ML20084T102

TER on Second 10-Yr Interval ISI Program Plan:Duke Power Co for McGuire Nuclear Station,Unit 2

ML20084T102
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire
Issue date:	05/26/1995
From:	Beth Brown, Feige E, Hall K IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
Shared Package
ML20084T106	List: ML20084T102
References
CON-FIN-L-2556 INEL-95-0197, INEL-95-197, NUDOCS 9506120301
Download: ML20084T102 (18)

Text

. _ __ . . _ _ .

.- j l

INEL-95lOt 97 M3Y 1995 Idaho National

, Eng/naer/ng Technical Evaluation Report on the Laboratory

. Second 10-year Interval inservice Inspection Program Plan:

Duke Power Company I McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Docket Number 50-370 1

l l

B. W. Brown l E.J.Fefge l' K. W. HaN l

l

. 1 1

MLocktreed idaho Technologies Company n yG\% O Y9 { '

INEL 95/0197  !

)

i Technical Evaluation Report on the Second 10-year interval inservice inspection Program Plan:

Duke Power Company McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Docket Number 50-370 t l

l l

B. W. Brown E. J. Feige K. W. Hall l i

1 l

Published May 1995 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Materials Physics Department 1 Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 b

Division of EnM ofeos of mussear nasceor neguistion ,

u.s. Nuoleer Regulatory Commission washineenn, o.C. 20555 under oot hashe operesione otsee Conweet DE AC07 WID13223 RN No. L255s (Tesk Order 2Sei -

ABSTRACT This report presents the results of the evaluation of the #cGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Second 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection (ISI) Progran Plan, Revision 0, submitted September 16, 1993,. including the requests for relief from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, requirements that the licensee has determined to be impractical. The McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Second

, 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Progran Plan, Revision 0, 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 the examination sample, (c) correctness of the application of system or component examination exclusion criteria, and (d) compliance with ISI-related commitments identified during previous Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews. The requests for relief are evaluated in Section 3 of this report.

This work'was funded under:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission FIN Nc. L2556, Task Order 29a Technical Assistance in Support of the NRC Inservice Inspection Program 11

~

$UMAAY The licensee, Duke Power Company, has prepared the #cGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Second 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Progran Plan, Revision 0, to meet,the requirements of the 1989 Edition of the ASME Code. The second 10-year interval began March 2,1994.

The information in the McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Second 10-Year '

, Interval Inservice Inspection Progran Plan, Revision 0, submitted '

September 16, 1993, has been reviewed.

Included in the review were the requests for relief from the ASME Code Section XI requirements that the licensee has determined to be impractical. As a result of this review, a request for additional information (RAI) was prepared describing the information and/or clarification required from the licensee in order to complete the review. The licensee provided the requested information in submittals dated February 14, 1995, and March 22, 1995.

Based on the review of the McGuire Nuclear Station, U'n ft 2, Second 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Progran Plan, Revision 0, the licensee's response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's RAI, 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 in the #cGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Second 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Progran Plan, Revision 0, except as noted in Section 2.2.4(b).

l l

1 s

i 4

O e

111 -

i CONTENTS ,

A8STRACT 11 SUMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. iii  :

1. INTRODUCTION

............................ I <

2.

EVALUATION OF INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAN PLAN . . . . . . . . . . 4.

2.1 Deceaants Evaluated

...................... 4  !

2.2 Capliance with Code Requirements  :

......,........ 4 i

2.2.1 Compliance with Applicable Code Editions . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2.2 Acceptability of the Examination Sample .......... 4 i 2.2.3 Exemption Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.4 Augmented Examination Commitments

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

.......................... 6 3.

EVALUATION OF RELIEF REQUESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1 Class 1 Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.1 Reactor Pressure Vessel 3.1.1 Reactor Pressure Vessel Request for Relief No.93-005,  !

Examination Category 8-D, Items 83.90 and 83.100, Examination Scheduling Requirements for Reactor Pressure Vessel Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds and Inner Radius Sections .. 7 3.1.2 Pressurizer (No relief requests) -

3.1.3 Heat Exchangers and Steam Generators (No relief requests) 3.1.4 Piping Pressure Boundary (No relief requests) \'

3.1.5 I PumpPressureBoundary(Noreliefrequestsl 3.1.6 Valve Pressure Boundary (No relief requests) 3.1.7 General (No relief requests) 3.2 C) ass 2 Components (No relief requests) 3.3 Class 3 Components (No relief requests) 3.4 Pressure Tests (No relief requests) 3.5 , General (No relief requests) iv ,

\

l

w- --- -

4. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,

• . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

5. REFERENCES

................-............ 13 0

4 0

l t

l l

l V

TECMICAL tiiALUATION REPORT ON THE SECOM 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE IN$PECTION PROGRAN PLAN:

OtEE PONER COMPANY -

Mc0UIRE BRICLEAR STATION, LNIIT 2 DOCKET BENGER 50-370

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

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

. supports) that are classified as American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boller and Pressure Vessel Code Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 meet the requirements, except the design and access pr: visions and the preservice examination requirements, set forth in the A5ME Code,Section XI, Aules for Inservice Inspection of #uclear Power Plant Components (Reference 2), to the extent practical within the limitations of design, geometry, and materials of.

construction of the components. This section of the regulations also requires that inservice examinations of components and system pressure tests conducted during successive 120-month inspection intervals shall comply with the requirements in the latest edition and addenda of the Code incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a(b) on the date 12 months prior to the start of the 120-month inspection interval, subject to the limitations and modifications listed therein. The components (including supports) may 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 itsted therein, and subject to Nuclear Regulatcry Commission (NRC) approval.

The licensee, Duke Power Company, has prepared the #cGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Secomi 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Progran Plan, Revision 0 (Reference 3), to meet the requirements of the 1989 Edition of ASME Section XI. The second 10-year interval began March 2, 1994, and ends March 1, 2004.

As required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5), if the licensee determines that certain Code examination requirements are impractical and requests relief from them, '

the licensee shall submit information and justification to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to support that determination.

1 j

I l

1

~

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6), the NRC will evaluate the licensee's-determination that Code requirements are impractical to implement. The NRC may grant relief and may impose alternative requirements that are determined l

to be authorized by law, will not endanger life, property, or the common I 1

defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest, giving due consideration to the burden upon the licenses that could result if the requirements were imposed on the facility.

. 1 Alternatively, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3), the NRC will evaluate the

.' licensee's determination that either (1) the proposmi alternatives provide an 3

acceptable level of quality and safety, or (ii) Code compliance would result J in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in safety.

Proposed alternatives may be used when authorized by the NRC. i i

The information in the McGuire Muclear Station, Unit 2, Second 10-Year Interval inservice Inspection Program Plan, Revision 0, submitted September 16, 1993, has been reviewed, including the requests for relief fron  ;

the ASME Code Section XI requirements that the licensee has determined to be impractical. The review of the ISI Program Plan was performed using the Standard Review Plans of NUREG-0800 (Reference 4), Section 5.2.4, " Reactor Coolant Soundary Inservice Inspections and Testing," and Section 6.6,

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

In a letter dated October 12,1994, (Reference 5), the NRC requested additional information that was required to complete the review of the ISI 1 i

Program Plan. The requested information was provided by the licensee in the i

" Response to Request for Additional Information" dated February 14, 1995, and i Narch 22,1995 (References 6 and 7).

The McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Second 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan, Revision 0, ts. 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, 4

(c) correctness of the application of system or component examination  !

1 exclusion criteria, and (d) compliance with ISI-related commitments identified 1 during the NRC's previous reviews. '

1 2 -

I

(- .)

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, 1989 Edition. Specific inservice test (IST) programs for pumps and valves are -

being evaluated in other reports.

+

4 4

3

i

• I

, 2. EVALUATION OF INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAN Pt.AN i

This evaluation consists of a review of the applicable program documents to-

)

~

detemine whether or not they are in compliance with the Code requirements and any previous license conditions pertinent to ISI activities. This section j describes the submittal reviewed and the results of the review.

2.1 Doc - nts Evaluated

.' Review has been completed on the following information from the licensee:

(a) McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Second 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan, Revision 0, dated September 16, 1993  :

(Reference 3).

t (b) Response to Request for Additional Information, dated February 14, 1995 (Reference 6). i l

(c) Response to Request for Additional Information, dated March 22, 1995 (Reference 7).  !

2.2 Coun11ance with Code Raouirements 2.2.1 Conn 11ance with Ann 11 cable Code Editions The Inservice Inspection Program Plan shall be based on the Code editions defined in 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) and 10 CFR 50.55a(b). . Based on the March 2, 1994, starting date of the second 10-year interval, the Code applicable to the second interval ISI program is the 1989 Edition. As stated in Section 1 of this report, the licensee has prepared the #cGuire '

Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Second 10-Year Interval Inservice inspection Progras plan, Revision 0 to meet the requirements of the 1989 Edition.

2.2.2 Accentability of the Examination S = le i

Inservice volumetric, surface, and visual examinations shall be performed on ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components and their supports using sampling schedules described in Section XI of the ASME' Code and 10CFR50.55a(b). The sample size and weld selection have been 4 -

implemented in accordance with the Code and 10 CFR 50.55a(b) and' appear to be correct. .

2.2.3 Ex - tion Criteria The' criteria used to exempt components from examination shall be consistent with Paragraphs IW8-1220, IWC-1220, IWC-1230, IWD-1220, and 10 CFR 50.55a(b). The exemption criteria have been' applied by the licensee in accordance with the Code as discussed in the ISI Program ,

Plan, and appear to be correct.

2.2.4 Au-nted Examination Comit= ants In addition to the requirements in Section XI of the ASME Code, the  ;

licensee has committed to perform the following augmented examinations:

(a) Volumetric and surface examination of the Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheels in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.14, Revision 1 (Reference 8);  ;

(b) Reactor pressure vessel weld examinations are being performed in j accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.150, Rev. 1. (Reference 9), as applicable. It is noted, however, that the licensee stated that the recording threshold will be based on 505 DAC reflectors in lieu of 20% DAC as required by the Code and Regulatory Guide 1.150, Rev. 1.

The INEL staff finds this approach unacceptable. Studies performed to detemine the flaw detection reliability associated with recording criteria (References 10 and 11) have shown that flaws may not be detected when procedures require a recording level of 505 DAC. In the case of ultrasonic examinations of vessels, the INEL staff does not view the 205 recording criteria as having a major impact on i vessel examinations. It is typically not difficult to distinguish doometric indications from flaw indications in vessels because vessel welds are flush ground with the base metal and geometric reflectors, which are the result of attachments, are readily identifiable; I i

5

(c). Steam Generator Preheater Section Tube examinations will be performed in accordance with Regulatory Guide l.83, Revision 1 (Reference 12) and the applicable McGuire Nuclear Station Technical Specifications; '

and (d)' VT-3 visual inspections of modifications made to prevent tube vibration at the steam generator feedwater nozzles will be performed during the interval. '

.' 2.3 Conclusions Based on the review of the documents listed above, no deviations from regulatory requirements or commitments were identified in the #cGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Second 10-Year Interval Inservics Inspection Program Plan, Revision 0, with the exception noted in Section 2.2.4(b).

I e

S s ,

. i l

6 i

3.

EhALUATION0FRELIEFREQUESTS The request for. relief from the ASME Code requirement that the licensee has determined to be impractical for the second 10-year inspection interval is evaluated in the following section.

3.1 Class 1 Comoonents 3.1.1 Reactor Pressure Vessel

.' ~

3.1.1.1 Reauest for Relief No.93-005. Examination Cateaory B-D. Items 83.90 and B3.100. Examination Schedulina Reauirements for Reacto Pressure Vessel Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds and Inner Radius Sections Code Reauirement: Section XI, Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D, Items 83.90 and 83.100 require that for reactor pressure vessel nozzle welds at least 25% but not more than 505-(credited) of the nozzles shall be examined by the and of the first inspection period, and the remainder by the end of the inspection interval..

Licensee's Code Relief Reauest: The licensee requested relief from the Code requirement to examine at least 25% of the' Vessel-to-Nozzle welds and inner radius sections during the first examination period of the second 10-year interval.-

Licensee's Basis for Reauestina Relief (as stated):

"During the first period of the first inspection interval at McGuire Nuclear Station Unit 2, the 29" outlet nozzle-to-vessel welds, outlet nozzle to safe end welds, outlet nozzle safe end to Reactor Coolant System piping welds, were examined using . Babcock-

& Wilcox's Automated Reactor Inspection Tool (ARIS).

"The four nozzle welds examined for Unit 2 set the 50%

' requirement of Table IW8-2500-1 Category 8-D (Note 2).

• No recordable indications were detected.

"During the third period of the first ten year inspection interval all Reactor Vessel nozzle-to-vessel and all respective nozzle-to-pipe welds were examined using automated inspection equipment.

Included in this examination were the 29" outlet 7

i nozzle-to-vessel and nozzle-to-pipe walds examined during the-first period. The re-examination of these 29" outlet nozzles were performed meeting the requiremerts of the 1989 ASME -

Section XI Code. Credit will be apt, lied to the second interval, first period requirement for the 29" outlet nozzle-to-vessel l

' welds under Table IWB-2500-1, Category 8-0, Items B3.90, B3.100, and Category B-F, Items 85.010 and 85.130. These examinations l -

will not be performed during the first period of the second

} inspection interval."

Licensee's Pronosed Alternative Examination (as stated):

'" Automated re-examination of all the Reactor Vessel nozzle-to-l

~

vessel weld, including respective nozzle-to-pipe welds will be deferred to the last period of the second ten year inspection

! interval .

! "Following this inspection sequence will provide assurance of the integrity of the nozzle-to-vessel and nozzle-to-pipe welds; and will not adversely affect the health and safety of the public."

l l Evaluation: The licensee stated that the scheduling requirements of Examination Category B-0 Items B3.90 and B3.100 result in a hardship as stated in the basis for relief. It has been previously determined that for these Items deferral of the first t

period examinations is acceptable provided that they are l

completed within the same period in which the preceding "

i examinations were performed, or earlier, so that there is no more than 10 years between examinations.

l

' The licensee has established an acceptable level of quality and safety for the RPV nozzle welds by examinations performed during the third period of the previous 10-year interval. The imposition of Examination Category B-D examinations in the first and third periods of the second 10-year interval is regarded as a

, burden. The proposed alternative, performance of all Category B-0, Items 83.90 and 83.100, examinations in the third '

pericd of the second 10-year interval, should be authorized provided that all of the examinations are completed within tho' same period in which the preceding examinations were performed, or earlier, so'that there is no more than 10 years between examinations.

8 ' '

- ,. ,, .- e _ . _ - , . , , . . an., ,. ~y ,.-----.4 , , , ,, , . , , , , , a .,e...

Conclusion:

The IN R staff has reviewed the licensee's' request for relief from Code scheduling requirements. It is concluded that for Examination Category 8-0, Items 83.90 and 83.100, performing the required examinations during.the first and third

,. period of the second 10-year interval would result in an unnecessary burden without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety. Therefore, it is recommended that, the proposed alternative scheduling be authorized pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(li), provided that all of the examinations are completed within the same period in which the preceding

' examinations were. performed, or earlier, so that there is not more than 10 years between examinations.

3.1.2 Pressurizar .(No relief requests) 3.1.3 Heat Exchanaers and Steam Generators (No relief requests) 3.1.4 Pinina Pressure Boundarv (No relief requests) i 3.1.5 P - Pressure Boundary (No relief requests)

-3.1.6 Valve Pressure Boundary (No relief requests)

~3.1.7 General (No relief requests)

L i

l 3.2 class 2 Connonents (Noreliefrequests) '

l 3.3 Class 3 Cc x::ts -(No relief requests) l 3.4 Pressure Tests (No relief requests) 3.5 General -(No relief requests) 9 g- '

4. CONCLUSION Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3), it is concluded that for Request for Relief No.93-005 the licensee's proposed alternative provides an acceptable level of quality and safety. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed alternativebeauthorizedpursuantto10CFR50.55a(a)(3)(ii),providedthat the licensee satisfy the condition stated in the evaluation.

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

Based on the review of the McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Second 10-Year i Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan, Revision 0, and the licensee's response to the NRC's request for additional information, no deviations from regulatory requirements or commitments were identified except as noted in Section 2.2.4(b).

4 l

e 10

5. REFERENCES

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

i 2.

AmericanXI, Section Society of Mechanical Division 1: Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, i

1989 Edition

3. McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Second 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan, Revision 0, dated September 16, 1993.

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 October 12, 1994, Nerses (NRC) to T. C. Meekin (Duke Power) containing NRC Request for Additional Information (RAI),

October 12, 1994.

6. Letter dated February 14, 1995, T. C. Meekin (Duke Power) to Document Control Desk (NRC) containing response to the October 12, 1994, Request for Additional Information.

7. Letter dated March 22, 1995, T. C. Meekin (Duke Power) to Document Control Desk (NRC) containing additional response to the October 12, 1994, Request for Additional Information.

8. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.14, Revision 1, Reactor Coolant Pump flywheel Integrity, August 1975.

9. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.150, Reactor Pressure Vessel Beltline Weld Examinations, Rev. 1, February 1983.

10.

S. H. Bush, " Impact of PISC II on ASME XI Rules for In-Service Inspection of Nuclear Power P1 ant Components,' Ultrasonic Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components: The PISC II Final Results, R. W. Nichols and S.

Crutzen (eds.), Elsevier Applied Science, London,1988, p. 617.

11. P. Dombret, " Main Results of PISC III Action 3: Nozzles and Dissimilar Welds," Department of Research and Development AIB-Vincotte, Brussels, Belgium, PVP-Vol. 276/NDE-Vol. 12, ASME, 1994.

12. Regulatory Guide 1.83, Revision 1, Inservice Inspection of Pressurized Water Reactor Steam Generator Tubes, July 1975.

11 .

g...,2:, ,

v smcaia an s.,ur:.. :mnis.:~ .

h*M"I' SIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET- ~ ~ ~ '

. e s .- w ,, .~ . ,,,,,,

2. ritu 4~o susTirta Technical Evaluation Report on the Second 10. Year INEL-95/0197 Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan: 2 Duke Power Company :2. . o r... ,vs-i:

,.c ~ -

McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2 May Docket Number 50-370 1994

' . ,,~ on caa.s r wvsa a g A yrMo mas) FIN-L2556(Task 29a)

6. TYPE o, AEpomr Technical B. W. Brown, E. J. Feige. K. W. Hall

i. ... co covo so. u, o,in,gaggmu rios - ~4ue ano 4 coa ess m ene. = o.

, o~. . . v.s .- c . - ~.,~,--.,.

Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company P.O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415-2209

, s,ogagao4mu

, riom _ ~4 e 4~o con ess ..e. w. w, - - ~.c o o-.., . us . - c, L Civil Engineering and Geosciences Branch Office of Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission Washington, D.C. 20555

10. sVPPLgwtNTAny Notts

11. 40sTR ACT GOO-eaer e, wasJ This report documents the results of the evaluation of the #cGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Second 10-Year Interval Inservice inspection (ISI) Program Plan, Revision 0, submitted September 16, 1993, including the request for relief from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI '

requirements that the licensee has determined to be impractical. The #cGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Second 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan is evaluated in Section 2 of this report. The ISI Program Plan is evaluated for (a) compliance with the ap of examination sample, (e.)propriate edition / addenda of Section XI, (b) acceptability correctness of the application of system or component examination exclusion criteria, and (d) compliance with ISI-related commitments  ;

identified during previous Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews. The request for relief is evaluated in Section 3 of this report.  !

l it uv .onos,osscurou u,--- -- - - - - , - =^~~**5""

Unlisited

,. ,.co. r. cs u...co c~

f Id.e. M Unclassified (The s p, Unclassified a ~u sen o,, aces is. PascE -

N OMU M SIO

_ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ _ - - - _ - - - _