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

{{Adams
| number = ML15202A052
| issue date = 07/15/2015
| title = Fourth Ten-Year Inservice Inspection Plan, Relief Request No. 15-ON-003, Limited Volume Inspections from 3EOC27 Outage
| author name = Batson S
| author affiliation = Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
| addressee name = 
| addressee affiliation = NRC/Document Control Desk, NRC/NRR
| docket = 05000287
| license number = DPR-050
| contact person = 
| case reference number = ONS-2015-087
| document type = Code Relief or Alternative, Letter type:ONS
| page count = 56
| project = 
| stage = Request
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Scott L.Batson 1         DUKE                                                                              Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station ENERGY.                                                                            Duke Energy ONOIVP I 7800 Rochester Hwy Seneca, SC 29672 ONS-2015-087                                                                            o: 864.873.3274
: f. 864.873. 4208 July 15, 2015                                                             Scott.Batson@duke.energy.com ATTN: Document Control Desk                                           10 CFR 50.55a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy)
Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 3 Docket Number 50-287, Renewed License Numbers DPR-50

==Subject:==
Fourth Ten-Year Inservice Inspection Plan, Relief Request No. 15-ON-003, Limited Volume Inspections from 3EOC27 Outage Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), Duke Energy hereby requests NRC approval of the following relief from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code), Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, 1998 Edition with 2000 Addenda.
The attached Relief Request applies to limited volumetric examinations performed on welds associated with various systems and components during Unit 3, EOC27 outage. The relief request details are provided as an enclosure to this letter.
This submittal document contains no regulatory commitments.
If there are any questions or further information is needed you may contact David Haile at (864) 873-4742.
Sincerely, Scott L. Batson Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station Enclosure Relief Request Serial #15-ON-003:
Limited volume examinations per 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii) for Unit 3, Fourth Inservice Inspection Interval A&#xfd;W7 "a

ONS-2015-087 July 15, 2015 Page 2 cc (with enclosure):
Mr. Victor McCree, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region II Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE Suite 1200 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1257 Mr. James R. Hall, Project Manager (ONS)
(by electronic mail only)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Mail Stop O-8B1 Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. Jeffery Whited (by electronic mail only)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Mail Stop O-8B1A Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. Eddy Crowe NRC Senior Resident Inspector Oconee Nuclear Station

Enclosure to ONS-2015-087 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 3 Relief Request Serial #15-ON-003:
Limited volume examinations per 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iiU) for Unit 3, Fourth Inservice Inspection Interval

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 1.0    Scope of Relief Request Relief is requested pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii) for welds listed in Table 1.
These welds were required to be examined in accordance with Inservice Inspection Plans for the following Units.
Oconee Nuclear Station - Unit 3 Fourth 10-Year Inservice Inspection Interval Interval Start Date: Unit 3 January 2, 2005 Interval End Date: July 15, 2014 Table 1 Relief     Oconee        Examination    Weld ID              Item/Summary      Examination Request    Unit          Performed      Number               Number            Data Section    Number        (Refueling Number                   Outaqe) 2.0         3            3EOC27         3-RPV-WR18           03.B1.11.0003     See Attachment A Pages 1-3 3.0         3            3EOC27         3-RPV-WR34           03.B1.11.0004     See Attachment A Pages 4-8 4.0         3            3EOC27         3-RPV-WR35           03.B13.21.0001    See Attachment A Pages 9-12 5.0         3            3EOC27         3-LDCA-IN-1          03.B2.51.0001     See Attachment A Pages 13-17 6.0         3            3EOC27         3-LDCA-OUT-          03.B2.51.0002     See Attachment WJ35V                                  A Pages 18-22 7.0         3            3EOC27         3-LDCB-IN-           03.B3.150.0003    See Attachment WJ33V                                  A Pages 23-29 8.0         3            3EOC27         3-LDCB-OUT-          03.B3.150.0004    See Attachment WJ36V                                  A Pages 30-36 Page 1 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 2.0  Weld # 3-RPV-WR18 2.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Reactor Vessel Upper Nozzle Belt to Upper Shell Weld, Reactor Coolant System, Weld # 3-RPV-WR18, Summary Number 03.B1.11.0003, and ASME Code Class 1.
2.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda.
2.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-A, Item Number B1.11 Fig. IWB-2500-1, 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D.
2.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:
a   Surface 1: Upper Nozzle Belt - Carbon steel 0   Surface 2: Upper Shell Weld - Carbon steel 0   Diameter: 167.63 in.
0   Thickness: 12.00 in.
This component was scanned with automated methods from the Reactor Vessel interior. Scanning requirements are described in ASME Section V, Article 4, T-441.1.2(a), T-441.1.3, T-441.1.4, T-441.1.5 and T-441.1.6. These requirements describe and are specific to scanning components in two axial and two circumferential directions. This component was scanned to the extent possible to meet these requirements. The aggregate coverage that was obtained is described and calculated from the following:
* Inner 15% Thickness coverage using 45' & 70' longitudinal waves for axial scans (S1, S2), and circumferential scans (CW, CCW) obtained 83.2% coverage.
* Outer 85% Thickness coverage using 45' longitudinal waves and 45' shear waves for axial scans (S1, S2), and circumferential scans (CW, CCW) obtained 77.8% coverage.
               "    The aggregate coverage was calculated to be 79.00%. See attached examination coverage sheet for calculations.
The impracticality was caused by the Reactor Vessel Outlet Nozzle Boss configuration that does not allow meaningful interrogation. The current configuration does not allow scanning of all of the required volume for this weld.
The weld configuration would have to be redesigned and replaced, which is impractical.
Page 2 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. The achieved coverage did not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.
This relief request is specific to examination volume coverage limitations only. All other Code requirements were satisfied.
Forty six Indications were recorded during this examination and determined to be acceptable per IWB-3510-1.
2.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better results. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Use of other manual or automated UT techniques, whether conventional or phased array, were considered, but would not increase coverage due to the limitation created by the component configuration. The use of any other UT technique available would incur the same physical scanning limitations. The UT technique applied is considered best effort.
2.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the fourth inservice inspection interval. The interval ended on July 15, 2014.
2.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.B13.11.0003 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.
The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring and Reactor Building process radiation monitoring contribute to ensuring pressure boundary integrity by providing means to detect reactor coolant leakage and take prompt corrective actions. Operating experience for this weld did not find any previous failures.
Duke Energy has examined the weld to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.
Page 3 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 2.8. References Also in Duke Energy Relief Request 94-01 was approved by the NRC during the second inspection interval. The previous approved SE is documented in Docket No. 50-287, TAC No.M89366 dated June 12, 1995.
3.0  Weld # 3-RPV-WR34 3.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Reactor Vessel Lower Shell to Transition Piece Weld, Reactor Coolant System, Weld # 3-RPV-WR34, Summary Number 03.B13.11.0004, and ASME Code Class 1.
3.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda.
3.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-A, Item Number B1.11 Fig. IWB-2500-1, 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D.
3.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:
* Surface 1: Lower Shell - Carbon steel
* Surface 2: Transition Piece - Carbon steel
* Diameter: 170.25 in.
* Thickness: 5.5 in.
This component was scanned with automated methods from the Reactor Vessel interior. Scanning requirements are described in ASME Section V, Article 4, T-441.1.2(a), T-441.1.3, T-441.1.4, T-441.1.5 and T-441.1.6. These requirements describe and are specific to scanning components in two axial and two circumferential directions. This component was scanned to the extent possible to meet these requirements. The aggregate coverage that was obtained is described and calculated from the following:
0    Inner 15% Thickness coverage using 450 & 700 longitudinal waves for axial scans (S1, S2), and circumferential scans (CW, CCW) obtained 35% coverage.
0    Outer 85% Thickness coverage using 450 longitudinal waves and 450 shear waves for axial scans (S1, S2), and circumferential scans (CW, CCW) obtained 44% coverage.
0    The aggregate coverage was calculated to be 42.7%. See attached examination coverage sheet for calculations.
Page 4 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 The impracticality was caused by the Reactor Vessel interior configuration (Guide Lugs and Flow Stabilizers) that does not allow meaningful interrogation.
The current configuration does not allow scanning of all of the required volume for this weld. The weld configuration would have to be redesigned and replaced, which is impractical.
The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. The achieved coverage did not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.
This relief request is specific to examination volume coverage limitations only. All other Code requirements were satisfied.
Four indications were recorded during this examination and determined to be acceptable per IWB-3510-1.
3.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better results. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Use of other manual or automated UT techniques, whether conventional or phased array, were considered, but would not increase coverage due to the limitation created by the component configuration. The use of any other UT technique available would incur the same physical scanning limitations. The UT technique applied is considered best effort.
3.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the fourth inservice inspection interval. The interval ended on July 15, 2014.
3.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.81.11.0004 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.
The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring and Reactor Building process radiation monitoring contribute to ensuring pressure boundary integrity by providing means to detect reactor coolant leakage and take prompt corrective actions. Operating experience for this weld did not find any previous failures.
Duke Energy has examined the weld to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, Page 5 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.
3.8. References Duke Energy Relief Request 05-ON-002 was approved by the NRC during the last inspection interval. The previous approved SE is documented in Accession Number ML062270661, TAC No.MC7996 dated August 30, 2006. Also in Duke Energy Relief Request 94-01 was approved by the NRC during the second inspection interval. The previous approved SE is documented in Docket No. 50-287, TAC No.M89366 dated June 12, 1995.
4.0  Weld # 3-RPV-WR35 4.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Reactor Vessel Transition Piece to Lower Head Weld, Reactor Coolant System, Weld # 3-RPV-WR35 Summary Number 03.B1.21.0001, and ASME Code Class 1.
4.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda.
4.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-A, Item Number B1.21 Fig. IWB-2500-3, 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D.
4.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:
           "     Surface 1: Transition Piece - Carbon steel
* Surface 2: Lower Head - Carbon steel
* Diameter: 143.00 in.
* Thickness: 5.375 in.
This component was scanned with automated methods from the Reactor Vessel interior. Scanning requirements are described in ASME Section V, Article 4, T-441.1.2(a), T-441.1.3, T-441.1.4, T-441.1.5 and T-441.1.6. These requirements describe and are specific to scanning components in two axial and two circumferential directions. This component was scanned to the extent possible to meet these requirements. The aggregate coverage that was obtained is described and calculated from the following:
* Inner 15% Thickness coverage using 45' & 70' longitudinal waves for axial scans (S1, S2), and circumferential scans (CW, CCW) obtained 32.7% coverage Page 6 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 Outer 85% Thickness coverage using 450 longitudinal waves and 45' shear waves for axial scans (S1, S2), and circumferential scans (CW, CCW) obtained 37.1% coverage.
The aggregate coverage was calculated to be 36.4%. See attached examination coverage sheet for calculations.
The impracticality was caused by the Reactor Vessel interior configuration (Incore Nozzles and Flow Stabilizers) that does not allow meaningful interrogation. The current configuration does not allow scanning of all of the required volume for this weld. The weld configuration would have to be redesigned and replaced, which is impractical.
The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. The achieved coverage did not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.
This relief request is specific to examination volume coverage limitations only. All other Code requirements were satisfied.
Sixteen indications were recorded during this examination and determined to be acceptable per IWB-3510-1.
4.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better results. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Use of other manual or automated UT techniques, whether conventional or phased array, were considered, but would not increase coverage due to the limitation created by the component configuration. The use of any other UT technique available would incur the same physical scanning limitations. The UT technique applied is considered best effort.
4.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the fourth inservice inspection interval. The interval ended on July 15, 2014.
4.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.B13.21.0001 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.
The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring and Reactor Building process radiation monitoring contribute to ensuring pressure boundary integrity by providing means to detect reactor coolant leakage and take prompt corrective actions. Operating experience for this weld did not find any previous failures.
Page 7 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 Duke Energy has examined the weld to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.
4.8. References Duke Energy Relief Request 05-ON-002 was approved by the NRC during the last inspection interval. The previous approved SE is documented in Accession Number ML062270661, TAC No.MC7996 dated August 30, 2006.
5.0  Weld # 3-LDCA-IN-1 5.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Letdown Cooler 3A, Chemical Connector to Channel Body Weld, High Pressure Injection System, Weld # 3-LDCA-IN-1, Summary Number 03.B2.51.0001, and ASME Code Class 1.
5.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda.
5.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-B, Item Number B2.51 Fig. IWB-2500-1 (b), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D.
5.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:
* Surface 1: Chemical Connector - Stainless steel
           "     Surface 2: Channel Body - Stainless steel
* Diameter: 8.625 in.
           "     Thickness: 0.875 in.
This component was scanned manually with conventional methods. Scanning requirements are described in ASME Section V, Article 4, T-441.1.2(a), T-441.1.3, T-441.1.4, T-441.1.5 and T-441.1.6. These requirements describe and are specific to scanning components in two axial and two circumferential directions. This component was scanned to the extent possible to meet these requirements. The aggregate coverage that was obtained is described and calculated from the following:
* Axial scan coverage (S1,S2) using 450 Shear and Longitudinal and 600 &
700 Longitudinal waves obtained 97.2% coverage.
* Circumferential scan coverage (CW, CCW) using a 450 shear wave obtained 78.1% coverage.
Page 8 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (97.2% + 78.1%)/2 87.7%.
The impracticality was caused by the weld taper configuration and nozzle on the chemical connector that does not allow meaningful interrogation. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld. The shell to sampling nozzle weld would have to be redesigned and replaced, which is impractical.
The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. The achieved coverage did not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.
This relief request is specific to examination volume coverage limitations only. All other Code requirements were satisfied.
No indications were recorded during this examination.
5.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better results. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Use of other manual or automated UT techniques, whether conventional or phased array, were considered, but would not increase coverage due to the limitation created by the component configuration. The use of any other UT technique available would incur the same physical scanning limitations. The UT technique applied is considered best effort.
5.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the fourth inservice inspection interval. The interval ended on July 15, 2014.
5.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.B2.51.0001 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section Xl, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.
The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring and Reactor Building process radiation monitoring contribute to ensuring pressure boundary integrity by providing means to detect reactor coolant leakage and take prompt corrective actions. Operating experience for this weld did not find any previous failures.
Duke Energy has examined the weld to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section Xl, and the leakage monitoring, Page 9 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.
5.8. References None.
6.0  Weld # 3-LDCA-OUT-WJ35V 6.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Letdown Cooler 3A, Chemical Connector to Channel Body Weld, High Pressure Injection System, Weld # 3-LDCA-OUT-WJ35V, Summary Number 03.B2.51.0002, and ASME Code Class 1.
6.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda.
6.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-B, Item Number B2.51 Fig. IWB-2500-1 (b), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D.
6.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:
           " Surface 1: Chemical Connector - Stainless steel
* Surface 2: Channel Body - Stainless steel
           " Diameter: 8.625 in.
           " Thickness: 0.875 in.
This component was scanned manually with conventional methods. Scanning requirements are described in ASME Section V, Article 4, T-441.1.2(a), T-441.1.3, T-441.1.4, T-441.1.5 and T-441.1.6. These requirements describe and are specific to scanning components in two axial and two circumferential directions. This component was scanned to the extent possible to meet these requirements. The aggregate coverage that was obtained is described and calculated from the following:
                 " Axial scan coverage (S1,S2) using 450 Shear and Longitudinal and 600 &
700 Longitudinal waves obtained 97.2% coverage.
                 " Circumferential scan coverage (CW, CCW) using a 450 shear wave obtained 78.1% coverage.
                 " The aggregate coverage was calculated to be (97.2% + 78.1%)/2 =
87.7%.
The impracticality was caused by the weld taper configuration and nozzle on the chemical connector that does not allow meaningful interrogation. In order to scan Page 10 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 all of the required volume for this weld. The shell to sampling nozzle weld would have to be redesigned and replaced, which is impractical.
The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. The achieved coverage did not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.
This relief request is specific to examination volume coverage limitations only. All other Code requirements were satisfied.
No indications were recorded during this examination.
6.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better results. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Use of other manual or automated UT techniques, whether conventional or phased array, were considered, but would not increase coverage due to the limitation created by the component configuration. The use of any other UT technique available would incur the same physical scanning limitations. The UT technique applied is considered best effort.
6.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the fourth inservice inspection interval. The interval ended on July 15, 2014.
6.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.B2.51.0002 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.
The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring and Reactor Building process radiation monitoring contribute to ensuring pressure boundary integrity by providing means to detect reactor coolant leakage and take prompt corrective actions. Operating experience for this weld did not find any previous failures.
Duke Energy has examined the weld to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.
Page 11 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 6.8. References None.
7.0  Weld # 3-LDCB-IN-WJ33V 7.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Letdown Cooler 3B, Nozzle to Channel Body Weld, High Pressure Injection System, Weld # 3-LDCB-IN-WJ33V, Summary Number 03.B3.150.0003, and ASME Code Class 1.
7.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda.
7.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Item Number B3.150, Fig. IWB-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-l.
7.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:
0   Surface 1: Channel Body - Stainless steel 0   Surface 2: Inlet Nozzle - Stainless steel
* Diameter: 8.625 in.
* Thickness: 0.875 in.
This component was scanned manually with conventional methods. Scanning requirements are described in ASME Section XI, Appendix III, 111-4420 and III-4430. These requirements describe and are specific to scanning components in two axial and two circumferential directions. This component was scanned to the extent possible to meet these requirements. The aggregate coverage that was obtained is described and calculated from the following:
                " Axial scan coverage: 45' shear waves and 600 and 70* longitudinal waves in the S1 and S2 direction obtained an aggregate coverage of 52.6%.
               " Circumferential scan coverage: 450 shear and longitudinal waves obtained an aggregate coverage of 68.6%.
                " The total aggregate coverage was calculated to be (52.6% + 68.6%)/2 =
60.6%.
The impracticality was caused by the weld taper configuration of the inlet nozzle to the channel body that does not allow interrogation from Surface 2 nozzle side.
In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld. The channel body to inlet nozzle weld would have to be redesigned and replaced to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical Page 12 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. The achieved coverage did not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.
This relief request is specific to examination volume coverage limitations only. All other Code requirements were satisfied.
No indications were recorded during this examination.
7.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better results. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Use of other manual or automated UT techniques, whether conventional or phased array, were considered, but would not increase coverage due to the limitation created by the component configuration. The use of any other UT technique available would incur the same physical scanning limitations. The UT technique applied is considered best effort.
7.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the fourth inservice inspection interval. The interval ended on July 15, 2014.
7.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.B3.150.0003 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section Xl, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.
The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring and Reactor Building process radiation monitoring contribute to ensuring pressure boundary integrity by providing means to detect reactor coolant leakage and take prompt corrective actions. Operating experience for this weld did not find any previous failures.
Duke Energy has examined the weld to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.
Page 13 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 7.8. References Duke Energy Relief Request 1 1-ON-002 was approved by the NRC during the last inspection interval. The previous approved SE is documented in Accession Number ML13025A291, TAC No.ME8433 and ME8434 dated February 4, 2013.
8.0  Weld # 3-LDCB-OUT-WJ36V 8.1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected Unit 3 Letdown Cooler 3B, Nozzle to Channel Body Weld, High Pressure Injection System, Weld # 3-LDCB-OUT-WJ36V, Summary Number 03.B3.150.0004, and ASME Code Class 1.
8.2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda.
8.3. Applicable Code Requirement IWB-2500, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Item Number B3.150, Fig. IWB-2500-7 (a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I.
8.4. Impracticality of Compliance Component configuration:
* Surface 1: Channel Body - Stainless steel
           "    Surface 2: Outlet Nozzle - Stainless steel
           "    Diameter: 8.625 in.
* Thickness: 0.875 in.
This component was scanned manually with conventional methods. Scanning requirements are described in ASME Section XI, Appendix III, 111-4420 and III-4430. These requirements describe and are specific to scanning components in two axial and two circumferential directions. This component was scanned to the extent possible to meet these requirements. The aggregate coverage that was obtained is described and calculated from the following:
                " Axial scan coverage: 450 shear waves and 600 and 700 longitudinal waves in the S1 and S2 direction obtained an aggregate coverage of 52.6%.
* Circumferential scan coverage: 45' shear and longitudinal waves obtained an aggregate coverage of 68.6%.
                " The total aggregate coverage was calculated to be (52.6% + 68.6%)/2 = 60.6%.
The impracticality was caused by the weld taper configuration of the inlet nozzle to the channel body that does not allow interrogation from Surface 2 nozzle side.
In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld. The channel body to inlet Page 14 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 nozzle weld would have to be redesigned and replaced to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical The Oconee Inservice Inspection Plan allows the use of Code Case N-460, which requires greater than 90% volumetric coverage. The achieved coverage did not meet the acceptance criteria of this Code Case.
This relief request is specific to examination volume coverage limitations only. All other Code requirements were satisfied.
No indications were recorded during this examination.
8.5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use No substitution alternative for this weld is available which would provide better results. Radiography (RT) is not a desired option because RT is limited in the ability to detect service induced flaws. Use of other manual or automated UT techniques, whether conventional or phased array, were considered, but would not increase coverage due to the limitation created by the component configuration. The use of any other UT technique available would incur the same physical scanning limitations. The UT technique applied is considered best effort.
8.6. Duration of Proposed Alternative This request is for the fourth inservice inspection interval. The interval ended on July 15, 2014.
8.7. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for the item number 03.B3.150.0004 was conducted using personnel, equipment, and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section Xl, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda.
The system leakage test performed each refueling outage in accordance with Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-P requires a VT-2 visual examination to detect evidence of leakage. This test and VT-2 examination provides additional assurance of pressure boundary integrity.
In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), Reactor Building Normal Sump monitoring and Reactor Building process radiation monitoring contribute to ensuring pressure boundary integrity by providing means to detect reactor coolant leakage and take prompt corrective actions. Operating experience for this weld did not find any previous failures.
Duke Energy has examined the weld to the maximum extent possible utilizing approved examination techniques and equipment. Based on the acceptable results for the coverage completed by the volumetric examination, the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section Xl, and the leakage monitoring, it is Duke's position that the combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.
Page 15 of 16

Oconee Relief Request 15-ON-003 8.8. References Duke Energy Relief Request 1 1-ON-002 was approved by the NRC during the last inspection interval. The previous approved SE is documented in Accession Number ML13025A291, TAC No.ME8433 and ME8434 dated February 4, 2013.
Page 16 of 16

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

A                                                                                                                                Document No.: 51-9222850-000(
AREVA
-3                                          Duke Energy/ Oconee Unit 3 EOC27 10 Year ISI Final Report OCONEE - UNIT 3 EXAMINATION COVERAGE FORWELD: V02:
UPPER NOZLE BELT TO UPPER SHIELL WELD Summary Number. 03.81.11.0003 ConmpwsentlD: 3.RPV.WRI8 Scan Plan  a     rawing Number           8060030 Sheets7 & 10 WELD\VOLUME COVERAGE OBTAINED: 79%
Zone*coverage Obtaine*
inner i 1/%T:            83.2%                                      Outr 85Y.T:          77.8%                     Aggregate: 78.8%
Examitnation Volume Definition Weld Le UM L           252 17'~n Area Measurement (axial plane)                            lVoiume calculation inner 15%T                                        27863 sq. in.           itnna, 15%T                                         6967.32 cu in.
Outer 85%T                                       15730 sq in,              Outer 85%T                                        39668558 cu in.
Limltatlons         IUmits                                 scan by:                                                            iCompensationfl bossw            nozl                    intrfeenc                    confi....... on O nzle boss          lit reduction in axial                               aqacent to otk       nozts due to nozie boss                       None Examination Coverage Calculations INNER 15%T Axial Bem Direction Coverages Exam.                        Ama           Length           Volume            Volume Angle         Beam        Exainned      Examined           Examined         Requfired         Percent Entry #       (djg2        In,cinm       isq in'-         6n)              (cu in          (cuuin)&#xfd;       Examinnd      Um,:ed                     Commen 1        70U45L        Up/oown            F2763-          22284           6157 17           615717"      1000%         No                         None 2        70U45L        UplDown             6.35' 6                29,32           186,34           810 15 r      230%       Yes            Out'* Nozzle Boss limits scan Total Axial Coverage                 252.17          0343.51           6967.32        91.0%
C.rcumferentfat BSem Dircdon Coveragex Exam                         Area       CQrcFxlernt       A"d Extent AV@l          Beam        Exarruned     6xamnarl           Examined                           Percent EntT', #          eg;)    .Drect'im      (*    n           (%)                 %             ..           Examined      Lt-rtnfed              ~      r" 3        70U45L       CWICCW "           &#xa2;g.00              8.6%
                                                                        &             100.0%                         68.6%       Yes       Cowrage between lInet/Out* Nozzles 4        70L/45L      CWICCW             148.20'            We.%           100,0%                          88.5%      Yes       Coverage between Inlet Nozzles Total Clrc. Beam Direction Coverage:                     75.3%
Inner 1S1%   coeag3.2%
iOUTER 8MT Axial Beam Oifction Coverages Exam.                         Area         Length            Volume           VOlW Angle         Beam        Examined       Examined          ESamned          ReqiiAd           Peicent Einn'#        (ldeo.       C.n,-ction    (      n           in             (cu. on          C n           Examinied     Limited                    comment 45IJ45S        Up/On            15730             222,84        3506273          355.273"       100.0%        No                         None 2        451U45S        UplOn      "      36.18             29.32          "1060.77         4612 04r       2&0%       Yes            OCilet Nozzle Boss limits scan Total Axial Coverage                  252.18        30113.50         39484.77         91.0%/0 Ctrcumirerendal sao"      Direction Coverages Exam                          Area      Circ Extent        Axial Extent Angie         Beam       Examined       Exarmined          Examined                          Percent Ent~t      (feg,)      Dtreofro ...        in.)         1%)               M%}                          Examnned      Limited                   Comment 3       4545S        CWiCCW            105480"            60.2%           1000%                           60.2%       Yes       Covrage between hnlet/Outiet Nozzles 4        45L/45S      CW/CCW            744,60'            71.7%          100,0%                          71,7%       Yes       Covrage between inlet Nozzles Total Clrc. Beam DIraction Coverage:'                    64.5%
Ouwl 85% covierege               r     77.8%
51-9222850-000 rc&#xfd; I&#xfd; -3&#xfd;

Re. Scan Plan NSOM03                       Exantnabon Suttace tO0ID       ~6                  ~ta*s          1J~~$b~h4~i l~xamnsfitonCOwmage:                 lg9%                                  W~1 IEzamndMUon ntatmu          OUtle NOZZle SOaW(                                        See Adachad Flow Evauatlen Suammary  Shats)
&#xfd;Examinlabn Datao):         Apr#I 26-27,20M4                            Namres of date analyts forttts vW amwe~Med on the atlacdd speets A,;mrar~s:       see afttacd -Tws cqIaaanLgGga otadwna Ifimti kutlyzed br      Soot wawhoz                                   Level:         A~        j10t      4127124 Ablyle       " e Bazu                                     Level:         [it        IDat     412712014 IRe&#xb6;%ewed by. Rickis Rose                                   Level:         If           1          2014, 5ORW 51-9222850-000 2j3~

8w0g0MAZL.t AR                                                      EADocument                                                                    No.: 51-9222850-00 Duke Energy / Oconee Unit 3 EOC27 10 Year ISI Final Report OCONEE *UNIT 3 EXAMINATION COVERAGE FOR WELD: W05 LOWER SHELL TO LOWER HEAD WELD Summary Number: 0B5I1d0004
                                                                  ~omnponent ID: 3-RPV-WR34 scan Plan rawingNumbe.              8NS03D Sheets 11, IZ &14 WELD VOLUME COVERAGE OBTAINED: 43%,
Zone Coverage Obtained inner 15%T:          35.0%/                                   outer 85%T.        44, 1                  Aggragate:  42.7%..
     .                            4Examlnation                                      Volume Definition Weid Lerai          53X4006 i Area Measurement (axial plane)                     jvolume Calculation inner !5%T                                   10 54 sq in            jinner1ST                                      567480cu.i Outer 85%T                                   44 46 sq, A             Outer 85%T                                   23937.54 cu. in.
Limitations                                  Limits scan by                                                        Compens lon(at Core Guide Lugs                       Guide Lugs and Flow Stabilizers featnct UT     j7ead movement                        None Ffow Stabiizer                        Guide Lugs and Flo Stabilizem reaslct UT head movement                               None Examination Coverage Calculations INNER15%T
:Axial Beam Direction Coveaiges Exam,                   Aea          Length          Volume          Volure Angte     Beam Examined Examnerd                    Examined       Required       Percent Entry4 Weg      CkLreon ,Sq, m2 in              nj            &#xfd;" if?)       'cu          Eaind        LiedCmmn 1         70L/45L    Up/on           1054             6430           677.72         677.72    100.0%       NO      Coverage between lugs and stabWizers 2         70U45*     UpiON             695          19340           1344,13       2038 44'      659%       yes     Coverage gs-ove stabitize-s 3         70U45. UplOn             000'         280,71             000        2958,64'       0.0%      Yes     Obstructed Total Axial Coverage              538&41          2021.85       5674.80       35.8%
CircumferentialBeam Direction Coverages Exam.                   Area      Clrc Extent      Axial Extent Angle     Beam      Examined       Examined         ExamIned                      Percent Ents           (doug) Diet~on       (sqg 'n           (%)              I%)                      Examined     Limtied                   COMMeNt 4         70U45L. CWICCW            8844'          20-1%            430%                        86%      Yes      Coverage between lugs and stablizer.
5         70U45L   CWICCW           345,72'         445%             57 0%                      25,4%      Yes     Coverage above stabizers Total Cirr. Beam Direction Coverage:'             34.0%
inner 15% covera,*                35.0%
OUTER 85%T Axial Beam DirectionCoverages Exam                    Area         Length          Volume          Volume Angle     Beam Examnned            Examined          Examined       Reaqumd       Percent Er#ry           *iz)   Dircon        lag-In)          Mn-            1cu.in.)         u. in)    Exarined     umited                    Commer 1         45U45S     UptOn           44,46            64.30         2858 78        2858,78'    100a0%       No     Coverage between fugs anmstabilizes 2         451)45S    Uptn             28,28         193 40          546935         8598.56'     636%       Yes     Coverage above stabiiizers 3         451145S    Up/D*             0,00'        28071               0.00     12480 20'        00%      Yes     Obstructed Total Axial Coverage              538.41          8328.13      23937.54        34.8%
circumferentialBoam Direction Coverages Exam,                   Area       Carc Extent      Axia Extent Angle     Beam       Examined       Examined         Examined                     Pewent Entry ti         do)   Direction            t          %
Ms                                       Examined     Limited                    contmel" 4         451145S  CWICCW             146280         313%             43.0%                      135%      Yes     Coverage between jugs ano stabilizers 5         45L145S  CW/CCW'         3250.44           69.5%            57.0%                     396%       Yes     Coverage above stabilizers Total CiOr.Beam Directtion Coverage;'              53,1%
Outer 8501. covernoe:             44"0%..
51-9222850-000

A AREVA                                                                      Document No.: 51-9222850-000 Duke Energy / Oconee Unit 3 EOC27 10 Year ISt Final Report Figure 1-2: TWS Weld W05 - Lower shell to Lower Head Weld View of TWS robot in vessel lower head region showing scan limitations caused by the Core Guide Lugs and Flow Stabilizers. The weld is partially covered by the Core Guide Lugs. Flow Stabilizers welded to the head below the weld and the Core Guide Lugs restrict the UT head from scanning the entire weld. These limitations occur between each lug set. Single sided scan parameters are used near obstructions to improve examination coverage. Coverage obtained on this weld is 43%.
ax-4Wy, 51-9222850-000
                                                                                   ?d SY,36

514OMWS.~OO Pap47 of1026 11 --     ~~
0                            ,64    -fl ISS
        ~ -------- -  ---- -- ---------     w~
OM-x-V "I# =I-

1INane  of dats wial9U (or theWel aM IMW oe an~ie attadu m~~fli(~D.        r...
a.. mgLmwmw IWO n~qu..au.IrI LUU       Wi *iUJ1      *iiWflhSsfl.
arna   S:              lwamqu&#xfd;onLog         pages  ra      on-  n        -
Analyzed bir soot avldz                                 ILaveb             1   =     Date:    4127J2O4 An~tV-d  bir HC0    Bezf                                  Level:
ILevel:
10I II jDte:
Oet 4110=14 5=214 ReVeWNWdy    RickesRose 51-9222850-000

r-A                                                                                                                        Document No.: 51-9222850-000 AR EVA Duke Energy I Oconee Unit 3 EOC27 10 Year ISI Final Report OCONEE- UNIT 3 EXAMINATION COVERAGE FOR WELD: W06 LOWER HEAD TORUS TO LOWER HEAD DOME WELD Summary Number* ol.t2i.0o01 Component 10* 34PV-WRft35 Scan Plan Drawing Number 8019090 Sheets 13&&#xa3;14 WELD VOLUME COVERAGE OBTAINED: 36%
Zone Coverage Obtained Inner 15%T*           32.7%,                                    Outer $5%T:     37.1%                      Aggregate: 36.4W Examination Volume Definiltion WeldLenoth          449 248 i Vnner 15%T Outer 85%T Ares Measurement (aJxial plane) 5.77 sq.
3304 s*.
in       T  [Volume Calculation 15%T Me IOuter85%Tn 2592.16 cu in 14843.15 cu. in Urmitadon$L                                    Umits scan by:                                                          !Compeniseton(*i fnore Instrumenltaton Nozzies       Ilncom Nozzles restict. UT head movent                                                    None Flow StablIzers                       Flow Stabltwa restrct UT head niomvnent                                                  None Examination Coverage Calculations INNER 16%T Axial Beam Directfon Coverages Exam                     Area           Length         Volume        Voiume Angle       Beam      Examined        Examiined       Examined      Requued         Percent Enhy#0         (io. timeo        tsq&#xfd;  6n                         cu~iA
                                                                              'b           (Ou in)                       Lmitead Lx~se                         Comment 1        70U145L      UpOn .           677-            160061         92570       92V10'         1000%          No      covrage between nozzles and stleszere 2        70U45L       UP1On            3.28'             3444         11297       19873'          56,8%        Yes      Coverage above nozzles 45 and 52
: 7)        3        70L/45L      UDiDn            1 07'             1123          1202         6480          185%         Yes      Cowrage above nozzle 46 4        701145L      UloDn               n0'0         2429?             0,00    1401,93'           (10%       Yes      Obsltructed Total Axial Coverage                449.25        1051.69     2592.16          40.6%
                . tal S~ain Direcfion Coveeam Circumiret, Exam,                    Area         Qro Extent Axial Extent Angle      Beam      Examined Examined               Examined                      Per0e"t E&lr U       (ds       CJeto        (sc. lt            tl              (%v                       Examined       Limited                       Comment 5        701145     CWICCW       ' 9072                 2013%        100.0%                   E 20,3%          Yes      Cover     baeweee nozzles and stabilizers 6        70U45L     CWICCWC           2016'              4.5%         80.0%                         336%       Yes      Covrage above nozzles 45 and 52 7        70U45L     CW/CCW            10 08'             2.3%         420%                           19%       Yes      Coverage abowe nozzle 46 Total arc. Beam Direction Coverage:'               2,,C1%
Inner 16% moarme           '        32.%
OUTER 86%T Axial Seem Direci*on Covierae Exan                     Area          Length         Volume        Volume Ane        Beam      Examned          Exarrmned       Examined     Required         PeroeV Enhivg        (-g.                  (qI.                 in
                                                                  '2eto         o           (cur1a)        Exatlined        &#xfd;imited                     Comment 1        451U455      Ui n            33'04"            16061        530642      5306 42'        1000%          NO      Coverage between nozzles and stablzers 997.45     1137,97'         877%         Yes      Comage above nozzles 45 and 52 2 8 .9 6 2        45U45S       Uptlo                              34,44 3        45U45S       UplOn            17 91'             1123        201.15       371.08'        542%         Yes      Coerage aboe nozzle 46 4        45U45S       UplDn             000'            242.97           0.00    8027.67-'           00%        Yes     Obstinicted Total Axial Coverage                 449.25       6505.03    14843.15           43.8%
Cfrcumrratandal Seem Direation Coviages Exam                     Area        COr Extent      Axial Extent Angre      Beam      Examrined Examined               Examined                      Percent Ent,#         fd    . Ereion       (,g in)             1%)            (%)                      Examined       Limited                       Comment 5        45U45S    CW/CCW '         638.28h            24.8%          00.0%                P      24.8%        Yes      Coverage between nozzles and slabWizers 6        451145S   CW/CCW '         141.14               5.5%         81.0%                r        4.5%       Yes      Coverage ato*e nozzles 45 and 52 7        451145S   CWfCCW '           70.92'             2.8%         39,0%                1         1.1%      Yes      Coverage ate    nozzle 46 Total Circ. Beam Direction Coverage:'               30.3%
Outir 8M% caeage                    37.1%
51-9222850-000                                                                                                                                   73

Controlled Doc ment SCan Speed:         4 RS (MTPI               c.hInterval     10.      IndeX VaUe:         02'      opat                Water JVassa Tep             7$%F Scan Spe:           4 tPS (MAPI MAW~   iS . Int"Ai:           W0 'Index Value:           0 21c.51 Transducer Menufactuten           &vwT*GST                                UT Head:          Head                 S41elScars RED TW'S 3        45*                AxialI CIrc,        1.0MHz        0-0               GSTft a 89-011310 5                              1 7B'J9)5(1 "3Fi2-1.                   1.0 3        73'       L   I    AXW I Qro.          1.3MHz       O2SIML             GST&#xfd; 3BM-42-010              5*     ll5ft3r(lQ). t5"x.rVkI)       100 734~-     L        Axial) Circ-        13HiZ        021M               GFs 389-042-010                    _____________                 ____O 8 47dlr       i.                            .7MHz 2iJIw        02520K             GEIT:389-03"IO               4              I.i"1g15'(x2)         0.90" Re(. Scan Plan 8068903D                         Examintiaon Surfame ID             0 ow.b             li.tn                    Ruifen             t Examination Coverag:                38V%                                                                    z"                                plt Exinsinllan Umlitation:     Inre Nomes and Row SWaOMSr                             (           SeaAttachied Flaw Ev~aluton Summar Selte~()
Exarnainson Dab*s):         ApO~ 25, 204                                        Names of del. aia~sis forth.s wWlamincluded on the afttead whees.
  *marOks:         See aftached IMS AcquisIl~on !5g" page. for additona Infbwtonale iAnsyznd by.,     Scot MrhazI                                          Lovall:          i        Dale:      4125=214 Analye by.         Hryi a~                                              Lawa:           ili       Date       412=1 Reviewed by        Ric4ve Ross,                                         Lvaft            it       Dabi:        5r21= 4 51-9222850-000
                                                                                                                    ;13&#xfd;04 /4

A                                                                        Document No.: 51-9222850-000 AR EVA Figure 1-3: TWS Weld WOO - Lower Shell to Lower Head Weld View of TWS robot in vessel lower head region showing scan limitations caused by the Incore Nozzles and Flow Stabilizers. The weld is partially covered by the Flow Stabilizers. Flow Stabilizers welded to the head above the weld and the Incore Nozzles restrict the UT head from scanning the entire weld.
The Core Guide Lugs also provide some interference with robot movement. These limitations occur between each Flow Stabilizer/Core Guide Lug set. Single-sided scan parameters are used near obstructions to improve examination coverage. Coverage obtained on this weld is 36%.
4           /y.
51-9222850-000

3 I   A I      a           I
* I Si aw  13   wabWU u1  QEIL
                                 ,. -  o          r tovs
                              --      S *Mm It i   i   I  I I     "           I 514222050,=N                                                   Pop.48.of0I t(    wo 6&#xfd; l-   /

plev 00% af 11 Total = (97.2 +  '2 a87.7% Aggregate erage N
Inspector I Oats:**.NPg                         Pageb-of I id
                                                         '0q, I -S 1,134

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

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

             ..etdowAn Cooler Chemical C ;,
Area Exmn d &#xfd;Nozzle WeldNo. :       3-LDCA--11 QW        =AreaNot Examned= 0.05 +0.01+ 0.02 = 0.08 sq.
Eli      =Area Ecarined =2.28-O0.081/2.28 x100 =96.5%
700-CanJical Connector - Si

Letdown Cooler Ch Area
-WedNo. :   3-LDCA-IN-1

I length x 78.1% of the volume of length 1100 =78.1%
              = (97.2+ 78.1) 12 = 87.7% Aggregate Coverage Inspector I Date:___________a,_A                                   Page y of 14 4 Itr

         ~~etdox~ Cooler Chemical
      **etdown CoolerChmclotL.W Total Exam Area VkIdNo.-

Letdown Cooler C Area Examix Weld No.:        3;T-sCA-OUT-WJ35V
           -- reaNotExamined=0. 5  +0.
LIII    =Area Examnined =2.28 - 0.08/ 2.28 x 100 =
709-Chenical Connector - SI

i   etdown Cc Area eddNo.* --
3-L~cA-Frl*i      i       ,
5V~fl Chemical Connector - SI Scale: 1"= If

Letdown CO V*dNo..t   3-.LCA -O0f-N E
WdN~
cw=

I,'
Inspector I Page -IL of j" di

LetownCooler No:
Weld No.- _3-[:f,&f N-W33V Total Exam Area= 2.72 sq. in.
chQanwl Boo - Si s
4Z

Letdovdi An Weld No.: 3:LD.kR--W33V LIZ      Area not Examined = 1.78 sq. in.
Area Examined= 2.72 - 1.78 / 2.72 x 10

Letdown Cooler No4e' to Ch Area                     - Circ.
V&ld tNo.:_3-LDrCB-ZN-WJ3V
[J        AreanotFamined = 0.81+ 0.40= 121sq. in.
Area Examined = 2.72- 1.21 / 2.2 x 10 = 55.
Qannel Body-SSI Scale: III= 1"I

Letdown Cooler Nozzle to C3 Weld No. :_N-MD*N-W33Y
                                                    / I Total ExamArea= 2.30 sq. in.
Scale: Ito  1=
~2Z~

retdown Cooler Nozzle to C Area WeldNo.": 3*4*B-MN-J33V Area not Examiined   1.2 1 ;q.in.
[I    Area Examined = 2.30 - 1.2 1 cZZa.. o

                                ,%, 'r Letdown Cooler vWed No.: 3-B-jN-WJ33V
        /
II    Area notE LIZ     Area
~ZZ::NS)

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

LetownCooler
*Vied No. : LcBOIW1V Total ExamArea =2.72 sq. in.
Rnrviv                I Scale- t t

Letdown Cooler Nozzle to Ch Area Exmnd - Axial !
Weld No.: 3LG-U-16 LIIArea not Fxan-inedl=   .78 sq. in.
mArea Examined=2.72 - 1.78 /2.72 x aiannel Body - SI Scale: " = 1" N

At        )o1er I
Weld No.:3LC-LW16 LI]   Area not Examine d= 081+O0.40= 1.21 sq. ixr.
LIIArea    n~ned =*'  ~.72 -1.21 /2.72 x 100= 55.
Scale: I" '=P

Letdo&n Cooler No7zle +^ fr WeId No. :__3-LDCtB-OUwJ36V I
Total FxamArea 2   230 sq. in              I I
Scale: 1"-= P Si

 *.,etdown Cooler Nozzle to Chruiel Bo Area Examine Axial Sca Weld No..: 3-LDC&6V-WJ3V
[I         Area not Examined   1.21 sq. in.
Area Examined= 2.30 - 1.21 /230x 100

Ledoym Co Veid No. :
EAreaE
  ~Area     E}}