.
l l
1
)
50 l
l l
i
[*~'
(b):.Any'other.indicationsOhich'arenotdeterminedtobe geometrical'or metallurgical.in origin shall: be recorded l
' f they are 20*/.'of the. distance amplitude correction-(DAC) i l..':
curve or greater.- The.0wner should evaluate and take appropriate corrective action for_the'isposition of any
~j d
3 H
e-indication investigated and found to be other than
. geometrical' or metallurgical in nature.
i
- l
==
Conclusions:==
. Based on the above evaluaticn, it is concluded
~
that relief should be granted provided that the additional
. requirements (a) and (b)'above are incorporated in the-u ultrasonic examination procedures.
{
J l
.)
l l
e e
e 51 i
r 1
4.
CONCLUSION i
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6), it has been determined that certain
.Section XI required inserv'.ce examinations are impractical.
In these cases, the Licensee has demonstrated that either the proposed alternatives would i
provide an acceptable level of quality and safety or that compliance with C
the requirements would result in hardships or unusual difficulties without a i
compensating increase in the level-of quality and safety.
This technical evaluation has not identified any practical method by which
'the existing River Bend Station Unit 1 can meet all the specific inservice inspection requirements of Section XI of the ASME Code.
Requiring compliance with. all the exact Section XI required inspections would delay the re-startup of the plant in order to redesign a significant number of plant systems,'obtain sufficient replacement components, install the new components, and obtain a baseline examination of these components.
Examples of components that would require redesign to meet the specific inservice examination provisions are: the reactor pressure vessel and a number of the piping and component support systems.
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 i
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 1
impractical to implement.
The development of new or improved examination techniques will continue to be monitored. As improvements in these areas are achieved, the NRC may require that these techniques be incorporated in the next inspection interval ISI program plan examination requirements.
Based on the review of the River Bend Station Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan, through Revision 2, the Licensee's
-response to the NRC staff's request for additional information, and the recommendations for the granting of relief from the ISI examination requirements that have been determined to be impractical, it has been e
52
1 i-concluded that the River Bend Station Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection _ Program Plan, through Revision 2, is acceptable and in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)..
g l
A P
e E
t 53
5; REFERENCES
_1... Code.o'f Federal Regulations, Volume 10', Part 50.
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.
River Bend Station Unit 1.First 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection l
Program Plan, Revision 1, submitted July 16, 1986.
4.
'NUREG-0800, Stan.dard Review Plans, Section 6.2.4, " Reactor Coolant Boundary Inservice Inspection and Testing," and Section 6.6, " Inservice Inspection of Class 2 and 3 Components," July 1981.
5.
Letter, January 21,-1987, S.M. Stern (NRC) to J.C. Deddens [ Gulf States Utilities Company (GSU)], " Request for Additional Information for j
Review of the River Bend Station Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan."
i 6.
Letter, February 27, 1987, J.E. Booker (GSU) to Document Control Desk (NRC), " Response to Request for Additional Information and Preliminary Copy of Revision 2 of the River Bend Station Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan."
7.
Letter, March 10, 1987, J.E. Booker (GSU) to Document Control Desk (NRC), " Preliminary Copy of Revision 2 of the River Bend Station Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan (supplemental information)."
8.
Letter, June 2,1987, J.E. Booker (GSU) to Document Control Desk (NRC),
" Revision 2 of the River Bend Station Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan."
54 1
i ?{ ?
~ M...
.i y
.y 9.
- NUREG 0619',- "BWR. Feedwater Nozzle 'and Control' Rod Drive Return L.ine
. Nozzle Cracking"L November 1980.
.j
- j
- 10.. NUREG/CR-3052,: " Closeout of 'IE Bulletin 80-07:. BWR ' Jet Fump Assembly' Failure"., November 1984.
..t
.11..
NUREG-0313, '" Technical Report on Material' Selection and Processing.
Guidelines for. BWR Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping", Revision'1,-
l
- July 1980.
I e
t u
i 1
-l I-
-l l
1 1
l
(
l s
3 l
I l
i 1
s 55 i
b_._________._.
1%
' # 88 M4 u n twC.4aa st swwa*0** C ww u 34
- t
- W %. v t l. d a f *** * ~ J J *n. * %
- a.-
.{
'l: "E8 818OOGRAPHIC OATA SHEET ~
EGG-50-7566-
+
I
-}
$44 =f*.wC'4CSSC4 '=0.Is6 14 l
...s:i..,:$lEvaluationRope Technic
- an the First 10-Year-
. Interval. Inservice Inspeceion Program Plan: Gulf
~8 States. Utilities Company, River Bend Station Unit 1
..,.....::.,. 3 e
Docket Number 50-458
.o~r July 1987
... - 2 4 3..
0
. wi.i.:., ss. :
3.W.' Brown, J.D. Mudlin-
-c r-ve..
j July.
1987 l
... :.. ~o e. s... m. o,.........~ o. o.. u u,w.,,. c.
.. 2.ietro..c..w~., w....
EG&G Idaho,.Inc.
P. 0. Box 1625
_83415' i
&* ca aa.~' w-aa Idaho Falls, ID FIN-06022 (Project 5)'
J
'O PD980.e=0 0.G. meg.fiom m.wt.No w.igino.go.g gs awwsy t, g,
3:e tyng op.4*C.f
. Materials Engineering Branch-Technical j
office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
' ' ' ' ' " " ' ' " * " * ~ ~ ~ " "
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
- w...~ r..
se r si.
t J.487. 67 IJ00 me se a ns, This report presents the results of the evaluation of the River Bend Station Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval Inservice ' Inspection (ISI) Program Plan through Revision 2,
{
-including the requests for relief from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI requirements which the Licensee has.
determined to be impractical. The River Bend Station Unit 1 First 10-Year Interval ISI Program Plan, Revision 2, 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) exclusion criteria, and (d) compliance with'ISI-related cogunitments identified during the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review before granting an Operating License.
The requests for relief.from the ASME Code requirements which the Licensee has determined.to be x
. impractical for the first 10-yehr inspection interval are evaluated in Section 3 of l
this report.
l#
- a ::;wwt%t.m.6vsig.e.gvwo.C&ctsc.*T3 8 t t.w.
.?,
i' Unlimited
- sa:..e :..u s.c.r :%
Unclassified
. : ~,i.....c.
4 e o r.
4...,.,
g Unclassified
)
i o won :...ca j
L i
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -