ML20203H882

Technical Evaluation Rept on Second 10-year ISI Program Plan:Entergy Operations,Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station

ML20203H882
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	09/30/1998
From:	Mary Anderson, Charles Brown, Galbraith S IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
Shared Package
ML20203H857	List: ML20203H850 ML20203H859 ML20203H882
References
CON-FIN-J-2229 INEEL-EXT-98, INEEL-EXT-98-00, INEEL-EXT-98-00736, INEEL-EXT-98-736, NUDOCS 9902230137
Download: ML20203H882 (22)

Text

-

M  ? W:V. \

b;.

$ d .&.,%py&%Q> yh s.4 % .. y.%l;.F$?g.s,

. &. :d  ? Id:h3 N: tion:I Engineering cnd Environm:nt:I L bar:t:ry

.. -. i e,,.m,g %p .w, v. . ..,. ; w, p. . ...~,. . m '

r . v..... . m r .Se,o . . m. &.g. . . g.. J+, .

n 9 e q ,l v 4 INEEL/ EXT-98-00736 1 p y g p;.,s. p?,,.. m&wn% ph,WMM sm@c MtC h . m . , :. m .t.o M September 1998 ,

ew;4,.c..y" 3,g . .p~ y ,. j. m e w e,. r 1,qm -, y,:,

g , n.* g r%*!l 1

aa ;- .r- u yv

,m. -- K,. ,0 p ..e, sfly . A. -a, + .cn \

i~

n. ..

l Y,. '.9 L.

W - . s 1 (4.Y h -

. s.m ~/ g Technical Evaluation Report on the i k.. - e, ... Ji Second 10.-Year Interval Inservice  !

sy r f. -

ew: .

/. w w. .w .'.n a, lnSDOCt. ion Program Plan:

l

.M94,, . . .m; @ h . . m, -

2.wa: w w w . w.. d. ?, w.u.?/.

@.s.m. rag g . e .

Entergy Operat. ions, Qw c._$g,v. . :.:n,g,9n Waterford-3 M M F Steam $ 1 5Electric

.3 Station, l e w  :

,iM, , R d,.W. .m nnSM s

Q.T l. .: . w*3,? '.=** ' ^J>n~. ;.k .,f*.%*,a i.,&

^

Docket Number 50-382

_. 1

,e . up .-2,.'  ? - . . n .; ..L..-w

-k'.i *?..c '3*; i.,'f j

Lfv.:.4..*> -iy%;e..ij k . ,1. . ;.Q' A',.h,;;j,..[,., .** :.,.,E M*1 .'..j qw! p: n.s. 7 , m~ '\.m; ,,y. %

m; l

.~..L . . ze .:.e..~:. w' ;: .

. q . c: s . . , . >.a. . ;

1..Q, .,T .

. 1,.,. ddr,c..:,!=x,e ,f g' W. jy %4',o ..d 1

-n

v. , , t-tym Q:.:r.... . c ,, . . ; ; . ;y

n. .r n

~-

p. .:;y_.6p: . , y.M:. w r .'r %.' .  :-2. n , ..;;&.  ;;-M

,....;.. , t.v, ..,..,:,.c.., a,. ... .. y u9 ,-., ..

. . . . ~ . - . .~...m,

'&. .::.: ' h '.? ; % . . , s.L l : 3 m .-... .. . ... .;u . < -..

.a.y,. .m,. .J- .3

... : .,. .2 ...,q,A c., .yp. , ;.... .'

, ,c 3

7 ,: vp . , , . , " . . f.p. 3. %, )

w,. .',.-. 'q.,: .e e sm. . . .,,.t, : '1 : ,.:. ..s  : . y :. .:n **:- ' m. , l w.

. % il\ a_ (' .A ew . .'g.'.! t ' . .*:qt'.

,,6

.>. 4..c..T~y .v.s.. ..c,' .' D.

,, ; ,m.

^' g'.' ,a

\

s

.@,w . ,*.:t;V .m - .- :-%.d nysu) l Q {.bh h, 1. t :...."..'~..sf.jj ? M. T. Anderson i e m;< r

.:.r. ,,..  :., .

ke k .;2, m':p.. .a C. T. Brown Y p.u ; ~ .s,,.vb.u.l.2 ,1.- ,=.-:;.~.%.am:n.g

,. )::y . ,.. ..v.. .-., . *, ;.y

. t}. ,

l kk',Q'@J ,x5Gygigig.g S. G. Galbraith

% ' .. ..s m.:2:4,4  ? A. M. Porter 5' E:w, n.W:

%m .. .

.a ~,,b . A. ,

, e ,,u.4.,; i

- 1.ege- $, ..fn,c. 4su ,..&. s

.Mn.-&;: ~..

y%9V  :%.Q; :Q.. 3.pJ'.%..... ..Tf,q 4 .. , . . . # . . ,

48 . p ^2 7A n ;y. .w':. n'{,L,W.[p e.p . .:

rr i

N' a, :, aq' .f.m/.b.9 y-/ , p .. '.% 3 n. .m,,, .. .n .g ;m. .

<  ;,.9, 5, .>%

3, ,3c.py.,

$.fri.g:*g .

,,y,s.q:

ea *,4.,gs,;

,. g., L.

..w,s1 .ng.g.;j }

6 ~;r w .y ,.,e.-~

y. arcs -

2 f,..Am .-tm,,+n,9s .c 9 4: . . . j,8 1 m

. n > gma...y?. .

+ ;w,

. *. :. 8l , .

At ..%. 2 2 u u.'.wu.4,,-u 9902230137 990217 PDR ADOCK 05000382 G PDR Wfn.sy.;., ncm.c.e.mn-;Nm '

. u2 C.'~nb, 1 rh., . . .d f ;C

• tAGM':wmW.a ,:cW>. % %. ,.W%+P4 2W j

6;&. , c?+

g r, -

. n: .,.iW:.-h.

4 'Q; f y 4"k'h- c '. u . . mi%y4.C,!i?.WQ

? . j..,

L O C K H E E D nf A R T I N /

wh%-&g,,t. m.Q.'l~a *~95m4

%i Q;%&f;%g H@ Q A G:p y.m!>.y,;y. m ; M h; w .yvy qwemg.gQ i ay %;up%e?.m A %p?y,.

w4

.% ,.1 f.3 17 ggqasscr. 90 )

M.. s.-%MM <.g,sd.M. . A'MMo2Wid?p ENCLOSURE 2 W . .;:.,=?..m..L.,o=v'2.,. n e.. n,g 3n w- s...s. . . ,

rj.m ! w s1.: . = z 2 v.a 4

2. au.c s

s. m e

__. _ . , . _ .. . . . , - . . n. - . * -

INEEL/ EXT-98-00736 Technical Evaluation Report on the Second 10-Year Interval inservice inspection Program Plan:

Entergy Operations, Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station, -

Docket Number 50-382 M. T. Anderson, C. T. Brown, S. G. Galbraith, A. M. Porter Published September 1998 Idaho National Engineericg and Environmental Laboratory Materials Physics Department Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the Civil and Geosciences Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 JCN No. J2229 (Task Order A26)

. . - .l.. - - - - . . . - - . . ..- - -.

i . -> i l l 1

l ABSTRACT

l. This report presents the results of the evaluation of the Entergy Operations Waterford-3

[ . Steam Electric Station, Second 10-Year Intervalinservice Inspection Plan, Revision 1, submitted June 4,1998, including the requests for relief from the American Society of I Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, requirements that the j licensee has determined to be impractical. The Entergy Operations Waterford-3 Steam l Electric Station, Second 10-Year IntervalInservice Inspection Plan, Revision 1 is evaluated l 'in Section 2 of this report. The inservice inspection (ISI) plan is ovaluated for (a) compliance with the appropriate edition / addenda of Section XI, (b) acceptability of examination sample, (c) correctness of the application of system or component l examination exclusion criteria, and (d) compliance with ISI-related commitments identified i' during previous Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviews. The requests for relief are evaluated in Section 3 of this report.

l l

l l

l l 1 I

l l .

This work was funded under:

! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission JCN No. J2229, Task Order A26 Technical Assistance in Support of the NRC Inservice Inspection Program l 1

t l ii i

--,...,--,<w.um--e~ . -- - em= ^ e" - " ' "'

p, I

SUMMARY

, The licensee, Entergy Operations, prepared the Entergy Operations Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station, Second 10-Year IntervalInservice inspection Plan, Revision 1, to meet the requirements of the 1992 Edition,1993 Addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI. The second 10 year j interval began July 1,1997, and will end on June 30, 2007.  ;

The information in the Entergy Operations Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station, Second 10-Year Intervallnservice inspection Plan, Revision 0, submitted, July 1,1997, was reviewed. . As a result of this review, a request for additional information (RAI) was j prepared describing the information and/or clarification required from the licensee in order !

to complete the review. The licensee provided the requested information, including the Entergy Operations Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station, Second 10-YearIntervalinservice Inspection Plan,' Revision 1, in a submittal dated June 4,1998. l Based on the review of Revision 1 of the program plan, the licensee's response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's RAl, and the recommendations for granting relief from i the ISI examinations that cannot be performed to the extent required by Section XI of the ASME Code, no deviations from regulatory requirements or commitments were identified in i the Entergy Operations Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station, Second 10-YearInterval inservice inspection Plan, Revision 1. \

l l

l l

i l

l iii ,

E - _ - _ _ _ . j

6 CONTENTS $

ABSTRACT .......................................................ii

SUMMARY

...................................................... iii b

t

1. I NT R O D U CTI O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,

2. EVALUATION OF INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 3

' 2.1 Documents Evaluated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Compliance with Code Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2.1 Compliance with Applicable Code Editions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2.2 Acceptability of the Examination Sample ......................5 2.2.3 Exem ption Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.4 Augmented Examination Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5  !

2.3 Conclusion ................................................7  ;

3. EVALUATION OF RELIEF REQUESTS .................................8 3.1 Cla ss 1 Com ponents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.1 Reactor Pressure Vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.1.1. Request for Relief No. ISl2-010, Use of Code Case N.521, Alternative Rules For Deferral of Inspections of Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds, inside Radius Sections, and Nozzle-to-Safe End Welds of a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Vessel ....... 8 3.1. 2 Pre ssurizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1.3 Heat Exchangers and Steam Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1.4 Piping Pressure Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1.4.1 Request for Relief ISl2-005, Use of Code Case N-524, Alternative Examination Requirements for Longitudinal Welds in Class 1 and 2 Piping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 l

3.1.5 Pump Pressure Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 '

3.1.6 Valve Pressure Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1.7 G e ne ral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2 Class 2 Components ........................................11 3.2.1 Pr e ssure Ve ssels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3 . 2. 2 Pi ping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 l 3.2.2.1 Request for Relief ISl2-005, Use of Code Case N 524, I

, Alternative Examination Requirements for Longitudinal Welds i in Class 1 and 2 Piping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 j 3.2.3 Pumps ............................................11 3.2.4 Valves .............................................11  !

l 3. 2. 5 G e n e r al . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 l 3.3 Class 3 Components ........................................11 )

! 3.3.1 Pre ssure Ve ssels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 l r

i l i iv.

~ _ . . _ __. . - . _ _ . _ . _ - . . _ _ . _ _ _ . -

]

i .

. 1 1

l

3. 3. 2 Pi pi ng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 f' 3.3.3 Fumps ...................

.........................11 j ,

3.3.4 Valves .............................................11

3. 3. 5 G e ne r al . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 {

3.4 Pre ssure Te st s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12  ;

3.4.1 Class 1 System Pressure Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 '

3.4.2 Class 2 System Pressure Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.4.3 Class 3 System Pressure Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ,

3.4.4 Gene ral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12  !

3.4.1.1 Request for Relief No.1S12 006, Use of Code Case N-4161,  !

A(ternative Pressure Test Requirement for Walded Repairs or Installation of Replacement items by Welding, Class 1,2, and l 3 ..........................................12 3.4.4.1 Request for Relief No. ISl2-008, System Pressure Test l Corrective Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 j 3.4.4.2 Request for Relief No.1S12-009, System Pressure Tests for j Insulated Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - '

3.5 General . 4 ...............................................13 3.5.1 Ultrasonic Examination Techniques .........................13  !

3.5.2 Exempted Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ,

3. 5. 3 O t he r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 l

, 3.5.3.1 Request for Relief No. 1512-001, Use of 1992 Edition of ASME i Section XI for Inservice Inspection and Portions of the 1993

Addenda of ASME Section XI for Pressure Testing . . . . . . . . 13

3.5.3.2 Request for Relief No.1S12-002, Use of Code Case N 546, Alternative Requirements for Qualification of VT-2 Examination Pe r s onnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 3.5.3.3 - Request for Relief No.1S12-003, Use of Code Case N 509, Alternative Rules for the Selection and Examination of Class 1, 2, and 3 Integrally Welded Attachments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.5.3.4 Request for Relief No. IS12-004, Use of Code Case N-5081, Rotation of Serviced Snubbers and Pressure Relief Valves for the Purpose of Testing ...........................13 3.5.3.5 Request for Relief No. ISl2 007, Use of Code Case N 532, Alternative Requirements to Repair and Replacement j

.- Documentation Requirements and Inservice Summary Report l Preparation and Submission as Required by IWA-4000 and ,

IW A 6000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 >

a

4. C O N C L U S I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 i-2~

5. R E FE R E N C E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 e i i

f l-v ,

l.

- . - . _ _ _ _ _ ~ . - - . _ - 2- - -- -

i i

i l

l .

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ON THE

. SECOND 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN:

l- ENTERGY OPERATIONS, l WATERFORD-3 STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, l DOCKET NUMBER 50-382

1. INTRODUCTION Throughout the service life of a water-cooled nuclear power facility,its components (including supports) that are classified as American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Class 1,2, and 3 are required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) (Reference 1) to meet the requirements, except the design and i access provisions and the preservice examination requirements, of the ASME Code,Section XI, Rules for Inservice inspection of Nuclear Powsr Plant Components, (Reference 2) to the extent practical within the limitations of design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components. This section of the regulations also requires that inservice examinations of components and system pressure tests conducted during successive 120-month inspection intervals comply with the requirements in the latest l edition and addenda of the Code incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a(b) on the date 12 months prior to the start of the 120-month inspection interval, subject to the limitations and modifications listed therein. The components (including supports) may j meet requirements set forth in subsequent editions and addenda of this Code that are incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a(b) subject to the limitations and modifications l

listed therein, and subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commissico (NRC) approval. The licensee, Entergy Operations, has prepared the Entergy Operations Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station, Second 10-Year Intervalinservice Inspection Plan, Revision 1 to meet the requirements of the 1992 Edition,1993 Addenda of the ASME Code,Section XI. The second 10-year interval began July 1,1997, and will end on June 30,2007.

. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3), proposed attematives to the Code requirements may be used when authorized by the NRC. The licensee must demonstrate either that the proposed alternatives provide an acceptable level of quality and safety, or that Code

, compliance would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase l in safety. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii),if the licensee determines that conformance with certain Code examination requirements is impractical for its facility, the licensee shall submit information to the NRC to support that determination. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i), the NRC will evaluate the licensee's determination that Code

requirements are impractical. The NRC may grant relief and may impose alternative 1

l l

1 requirements that it determines to be authorized by law, will not endanger life, property, or  !

' the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest, giving due .I

, consideration to the burden upon the licensee that could result if the requirements were 1 a imposed on the facility. I s

The information in the Entergy Operations Waterford-3 Steam E/ectric Station, Second 10-Year /nterval/nservice /nspection P/an, Revision O (Reference 3) submitted July 1, 1997, was reviewed, including the requests for. relief from the ASME Code Section XI requirements that the licensee has determined to be impractical. This review was performed using the standard review plans of NUREG-0800, Section 5.2.4, " Reactor Coolant Boundary inservice Inspections and Testing," and Section 6.6, " Inservice inspection of Class 2 and 3 Components" (Reference 4).

In a letter dated March 26,1998 (Reference 5), the NRC requested additional

- information that was necessary to complete the review of the inservice inspection (ISI) program plan. The requested information was provided by the licensee via a letter dated June 4,1998 (Reference 6). In this response, Entergy Operations provided the requested

. Information, including the Entergy Operations Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station, Second 10-Year /nterval /nservice Inspection P/an, Revision 1 (Reference 7) and one new request for relief.

The Enteigy Operations Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station, Second 10-YearInterval

/nservice Inspection P/an Revision 1 is evaluated in Section 2 of this report. The ISI

- program plan is evaluated for (a) compliance with the appropriate edition / addenda of Section XI, (b) acceptability of examination sample, (c) correctness of the application of  ;

system or component examination exclusion criteria, and (d) compliance with ISI-related I commitments identified during the NRC's previous reviews. The requests for relief are evaluated in Section 3 of this report. Unless otherwise stated, references to the Code refer to the ASME Code,Section XI,1992 Edition,1993 Addenda, inservice test programs for snubbers and for pumps and valves are being evaluated in other reports.

m-a a

2

s

2. EVALUATION OF INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN This evaluation consists of a review of the applicable program documents to determine whether or not they are in compliance with the Code requirements and any previous license conditions pertinent to ISI activities. This section describes the submittals reviewed and the results of the review.

2.1 Documents Evaluated Review has been completed on the following information from the licensee:

• Entergy Operations Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station, Second 10-Year /nterval

/nservice /nspection P/an, Revision 0, dated July 1,1997 (Reference 3).

Licensee's " Response to Request for Additional Information - Inservice inspection Program", dated June 4,1998 (Reference 6).

• Entergy Operations Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station, Second 10-Year Interval

/nservice /nspection P/an, Revision 1, dated June 4,1998 (Reference 7).

2.2 Compliance with Code Requirements 2.2.1 Compliance with Applicable Code Editions I

Inservice inspection program plans are to be based on Section XI of the ASME Code editions defined in 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) and 10 CFR 50.55a(b). The second interval at Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station began July 1,1997; therefore, the Code applicable to the second intervalISI program is the 1989 edition of ASME XI. However the licensee received authorization in SER dated December 12,1996 to use the 1992 edition and portions of the 1993 Addenda. Therefore, as stated in Section 1 of this report, the licensee has prepared the Entergy Operations Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station, Second 10-Year Interval /nservice /nspection Plan, Revision 1 to meet the requirements of 1992, and portions of the 1993 Addenda of the Code.

. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(c)(3),10 CFR 50.55a(d)(2), and  ;

) 10 CFR 50.55a(e)(2), ASME Code cases may be used as alternatives to Code  !

requirements. Code cases that the NRC has approved for use are listed in Regulatory

~

Guide 1.147, Inservice /nspection Code Case Acceptabl//ty, (Reference 8) with any additional conditions the NRC may have imposed. When used, these Code cases must be implemented in their entirety. The licensee may adopt an approved Code case by providing written notification to the NRC. Published Code cases awaiting approval and subsequent listing in Regulatory Guide 1.147 may be adopted only if the licensee requests, and the NRC authorizes, their use on a case-by case basis.

3

g, i

l l.

The licensee's second 10-year ISI program includes the Code cases listed below.

--Unless otherwise noted, these Code cases have been approved for use in Regulatory Guide 1.147.

Code Case N-416-1 Alternative Pressure Test Requirement for Welded Repairs or

~

l Installation of Replacement items by Welding, Class 1, 2, and 3.

(This Code Case addresses both pressure testing and \

repair / replacement./ (Relief Request ISl2-006 approved in SER l dated September 4,1997.)

Code Case N-460 Altemative Examination Coverage for Class 1 and Class 2 Welds ,

Code Case N-461 Altemative Rules for Piping Calibration Block Thickness Code Case N-481 Altemative Examination Requirements for Cast Austenitic Pump Casings Code Case N-496 Helical Coil ThreadedInserts Code Case N-508-1 Rotation of Serviced Snubbers and Pressure Relief Valves for the Purpose of Testing Section XI, Division 1 (Relief Request lSl2-004 approved in SER dated July 30,1997) I Code Case N 509' Attemative Rules for the Selection and Examination of Class 1, 2, and 3 Integrally Welded Attachments (Relief Request 1512-003 approved in SER dated November 19,1997)

Code Case N-521 Allemative Rules for Deferral of Inspection of Nozzle to-Vessel Welds, inside Radius Sections, and Nozzle-to Safe End Welds of a l Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR/ Vessel (Evaluated in Section 3.1.1.1 of this report)

Code Case N 524 Alternative Examination Requirements for longitudinal Welds in Class 1 and 2 Piping (Relief Request 1S12-005 approved in SER dated November 19,1997)

Code Case N-532 Altemative Requirements to Repair and Replacement .;

Occumentation Requirements andInservice Summary Report  ;

Preparation and Submission as Required by IWA-4000 and IWA.

6000 (Relief Request 1512-007 approved in SER dated September 4,1997) l

[ l 4

i - )

. -.;. .;_; m . , _ _

__ l

i i

\

Code Case N 546 Altemative Requirements for Qualification of VT 2 Examination Personne/ Section XI, Division 1 (Relief Request ISI2-002 i

, approved in SER dated November 19,1997) t

- I 2.2.2 Acceptability of the Examination Sample l

L 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 l in Section XI of the ASME Code and 10 CFR 50.55a(b). Sample size and weld selection t procedures have been implemented in accordance with the Code and 10 CFR 50.55a(b)  !

and appear to be correct.

i

! -l 2.2.3 Exemption Criteria  !

The criteria used to exempt components from examination shall be consistent with j i Paragraphs IWB-1220, IWC-1220, IWC-1230, LWD-1220, and 10 CFR 50.55a(b). The l l

exemption criteria have been applied by the licensee in accordance with the Code, as l discussed in the ISI program plan, and appear to be correct. l t

2.2.4 Augmented Examination Commitments  !

1 in addition to the requirements specified in Section XI of the ASME Code, the licensee  ;

has committed to perform augmented examinations in accordance with the following.

i l-

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Standard Review Plan, Section 3.6.1, Plant I Design For Protection Against Postu/ated Piping Fai/ures /n F/vid 5ystems Outside Containment (NUREG-0800), and W-3 FSAR Section 3.6.1. l l

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Standard Review Plan, Section 3.9.3, P/ ant l Design For Protection Against Postu/ated Piping Fai/ures /n F/uid Systems Outside Containment (NUREG-0800), and W-3 FSAR Section 3.9.3.

l -

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Standard Review Plan, Section 5.2.4, l . Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary /nservice /nspection and Testing (NUREG-0800), and W-3 FSAR Section 5.2.4.

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Standard Review Plan, Section 5.4.1.1, Pump F/ywheel/ntegrity (NUREG-0800), W 3 FSAR Section 5.4.1.4, Reactor L Coo / ant Pump F/ywheel/ntegrity, and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Regulatory Guide 1.14, Rev 1, Reactor Coo / ant Pump F/ywheel/ntegrity. This

! inspection requirement has been incorporated into W 3 Technical Specification l

5 l 1

l 4.4.9. which requires that all four of the Reactor Coolant Pump Motor Flywheels i receive inservice inspections during each 10 year interval per the instructions of '

~ this Regulatory Guide. The requirements are: = (1) an inplace ultrasonic volumetric examination of the bore and keyway areas at approximately 3 year periods to coincide with the ISI periods, and (2) a surface examination of all exposed surfaces and a complete volumetric examination at approximately 10-year intervals to coincide with the ISI interval. The flywheels are examined due to a concern about the possibility for high energy missiles inside containment that i might damage several trainsfloops and cause the simultaneous loss of multiple j

safety-related systems. These examinations are to be performed to the extent i

possible with the inspection covers removed; disassembly of the motors is not l

required. These Technical Specification / Regulatory Guide requirements have been j included in this ISI Plan as an augmented program. i i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Standard Review Plan, Section 6.6, /nservice  !

+

inspection of Class 2 and 3 Components, (NUREG-0800), and W-3 FSAR Section 6.6. The W-3 FSAR, in Section 6.6.8, requires that all of the circumferential and 4 i

longitudinal welds in the Main Steam and Feedwater piping from both Steam j

Generators to the first rigid restraint past the outer containment isolation valve be j L

100 percent volumetrically examined except as restricted by part geometry or access. j s

1

- For Safety injection piping, the augmented ISI requirements of SRP 6.6 and Branch Technical Position (BTP) MEB 3-1 wili te imposed on the two 14-inch shutdown I

i cooling lines and the four 8-inch Low Pressure Safety injection (LPSI) lines l penetrating containment. All of the circumferential and longitudinal (if any) welds  !

on the two 14 inch shutdown cooling lines between the containment inboard and j outboard isolation valves will be 100 percent volumetrically examined except as restricted by part geometry or access. All of the circumferential and longitudinal e

(if any) welds on the four 8 inch LPSI lines between the containment inboard and outboard isolation valves will be 100 percent volumetrically examined except as p restricted by part geometry or access.

1 l

o The requirements of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.150, I Revision 1, Ultrasonic Testing of the Reactor Pressure Vessel Welds During L_. . Preservice and /nservice Examination, are incorporated into the regularly-scheduled i

Code examinations that occur at or near the end of the interval.

Thirty one (31) ultrasonic examinations are scheduled for the first period in i accordance with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission IE Bulletin 88-08, Thermal l .

' Stresses in Piping Connected to Reactor Coolant Systems. These examinations are being performed on the Pressurizer Spray and Auxiliary Spray piping using l

L special ultrasonic techniques designed for the detection of cracking in austenitic  :

l stainless steel piping. I i

6 e

_. . _. ~ ..__ _ ._ ._

p.

i r 1

l

. 2.3 Conclusion l b

~

Based on the review of the documents listed in Section 2.1, no deviations from regulatory requirements or commitments were identified in the Enterpy Operations  !

Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station, Second 10-YearIntervalinservice Inspection Plan, l Revision 1. Note that this report does not include a review of the implementation of the -

augmented examinations, it merely records that the licensee has committed to perform them, l

I l

4 1

l l

l i

. l 7

1

3. EVALUATION OF RELIEF REQUESTS

. The requests for relief from the ASME Code requirements that the licensee has determined to be impractical for the second 10 year inspection interval are evaluated in the following sections.

3.1 Class 1 Components 3.1.1 Reactor Pressure Vessel 3.1.1.1 Request for Relief No. IS12-010, Use of Code Case f J-521, Alternative Rules For Deferral of Inspections of Nozzle-to Vessel Welds, I iside Radius Sections, and Nozzle-to Safe End Welds of a Pressurized Water R sactor (PWR) Vessel Code Requirement-Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, items B3.90 and 83.100 require that, for reactor pressure vessel (RPV) nozzle welds and inner radius sections, at least 25% but not more than 50% (credited) of the nozzles shall be examined by the end of the first inspection period and the remainder by the end of the inspection interval. Examination Category B-F, item B5.10, Note (1) states that the reactor vessel nozzle-to-safe end weld examinations may be performed with the vessel nozzle examinations.

L/consee's Proposed A/temative-in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i), the licensee proposed to use Code Case N 521 as an alternstive to the Code requirement. The licensee I stated:

"Waterford 3 will complete the required nozzle to-vessel weld examinations, the nozzle

, inside radius section examinations, and the nozzle-to-safe end weld examinations concurrent with the reactor vessel ten year examinations at or near the end of the i second ten-year inservice inspection interval in accordance with Code Case N-521."

Licensee's Basis for Proposed Attemative-

" Pursuant to 10 CFR50.55a(a)(3)(i), relief is requested on the basis that invoking Code Case N-521 will provide an acceptable level of quality and safety.

~

" Based on the following, Waterford 3 believes that deferral of 100 percent of the reactor vessel nozzle examinations to the end of the second inspection interval will provide an acceptable level of safety and quality.

"1) All (100%) Reactor Vessel nozzle-to-vessel welds, nozzle inside radius sections, l '

and nozzle to-safe end welds were examined in 1995 during the third period of the first ten-year inspection interval. This was done to establish a new sequence of examination for the two hot leg nozzles. No indications or relevant conditions were discovered that required successive inspections in accordance with Paragraph IWB-2420(b). Furthermore, no inservice repairs or replacements by 8

y - . . _

. . , . - . - . = - _ , _ _

t..

l:

L I

welding have ever been performed on any of the nozzle to-vessel welds, nozzle inside radius sections, or nozzle to-safe end welds at Waterford 3.

"2) Fr'o m an industry perspective, there are two reasons why deferral of nozzle examinations to the end of the second inspection interval will not decrease the level of quality and safety. First, PWR reactor vessels similar to Waterford 3 have been operating for over 20 years with no recorded inservice induced flaws or l potential degradation mechanisms. Since each PWR reactor vessel in operation is representative of the operating conditions throughout the industry, continued

• I inspection of these vessels ensures that any potential degradation mechanism l would be detected.- Second, given the present large population of PWR reactor vessels in operation, the examination of nozzles within the industry during ary ten-year intemalis evenly distributed. This distribution is essentially equivalent,  !

. regardless of whether or not a percentage of the nozzle examinations are performed in the first inspection period or performed concurrent with the reactor vessel ten-year examinations at the end of the inspection interval.

"3) The Pressurizer and primary steam generator nozzle to-vessel welds, inside radius  !

sections, and nozzle-to-safe end welds are similar in configuration, material properties, weld process parameters, and operate in the same reactor coolant system environment as the reactor vessel nozzles. Due to this similarity, distribution of the Pressurizer and steam generator nozzle examinations in I

accordance with Examination Category B-D and Examination Category B-F will further substantiate the integrity of the reactor vessel nozzles until they are examined at or near the end of the third inservice inspection interval.

"4) Performing all the automated reactor vessel examinations during a single refueling outage improves consistency of the examinations by utilizing the same equipment,

' personnel, and procedures. Moreover, this improves the reliability and reproducibility of the examinations while reducing the exposure." i 1

Evaluation-The Code requires examination of at least 25% but not more than 50% of )

RPV nozzles and associated inside radius (IR) sections and nozzle safe ends during the first inspection period. The licensee has requested to use Code Case N 521 and defer the examination of these areas until the end of the second 10-year interval.

l- - .

Code Case N-521 states that the examination of RPV nozzles, IR sections, and nozzle-to

. ~ safe end welds may be deferred provided (a) no inservice repairs or replacements by welding have ever been performed on any of the subject areas, (b) none of the subject i areas cont'ain identified flaws or relevant conditions that currently require successive l inspections in accordance with IWB 2420(b), and (c) the unit is not in the first interval.

l The licensee has confirmed that these conditions have been met. In addition, the licensee I L examined all the subject areas during the third period of the first 10 year interval. By j i

' examirdng the nozzles and associated IR sections and nozzle-to-safe end welds at the end i-9  ;

i

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

~_y.~...--.. _ ,_ , __

of the previous 10 year interval, the licensee has established a new sequence of examinations. By meeting the conditions in the Code Case the licensec's proposed alternative will provide an acceptable level of quality and safety since the maximum time of 10 years between inspections will not be exceeded.

Conclus/on-Considering that the licensee has met all the conditions stated in the Code Case and that the time between examinations will not exceed 10-years, the licensee's proposed alternative will provide an acceptable level of quality and safety. Therefore, it is recommended that the licensee's proposed alternative be authorized pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i). The use of Code Case N-521 should be authorized for the second 10-year interval at Waterford 3 or until the Code Case is approved for general use by reference in Regulatory Guide 1.147. After that time, the licensee may continue to use the Code Case with the limitations, if any, listed in Regulatory Guide 1.147.

3.1.2 Pressurizer No relief requests 3.1.3 Heat Exchangers and Steam Generators No relief iequests 3.1.4 Piping Pressure Boundary 3.1.4.1 Request for Relief ISl2-005, Use of Code Case N 524, Alternative Examination l Requirements for Longitudinal Welds in Class 1 and 2 Piping Note: Request for Relief IS12-005 was evaluated and authorized in an NRC SER l dated September 17,1997.

{

3.1.5 Pump Pressure Boundary I

No relief requests l 1

3.1.6 Valve Pressure Boundary No relief requests t .

3.1.7 General l

No relief requests l l

I 10 l

i

? .

l -

3.2 Class 2 Components

, 3.2.1 Pressure Vessels No relief requests 3.2.2 Piping -

il 3.2.2.1 Request for Relief ISi2-005, Use of Code Case N 524, Alternative Examination i Requirements for Longitudinal Welds in Class 1 and 2 Piping Note: Request for Relief 1S12-005 was evaluated and authorized in an NRC SER dated November 19,1997.

3.2.3 Pumps No relief requests 3.2.4 Valves No relief requests 3.2.5 General No relief requests 3.3 Class 3 Components 3.3.1 Pressure Vessels No relief requests 3.3.2 Piping l

No relief requests i

! 3.3.3 Pumps l .

No relief requests 3.3.4 Valves l l

No relief requests 11

- . - . . . . - - . . .- - - ._ - .~. - .

.. t t

3.3.5 General No relief requests t 3.4 Pressure Tests 3.4.1 Class 1 System Pressure Tests No relief requests 3.4.2 Class 2 System Pressure Tests No relief requests 3.4.3 Class 3 System Pressure Tests No relief requests 3.4.4 General 3.4.1.1 Request for Relief No. ISl2-006, Use of Code Case N-416-1, Alternative Pressure 1 Test Requirement for Welded Repairs or Installation of Replacement items by j Welding, Class 1,2, and 3 l Note: Request for Relief ISl2-006 was evaluated and authorized in sn NRC SER I dated September 4,1997. I l

3.4.4.1 Request for Relief No.1S12-008, System Pressuve Test 'Jorrective Actions Note: Request for Relief 1S12-008 we'. evaluateo cad authorized in an NRC SER i dated April 7,1998.

l 3.4.4.2 Request for Reliet No. ISl2-009, System Pressure Tests for Insulated Components  !

Note: Request for Relief ISl2-009, submitted to the NRC, January 14,1998, is not within the scope of this evaluation: it will be evaluated separately. .

3.5 General 3.5.1 Ultrasonic Examination Techniques No relief requests 3.5.2 Exempted Componer'a 12

o No relief requests 3.5.3 Other 3.5.3.1 Request for Relief No.1S12-001, Use of 1992 Edition of ASME Section XI for Inservice inspection and Portions of the 1993 Addenda of ASME Sectiun XI for Pressure Testing -

Note: Request for Relief 1S12-001 was evaluated and authorized in an NRC SER dated December 12,1996.

3.5.3.2 Request for Relief No. 1812-0 0 2, Use of Code Case N 546, Alternative Requirements for QuLlification of VT-2 Examination Personnel Note: Request for Relief 1S12-002 was evaluated and authorized in an NRC SER dated November 19,1997.

3.5.3.3 Request for Relief No.1S12-003, Use of Code Case N-509, Alternative Rules for the Selection and Examination of Class 1,2, and 3 Integrally Welded Attachments Note: Request for Relief ISl2-003 was evaluated and authorized in an NRC SER  ;

dated November 19,1997 i 3.5.3.4 Request for Relief No.1S12-004, Use of Code Case N 5081, Rotation of Serviced Snubbers and Pressure Relief Valves for the Purpose of Testing j l

Note: Request for Relief 1S12-004 was evaluated and authorized in an NRC SER l dated July 30,1997.

l 3.5.3.5 Request for Relief No. IS12-007, Use of Code Casa N 532, Alternative  !

Requirements to Repair and Replacement Documenistion Requirements and l Inservice Summary Report Preparation and Submission as Required by IWA-4000 l and IWA-6000

)

Note: Request for Relief 1S12-007 was evaluated and authorized in an NRC SER

. dated September 4,1997.

1 l

13

---. l

,u., .x, - a .- ae - -,

. na s.. - -

i 9

4. CONCLUSION

, Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i),it is concluded that for Relief Request IS12-010 the licensee's proposed alternative will provide an acceptable level of quality and safety, Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed attemative be authorized.

Request for Relief ISl2-001 was previously evaluated and approved in a Safety Evaluation Report dated December 12,1996.

Requests for Relief IS12-002, IS12-003, and 1S12-005, were previously evaluated and approved in a Safety Evaluation Report dated November 19,1997.

Request for Relief 1S12-004 was previously evaluated and approved in a Safety Evaluation Report dated July 30,1997.

Requests for Relief ISl2-006 and ISl2 007, were previously evaluated and approved in a Safety Evaluation Report dated September 4,1997.

Request for Relief 1S12-008 was previously evaluated and approved in a Safety Evaluation Report dated April 7,1998.

N Request for Relief 1S12-009 was submitted January 14,1998 and is not covered within j the scope of this evaluation.

Entergy Operations should continue to monitor the development of new or improved examination techniques. As improvements are achieved, Entergy Operations should incorporate these techniques in the ISI program plan examination requirements.

Based on the review of the Entergy Operations Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station, Second 10-Year IntervalInservice inspection Plan, Revision 1, the Entergy Operations's response to the NRC's request for additional information, and the recommendations for granting relief from the ISI examinations that cannot be performed to the extent required by Section XI of the ASME Code, no deviations from regulatory requirements or commitments were identified.

14 I

5. REFERENCES

, 1. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50.  !

2. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section

• - XI, Division 1,1992,1993 Addenda.

I

3. Entergy Operations Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station, Second 10-Year Interval inservice Inspection Plan, Revision 0, submitted July 1,1997.  ;

4. NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, Section 5.2.4, " Reactor Coolant Boundary inservice Inspection and Testing," and Section 6.6, " Inservice Inspection of Class 2 and 3 Components,"

July 1981.

5. Letter dated March 26,1998, C.P. Patel (NRC) to C.M. Dugger (Entergy Operations, Inc.) containing request for additional information. l

6. Letter dated June 4,1998, E.C. Ewing (Waterford 3) to Document Control Desk ,

. (NRC), containing response to the NRC RAI dated March 26,1998.  !

7. Entergy Operations Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station, Second 10-YearInterval  !

Inservice Inspection P/an, Revision 1, submitted June 4,1998.

• i i

8. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.147, inservice inspection Code Case Acceptability, Revision 11, October 1994.

4 S

3 1

15

_ _ _ . __ _ __- _ - _ . =_

'o NRC Fonn 333 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnumion

1. REPORT NUMBER NPCM 1102 ( Assigned by NRC, Add Vol, Supp., Rev, and 3201,32o2 Addendum Numbers. if eny)

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET INEEUEXT-98 00736

2. TFfLE AND SUBTID.E 3. DATE REPORT PUBLISIIED Technical Evaluation Report on the Second 10-year Interval M "'" Y

Inservice Inspection Program Plan:

Entergy Operations., September 1998 Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2, Docket Numbers 50-382 4. FINORGRANTNUMBER JCN J2229 (Task Order A26)

5. AUDIOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

, M.T. Anderson Technical C. T. Brown

S. O. Galbraith 7. PERIOD COVERED (laclusive Data)

A. M. Porter

8. PERFORMING ORGAN!7.ATION NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and 4

mailing address; if contractor, provide name and mailing address)

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental laboratory Materials Physics Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above;if contractor, provide NRC Division. Office or Region, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commissiort and mailing address)

Civil and Geosciences Branch Division ofEngineenng Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,D.C. 20555

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ABSTRACT (200 words orless)

This report presents the nsults of the evaluation of the Entergy Operations Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station, Second 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Plan, Revision I, submitted June 4,1998, including the requests for relief from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, requirements that tk licensee has determined to be impractical. De Entergy Operations Waterford-3 Steam Electric Station, Second 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Plan, Revision I is evaluated in Section 2 sf this report. The inservice inspection (ISI) plan is evaluated for (a) compliance with the appropriate edition / addenda of Sect (on XI, (b) acceptability of examination sample,(c) correctness of the application of system or component examination exclusion crite,:e, and (d) compliance with ISI-related commitments identified during previous Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviews, ne requests for relief are evaluated in Section 3 of this report.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the repon) 13. AVAILABIIITY STATEMENT e Unlimited

, 14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION (This page) Unclassified (This report) Unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

_ _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ ... _ . __.