ML081260549

Oconee, Unit 2 - Transmittal of a Relief of Request Fourth Ten Year Inservice Inspection Interval

ML081260549
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	04/29/2008
From:	Baxter D Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Corp
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
08-ON-001
Download: ML081260549 (77)

Text

Duke DA VE BAXTER Vice President PoEnergyo Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy Corporation ON01 VP17800 Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672 864-885-4460 864-885-4208 fax April 29, 2008 dabaxter@dukeenergy.com U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Docket No: 50-270 Fourth Ten Year Inservice Inspection Interval Request for Relief No. 08-ON-001 Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii), attached is a Request for Relief from the requirement to examine 100% of the volume specified by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code),Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, 1998 Edition with 2000 Addenda (as modified by Code Case N-460).Request for Relief 08-ON-001 is to allow Duke Energy to take credit for seven (7)limited ultrasonic examinations on welds associated with various systems and components described in the attached request. The ultrasonic'examination coverage of the subject Unit 2 welds did not meet the 90% examination requirements of Code Case N-460. The obtainable volume coverage for weld examination is indicated on the attached requests.

Achievement of greater examination coverage for these welds is impractical due to piping/valve geometry and interferences.

Therefore, Duke Energy requests that the NRC grant relief as authorized under 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i).

If there are any questions or further information is needed you may contact Corey Gray at (864) 886-6325, Very truly yours, DEave B 7ter,.3Site V' e President Enclosure r www. duke-energy.

corn U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 29, 2008 Page 2 xc w/att: Victor McCree Region II Administrator (Acting)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): A. Hutto Senior NRC Resident Inspector Oconee Nuclear Station S. E. Jenkins, Section Manager, Division of 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 April 29, 2008 Page 3 bxc w/att: J. J. McArdle III M. A. Pyne L. C. Keith E. B. Miller, Jr P. A. Wells A. Best T. J. Coleman V. B. Dixon G. L. Brouette (ANII)C. A. Gray J. E. Smith R. L. Gill, Jr.ISI Relief Request File NRIA File/ELL EC050 Document Control ASME Section XI Program Functional Area Manual DPND-1604.07-0002, Rev. 10 Figure 4.1-2 Relief Request Review Form (Add Additional Sheets as Necessary) rage -L of /Relief Request Serial Number: 0 -0 \1 0 ).. PIP Nuinber(s):

S- &4Z7 3tallon(s) (Check All that Apply): -.1 Oconce Unit(s): o 1 tt2Q o 3 (I McGuire Unit(s): n I 0 2 G Cntawba Unit(s): a o 2 c. Other (List) Uni(s): subject: k(2 Qe .,. 4- .go 4:, ,; id U F /,','." p. /' ,,.,,, Prepared Blv {GCrn1plectto, Signature Date (Print Nnnrc)Coutr~hurors (Preint N~nie l { l ,cciflc Swctiois/Pordons Provided bh Con(ributor(s) und Sources of All InLormadiun/a/(2 Providcd,/

Checked fy I ,Speciflc Se-- ---- (P, Scrioims~L 0,-,,, oa ccc Ilnn :for Chicc kel S1gmtre. i.c Dlne s/Portions hlst le checkced) c L~i229-7 ___ ___ /P -/lP- 0 7 FI i A AI/al .,-9/~d ~y G.o nSlgnnture ODlt¢QATrS/NGO Approved By Group 1/Seciion Signature Date (PrintN1amne)

• _______________I______

Pil p R oeiov of Completed Group/Section Signature Date Submittal s'/Cover letter (FP rin t N a m e) ..,~4r e 1 ~(Preparer)

-'t W'ifr'A'_.AWb, ,4. A,#,,. (Approver) 5Am Z%- IV1,7 , .l°h t , , , ./(30 MAR 2007)69 VERIFY HARD COPY AGAINST WEB SITE IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO EACH USE Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 1 of 20 Relief Request 08-ON-001 Proposed Relief in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii)

Inservice Inspection Impracticality Duke Energy Corporation Oconee Nuclear Station -Unit 2 (EOC-21)Fourth 10-Year Interval -Inservice Inspection Plan Interval Start Date = 9-9-2004 Interval End Date = 9-9-2014 This Relief Request has seven welds for which relief is being sought.The ID's and Item Numbers/Summary Numbers for the seven welds are as follows: List Number Weld ID Item Number/Summary Number 1. 2-LDCA-IN-V1 B03.150.001

2. 2-LDCA-OUT-V2 B03.150.002

3. 2LP-148-16 C05.011.001

4. 2-51A-17-111 C05.021.026

5. 2HP-227-3 C05.021.027

6. 2HP-227-7 C05.021.028

7. 2-51A-28-67 C05.021.073 Attachment A contains the inspection data for these seven welds.Items in this relief request were examined during August or November of 2005 Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 2 of 20 1. ASME Code Component Affected Weld ID = 2-LDCA-IN-VI Item Number B03.150.001 High Pressure Injection System Letdown Cooler 2A Inlet Nozzle to Channel Body Weld II. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Section XI Code -1998 Edition thru the 2000 Addenda III. Applicable Code Requirement Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D Item Number B3.150 Appendix III, 111-4420 and 111-4430 Fig. IWB-2500-7(c), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H IV. Impracticality of Compliance The Letdown Cooler Inlet Nozzle and Channel Head material is SA 182 Grade T3 I 6L.This weld has a diameter of 3.0 inches and a wall thickness of .875 inches.During the ultrasonic examination of the Inlet Nozzle to Channel Head weld, 29.26%coverage of the, required examination volume was obtained.

The percentage of coverage!eported represents the aggregate coverage from all scans performed on the weld and adjacent base material.

ASME Section XI, Appendix i11, ,11-4420 requires coverage of.the examination volume in two beam path directions aTnd Appendix III, 111-4430 requires scanning on the weld crown in two directions.

Because of the weld configuration, these*requirements could not be met. The coverage from each scan was as follows: 450 scan parallel to the weld covered 28.57%; 60' scan perpendicular to the' weld covered 29.95%.Limited scanning was performed on the weld crown. Two beam path direction cbverage is normally obtained using one half V-path shear waves from both sides of the weld or alternatively, full V-path shear waves from one side of the weld. However, the weld joint geometry, which is essentially a branch connection arrangement using a set-on nozzle, prevented scanning fromboth sides of the weld in two beam path directions and a full V-path examination from one side is prevented because of the stainless steel weld metal properties which cause excessive attenuation with shear waves. Substituting refracted longitudinal waves-for shear waves is not possible because of themodeconversion occurring at.the inside surface when using refracted longitudinal waves. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the inlet nozzle would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.

There were no recordable indications found during the inspection of this weld.

Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 3 of 20 V. Proposed Alternate Examinations or Testing Radiography as an alternative is not feasible because access is not available for film placement.

No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval.VI. Implementation Schedule and Duration This request is for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on September 9, 2014.VII. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld, for item number B03. 150 was conducted using personnel, qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VII of the 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda. The ultrasonic procedures used complied with the requirements of ASME Section XI, Appendix 111, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda.Duke will use Class 1, Examination Category B-P, pressure testing and VT-2 visual examination to compliment the limited scan examination.

The Code requires that a pressure test be performed after each refueling outage for Class 1. This test requires a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing contributes to the reasonable assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.Specifically, operations performs a leakage calculation daily to assure system leak rate limitations imposed by Technical Specifications 3.4.13, "Reactor Coolant System Leakage," are not exceeded and reactor building normal sump rate monitoring to provide additional assurance that any leakage would be detected prior to gross failure of the component.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible.

The weld/component was rigorously inspected by volumetric NDE methods during construction and verified to be free from unacceptable fabrication defects. Based on the coverage an d results of the required volumetric exam, and the pressure testing (VT-2)exam during this outage, it, is Duke's position that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 4 of 20 1. ASME Code Component Affected Weld ID = 2-LDCA-OUT-V2 Item Number = B03.150'002 High Pressure Injection System Letdown Cooler 2A Outlet Nozzle to Channel Body Weld II. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Section XI Code -1998 Edition thru the 2000 Addenda III. Applicable Code Recuuirement Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-D Item Number B3.150 Appendix l, 111-4420 and 111-4430 Fig. IWB-2500-7(c), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H IV. Impracticality of Compliance The Letdown Cooler Outlet Nozzle and Channel Head material is SA 182 Grade T3 16L.This weld has a diameter of 3.0 inches and a wall thickness of -875 inches.During the ultrasonic examination of the Outlet Nozzle to Channel Head weld, 29.26.%coverage of the required examination volume was obtained.

The percentage of coverage reported represents the aggregate coverage from all scans performed on the weld and adjacent base material.

ASME Section XI, Appendix III, I11-4420 reCLuires coverage of the examination volume in two beam path directions and Appendix 111, 111-4430 requires scanning on the weld crown in two directions.

Because of the weld configuration, these requirements could not be met. The coverage from each scan was as follows: 450 scan parallel to the wel]d covered 28.57%; 600 scan perpendicular to the weld covered 29.95%.Limited scanning was performed on the weld crown. Two beam path direction coverage is normally obtained using one half V-path shear waves from both sides of the weld or alternatively, full V-path shear waves from one side of the weld. However, the weld joint geometry, which is essentially a branch connection arrangement using a set-on nozzle, prevented scanning from both sides of the weld in two beam path directions and a full V-path examination from one side is prevented because of the stainless steel weld metal properties which cause excessive attenuation with shear waves. Substituting refracted longitudinal waves for shear waves is not possible because of the mode conversion occurring at the inside surface when using refracted longitudinal waves. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the outlet nozzle would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.

There were no recordable indications found during the inspection of this weld.

Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 5 of 20 V. Proposed Alternate Examinations or Testing Radiography as an alternative is not feasible because access is not available for film placement.

No alternative examinations are planned for the weld during the current inspection interval.VI. Implementation Schedule and Duration This request is for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on September 9, 2014.VII. Justification for Granting Relief I Ultrasonic examination of the weld for item number B03.150 was conducted using personnel, qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VII of the 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda. The ultrasonic procedures used complied with the requirements of ASME Section XI, Appendix 1ll, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda.'Duke will use Class 1, Examination Category B-P, pressure testing and VT-2 visual examination to compliment the limited scan examination.

The Code requires that a pressure test be performed after each refueling outage for Class 1. This test requires a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing contributes to the reasonable assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken.Specifically, operations performs a leakage calculation daily to assure system leak rate limitations imposed by Technical Specifications 3.4.13, "Reactor Coolant System Leakage," are not exceeded and reactor building normal sump rate monitoring to provide additional assurance that any leakage would be detected prior to gross failure of the component.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible.

The weld/component was rigorously inspected by volumetric NDE methods during construction and verified to be free from unacceptable fabrication defects. Based on the coverage and results of the required volumetric exam, and the pressure testing (VT-2)exam during this outage, it is Duke's position that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 6 of 20 I. ASME Code Component Affected Weld ID = 2LP-148-16 Item Number = C05.01 1.001 Low Pressure Injection System Pipe to Valve 2LP-47 Weld II. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Section XI Code -1998 Edition thru the 2000 Addenda III. Applicable Code Requirement Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-I Item Number C5.11 Fig. IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F IV. Impracticality of Compliance The valve material is SA-35 1/CF8M cast stainless steel and the pipe material is SA 376/TP304 or TP316 stainless steel. This weld has a diameter of 10.0 inches and a wall thickness of 1.125 inches.During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 50% coverage of the required examination volume was obtained.

The percentage of coverage represents the aggregate coverage from all scans performed on the weld and adjacent base material.

The coverage from each scan was as follows: 450 shear wave circumferential scans, both clockwise and counter-clockwise, covered 80% of the weld and base material; 600 shear wave scan from the pipe side perpendicular to the weld covered 40% of the weld and base material.

A supplemental scan using a 60' refracted longitudinal wave search unit covered 50% of the examination volume on the valve side from one direction perpendicular to the weld, but is not included in the coverage calculations because the requirements of 1OCFR50.55 a (b)(2)(xv)(A)(l) mandate scanning from four directions.

The limitation was caused by the taper on the valve side of the weld (which prevented scanning from that side) and the proximity of a 1 1/22" branch connection.

In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical:

There were no recordable indications found during the inspection of this weld.V. Proposed Alternate Examinations or Testing Use of radiography (RT) to achieve more coverage has been evaluated and discarded because RT is less sensitive to service induced cracking and has not been subjected to the performance demonstration requirements in a manner similar to the ultrasonic method.While RT could in most cases provide more coverage, the loss of sensitivity and lack of performance demonstration militates against its use.

Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 7 of 20 VI. Implementation Schedule and Duration This request is for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on September 9, 2014.VII. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for item number C05.01 1 Was conducted using personnel, equipment and procedures qualified in liccordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII, Supplement 2 of the 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda as administered by the PDI. In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a Liquid Penetrant (PT) examination (code required) on the C05.011 item and achieved 100% coverage.

The result from the PT examination was acceptable.

In addition to the C05.01 I weld of this relief request, there were two other C05.01 I welds that surface (PT) and volumetric examinations were performed on during the outage. The examinations didn't identify any recordable indications and 100% coverage was obtained on each of them. The two additional welds were from the same system as the C05.011 weld of this request. The examination and results of the two additional welds contributes to the reasonable assurance of pressure boundary integrity for this system piping.Duke does not claim credit for coverage of the far side of austenitic welds. The characteristics of austenitic weld metal attenuate and distort the sound beam when shear waves pass through the weld. Refracted longitudinal waves provide better penetration but cannot be used beyond the first path leg. Duke uses a combination of shear waves and longitudinal waves to examine single sided austenitic welds when the nominal material thickness exceeds 0.5 inch. A 60' refracted longitudinal wave is used to interrogate the far side of the weld when the nominal material thickness is greater than 0.5 inch.Duke will use Class 2, Examination Category C-H, pressure testing and VT-2 visual examination to compliment the limited examination coverage.

The Code requires that a pressure test be performed once each period for Class 2 items. These tests require a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing contributes to the reasonable assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely event that leakage did occur through this weld it would be detected and proper action taken. Specifically, reactor building normal sump rate monitoring provides additional assurance that any leakage would be detected prior to gross failure of the component.

Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 8 of 20 Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing the latest approved examination techniques and equipment.

The weld/component was rigorously inspected by volumetric NDE methods during construction and verified to be free from unacceptable fabrication defects. Based on the coverage and results of the required volumetric and surface examinations performed during this outage, and the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, it is Duke's position that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 9 of 20 ASME Code Component Affected Weld ID = 2-51A-17-111 Item Number = C05.021.026 High Pressure Injection System Pipe to Valve 2HP-128 Weld II. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Section XI Code -1998 Edition thru the 2000 Addenda III. Applicable Code Requirement Table 1WC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F- 1 Item Number C5.21 Fig. 1WC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F IV. Impracticality of Compliance The valve material is ASTM-A 182/F316 forged stainless steel and the pipe material is SA 376/TP 304 or TP316 stainless steel seamless pipe. This weld has a diameter of 4.0 inches and a wall thickness of .531 inches;During the'ultrasonic examination of this weld, 37.50% coverage of the required examination volume was obtained.

The percentage of coverage represents the aggregate coverage from all scans performed on the weld and adjacent base material.

The coverage from each scan was as follows: 450 shear wave circumferential scans, both clockwise and counter-clockwise, covered 50% of the weld and base material; 600 shear wave scan perpendicular to the weld ýovered 50% of the weld and base material from one axial direction.

A supplemental scan using a 600 refracted longitudinal wave search unit Covered 50% of the exam volume from one direction perpendicular to the weld but is not included in the coverage calculations because the requirements of 10CFR50.55 a (b)(2)(xv)(A)(1) mandate scanning from four directions.

The limitation was caused by the taper on the valve side of the weld which prevented scanning from that side. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.

There were no recordable indications found during the inspection of this weld.V. Proposed Alternate Examinations or Testing Use of radiography (RT) to achieve more coverage has been evaluated and discarded because RT is less sensitive to service induced cracking and has not been subjected to the performance demonstration requirements in a manner similar to the ultrasonic method.While RT could in most cases provide more coverage, the loss of sensitivity and lack of performance demonstration militates against its use.

Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 10 of 20 VI. Implementation Schedule and Duration This request is for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on September 9, 2014.VII. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for item number C05.021 was conducted using personnel, equipment and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIfl, Supplement 2 of the 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda as administered by the PDI. In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a Liquid Penetrant (PT) examination (code required) on this C05.021 item and achieved 100% coverage.

The result from the PT examination was acceptable.

In addition to the four C05.021 welds of this relief request, there were twelve additional C05.021 welds that surface (PT) and volumetric examinations were performed on during the outage. Eleven of the welds that were examined didn't identify any recordable indications and 100% coverage was obtained on each of them. One of the welds examined identified recordable indications (porosity

& tungsten) during the volumetric examination that were acceptable per the 1998 Edition thru the 2000 Addenda of the Section XI Code, Paragraph IWB-3514.3, Table IWB-3514-2.

100% coverage was obtained on the weld that had recordable indications.

The twelve additional welds were from the same system as the C05.021 weld of this request. The examination and results of the twelve additional welds contributes to the reasonable assurance of pressure boundary integrity for this system piping.Duke does not claim credit for coverage of the far side of austenitic welds. The characteristics of austenitic weld metal attenuate and distort the sound beam when shear waves pass through the weld. Refracted longitudinal waves provide better penetration, but.cannot be used beyond the first path leg. Duke uses a combination of shear waves and longitudinal waves to examine single sided austenitic welds when the nominal material thickness exceeds 0.5 inch. A 60' refracted longitudinal wave is used to interrogate the far side of the weld when the nominal material thickness is greater than 0.5 inch.Duke will use Class 2, Examination Category C-H, pressure testing and VT-2 visual examination to compliment the limited examination coverage.

The Code requires that a pressure test be performed once each period for Class 2 items. These tests require a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing contributes to the reasonable assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 11 of 20 In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken. Specifically, operations performs a leakage calculation daily to assure system leak rate limitations imposed by Technical Specifications 3.4.13, "Reactor Coolant System Leakage,'

are not exceeded and visual observations during operator rounds to provide additional assurance that any leakage would be detected prior to gross failure of the component.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing the latest approved examination techniques and equipment.

The weld/component was rigorously inspected by volumetric NDE methods during construction and verified to be free from unacceptable fabrication defects. Based on the coverage and results of the required volumetric and surface examinations performed during this outage, and the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, it is Duke's position that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 12 of 20 1. ASME Code Component Affected Weld ID = 2HP-227-3 Item Number = C05.021.027 High Pressure Injection System Pipe to Valve 2HP- 117 Weld II. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Section XI Code -1998 Edition thru the 2000 Addenda III. Applicable Code Requirement Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-I Item Number C5.21 Fig. IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F IV. Impracticality of Compliance The valve material is ASTM-A182/F316 forged stainless steel and the pipe material is SA 376/TP 304 or 316 stainless steel seamless pipe. This weld has a diameter of 4.0 inches and a wall thickness of .531 inches.'During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 37.50% coverage of the required examination volume was obtained.

The percentage of coverage represents the aggregate coverage from all scans performed on the weld and adjacent base material.

The coverage from each scan was as follows: 450 shear wave circumferential scans, both clockwise and counter-clockwise, covered 50% of the weld and base material; 60' shear wave scan perpendicular to the weld covered 50% of the weld and base material from one axial direction.

A supplemental scan using a 60' refracted longitudinal wave search unit covered 50% of the exam volume from one direction perpendicular to the weld but is not included in the coverage calculations because the requirements of 1OCFR50.55 a (b)(2)(xv)(A)(1) mandate scanning from four directions.

The limitation was caused by the taper on the valve side of the weld which prevented scanning from that side. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.

There were no recordable indications found during the inspection of this weld.V. Proposed Alternate Examinations or Testing Use of radiography (RT) to achieve more coverage has been evaluated and discarded because RT is less sensitive to service induced cracking and has not been subjected to the performance demonstration requirements in- a manner similar to the ultrasonic method.While RT could in most cases provide more coverage, the loss of sensitivity and lack of performance demonstratioh militates against its use.

Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 13 of 20 VI. Implementation Schedule and Duration This request is for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on September 9, 2014.VII. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for item number C05.021 was conducted using personnel, equipment and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII, Supplement 2 of the 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda as administered by the PDI. In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a Liquid Penetrant (PT) examination (code required) on this C05.021 item and achieved 100% coverage.

The result from the PT examination was acceptable.

In addition to the four C05.021 welds of this relief request, there were twelve additional C05.021 welds that surface (PT) and volumetric examinations were performed on during the outage. Eleven of the welds that were examined didn't identify any recordable indications and 100% coverage was obtained on each of them. One of the welds examined identified recordable indications (porosity

& tungsten) during the volumetric examination that were acceptable per the 1998 Edition thru the 2000 Addenda of the Section XI Code, Paragraph IWB-3514.3, Table IWB-3514-2.

100% coverage was obtained on the weld that had recordable indications,.

The twelve additional welds were from the same system as the C05.021 weld of this request. The examination and results of the twelve additional welds contributes to the reasonable assurance of pressure boundary integrity for this system piping.Duke does not claim credit for coverage of the far side of austenitic welds. The characteristics of austenitic weld metal attenuate and distort the sound beam when shear waves pass through the weld. Refracted longitudinal waves provide better penetration, but cannot be used beyond the first path leg. Duke uses a combination of shear waves and longitudinal waves to examine single sided austenitic welds when the nominal material thickness exceeds 0.5 inch. A 600 refracted longitudinal wave is used to interrogate the far side of the weld when the nominal material thickness is greater than 0.5 inch.Duke will use Class 2, Examination Category C-H, pressure testing and VT-2 visual examination to compliment the limited examination coverage.

The Code requires that a pressure test be performed once each period for Class 2 items. These tests require a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing contributes to the reasonable assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 14 of 20 In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken. Specifically, operations performs a leakage calculation daily to assure system leak rate limitations imposed by Technical Specifications 3.4.13,,"Reactor Coolant System Leakage," are not exceeded and visual observations during operator rounds to provide additional assurance that any leakage would be detected prior to gross failure of the component.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing the latest approved examination techniques and equipment.

The weld/component was -1 rigorously inspected by volumetric NDE methods during construction and verified to be free from unacceptable fabrication defects. Based on the coverage and results of the required volumetric and surface examinations performed during this outage, and the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, it is Duke's position that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 15 of 20 1. ASME Code Component Affected Weld ID = 2HP-227-7 Item Number = C05.021.028 High Pressure Injection System Pipe to Valve 2HP- 148 Weld II. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Section XI Code -1998 Edition thru the 2000 Addenda III. Applicable Code Requirement Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-I Item Number C5.21 Fig. IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F IV. Impracticality of Compliance The valve material is ASTM-A 182/F316 forged stainless steel and the pipe material is SA 376/TP 304 or 316 stainless steel seamless pipe. This weld has a diameter of 4.0 inches and a wall thickness of .531 inches.During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 37.50% coverage of the required examination volume was obtained.

The percentage of coverage represents the aggregate coverage from all scans performed on the weld and adjacent base material.

The coverage from each scan was as follows: 450 shear wave circumferential scans, both clockwise and counter-clockwise, covered 50% of the weld and base material; 60' shear wave scan perpendicular to the weld covered 50% of the weld and base material from one axial direction.

A supplemental scan using a 60' refracted longitudinal wave search unit covered 50% of the exam volume from one direction perpendicular to the weld, but is not included in the coverage calculations because the requirements of IOCFR50.55 a (b)(2)(xv)(A)(1) mandate scanning from four directions.

The limitation was caused by the taper on the valve side of the weld which prevented scanning from that side. In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the valve would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld, which is impractical.

There were no recordable indications found during the inspection of this weld.V. Proposed Alternate Examinations or Testing Use of radiography (RT) to achieve more coverage has been evaluated and discarded because RT is less sensitive to service induced cracking and has not been subjected to the performance demonstration requirements in a manner similar to the ultrasonic method.While RT could in most cases provide more coverage, the loss of sensitivity and lack of performance demonstration militates against its use.

Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 16 of 20 VI. Implementation Schedule and Duration This request is for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on September 9, 2014.VII. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for item number C05.021 was conducted using personnel, equipment and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII, Supplement 2 of the 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda as administered by the PDI. In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a Liquid Penetrant (PT) examination (code required) on this C05.021 item and achieved 100% coverage.

The result from the PT examination was acceptable.

In addition to the four C05.021 welds of this relief request, there were twelve additional C05.021 welds that surface (PT) and volumetric examinations were performed on during the outage. Eleven of the welds that were examined didn't identify any recordable indications and 100% coverage was obtained on each of them. One of the welds examined identified recordable indications (porosity

& tungsten) during the volumetric examination that were acceptable per the 1998 Edition thru the 2000 Addenda of the Section XI Code, Paragraph 1WB-3514.3, Table IWB-3514-2.

100% coverage was obtained on the weld that had recordable indications.

The twelve additional welds were from the same system as the C05.021 weld of this request. The examination and results of the twelve additional welds contributes to the reasonable assurance of pressure boundary integrity for this system piping.Duke does not claim credit for coverage of the far side of austenitic welds. The characteristics of austenitic weld metal attenuate and distort the sound beam when shear waves pass through the weld. Refracted longitudinal waves provide better penetration but cannot be used beyond the first path leg. Duke uses a combination of shear waves and longitudinal waves to examine single sided austenitic welds when the nominal material thickness exceeds 0.5 inch. A 600 refracted longitudinal wave is used to interrogate the far side of the weld when the nominal material thickness is greater than 0.5 inch.Duke will use Class 2, Examination Category C-H, pressure testing and VT-2 Visual examination to compliment the limited examination coverage.

The Code requires that a pressure test be performed once each period for Class 2 items. These tests require a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing contributes to the reasonable assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 17 of 20 In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely event that leakage did occur through this weld, it would be detected and proper action taken. Specifically, operations performs a leakage calculation daily to assure system leak rate limitations imposed by Technical Specifications 3.4.13, "Reactor Coolant System Leakage," are not exceeded and visual observations during operator rounds to provide additional assurance that any leakage would be detected prior to gross failure of the component.

Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing the latest approved examination techniques and equipment.

The weld/component was rigorously inspected by volumetric NDE methods during construction and verified to be free from unacceptable fabrication defects. Based on the coverage and results of the required volumetric and surface examinations performed during this outage, and the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, it is Duke's position that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 18 of 20 1. ASME Code Component Affected Weld ID = 2-5 [A-28-67 Item Number = C05.021.073 High Pressure Injection System Tee to Pipe Weld II. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Section XI Code -1998 Edition thru the 2000 Addenda III. Applicable Code Requirement Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-F-I Item Number C5.21 Fig. IWC-2500-7(a), 100% Volume Coverage of Examination Volume C-D-E-F IV. Impracticality of Compliance The tee material is SA 403/WP304 or WP316 stainless steel and the pipe material is SA 376/TP 304 or TP316 stainless steel seamless pipe. This weld has a diameter of 2.5 inches and a wall thickness of .375 inches.During the ultrasonic examination of this weld, 79.15% coverage of the required examination volume was obtained.

The percentage of coverage represents the aggregate coverage with 450 and 600 shear wave scans performed on the weld and adjacent base material.

The coverage from each scan was as follows: 450 shear wave circumferential scans, both clockwise and counter-clockwise, covered 100%*of the weld and base material; 600 shear wave scan perpendicular to the weld covered 72.2% of the weld and base material from two axial directions, (100% from the pipe side and 44% from the tee side at the 900 and 2700 quadrants).

A supplemental scan using a 700 shear scan search unit covered 55.6% of the weld and adjacent base material from one direction perpendicular to the weld including 100% of the inside surface within the area of interest.The limitation was caused by configuration of the tee which prevented scanning from that side in the 00 and 1800 quadrants.

In order to scan all of the required volume for this weld, the tee would have to be redesigned to allow scanning from both sides of the weld around the full circumference, which is impractical.

There were no recordable indications found during the inspection of this weld.V. Proposed Alternate Examinations or Testing Use of radiography (RT) to achieve more coverage has been evaluated and discarded because RT is less sensitive to service induced cracking and has not been subjected to the performance demonstration requirements in a manner similar to the ultrasonic method.While RT could in most cases provide more coverage, the loss of sensitivity and lack of performance demonstration militates against its use.

Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 19 of 20 VI. Implementation Schedule and Duration This request is for the duration of the fourth inservice inspection interval, currently scheduled to end on September 9, 2014.VII. Justification for Granting Relief Ultrasonic examination of the weld for item number C05.021 was conducted using personnel, equipment and procedures qualified in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIE, Supplement 2 of the 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda as administered by the PDI. In addition to the volumetric examination with limited coverage, Duke performed a Liquid Penetrant (PT) examination (code required) on this C05.021 item and achieved 100% coverage.

The result from the PT examination was acceptable.

In addition to the four C05.021 welds of this relief request, there were twelve additional C05.021 welds that surface (PT) and volumetric examinations were performed on during the outage. Eleven of the welds that were examined didn't identify any recordable indications and 100% coverage was obtained on each of them. One of the welds examined identified recordable indications (porosity

& tungsten) during the volumetric examination that were acceptable per the 1998 Edition thru the 2000 Addenda of the Section XI Code, Paragraph IWB-3514.3, Table IWB-3514-2.

100% coverage was obtained on the weld that had recordable indications.

The twelve additional welds were from the same system as the C05.021 weld of this request. The examination and results of the twelve additional welds contributes to the reasonal 5 le assurance of pressure boundary integrity for this system piping.Duke does not claim credit for coverage of the far side of austenitic welds. The characteristics of austenitic weld metal attenuate and distort the sound beam when shear waves pass through the weld. However, the shear wave is useable when the sound beam passes through the root of the weld at a high angle such as 700. Duke uses a 70' shear wave angle beam to interrogate the far side of the weld when the nominal material thickness is equal to or less than 0.5 inch.Duke will use Class 2, Examination Category C-H, pressure testing and VT-2 visual examination to compliment the limited examination coverage.

The Code requires that a pressure test be performed once each period for Class 2 items. These tests require a VT-2 visual examination for evidence of leakage. This testing contributes to the reasonable assurance of pressure boundary integrity.

In addition to the above Code required examinations (volumetric, surface, and pressure test), there are other activities which provide a high level of confidence that, in the unlikely event that leakage did occur through this weld it would be detected and proper action taken. Specifically, operations performs a leakage calculation daily to assure system leak rate limitations imposed by Technical Specifications 3.4.13, "Reactor Coolant System Leakage," are not exceeded and visual observations during operator rounds to provide additional assurance that any leakage would be detected prior to gross failure of the component.

Relief Request 08-ON-001 Page 20 of 20 Duke has examined the weld/component to the maximum extent possible utilizing the latest approved examination techniques and equipment.

The weld/component was rigorously inspected by volumetric NDE methods.during construction and verified to be free from unacceptable fabrication defects. Based on the coverage and results of the required volumetric and surface examinations performed during this outage, and the pressure testing (VT-2) examinations required by Section XI, it is Duke's position that this combination of examinations provides a reasonable assurance of quality and safety.

REQUEST RELIEF 08-ON-001 ATTACHMENT A Total Number of Pages = 52 Pages 1-16 are for weld 2-LDCA-IN-V1 (B03.150.001)

Pages 17-32 are for weld 2LDCA-OUT-V2 (B03.150.002)

Pages 33-36 are for weld 2LP-148-16 (C05.011.001)

Pages 37-40 are for weld 2-51A-17-111 (C05.021.026)

Pages 41-44 are for weld 2HP-227-3 (C05.021.027)

Pages 49-56 are for weld 2HP-227-7 (C05.021.028)

Pages 57-64 are for weld 2-51A-28-67 (C05.021.073)

UT Vessel Examination Site/Unit:

Oconee /Summary No.: BO Workscope:

2 3.150.001 Procedure:

-Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-3630 0 98705177 Outage No.: ONS2-21 Report No.: UT-05-322.

Page: 1 of 16 ISI Code: 1998 thru 2000 Addenda Cat./Item:

B-D- /B3.150.1 Location:

N/A Drawing No.: 1-44773-1

==

Description:==

Nozzle to Channel Body System ID: 51A Component ID: B03.150.001 12-LDCA-IN-V1 Size/Length:

N/A Thickness/Diameter:

.875 1 3.0 Limitations:

Yes-See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 1056 Finish Time: 1110 Examination Surface: Inside ] -Outside 7V Surface Condition:

AS GROUND -Lo Location:

9.2.3 Wo Location:

Centerline of Weld Couplant:

ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 03125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE32769 Surface Temp.: 78 oF Cal. Report No.: CAL-05-339, CAL-05-340, CAL-05-341, CAL-05-342 Angle Used 0 45 45T 60 60T 45RL Scanning dB 38.1 49.5 75.4 73.3 Indication(s):

Yes 71 No F] ScanCoverage:

Upstream 91 Downstream E] CW &6 CCW W Comments: Scanning dB at Ref. to obtain a 2:1 signal to noise ratio.sIwt* /-Zq773-.Results: Accept []j Reject [_ Info []F Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No-29.26%

Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Level II ,.. iga Date Reviewe Signature Date Jones, Russel 11/1/2005 Examiner Level II-N Signature Date Site Review Signature Date Mauldin, Larry E. J? .0- 11/1/2005 N/A Other Level NIA Signature Date ANII R /iew , Date Ns /A i A + sa ffimw-Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations

-Vessels Site/Unit:

Oconee / 2 Summary No.: B03.150.001 Workscope:

ISI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-3630 0 98705177 Outage No.: ONS2-21 Report No.: UT-05-322 Page: 2 of 16 0 de-q Planar Scan% Length X% volume of length /100 =% total for 0 deg 45 deg Scan 1 100.000 % Length X Scan 2 100.000 % Length X Scan 3 100.000 % Length X Scan 4 100.000 % Length X Add totals and divide by # scans =35.900 % volume of length / 100 =15.600 % volume of length / 100 =31.400 % volume of length / 100 =31.400 % volume of length / 100 =28.575 % total for 45 deg 35.900 15.600 31.400 31.400% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Other deg 60 Scan 1 100.000 % Length X Scan 2 100.000 % Length X Scan 3 100.000 % Length X Scan 4 100.000 % Length X Add totals and divide by # scans =46.600 % volume of length / 100 =10.400 % volume of length / 100 =31.400 % volume of length / 100 =31.400 % volume of length / 100 =29.950 % total for 60 deg 46.600 % total for Scan 1 10.400 % total for Scan 2 31.400 % total for Scan 3 31.400 % total for Scan 4 Percent complete coverage Add totals for each angle and scan required and divide by # of angles to determine; 29.263 % Total for complete exam Note: Supplemental coverage may be achieved by use of other angles / methods. When used, the coverage for volume not obtained with angles as noted above shall be calculated and added to the total to provide the percent total for the complete examination.

Site Field Supervisor:

S Date: 11 A"3/& s AlkA.-dM Suppleme,.,.I Report Report No.: ' UT-05-322 Page: 3 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.001 Sketch or Photo: Comments:

A\IAexE. OF E.V.A 0'r L./IL.. .JD TE D-D.Z&..'t u AL_14 AI.,-_.. .IIC--rAJALi 1;: -A& ....A z- 2 d-r A A a \/I A I &V Ir fa0f AD,~p~-~~~~~~I ...j " 'IA e,, Qt-, 9,0,-2. ,6,7___,_

_ __, _ _ _ ,_,_._ _.. _._ , _ __o A .. 6,,. IkJ ,--Vi 4 +52.a !I- Ow rw Suppleme.-al Report Report No.: UT-05-322 Page: 4 of %6 Summary No.:; B03.150,001 Sketch or Photo: E.b* q 8 = ."x 8-_ 76 ,,.or- -z (M z.* ~Z h I L t"* c I,9" 47S" D 4'Q<AL,.C 4 Rew':: 3. 9ý 3 "/&, Z -LDCA -,r j-6CALC ; -

Suppleme,..al Report Report No.: UT.05.322 Page: ,5 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.001 Sketch or Photo: Co'nrnts:

I-LDC. " ý/ .I I A.

+ ;,-r-4 °~ ~ -a *,i* .I '1R 4 Ik Y%4<cALC : r LIS AZI~ fa is LJ Fij ~ CO~R~r~ D~

MIN a Supplemen Ldl Report Report No.: UT-05-322 Page: 6 of 16.Summary No.: B03.150.001

.Sketch or Photo: Oww,~mm: I.- LDc;1 CA14-VI.I I 45. C1- `R N Cl K ,C-AL-C 'uu a L~5 Pka~L -FU LL 7-+ S'Z Sumr N:B3.5k0 Supplemeb.adl Report Report No.: UT-05-322 Page: 7 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.001 Sketch or Photo: Conkwntns:

I. -L ZQYý -VI I I c:~~lbo: 7 (X)77,": , (5_(no a -I La- L4 COv-Cj Er-40 c.

a +- 5-ý'=Summ ry o .B0 15 0 1 S ethorPhto Supplemental Report Report No.: UT-05-322 Page: 8 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.001 Sketch or Photo: 2- -LnC_(4 -Y, 3-LVi IqY-IfIL-C.,,Mý)-rbug a~cX7B 3~A;~~-(rpO -A I, -'-c'Ad Z_Lu L4 C)o1 I Supplemental Report Report No.: UT-06-322 Page: 9 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.001 Sketch or Photo: COMMWKS: if,/30 i ':~75 4.6 X.~, ýl// ~Iq/0 I8 762 ou, j Cvr a -4 J,4Y doi,5 C C4 ýjs/ Ze Nrl(..L A S.r(J.L4 C,,"-'-IJQ,( %J PLU Supplemer,'6l Report Report No.: UT 322 Page: 10 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.001 Sketch or Photo: Comments: paý. b S -:/5" X.7"-q .-q.z 3 "IS2 /- :.2 013" -)).r-CH S /, ..31/ z ".5- .5 m G 1/llj* .i, 1r 4E<A0 -ý xAC, AaO:`5cAt--tý-

-t"OU-Z.- LTDcA -r Q It + 5x Sma ry o. : 0310.0 Supplemei.,al Report Report No.: UT-05-322 Page: 11 of 16 Summary No.: B03,150.001 Sketch or Photo: Gorn t: 2--- L DC A -ý 0.CuCyr-40 t* 47-q A Z.)OL f, ""A. L :54 ,zd ,.,.p_q6 p tx 6A2 jf r-UL C.OVeRAC4

_____-QJ o oCAC~ri Supplemer,.al Report Report No.: UT-05-322 Page: 12 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.001 Sketch or Photo: COmments:

tL DCA.4 ,/C (13C_ ( Q ,)n ý f52 ez~( Cf~.Rtk~r

~ ~ -C- A ArzýA'1o Mv=

AWL~.&Suppleme..al Report/+/-3 + .5" Report No.: UT-05-322 Page: 13 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150,001 Sketch or Photo: CGommts: Z-LD( A V/.laVe:,A c&--I/I-.2~~4¢'.<A "-. li~-1t_ý2a'o aZI f-- -I rULL. C-O14EKAGE Q0o ME=

AILL--.za rwaiiisy.Suppleme.

al Report Report No.: UT-05-322 Page: 14 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.001 Sketch or Photo: Commeft,: Z -u"OCA -,.c A R c-Y (,JToy6R4.

__ I ,-"cY~ ACHO C-=O0 6ý a L-- --CS A k.Z -FULL.. COVrSKAC e'Jo CEEZCrt JSWALA.C ML&-ýroliww-ý -Suppleme.

A1 Report Report No.: UT-05.322 Page: 15 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.001 Sketch or Photo: cvnments:

f I W, SLA4 M~~Pae~ oI~o~c~, .C) Jt 0- 5 t.... .02Z5 ..q3sl-lx, f 13 2]L t /l, 2WAC-k ,V(3 10ýý -*-Vs.' C6o.Ci/ec. Scswis CO~A -s..rULL COVcERAC~e It 4+ S DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Component/Weld ID: 2-LDCA-IN-V1 Item No: B03.150.001 remarks:[ NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Due to branch connection-Z LIMITED SCAN E-] I Z 2 Z 1 E] 2 Z cw Z ccw configuration.

FROM L N/A to L N/A INCHES FROM WO .5" to Beyond ANGLE: E] 0 Z 45 Z 60 other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG-- NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION El LIMITED SCAN --1 El 2 0 1 -El 2 R- cw El cow FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: El 0 El 45 F] 60 other FROM DEG to DEG El NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION El LIMITED SCAN [-1 1 -2 E- 1 El 2 El cw El ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 0l 0 Ml 45 F1 60 other FROM DEG to DEG El NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION r- LIMITED SCAN -1 [- 2 l- 1 [1 2 El cw -ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to Sketch(s) attached ANGLE: 0 El 45 60 other FROM DEG to DEG Z yes E] No Prepared By: Larry Mauldin Level: 11 Date: 11/01/2005 Sheet 16 of 16 Reviewed By: .,- Date: Auth ector: -, Date: / //e e 31103-17+ -f 5.ýSite/Unit:

Oconee I Summary No.: BO Workscope:

UT Vessel Examination 2 3.150.002 Procedure:

Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-3630 0 98705177 Outage No.: ONS2-21 Report No.: UT-05-323 Page: 1 of 16.ISl Code: 1998 thru 2000 Addenda Cat./Item:

B-D- /B3.150.2 Location:

N/A Drawing No.: 1-44773-1

==

Description:==

Nozzle to Channel Body System ID: 51A Component ID: B03.150.002

/2-LDCA-OUT-V2 Size/Length:

N/A Thickness/Diameter:

.875 / 3.0 Limitations:

Yes-See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 1055 Finish Time: 1109 Examination Surface: Inside [] Outside [] Surface Condition:

AS GROUND Lo Location:

9.2.3 Wo Location:

Centerline of Weld Couplant:

ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 03125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MCNDE32769 Surface Temp.: 78 'F Cal. Report No.: CAL-05-339, CAL-05-340, CAL-05-341, CAL-05-342 Angle-Used 0 45 45T 60 60T 45RL Scanning dB 38.1 49.5 75.4 73.3 Indication(s):

Yes D] No ov Scan Coverage:

Upstream [] Downstream D CW W CCW W1 Comments: Scanning db at ref. to obtain a 2:1 signal to noise ratio./# -44773o.j Results: Accept W Reject D] Info D_Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No-29.26%

Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Level ii Si e Date Reviel.jer Signature Date Jones, Russel -11/1/2005 0 Examiner Level II-N S1nature Date Site Review Si signature Date Mauldin, Larry E. 11/11/2005 N/A U r Other Level NIA Signature Date ANII Re iew ,ignature Date tN/A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I'D Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations

-Vessels/8 4-S Site/Unit:

Oconee / 2 Summary No.: B03.150.002 Workscope:

ISI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-3630 0 98705177 Outage No.: ONS2-21 Report No.: UT-05-323 Page: 2 of 16 0 deg Planar Scan% Length X% volume of length / 100 =% total for 0 deg 45 deg Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000% Length X% Length X% Length X% Length X 35.900 15.600 31.400 31.400% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length /100 =% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =35.900 15.600 31.400 31.400% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans =28.575 % total for 45 deg Other deq 60 Scan 1 100.000 % Length X Scan 2 100.000 % Length X Scan 3 100.000 % Length X Scan 4 100.000 % Length X Add totals and divide by # scans =46.600 % volume of length / 100 =10.400 % volume of length / 100 =31.400 % volume of length / 100 =31.400 % volume of length / 100 =29.950 % total for 60 deg 46.600 % total for Scan 1 10.400 % total for Scan,2 31.400 % total for Scan 3 31.400 % total for Scan 4 Percent complete coverage Add totals for each angle and scan required and divide by # of angles to determine; 29.263 % Total for complete exam Note: Supplemental coverage may be achieved by use of other angles / methods. When used, the coverage for volume not obtained with angles as noted above shall be calculated and added to the total to provide the percent total for the complete examination.,Site Field Supervisor:

Site Field Supervisor:

Date: Date:

w 7w. VIR ra -I Supplemental Report Report No.: Page: UT-05-323 3 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.002 Sketch or Photo: Comments:

OF E-..AA As..R.EA-..

Or C(O/.. L..D "T. D9--IfEZM',.J A.Lt L1U &týVn L\ AV-,&...... .-. ..... ...... .. z- -Ik, f F=,f L i , C 'rUA e VA- &A A t5iA -(A-v) -p q -7 7 11- -1 ý5 0-K %A-A .I r al:- /A2¢~* -______, __,'_. _ ..... L4 1 ,'... , k, (,,o" I ^%/ A ; A11 ri ? Alv. t A k,' /L..: 9 "0o-.I ', ,_ __,',,,._

_._ _ _ _,._.__._

_ __._ _ _ __,,

Supplemental Report Report No.: UT-05-323 Page: 4 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.002 Sketch or Photo: ,Examk A?az: 7.. : .jGI:I. t0.-7) iN, IAI.9 t/A6, I Iz.3- 4,3/Z 14 D)~1i'Ae...

,6 xq m 4 ea-g '::: 3. I s 0IN L..- L D ,CA -OUV 6~AL~:f~4cL 3.Supplementim Report Report No.: UT-05-323 Page: 5 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.002 Sketch or Photo: Commwt: '--LDc A- OUT.;-vz-fheIni r ni~'lrbojJz FiLL Covow)JO c-", , L45 0 gbeIAL -!5eA'd f1 Mik I&MIM Supplemental Report Report No.: UT-05-323 Page: 6 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.002 Sketch or Photo: cwwme~ns:

I -LDCA ..0 UT-\t?_=Allýý, % ---2, ,-145 0 -I~ -ý6CALJ=-: ruLL A3 4- sz~9 Supplemental Report Report No.: UT-05-323 Page: 7 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.002 Sketch or Photo: C ts: 2-m-r Noc. .A -10.U0-QZ-I I aViAL (,,)f7L-AtAE AIZtF-A c=ýir-*,. ~j (ý, 4 -" ,,- , .," L (_p0 0° u I a -e.,,A3 I L.L CO~A~R~ZAL :JL Supplemental Report Report No.: UT-05-323 Page: 8 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.002 Sketch or Photo: Cwmm1s: ?2-LDC-A-OUT' S- \o. B.._?J~A~ OF Ce*tCA -IR I I/V6~O 1~M0~L-enlc_ 0J Z.Fa L CO'AxTg f-10 t~

-J!Ij -79 Supplemental Report Report No.: UT-05-323 Page: 9 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.002 Sketch or Photo: Coment:2e.Scj AB LCb..875"Y. )": ,6 I ,"X .7" , 7 4" X.0"-U-" D876?l/'./12 flJj'3.1",2 c? ,, A 'Ob.1 TM I I I J/11ýA do fý:-qso i ý 0 6 C/c, C o4LW / ZEAJ'/"/CJL k £"7's..-Dc.A -cuTr-V2.rijL.L CO~x.'jE 4JQ(3OJ~'SALJý :rj-t..-

5. 71111 Supplemental Report Report No.: UT-05-323 Page: 10 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.002 Sketch or Photo: Comments: ,!5 Y /14 e. : P 61 .,5 x, X.87!;"-" ,IT",K .35"'z.."DF..v -y x.7"= /3" .-I 5 .S.Z0)3 2" Fr~l-7 H .,3"x.7",-",,--7,.I q , r,., q5"t-1..2,5 'r" E xA Y 4ao: 2.02 /Y SC~ALC) :O a.7 4 51, 0 79, ZIM, Irl , 12 SupplementiAl Report Report No.: UT-05-323 Page: 11 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.002 Sketch or Photo: Co,..nh: S--Lt)CA -O0"r£10 , i!/Ctý'L/<AL A Z &-A-q5 A -KL iFULL. C.0%/6RACre Q1O JeAQ C=== ý IN Supplemenial Report Report No.: UT-05-323 Page: 12 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.002 Sketch or Photo: Cm,,f, .7- -LDC A, -C.ur C_.ITZC,.

C Yr'o, i"""" 13C13 ; "-,. .",~ -t ,'A.tk.C-.1~qS~o AlzAt_ -~ccruLL COVERACA.NO Cvi'WAV vfli Supplemental Report Report No.: UT-05-323 Page: 13 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.002 Sketch or Photo: Comments:

if I ~Gci14M ": 19~ ~ 41 3 .4 ?__S'L/ N.cTh~*.511 X. 1.5" I-.-.02~5~Z~S

.A 1 J'5s' $o'CIke, &,is CAOVS FULL Q 0 CoVEFRACnE Wý4>CAUC :&-,%L MELD&IM t ligm-wo-1111w, Supplemental Report 30 + s1 Report No.: UT-05.323 Page: 14 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.002 Sketch or Photo: co,,m,,ts:

Z-L.')CA -, ouTI ........R eA nC, ,g- AiýI \~I I~r~ J'~"I M-7n v~cJD ~ X 2. -M.. .t it'I "e -'A L '1 A -,:ýI IN .1..06" Q v I ti3-e-ie -A 0i FuI.L COVeR4ACA r4o C C aVERACI 9=M dLý CALJ%':-*

-'A%ý 31 .~5L ilk ANM" rw MF-W"-WW-lwr-,-

Supplemental Report Report No.: UT-05-323 Page: 15 of 16 Summary No.: B03.150.002 Sketch or Photo: COwnments:

Z.LDCA -OUl? A--I -

,~I 'I.*-2, t, a0 Av _ i --Z..-ru.. COVR.AC.e NO(-FA6 MM 3; ; -1 DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Component/Weld ID: 2-LDCA-OUT-V2 Item No: B03.150.002 remarks: Z NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Due to branch connection El LIMITED SCAN [-1 1 2 Z 1 [1- 2 Z Cw [ ccw configuration.

FROM L N/A to L N/A INCHES FROM WO .5" to Beyond ANGLE: El 0 Z 45 Z 60 other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG E1- NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION E- LIMITED SCAN -1 El 2 l 1 -- 2 E- cw E-l ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: LI 0 FI 45 El 60 other FROM DEG to DEG'- NO SCAN, SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION El LIMITED SCAN EI- I 1 2 El F1-2 Elcw Elccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: [] 0 n] 45 F-1 60 other FROM DEG to DEG E- NO SCAN E- LIMITED SCAN SURFACE 1 [1 -2 BEAM DIRECTION[j 1 El 2 El cw El ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: El 0 El 45 [i-60 o ther FROM DEG to DEG Sketch(s) attached 0 yes-- No Prepared By: Larry Mauldin 11/01/2005 Sheet 16 of 16 Reviewed By: In,, a L-1 Site/Unit Oconee 1 2 Summary No.: C05.011.001 Workscope:

ISI UT Pipe Wew Examination Outage No.: ONS2-21 Report No.: UT-05-344 Page: 1 of 4 Procedure:

NDE-600 Procedure Rev.: 16 Work Order No.: 98706713 Code: 1998 thru 2000 Addenda Cat./Item:

C-F-1IC5.11.1 Location:

NIA Drawing No.: 2LP-148

Description:

Pipe to Valve (2LP-47)System ID: 63A Component ID: C05.011.001

/2LP-148-16 SizelLength:

NIA Thickness/Diameter:

1.125110.0 Limitations:

Yes- See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 1010 Finish Time: 1040 Examination Surface: Lo Locatlon: Inside 9.1.1.1 Outside oin Wo Location: Surface Condition:

AS GROUND Centerline of Weld Couplant: ULTRAGEL II op.: 66 °F Batch No.: 03125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: FISHER Serial No.: MICNDE 27221 Surface Ter Cal. Report No.: CAL-05.358, CAL-05-359, CAL.05-360 Angle Used 0 45 45T 60 160L Scanning dB 50.1 60 57 Indication(s):

Yes.. No Scan Coverage:

Upstream ] Downstrean Comments: FC 05-08 1'CWEV; CCWRI1 3 V -+ 5L DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Component/Weld ID: 2LP-148-16 Item No: C05.011.001 remarks: Z NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Valve Configuration

-- LIMITED SCAN Z 1 [1 2 Ei 1 [-- cw E] ccw FROM L 0+6.75 to L INCHES FROM WO +0.7" to Beyond ANGLE: Ej 0 [] 45 Z 60 other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG r- NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Branch Connection Z LIMITED SCAN E]-I Z 2 Z 1 [: 2---L E]cw E] ccw FROM L 0+6.75" to L 0+10.25 INCHES FROM WO +1.2" to Beyond (3.5" 33.8")x 100 = 10.4%ANGLE: El 0 [] 45 Z 60 other FROM DEG to DEG of total weld length-- NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION RE LIMITED SCAN [-] 1 [] 2 1 [- 2 -Icw -Ilccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: El 0 Fl 45 El 60 other FROM DEG to DEG L-] NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Ei-1 D- 2 El cw El ccw-- LIMITED SCAN[--1 1I 2* I I"IUIVI L t0 L ANGLE: E] 0 D 45 EZ 60,-. t\INCHES FROM WO to Sketch(s) attached DEG to DEG er FROM E yes El No Prepared By: Reviewed By: 6&

"x:5:-rCA W~C105. ot I. cot zt..'r- 145-140 357 +.~ /ALA4C-SZ -?i~H 0

//I LL~ZU C?¶2L~\ rAL.),5e-LC .-i~

3G _IDDEAL uifte Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations

-Pipe Site/Unit*

ON / 2-Summary No.: a-o//Workscope:

/Procedure:

0" -- 1 c Procedure Rev.: /Work O.der No.: 9676' 5 7/_/3 Outage No.: _Ok"S 2. -z27 Report No.: L- o"- -& K Page: ofq 45Sd Scan I Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4% Length X % volume of length f 100=% Length X _ _ % volume of length'f 100(% Length X ,0 1% volume of length f 100=/ > C % Length X , % volume of length f100=% total for Scan I% total for Scan 2 o % total for Scan 3 0 % total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans = % total for 45 deg Other deg- &" 2 (to be used for'supplemental scans)The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.Scant 1 % Length X % volume oflengthil00=

1100 % totalfor Scan1 Scan 2 /_ 0 % Length X _ _ % volume of length 1100 = % total for Scan 2 Scan.3 % Length X % volume of length I 100 = __ % total for Scan 3 Scan 4 * % Length X % volume of length 1100 = % total for Scan 4 Percent coMflete coverage Add lotals for each scan required and divide by 4of scans to determine;

__ % Total fo)roplete exam Site Field Supervisor:

A- Date: /O10 -307 Additional

-Caloulation Pipe -edit frorn Setup>

Site/Unit:

Oconee /Summary No.: Co Workscope:

UT Pipe Weid Examination 37 + S;Outage No.: ONS2-21 Report No.: UT-05-244 Page: 1 of 4 2 5.021.026 Isl Procedure:

Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 16 98709800 Code: 1998 thru 2000 Addenda Cat./Item:

C-F-1/C5.21.26 Location:

N/A Drawing No.: 2-51A-17 (5)

Description:

Pipe to Valve (2HP-128)System ID: 51A Component ID: C05.021.026

/2-51 A-1 7-111 Size/Length:

N/A Thickness/Diameter:

.531 /4.0 Limitations:

Yes -See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 1000 Finish Time: 1030 Examination Surface: Inside [j Outside [] Surface Condition:

AS GROUND Lo Location:

9.1.1.1 Wo Location:

Centerline of Weld Couplant:

ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 03125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32797 Surface Temp.: 99 OF Cal. Report No.: CAL-05-254, CAL-05-255, CAL-05-256 Angle Used 0 45 45T 60 60L Scanning dB 43.8 40 55.5 Indication(s):

Yes D] No Rv Scan Coverage:

Upstream [] Downstream IZ CW RV CCW RV Comments: FC 05-08 Results: Accept Rv Reject R Info R_Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No -37.5% Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Level ISignature Date Revi#V~r Signature Date Houser, Gayle E. 8/22/2005

,</ //0f('" L, f/,--3/a " Examiner Level Signature Date Site Review/( Signature

/ Date Jones, Russel 8/22/2005 N/A Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Re ,..Snature C Date N/A 6

&M.Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations

-Pipe Site/Unit:

Oconee / 2 Summary No.: C05.021.026 Workscope:

ISI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 16 98709800 Outage No.: ONS2-21 Report No.: UT-05-244 Page: 2 of 4 45 deg Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4% Length X% Length X 100.000 % Length X 100.000 % Length X 50.000 50.000% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2 50.000 % total for Scan 3 50.000 % total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans = 50.000 % total for 45 deg Other deq -60 (to be used for supplemental scans)The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with .the 45 deg scans.Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000 100.000% Length X% Length X% Length X% Length X 0.000 % volume of length / 100 =50.000 % volume of length /100 =% volume of length / 100% volume of length / 100 =0.000 50.000% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Percent complete coverage Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine;

% Total for complete exam Site Field Supervisor:

David K. Zimmerman Date: 8/23/2005 Note: 60°RL scan not included in percent coverage per requirements of IOCFR50.55a(b)(2)(xx)(A)(2).

Best effort scan with 60ORL obtained 5=.% coverage in one axial direction.

Site/Unit:

Oconee 2 Summary No.: C05.021.026 Workscope:

isi Limitation Record 37+ 52 Procedure:

Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 16 98709800 Outage No.: ONS2-21 Report No.: UT-05-244 Page: 3 of 4 Description of Limitation:

See 151 Limitation Report for details of scanning limitations.

OF ;ýKý0Fi&ZC Sketch of Limitation: , t- -0S,,._ ozZ V 10o ~~0 1 10C){ -S o 9 1o Umitations removal requirements:

Radiation field: ZpLt) [LI. .LL Examiner Level III Signature Date Reviewer , Signature Date Houser, Gayle E. _-,/_8/22/2005 Examiner .Level ii .a gnature Date Site Rbview Signature Date Jones, Russel .8/22/2005 N/A AJher Level Signature Date ANI Review o , " y , j/t-/ te DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Component/Weld ID: 2-51A-17-111 Item No: C05.021.026 remarks:[ NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Valve Configuration L- LIMITED SCAN 01 2 -I 1 E 2 I- cw F-1 ccw FROM L N/A to L N/A INCHES FROM WO CL to Beyond ANGLE: El 0 El 45 [E 60 other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG L- NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Valve Configuration

[ LIMITED SCAN 1 [112 E]-1 [1- 2 E cw E ccw FROM L N/A to L N/A INCHES FROM WO C/L to Beyond ANGLE: E] 0 E 45 LI 60 other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG FI NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION F-- LIMITED SCAN 0i1 ] 2 [1 [I2 j] cw D ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: LI 0 E] 45 LI 60 other FROM DEG to DEG I- NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION-I LIMITED SCAN i1 I] 2 1 -I 2 I] cw -] ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to Sketch(s) attached ANGLE: D0 [I 45 I 60 FROM DEG to DEG 0 yes E] No Prepared By: Gayle Houser Lý//ý ý evel: III Date: 08/22/2005 Sheet 4 of 4 Reviewed By: Date:o /O Authorized Ir ec t or: D ,Daj, Kk L- 8 )Z 3 1Vj4 4i lpS-141,,-- 5".ý.Site/Unit:

Oconee /Summary No.: Co Workscope:

UT Pipe Weld Examination 2 5.021.027 ISI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 16 Outage No.: ONS2-21 Report No.: UT-05-241 Page: 1 of 4 98709809 Code: 1998 thru 2000 Addenda Cat./Item:

C-F-1/C5.21.27 Location:

N/A Drawing No.: 2HP-227

Description:

Pipe to Valve (Valve 2HP-117)System ID: 51A Component ID: C05.021.027

/2HP-227-3 Size/Length:

N/A Thickness/Diameter:

.531 /4.0 Limitations:

Yes- See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 1012 Finish Time: 1029 Examination Surface: Inside D- Outside [] Surface Condition:

AS GROUND Lo Location:

9.1.1.1 Wo Location:

Centerline of Weld Couplant:

ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 03125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32797 Surface Temp.: 99 OF Cal. Report No.: CAL-05-251, CAL-05-252, CAL-05-253 Angle Used 0 45 45T 60 60L Scanning dB 42.5 44.5 59.5 Indication(s):

Yes D No n. Scan Coverage:

Upstream [ Downstream D CW [ CCW [Comments: FC 05-08 Results: Accept [] Reject n Info n_Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No -37.5% Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Examiner Level II i ture Date Revieweq_1 Signature Date Leeper, Winfred C. .8/22/2005 Examiner Level Il-N Date Site Review ,Signature Date Tucker, David K. ,,.. 8/22/2005 N/A Other Level N/A Signature Date ANII Re iew Date N/A T________r________L___

MILDuka (VffA4W--Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations

-Pipe Site/Unit:

Oconee / 2 Summary No.: C05.021.027 Workscope:

ISI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 16 98709809 Outage No.: ONS2-21 Report No.: UT-05-241 Page: 2 of 4 45 deq Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4% Length X% Length X 100.000 % Length X 100.000 % Length X% volume of length/100

=% volume of length /100 =50.000 % volume of length/100

=50.000 % volume of length/ 100 =50.000 50.000% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans = 50.000 % total for 45 deg Other deg -60 (to be used for supplemental scans)The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000 % Length X 100.000 % Length X% Length X% Length X 0.000 % volume of length / 100 =50.000 % volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length /100 =0.000 50.000% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Percent complete coverage Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine; 3% Total for complete exam Site Field Supervisor:

'David K. Zimmerman Date: 8/23/2005 Note: 60°RL scan not included in percent coverage per requirements of IOCFR50.55a(b)(2)(xx)(A)(2).

Best effort scan with 60'RL obtained 60.a% coverage in one axial direction.

4~3 +5X~Site/Unit:

Oconee I 2 Summary No.: C05.021.027 Workscope:

ISI Limitation Record Procedure:

Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 16 98709809 Outage No.: ONS2-21 Report No.: UT-05-241 Page: 3 of 4 Description of Limitation:

See ISl Limitation Report for details of scan limitations.

R-~460 OF Je<Sketch of Limitation:1-r 3 VA,) 'SCA,,ý Z 0 "'0 0. 0 0 0 .7-0ý; I 0.133,'tj Limitations removal requirements:

Radiation field: Examiner Level I i e Date Review r -Signature Date Leoper, Winfred C. /220 Examiner Level IM-N Date Site Review -Signature'ucker, David K. .U 005 N/A ither Level N/A Signature Date A I Review S t Date DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Component/Weld ID: 2HP-227-3 Item No: C05.021.027 remarks:[ NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Valve 2HP-117 Configuration Li LIMITED SCAN [1 -]2 L1 E 2 ] cw -- ccw FROM L N/A to L N/A INCHES FROM WO CL to Beyond ANGLE: Li 0 [] 45 0 60 other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG-I NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Valve 2HP-117 Configuration

[ LIMITED SCAN 1 -i2 l- 1 L 2 E cw E ccw FROM L N/A to L N/A INCHES FROM WO C/L to Beyond ANGLE: LI 0 E 45 E] 60 other FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG-L NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Li LIMITED SCAN Li 1 L 2 Li 1 L- 2 -i cw L-i ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: L] 0 Li 45 Li 60 other FROM DEG to DEG Li NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION riLIMITED SCAN Li 1 i 2 ] 1 2 LIcw ri ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to Sketch(s) attached ANGLE: L] 0 L] 45 MI 60 other FROM DEG to DEG E yes Li No Prepared By: Winfred Leeper , ( -evel: 11 Date:ý 08/22/2005, Sheet 4 of 4 Reviewed By: David Zimmerman D e: HI oAut° d" (o Iz~

4..T ý.(- 5.2 Site/Unit:

Oconee / 2 Summary No.: C05.021.028 Workscope:

ISl UT Pipe Weld Examination Procedure:

Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 16 98709809 Outage No.: ONS2-21 Report No.: UT-05-240 Page: 1 of 4 Code: 1998 thru 2000 Addenda Cat./Item:

C-F-l/C5.21.28 Location:

N/A Drawing No.: 2HP-227

Description:

Pipe to Valve (Valve 2HP-148)System ID: 51A Component ID: C05.021.028

/2HP-227-7 Size/Length:

N/A Thickness/Diameter:

.531 /4.0 Limitations:

Yes-See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 1009 Finish Time: 1026 Examination Surface: Inside D Outside nv Surface Condition:

AS GROUND Lo Location:

9,1.1.5 Wo Location:

Centerline of Weld Couplant:

ULTRAGEL II Batch No.: 03125 Temp. Tool Mfg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32797 Surface Temp.: 99 OF Cal. Report No.: CAL-05-251, CAL-05-252, CAL-05-253 Angle Used 0 45 45T 60 60L Scanning dB 42.5 44.5 59.5 Indication(s):

Yes D No nJ Scan Coverage:

Upstream [] Downstream n CW [] CCW []Comments: FC 05-08 Results: Accept [J Reject n Info n]Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: No -37.5% Reviewed Previous Data: Yes 4t" +~ 51 Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations

-Pipe Site/Unit:

Oconee / 2 Summary No.: C05.021.028 Workscope:

ISI Procedure:

Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 16 98709809 Outage No.: ONS2-21 Report No.: UT-05-240 Page: 2 of 4 45 deq Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4% Length X% Length X 100.000 % Length X 100.000 % Length X% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length /100 =50.000 % volume of length/t 100 =50.000 % volume of length / 100 =50.000 50.000% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans = 50.000 % total for 45 deg Other deq -60 (to be used for supplemental scans)-The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000 % Length X 100.000 % Length X% Length X% Length X 0.000 50.000% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =0.000 50.000% total for Scan 1% total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Percent complete coverage Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine; c % Total for complete exam Site Field Supervisor:

David K.Zimmerman Date: 8/23/2005 Note: 60°RL scan not included in percent coverage per requirements of LOCFR50.55a(b)(2)(xx)(A)(2).

Best effort scan with 60°RL obtained 50.0% coverage in one axial direction.

Site/Unit:

Oconee 2 Summary No.: C05.021 .028 Workscope:

ISI Limitation Record Procedure:

Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 16 98709809 Outage No.: ONS2-21 Report No.: UT-05-240 Page: 3 of 4 Description of Limitation:

See 151, Limitation Report for details of scan limitations.

e-IC r -* -1`5 c zfr Sketch of Limitation:

6,- \(AW t5 14 A-Th~IP'SAK I -t~ 2)h.00/0 Z... -- i(4c. C-)oW z_, 0,o-;. = 0. 10;LS ° 'Limitations removal requirements:

Radiation field: Examiner Level II a ur Date Reviewer,.

Signature Date Leeper, Winfred C. I,-,a-- 8/22/2005 orlrdos Examiner Level Il-N i,,gna Date Site Review c... Signature

'Date ucker, David K. J,:17I" i8/2_2/2005 N/A Other Level WA Signature Date ANI eview Date W/A Q/6?1 UI L.;

DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Component/Weld ID: 2HP-227-7 Item No: C05.021.028 remarks:[ NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Valve 2HP-148 Configuration F- LIMITED SCAN 1 E] 2 r-1 i 2 17 cw 0 ccw FROM L N/A to L N/A INCHES FROM WO CL to Beyond ANGLE: E] 0 F1 45 N 60 other__ FROM 0 DEG to 360 DEG ri] NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Valve 2HP-148 Configuration

[ LIMITED SCAN [ 1 Li 2 Eli-1 i- 2 N cw [ ccw FROM L N/A to L N/A INCHES FROM WO C/L to Beyond ANGLE: E] 0 N 45 LI 60 other FROM 0 , DEG to 360 DEG Li NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION rI LIMITED SCAN i1 L2 1 i ] 2 [-] cw i- ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: E] 0 MI 45 f-1 60 other FROM DEG to DEG-ii NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION[7 LIMITED SCAN E] 1 r- 2 -ii 1 ] 2 i] cw 0 ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to Sketch(s) attached ANGLE: [3 0 LI 45 E] 60 othe FROM DEG to DEG N yes -No Prepared By: Winfred Leeper --evel: I1 Date: 08/22/2005 Sheet 4 of 4 Reviewed By: David Zimmerman ,a I Authori;ted Ispect.I (J C-,

Site/Unit:

Oconee / 2 Summary No.: C05.021.073 Workscope:

ISI UT Pipe Examination

/Procedure:

Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 16 98709812 Outage No.: ONS2-21 Report No.: UT-05-234 Page: 1 of 4 Code: 1998 thru 2000 Addenda Cat./Item:

C-F-1/C5.21.73 Location:

N/A Drawing No.: 2-51A-28 (3)

Description:

Tee to Pipe System ID: 51A Component ID: C05.021.073

/2-51 A-28-67 Size/Length:

N/A Thickness/Diameter:

.375 / 2.50 Limitations:

Yes-See Attached Limitation Report Start Time: 0949 Finish Time: 1008 Examination S Lo Location: Temp. Tool Mf Cal. Report Nc Angle Used Scanning dB Indication(s):

Comments: FC 05-08 iurface: Inside D] Outside F] I Surface Condition:

AS GROUND 9.1.1.1 Wo Location:

Centerline of Weld Couplant:

ULTRAGEL II fg.: D.A.S Serial No.: MCNDE32798 Surface Temp.: 101.5 OF o.: CAL-05-242, CAL-05-243, CAL-05-244 0 45 45T 60 70 38 39.2 48 Yes D] No [] Scan Coverage:

Upstream [ Downstream

[] CW 91 CCW []Batch No.: 03125 Results: Accept R] Reject D]Percent Of Coverage Obtained > 90%: Info rD No -79.2%Reviewed Previous Data: Yes Determination of Percent Coverage for UT Examinations

-Pipe Site/Unit:

Oconee / 2 Summary No.: C05.021.073 Workscope:

Is[Procedure:

Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 16 98709812 Outage No.: ONS2-21 Report No.: UT-05-234 Page: 2 of 4 45 deg Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4% Length X% Length X 100.000 % Length X 100.000 % Length X% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =100.000 % volume of length / 100 =100.000 % volume of length / 100 =% total for Scan 1%total for Scan 2 100.000 % total for Scan 3 100.000 % total for Scan 4 Add totals and divide by # scans = 100.000 % total for 45 deg Other deg -60 (to be used for supplemental scans)The data to be listed below is for coverage that was not obtained with the 45 deg scans.Scan 1 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 4 100.000 % Length X'100.000 % Length X% Length X% Length X 72.200 % volume of length / 100 =44.400 % volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =% volume of length / 100 =72.200 % total for Scan 1 44.400 % total for Scan 2% total for Scan 3% total for Scan 4 Percent complete coverage Add totals for each scan required and divide by # of scans to determine; 79.160 % Total for complete exam Site Field Supervisor:

David K. Zimmerman Date: 8/16/2005 Note: 700 shear scan not included in percent coverage per requirements of 1OCFR50.55a(b)(2)(xx)(A)(2).

Best effort scan with 70°shear obtained ,.k% coverage in one axial direction.

Site/Unit:

Oconee / 2 Summary No.: C05.021.073 Workscope:

ISl Limitation Record Procedure:

Procedure Rev.: Work Order No.: NDE-600 16 98709812 Outage No.: ONS2-21 Report No.: UT-05-234 Page: 3 of 4 Description of Limitation:

See ISI LIMITATION REPORT for limited details.Sketch of Limitation:

Description of Limitation:

See 151 LIMITATION REPORT for limited details.Sketch of Limitation:

0~Lc3~L~<~4L AAA~~: ,o~' ~ 7 F D ..--0 A. ..1'O<AL 3 _ C t.o0.- Qo. 0 ýi4,J t.S/ ,'L C 100) -q qq.'c.4 3.' l~O °0' -L.-obs 6 CA~ .- L 1 too 0/ a *- o t...os,0, Is o0" Limitations removal requirements:

Radiation field: 5rALC~: 1-CULL.I Examiner Level I1l Signature Date Reviewer Signature Date Houser, Gayle E.. L ,d, 8/16/20051

,(.., ,, o ,k-Examiner Level I, i re Date Site Review Sjnure 'Date Jones, Russel 8116/2005 N/A Other N/A Level N/A -I Signature Date ANII Review ggature Date s*~%DUKE POWER COMPANY ISI LIMITATION REPORT Component/Weld ID: 2-51A-28-67 Item No: C05.021.073 remarks: Ei] NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Tee Configuration Z LIMITED SCAN 1 1 E 2 E 1 0 2 Lllcw D ccw FROM L 7.75 to L 1.25 INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: 12 0 [] 45 Z 60 other FROM DEG to DEG[2 NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Tee Configuration

[ LIMITED SCAN -71 ]2 [1 r22 ] cw -ccw FROM L 3.25 to L 5.75 INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: E] 0 r,] 45 Z 60 other FROM DEG to DEG 12 NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION Li LIMITED SCAN 121 2 2 71 [ 2 -cw [- ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to ANGLE: E] 0 12 45 12 60 other FROM DEG to DEG 12 NO SCAN SURFACE BEAM DIRECTION 12 LIMITED SCAN 1 22 E 1 1 2 [:] cw -ccw FROM L to L INCHES FROM WO to Sketch(s) attached ANGLE: 1] 0 1] 45 12 60 -.other FROM DEG to DEG 12 yes 12 No Prepared By: David Zimmerman

-Level: II, Date: 08/16/2005 Sheet 4 of 4 Reviewed By: /Date: