ML060450464

Request for Relief No. 2006-ON-001

ML060450464
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	02/02/2006
From:	Brandi Hamilton Duke Energy Corp, Duke Power Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML060450464 (21)

Text

BRUCE H HAMILTON A_~uke BVice President rSftwer, .Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Power ONO0VP / 7800 Rocherster Highway Seneca, SC 29672 864 885 3487 864 885 4208 fax February 2, 2006 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATIN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Nos. 50-269, -270, -287 Request for Relief No. 2006-ON-001 In accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i), Duke Energy Corporation hereby requests NRC approval of a relief request for the next two scheduled refueling outages for each of the three Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) Units. The relief request involves an alternative to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, NB-5222(a),

requiring that Code Class 1 weld joints be examined via radiographic methods to satisfy non-destructive examination requirements as part of final weld acceptance during construction. The details of the Request for Alternative are provided in Enclosure 1.

Duke Energy plans to replace all Pressurizer level tap and sample tap nozzle safe ends composed of Alloy 600 with corrosion resistant materials, such as low carbon stainless steels. Duke plans to replace three ONS Unit 3 level tap nozzle safe ends during the outage scheduled for April 2006. During the next two scheduled refueling outages for each of the three ONS Units, a total of six level taps are being replaced in each unit of ONS (three in the steam space, and three in the water space), as well as one sample tap on each ONS Pressurizer. This amounts to a total of seven replacements per ONS Pressurizer by the end of 2008. Duke Energy currently plans to use the proposed alternative during the replacement work for these 18 level tap nozzle safe ends and 3 sample taps.

7 40Y7 www. dukepower. corn

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 2, 2006 Page 2 Approval of the attached Request for Alternative is requested by March 13, 2006, to support planning and preparation activities for the ONS Unit 3 refueling outage that is scheduled to begin in April, 2006.

Please refer any questions regarding this submittal to Randy Todd - ONS Regulatory Compliance at (864) 885-3418.

Sincerely, k' e /

Bruce H. Hamilton

Enclosures:

1. 10 CFR 50.55a Request Number 2006-ON-01

2. Framatome Fabrication Drawings

3. ASME Section III Code Case N-659

4. Flaw Tech Qualification BLock Drawings

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 2, 2006 Page 3 xc w/att: Mr. William D. Travers Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth St., SWW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, GA 30303 L. N. Olshan, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 xc(w/o attch):

M. C. Shannon Senior NRC Resident Inspector Oconee Nuclear Station Mr. Henry Porter Division of Radioactive Waste Management Bureau of Land and Waste Management SC Dept. of Health & Environmental Control 2600 Bull St.

Columbia, SC 29201

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 2, 2006 Page 4 bxc w/att: R. L. Gill, Jr.

T. J. Coleman V. B. Dixon B. W. Carney, Jr.

R. P. Todd L. C. Keith G. L. Brouette (ANTI)

J. J. Mc Ardle III R. L. Doss ISI Relief Request File NRIA File/ELL ECO50 Document Control

Request No. 2006-ON-01 Enclosure 1 Page 1 of 9 10 CFR 50.55a Request Number 2006-ON-01 Proposed Alternative in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i)

--Alternative Provides Acceptable Level of Quality and Safety--

Duke Energy Corporation Station Oconee Units 1, 2 & 3 Request for Alternative 2006-ON-01 Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a)(3)(i), Duke Energy Corporation requests to use an alternative to the 1983 Edition of Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Accordingly, information is being submitted in support of our determination that the alternative provides an acceptable level of quality and safety.

1. ASME Code Component(s) Affected:

All ASME Section III Code Class 1 Reactor Coolant System butt-welds between the Pressurizer Level and Sample Tap Nozzles and their respective Safe Ends at Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3.

A total of six level taps are being replaced in each unit of ONS (three in the steam space, and three in the water space), as well as one sample tap on each ONS Pressurizer. This amounts to a total of seven replacements per ONS Pressurizer. The existing weld numbers for the ONS Unit 1 level and sample nozzle-to-safe end welds are 1PZR-WP63-1 through 1PZR-WP63-7. The existing weld numbers for the OKIS Unit 2 level and sample nozzle-to-safe end welds are 2PZR-WP63-1 through 2PZR-WP63-7. The existing weld numbers for the ONS Unit 3 level and sample! nozzle-to-safe end welds are 3PZR-WP63-1 through 3PZR-WP63-7. These welds are expected to be given new "vendor weld numbers" as they are replaced by the individual modification packages. A copy of the fabrication drawings for the current pressurizer safe end design and installation is located in Enclosure 2.

II. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda:

ASME Code, Section Xl 1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda.

ASME Code,Section III 1983 Edition, No Addenda.

Request No. 2006-ON-01 Enclosure 1 Page 2 of 9 III. Applicable Code Requirements:

The 1998 ASME Code, Section Xl, 2000 Addenda, IWA-4221 requires that items used for replacement meet the owner's design specification and original construction code for the component. However, it also states that Section Ill may apply when the Construction Code wasn't Section Ill provided the requirements of IWA-4222 through IWA-4226 are met.

ASME Code, Section IlIl requires that Class 1 weld joints be examined via radiographic methods to satisfy non-destructive examination (NDE) requirements as part of final weld acceptance during construction. For the ASME Code components listed previously, relief is requested from the requirements of 1983 ASME Section IlIl paragraph NB-5:222(a).

(a) "Butt welded joints shall be examined by the radiographic and either the liquid penetrant or magnetic particle methods."

IV. Reason for Request:

Duke Energy plans to replace all! Pressurizer level tap and sample tap nozzle safe ends composed of Alloy 600 with corrosion resistant materials, such as low carbon stainless steels. The design of the replacement safe ends and welds are configured to be like those in the original designs.

The 1998 ASME Code, Section Xl, IWA-4221(c), states that Section Ill may apply for items used for replacement provided the requirements of IWA-4222 through IWA-4226 are met. The ASME Code, Section IlIl, 11B-5200, "Required Examination of Welds," requires that circumferential welded joints in piping, pumps, and valves be examined using the radiographic (RT) method and either liquid penetrant or magnetic particle examination methods.

In addition to the effectiveness of the proposed alternative (discussed in the following two sections of this request), Duke Energy proposes to use a qualified UT method in lieu of the RT method specified in the ASME Code, Section Ill in order to remove the inherent hazards associated with industrial radiography.

Based on the review of the anticipated joint configuration of the planned welds it has been determined that 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> is required to do the radiographic examination for one weld. Since the performance of RT involves the use of highly radioactive isotopes, the personnel safety risk of inadvertent or accidental exposure and also the normal anticipated exposure associated with transporting, positioning and exposing a source for radiography is eliminated. Additionally, outage duration and costs will be reduced by allowing parallel path work to progress uninterrupted during examination of welds.

Request No. 2006-ON-01 Enclosure 1 Page 3 of 9 Duke Energy has evaluated the use of this alternative method and determined that its use will provide a level of quality and safety that is equivalent or superior to RT.

V. Proposed Alternative:

The alternative involves ultrasonic and surface examinations of Class 1 repair replacement welds. The alternative examinations will be made to satisfy the construction code requirement for radiographic examination. This proposed alternative ultrasonic examination will ensure an adequate level of safety and quality and will provide adequate verification that the Class 1 welds are free of significant flaws that could affect structural integrity.

Prior to the use of the alternative examination, the effectiveness of the ultrasonic techniques will be demonstrated on a qualification block containing a weld with representative flaws.

The proposed alternative method will meet the requirements of ASME Section III Code Case N-659-1, "Use of Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of Radiography for Weld Examination Section III, Division 1" (see Enclosure 3). Duke's strategy to meet all requirements of the code case is discussed below.

(a) Case Requirement: The ultrasonic examination area shall include 100% of the volume of the entire weld, plus 1/2 in. (13 mm) of each side of the welds.

The ultrasonic examination area shall be accessible and scanned by angle beam examination in four directions, two directions perpendicular to the weld axis and two directions parallel to the weld axis. Where perpendicular scanning is limited on one side of the weld, a technique using the second leg of the V-path may be credited as access for the second perpendicular examination direction provided that the detection capability of that technique is included in the procedure demonstration described in (c) and (d) below.

Duke Strategy: 100% of the volume of the entire weld, plus 1/2 in. of each side of the welds will be examined during the ultrasonic inspection. As can be seen in the fabrication and mock-up drawings (see Enclosures 2 and 4, respectively), all of the weld volume is accessible to be scanned by angle beam examination in two directions perpendicular to the weld axis and two directions parallel to the weld axis. Because of the weld configuration, twenty percent of the ferritic base material on the nozzle side of the weld cannot be covered in two axial and two circumferential directions but will be covered in one axial and two circumferential directions. Coverage and detection capability will be demonstrated on the qualification block.

(b) Case Requirement: In accordance with (a) above the ultrasonic examination shall be performed in accordance with Section V, Article 5 up to and

Request No. 2006-ON-01 Enclosure 1 Page 4 of 9 including the 2001 Edition or Article 4 for later edition and addenda. A straight beam and two angle beams having nominal angles of 45 and 60 deg should generally be used; however, other pairs of angle beams may be used provided the measured difference between the angles is at least 10 deg.

Alternatively, ultrasonic examination that includes a straight beam may be performed by a procedure qualified in accordance with the performance demonstration methodology of Section Xl, Appendix Vil provided the entire volume of the weld examination is included in the demonstration.

Duke Strategy: The ultrasonic; examination shall be performed in accordance with ASME Code,Section V, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda, Article 5, using automated phase array equipment. The beam angles will include 00 through 600 longitudinal waves.

(c) Case Requirement: A written procedure shall be followed. The procedure shall be demonstrated to perform acceptably on a qualification block or specimen with both surface and subsurface flaws as described in (d) below.

Duke Strategy: A procedure will be written and performed to demonstrate its success on the qualification block described in (d).

(d) Case Requirement: The qualification block material shall conform to the requirements applicable to the calibration block. The material from which blocks are fabricated shall be one of the following: a nozzle dropout from the component; a component prolongation; or material of the same material specification, product form, and heat treatment condition as one of the materials joined. For piping, if material of the same product form and specification is not available, material of similar chemical analysis, tensile properties, and metallurgical structure may be used. Where two or more base material thicknesses are! involved, the calibration block thickness shall be of a size sufficient to contain the entire examination path. The qualification block configuration shall contain a weld representative of the joint to be examined, including, for austenitic materials, the same welding process. The qualification blocks shall include at least two planar flaws in the weld, one surface and one subsurface oriented parallel to the fusion line, no larger in the through-wall direction than the diameter of the applicable side-drilled hole in the calibration block shown in Fig. T-542.2.1 of Section V, Article 5, for Editions and Addenda through the 2001 Edition and T-434.2.1 of Article 4 for later Editions and Addenda and no longer than the shortest unacceptable elongated discontinuity length listed in NB-5330, NC- 5330, or ND-5330 for the thickness of the weld being examined. Where a Section Xl, Appendix VilI, performance demonstration methodology is used, supplemental qualification to a previously approved procedure may be demonstrated through the use of a blind test with appropriate specimens that contain a minimum of three different construction-type and fabrication-type flaws distributed throughout the thickness of the specimen.

Request No. 2006-ON-01 Enclosure 1 Page 5 of 9 Duke Strategy: The qualification block, (See Enclosure 4) conforms to all material and weld requirements discussed above. The qualification block includes one surface crack and two subsurface lack of side-wall fusion flaws oriented parallel to the fusion line with dimensions meeting the specifications of ASME Code,Section V, 1998 edition, through the 2000 Addenda, Article 5, and ASME Code, Section 111, 1983 edition, NB-5330.

(e) Case Requirement: This Case shall not be applied to weld examination volumes that include cast products forms or corrosion-resistant-clad austenitic piping butt welds.

Duke Strategy: The welds being examined do not include cast product forms or corrosion-resistant-clad austenitic piping butt welds.

(f) Case Requirement: A documented examination plan shall be provided showing the transducer placement, movement and component coverage that provides a standardized and repeatable methodology for weld acceptance.

The examination plan shall also include ultrasonic beam angle used, beam directions with respect to weld centerline, and volume examined for each weld.

Duke Strategy: A documented examination plan containing the information requested above will be provided.

(g) Case Requirement: The evaluation and acceptance criteria shall be in accordance with NB-5330, NC-5330, or ND-5330, as acceptable. Any flaws characterized as surface-connected cracks, lack of fusion, or lack of penetration may be evaluated by a supplemental surface examination (MT or PT) performed in accordance with NB-5000, NC-5000, or ND-5000, as applicable.

Duke Strategy: The evaluation and acceptance criteria will be in accordance with NB-5330, and any flaws characterized as surface-connected cracks, lack of fusion, or lack of penetration may be evaluated by a supplemental surface examination (MT or PT) performed in accordance with NB-5000.

(h) Case Requirement: For welds subject to in-service ultrasonic examination, the examination and evaluation shall also meet the requirements of the applicable Edition of Section Xl for pre-service examination.

Duke Strategy: These welds are not subject to a Section Xl volumetric pre-service or in-service examination.

(i) Case Requirement: The ultrasonic examination shall be performed using a device with an automated computer data acquisition system.

Request No. 2006-ON-01 Enclosure 1 Page 6 of 9 Duke Strategy. The UT examination will be performed using a device with an automated computer data acquisition system.

(j) Case Requirement: Data shall be recorded in unprocessed form. A complete data set with no gating, filtering, or thresholding for response from examination volume in (a) shall be included in the data record.

Duke Strategy. Data will be recorded in its raw form and fully documented when creating data records.

(k) Case Requirement: Personnel who acquire and analyze UT data shall be qualified and trained using the same type of equipment as in (i), and demonstrate their capability to detect and characterize the flaws using the procedure as described in (c).

Duke Strategy: UT Level II and Level IlIl examiners will acquire the UT data, and a UT Level IlIl will analyze the data. All participants will demonstrate their capability to detect and characterize the flaws using the procedure prior to inspections.

(1) Case Requirement: Review and acceptance of the procedure by the Authorized Nuclear Inspector is required.

Duke Strategy: Review and acceptance of the procedure by the Authorized Nuclear Inspector will be achieved prior to beginning inspections.

(m) Case Requirement: All other related requirements of the applicable subsection shall be met.

Duke Strategy: Related requirements of the applicable subsection will be met.

(n) Case Requirement: Flaws exceeding the acceptance criteria referenced in this Case shall be repaired, and the weld subsequently reexamined using the same ultrasonic examination procedure that detected the flaw.

Duke Strategy: Flaws exceeding the acceptance criteria will be repaired and reexamined using the same ultrasonic examination procedure.

(o) Case Requirement: This Case number shall be recorded on the Data Report.

Duke Strategy: The Data Report will reference Code Case N-659-1.

Request No. 2006-ON-01 Enclosure 1 Page 7 of 9 VI. Justification for Granting of Alternative:

"Ultrasonic and radiographic examination methods are complimentary and are not directly comparable or equivalent. Depending on flaw type (i.e., volumetric or planar) and orientation, ultrasonic examination may be superior to radiography or vice versa. Radiography is most effective in detection of volumetric type flaws (i.e., slag and porosity) and detection of planar type flaws (i.e., lack of fusion and cracks) that are oriented in a plane parallel to the x-ray beam.

"However, radiography is limited in detection of planar flaws not oriented parallel to the beam. In contrast, ultrasonic examination is very effective in detection of planar type flaws that are not oriented in a plane parallel to the sound beam and less effective in detecting flaws in a plane parallel to the sound beam. Finally, ultrasonic examination is capable of detecting volumetric type flaws such as slag or porosity but is limited, compared to radiography, in ability to characterize volumetric flaws.

"The proposed alternative ultrasonic examination requirements and provisions address the known limitations of the ultrasonic method to ensure both planar and volumetric flaws in all orientations are detected and properly evaluated" (Reference 8). To overcome the limitations in detecting flaws in planes parallel to the sound beam, a straight beam, as well as two angle beams with a measured difference of at least 10 deg., must be scanned in two directions perpendicular and two directions parallel to the weld axis. Furthermore, to overcome the difficulties of characterizing volumetric flaws, if an indication is not characterized as volumetric, it will be characterized as a planar flaw and subjected to the acceptance criteria of NB-5330. These acceptance criteria are the same for crack-type flaws detected by RT. By meeting the requirements of ASME Section III Code Case N-659-1, assurance is provided that planar flaws, regardless of orientation, will be detected and non-planar, construction flaws will be easier to discern from inhornogeneities. According to EPRI's Technical Report (Reference 5), "the flaw types that affect the structural integrity the most are the ones most reliably detected with UT. The same cannot be said for RT examinations."

In conclusion, given their intended use as described in this alternative request, ultrasonic methods are an acceptable substitute for radiography, and therefore are in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i); A qualified UT method would provide results equivalent or superior to the RT method specified by the ASME Code,Section III, for detecting construction related flaws. NRC staff approval is requested based on the proposed alternative examination providing an acceptable level of quality and safety.

Request No. 2006-ON-01 Enclosure 1 Page 8 of 9 VII. Duration of Proposed Alternative:

This relief will be implemented during the next two scheduled refueling outages for each of the three Oconee Units. Duke currently plans to replace three ONS Unit 3 level tap nozzle safe ends during the outage scheduled for April 2006. In October of 2006, Duke plans to replace all seven ONS Unit 1 level and sample tap nozzle safe ends. Replacement of the seven level and sample taps for ONS Unit 2 is expected to occur during the Spring of 2007 outage. The expected date for completion of all of the pressurizer level and sample tap replacements is by the end of 2008. The use of ASME Section III Code Case N-659-1 is requested only on these welds for the scheduled replacement and any subsequent replacement, provided these replacements occur within the current 10 year interval.

An expedited NRC staff approval is requested by March 13, 2006 to support planning and preparation activities for the ONS Unit 3 refueling outage that is scheduled to begin in April, 2006.

Vill. Precedents This proposed alternative is similar, but not identical, to a relief request submitted by Union Electric Company's Callaway Plant in a letter dated November 18, 2004 (i.e. ADAMS Accession Number ML043450359), as approved by NRC letter dated May 19, 2005 (i.e. ADAMS Accession Number ML050760129).

This proposed alternative is similar, but not identical, to a relief request submitted by Progress Energy Carolina's Brunswick Plant in a letter dated August 9, 2005 (i.e. ADAMS Accession Number MVIIL052280213).

IX.

References:

1. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Section 55a, Codes and Standards (i.e., 10 CFR 50.55a)

2. ASME Code, Section Xl, "Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components," 1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda

3. ASME Code,Section III, "Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components," 1983 Edition

4. ASME Section III Code Case N-65,9-1, "Use of Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of Radiography for Weld Examination Section 1II, Division 1." November 18, 2003

Request No. 2006-ON-01 Enclosure I Page 9 of 9

5. EPRI Technical Report 1003545, "Alternative Volumetric Examination Methods:

UT in Lieu of RT for Repair/Replacement Activity." December 2002

6. NRC. "Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Second Ten-year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan, Request for Relief to use an Alternative Examination Method, Union Electric Company, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Docket No. 50-483." ML050)760129, 05-19-2005

7. Progress Energy. "Brunswick, Units 1 & 2, Relief Request RR-36, Use of Ultrasonic Examinations in Lieu of Radiographic Non-Destructive Examinations."

ML052280213, 08-09-2005

8. Union Electric Co. "Callaway, Unit 1, Request for Relief from ASME Section III Requirements Regarding Non-Destructive Examination of Welds Performed Under Site Repair/Replacement Program." ML043450359, 11-18-2004 Prepared By:

Q L\>- Date: OQ4I IU lO(Q

_jRach Doss NDE Level IlIl Review By: I d2e, Date: ZZ41/@G QDavdarW. Pestol r Reviewed By: Date: _1__8____

David W. Peltola

Request No. 2006-ON-01 Enclosure 2 Framatome Fabrication Drawings

Request No. 2006-ON-01 Enclosure 3 ASME Section III Code Case N-659

Request No. 2006-ON-01 Enclosure 3 Page 1 of 2 CASE C'ASlE: OF AS ME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL col:D1 N-659-1 Approval Date: November 18, 2003 See Numeric Index for expiration and any reaffirmation dates.

Cave N-659-1 volume of the weld examination is included in the Usc of Uiltrasoniic ixailnitatilon in lieu of demonstration.

Radiography for Weld Fasmmination (C) A written procedure shall be followed. The proce-Settion III, Division I dure shall be demonstrated to perform acceptably on a qualification block or specimen with both surface hiquirX: Under what conditions and limitations may and subsurface flaws as described in (d) below.

an ultrasonic examination be used in lieu of radiography 1.) The qualification block material shall conform where radiography is required by NB-5200, NC-5200, to the requiremnts applicable to the calibration block.

ND-5200 and substitution of ultrasonic examination The material from which blocks are fabricated shall would not otherwise be permitted? be one of the following: a nozzle dropout from the component; a component prolongation: or material of the same material specification, product form, and heat Reply: It is the opinion of the Committee that all treatment condition as one of the materials joined. For welds in material 1/i in. or greater in thickness may piping, if material of the same product form and be examined using the ultrasonic (UT) method in lieu specification is not available, material of similar chemi-of the radiographic (RT) method, provided that all of cal analysis, tensile properties, and metallurgical strus-the following requirements are met: ture may be used. Where two or more base material (a) The ultrasonic examination area shall include thicknesses are involved, the calibration block thickness 100% of the volume of the entire weld, plus l/ in. shall be of a size sufficient to contain the entire (13 mm) of each side of the welds. The ultrasonic examination path. The qualification block configuration examination area shall be accessible ard scanned by shall contain a weld representative of the joint to be angle beam examination in four directions, two direc- examined, including, for austenitic materials, the same tions perpendicular to the weld axis and two directions welding process. The qualification blocks shall include parallel to the weld axis. Where perpendicular scanning at least two planar flaws in the weld, one surface and is limited on one side of the weld, a technique using one subsurface oriented parallel to the fusion line, no the second leg of the V-path may be credited as access larger in the through-wall direction than the diameter for the second perpendicular examination direction pro- of the applicable side-drilled hole in the calibration vided that the detection capability of that technique is block shown in Fig. T-542.2.1 of Section V, Article included in the procedure demonstration described in 5, for Editions and Addenda through the 2001 Edition (c) and (d) below. and T-434.2.1 of Article 4 for later Editions and Addenda and no longer than the shortest unacceptable rb) In accordance with (a) above the ultrasonic exami- elongated discontinuity length listed in NB-5330, NC-nation shall be performed in accordance with Section 5330, or ND-5330 for the thickness of the weld being V, Article 5 up to and including the 2001 Edition or examined. Where a Section Xl. Appendix VI1I, perform-Article 4 for later edition and addenda. A straight beam ance demonstration methodology is used, supplemental and two angle beams having nominal angles of 45 and qualification to a previously approved procedure may 60 deg should generally be used; however. other pairs be demonstrated through the use of a blind test with of angle beams may be used provided the measured appropriate specimens that contain a minimum of three difference between the angles is at least 1') deg. Alterna- different construction-type and fabrication-type flaws tively. ultrasonic examination that includes a straight distributed throughout the thickness of the specimen.

beam may be performed by a procedure qualified in te) This Case shall not be applied to weld examina-accordance with the performance demonstration method- tion volumes that include cast products forms or corro-ology of Section XI, Appendix V1II provided the entire sion-resistant-clad austenitic piping butt welds.

The Cornnittee's function is to establish rules of safety. relating onli lo pressure integrity, gwemning the construction of boilers, pressure vessels, transport tanks and nucear components arndinservice inspection for pressure Integrity of nrucicur components and transport tanks, and to interpretthese rules when questions arise regarding their intent. This Code decs not addr ss other sntety issues relating to iheconstruction of boilers. pressure vessels, transpon tanks and nuclear components, and the Inservice inspection of nuclear components and transport tanks. The user of the Code should referto other pertinent codes, standards laws, regulations or other relevant documents.

1 (iN-659-J) coavrrtagm AsPPinaenraarttir preiu~d byllet Under boarse On~l ASKC ilcontumousktrees ralP.tru41 We, Vusr=1pyri,Met Ne loprerduirmorrietsrakinaperritcnd wrinnstIcanse tennills It's Nt ftorltetO IO1I M005ict tuss:25:

MST

Request No. 2006-ON-01 Enclosure 3 Page 2 of 2 CASE (continued)

N-659-1 CASES OF ASNIE BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSIL CODE Yi) A documented examination plan shall be provided (i) Data shall be recorded in unprocessed form. A showing the transducer placement. moveme:nt and com- complete data set with no gating, filtering. or thresh-ponent coverage that provides a standardized and repeat- olding for response from examination volume in (a) able methodology for weld acceptance. The examination shall be included in the data record.

plan shall also include ultrasonic beam angle used.

beam directions with respect to weld centerline, and (k) Personnel who acquire and analyze UT data shall volume examined for each weld. be qualified and trained using the same type of equip-ig) The evaluation and acceptance criteria shall be ment as in (i)+ and demonstrate their capability to in accordance with NB-5330, NC-5330. or ND-5330, detect and characterize the flaws using the procedure as acceptable. Any flaws characterized as surface-con- as described in (c).

nected cracks. lack of fusion, or lack of penetration (I) Review and acceptance of the procedure by the may be evaluated by a supplemental surface examination Authorized Nuclear Inspector is required.

(MT or P7) performed in accordance with NB-5000, (m) All other related requirements of the applicable NC-5000, or ND-5000, as applicable.

subsection shall be met.

(h.) For welds subject to inservice ultrasonic examina-tion, the examination and evaluation shall also meet (n) Flaws exceeding the acceptance criteria refer-the requirements of the applicable Edition of Section enced in this Case shall be repaired, and the weld XI for preservice examination. subsequently reexamined using the same ultrasonic ex-(i) The ultrasonic examination shall be performed amination procedure that detected the flaw.

using a device with an automated computer data acquisi- to) This Case number shall be recorded on the Data tion system. Report.

2 OV-659-1)

CuMningASME ML~Eibarm PlNWUledby uH!urd IkoLE,?Sim ASUE UoweeDuha EtregiNr MP.MN44110. UsobPyra, Mlak No reptrlo t rwhflkl"penrted W0hM Ike"0 1romWS N0ot1 tr R9as M1.'20%515:2:25 11ST

Request No. 2006-ON-01 Enclosure 4 Flaw Tech Qualification Block Drawings

r::

FLAT OUTS IDE DIAMETER VIEW VIEW B-B C- DAlTUM I

VIEW A-A D

FL4Y I F~LAV 1

FLAW 2 OL~Ag.

L"

• %w A

Id A

furn L fAV LtWN 1U.

HMf 10LW WE *4 E*UL W VJX

• MW WIW T;HTi z 0

CD W

3tI10ON C.00e 4 gmrA I Er rim NATOILM Tym a0.0w-F E ECf r f r-1

r. D(: b 0az pbw9- - e* . o=.l I.-

'-1A 6

PZip ,.vw Sus En

_._," =nof 6&7 i"AVo ix o m I T GPW I "1 U 0w>

w,'ulo RLAW LAW TYPE I TA _ o I WGTH I H TT FLAV COIL "A TI LAWRASE I lHt UlATWA I GMVru/M15 RYSTIM

/A I TBD TBD l I 1 Lack of Fu 2 Lck _

oBF _

Dl N UP _

ICIRC CIRC I0.900 o.soe _

0250 0 0'I--

0.0W _ W _A ft/A _ TP D TBD _

TBD TBD TiD _ T _ a0 TID l205- _ _ _ I 3 Crack IP CIRC l1A 1.275 TED TBD TEO 260' .

wav SEE VIEY T e -