ML17328A872

Technical Evaluation Rept on Second 10-Yr Interval Inservice Insp Program Plan:Indiana & Michigan Electric Co, DC Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2.

ML17328A872
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	07/30/1988
From:	BROWN B W, MUDLIN J D EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML17328A869	List: ML17328A868 ML17328A870 ML17328A871 ML17328A872
References
CON-FIN-D-6022 EGG-SD-7798, NUDOCS 9102010173
Download: ML17328A872 (61)

Text

ATTACHMENT 2EGG-SD-7798 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORTONTHESECOND10-YEARINTERVALINSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAMPLAN:INDIANAANDMICHIGANELECTRICCOMPANY,DONALDC.COOKNUCLEARPLANTUNIT2,DOCKETNUMBER50-316B.W.BrownJ.D.MudlinPublished July1988IdahoNationalEngineering Laboratory EGKGIdaho,Inc.IdahoFalls,Idaho83415Preparedfor:U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555under~DOEContractNo.DE-AC07-76ID01570 FINNo.D6022(Project5)9i02010i73 9iOi24PDRADQCK050003i5PPDRI I'EEIf ABSTRACTThisreportpresentstheresultsoftheevaluation oftheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Unit2,Second10.-YearIntervalInservice Inspection (ISI)ProgramPlan,Change1,datedDecember1985,including therequestsforrelieffromtheAmericanSocietyofHechanical Engineers (ASHE)BoilerandPressureVesselCodeSectionXIrequirements whichtheLicenseehasdetermined tobeimpractical.

TheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Unit2,Second10-YearIntervalISIProgramPlanisevaluated inSection2ofthisreport.TheISIProgramPlanisevaluated for(a)compliance withtheappropriate edition/addenda ofSectionXI,(b)acceptability ofexamination sample,(c)exclusion

criteria, and(d)compliance withISI-related commitments identified duringtheNuclearRegulatory Commission's (NRC)previouspreservice inspection (PSI)andISIreviews.TherequestsforrelieffromtheASHECoderequirements whichtheLicenseehasdetermined tobeimpractical forthesecond10-yearinspection intervalareevaluated inSection3ofthisreport.Thisworkwasfundedunder:U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission FINNo.06022,Project5Operating ReactorLicensing IssuesProgram,ReviewofISIforASHECodeClass1,2,and3Components IIIA SUHHARYTheLicensee, IndianaandHichiganElectricCompany,has-preparedtheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Un'it2,Second10-YearIntervalInservice Inspection (ISI)ProgramPlantomeettherequirements ofthe1983Edition,Summer1983Addenda(83S83)oftheASHECodeSectionXIexceptthattheextentofexamination forCodeClassIandCodeClass2pipingweldshasbeendetermined bythe1974EditionthroughSummer1975Addenda(74S75)aspermitted andrequiredby10CFR50.55a(b).

Thesecond10-yearintervalbeganJuly1,1986andendsJune30,1996.Theinformation intheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Unit2,Second10-YearIntervalISIProgramPlan,Change1,datedDecember1985,wasreviewed, including the.requests forrelieffromtheASHECodeSectionXIrequirements whichtheLicenseehasdetermined tobeimpractical."

Asaresultofthisreview,aRequestforAdditional Information (RAI)wasprepareddescribing theinformation and/orclarification requiredfromtheLicenseeinordertocompletethereview.BasedonthereviewoftheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Unit2,Second10-YearIntervalISIProgramPlan,theLicensee's responsetotheNRC'sRAI,andtherecommendations forthegrantingofrelieffromtheISIexamination'equirements thathavebeendetermined tobeimpractical, ithasbeenconcluded thattheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Unit2,Second10-YearIntervalISIProgramPlan,Change1,datedDecember1985,isacceptable andincompliance with10CFR50.55a(g)(4).

CONTENTSA~~BSTRACTo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ollS0UOARY~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oii>~INTRODUCTION

~~~~~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~112.EVALUATION OFINSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAMPLAN........................3 2.1Documents Evaluated.................................................3 2.2Compliance withCodeRequirements...................................3 2.2.1Compliance withApplicable CodeEditions.........

...........32.2.2Acceptability oftheExamination Sample........

2.2.3Exclusion Criteria.........

..............................

42.2.4Augmented Examination Commitments...............................4

.3Conclusions.........................................................4 2\3.EVALUATION OFRELIEFREQUESTS....

-.........................5 3.1Class1Components..................................................5 3.1.1ReactorPressureVessel.............................,...........5 3,1.1.1RequestforRelief1,Examination CategoryB-A,ItemB1.21,PressureRetaining Circumferential HeadWeldsintheReactorPressureVessel...................5 3.1.1.2RequestforRelief2,Examination CategoryB-A,ItemB1.40,PressureRetaining Mead-to-Flange WeldintheReactorPressureVessel..............................7

.1.2Pressurizer.....................................................8 33.1.2.1RequestforRelief3,Examination CategoryB-D,ItemB3.110,PressureRetaining Nozzle-to-Vessel WeldsinthePressurizer.................

...83.1.3HeatExchangers andSteamGenerators (Noreliefrequests) 3.1.4PipingPressureBoundary(Noreliefrequests) 3.1.5PumpPressureBoundary.........................................

103.1.5.1RequestforRelief4,Examination Categories B-L-l,B-L-2,andB-G-1,Class1PumpCasingWeld,PumpCasingInternalSurface,andPumpFlangeSurface......,...........

10 44L 3.1.6ValvePressureBoundary(Noreliefrequests) 3.1.7General(Noreliefrequests)

.2Class2Components.................................................13 33.2.1PressureVessels(Noreliefrequests) 3.2.2Piping.................................-...-.....................13 3.2.2.1RequestforRelief5,Examination CategoryC-F,ItemC5.21,Class2Pipe-to-Flued Headfields...

3.2.2.2RequestforRelief6,Examination CategoryC-F,ItemC5.21,Class2P'.pe-to-Flued Headfields...

~~~~~~~~~~~~13~~~~~~~~~~~~153.2.3Pumps(Noreliefrequests) 3.2.4Valves(Noreliefrequests) 3.2.5General(Noreliefrequests) 3.3Class3Components (Noreliefrequests) 3.4PressureTests.......................

...........................17 3.4.1Class1SystemPressureTests..................................

173.4.1.1RequestforReliefP2(Part1of2),SystemHydrostatic TestofClass1PipingintheChemicalandVolumeControlSystem.........................

173.4.1.2Request.forReliefP4,SystemHydrostatic Test'efClass1Pipinginthe'Emergency CoreCoolingSy'tem........

173.4.2Class2SystemPressureTests..................................

193.4.2.1RequestforReliefPl,SystemHydrostatic TestofClass2PipingintheEmergency CoreCoolingSystem........

193.4.2.2RequestforReliefP2(Part2of2),SystemHydrostatic TestofClass2PipingintheChemicalandVolumeControlSystem.........................21 3.4.2.3RequestforReliefP3,SystemHydrostatic TestofClass2PipingintheChemicalandVolumeControlSyStelll~~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3.4.2.4RequestforReliefP5,SystemHydrostatic TestofClass2PipingintheAuxiliary SpraytoReactorCoolantSystemandPressurizer, andChemicalandVolumeControlSystem........................

3.4.3Class3SystemPressureTests(Noreliefrequests)

".....21....23v

.4.4General...........................;............................25 33.4.4.1RequestforReliefP2,SystemHydrostatic TestofClass1and2PipingintheChemicalandVolumeControlSystem.......................-.............

3.5General(Noreliefrequests)

'~~~~~~~~25~CONCLUSIONo~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~o2745REFERENCES........;....................................;..............28 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORTONTHESECOND10-YEARINTERVALINSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAMPLAN:INDIANAANDMICHIGANELECTRICCOMPANY,DONALDC.COOKNUCLEARPLANT,UNIT2,DOCKETNUMBER50-3161.INTRODUCTION Throughout theservicelifeofawater-cooled nuclearpowerfacility, 10CFR50.55a(g)(4)

(Reference 1)requiresthatcomponents (including supports) whichareclassified asAmericanSocietyofHechanical Engineers (ASHE)BoilerandPressureVesselCodeClass1,Class2,andClass3meettherequirements, exceptthedesignandaccessprovisions andthepreservice examination requirements, setforthintheASHECodeSectionXI,"Rulesfo'Inservice Inspection ofNuclearPowerPlantComponents,"

(Reference 2)totheextentpractical withinthelimitations ofdesign,geometry, andmaterials ofconstruction ofthecomponents.

Thissectionoftheregulations alsorequiresthatinservice examinations ofcomponents andsystempressuretestsconducted duringthesecond120-month inspection intervalshallcomplywiththerequirements in'thelatesteditionandaddendaoftheCodeincorporated byreference in10CFR50.55a(b) onthedate12monthspriortothestartofthesecond120-month inspection

interval, subjecttothelimitations andmodifications listedtherein.Thecomponents (including supports) maymeetrequirements setforthinsubsequent editionsandaddendaofthisCodewhichareincorporated byre'ference in10CFR50.55a(b) subjecttothelimitations andmodifications listedtherein.TheLicensee, IndianaandHichiganElectricCompany,haspreparedtheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Unit2,Second10-YearIntervalInservice Inspection (ISI)ProgramPlan,Change1(Reference 3),tomeettherequirements ofthe1983Edition,Summer1983Addenda(83S83)oftheASMECodeSectionXIexceptthattheextentofexamination forCodeClass1andCodeClass2pipingweldshasbeendetermined bythe1974EditionthroughSummer1975Addenda.(74S75)aspermitted andrequiredby10CFR50.55a(b).

Thesecond10-yearintervalbeganJuly1,1986andendsJune30,1996.Asrequiredby10CFR50.55a(g)(5),

ifthelicenseedetermines thatcertainCodeexamination requirements areimpractical andrequestsrelieffromthem, If'\Et thelicenseeshallsubmitinformation andjustifications totheNuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC)tosupportthatdetermination.

Pursuantto10CFR50.55a(g)(6),

theNRCwillevaluatethelicensee's determinations under10CFR50.55a(g)(5) thatCoderequirements areimpractical.

TheNRCmaygrantreliefandmayimposealternative requirements thataredetermined tobeauthorized bylaw,willnotendangerlifeorpropertyorthecommondefenseandsecurity, andareotherwise inthepublicinterest, givingdueconsideration totheburdenuponthelicenseethatcouldresultiftherequirements wereimposedonthefacility.

Theinformation intheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Unit2,Second10-YearIntervalISIProgramPlan,throughChange1,datedDecember1985,wasreviewed, including therequestsforrelieffromtheASHECodeSectionXIrequirements whichtheLicenseehasdetermined tobeimpractical.

ThereviewoftheISIProgramPlanwasperformed usingtheStandardReviewPlansofNUREG-0800 (Reference 4),Section5.2.4,"ReactorCoolantBoundaryInservice Inspections andTesting",

andSection6.6,"Inservice Inspection ofClass2and3Components."

InaletterdatedFebruary2,1987(Reference 5),theNRCrequested additional information thatwasrequiredinordertocomplete, thereviewoftheISIProgramPlan.Therequested information wasprovidedbytheLicenseeinsubmittals datedApril10,1987(Reference 6)andJune1,1987(Reference 7).TheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Unit2,Second10-YearIntervalISIProgramPlanisevaluated inSection2ofthisreport.TheISIProgramPlanisevaluated for(a)compliance withtheappropriate edition/addenda ofSectionXI,(b)acceptability ofexamination sample,(c)exclusion

criteria, and(d)compliance withISI-related commitments identified duringtheNRC'spreviouspreservice inspection (PSI)andISIreviews.Therequestsforreliefareevaluated inSection3ofthisrport.Unlessotherwise stated,references totheCoderefertotheASMECode,SectionXI,1983Editionincluding AddendathroughSummer1983.Specificinservice test(IST)programsforpumpsandvalvesarebeingevaluated inotherreports.

4I'W~yli4

~~I'I2.EVALUATION OFINSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAMPLANThisevaluation consisted ofareviewoftheapplicable programdocuments todetermine whetherornottheyareincompliance withtheCoderequirements andanylicenseconditions pertinent toISIactivities.

This'sectiondescribes thesubmittals reviewedandtheresultsofthereview.2.1ocumentsEvaluated Reviewhasbeencompleted onthefollowing information providedbytheLicensee:

(a)DonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Unit2,Second10-YearIntervalISIProgramPlan,throughChange1,datedDecember1985;(b)Letter,datedApril10,1987,Licensee's responsetotheNRC'sRAI;and(c)Letter,datedJune1,1987,information theLicenseecommitted tointheApril10,1987letter.2.2ComliancewithCodeReuirements 2.2.1ComliancewithAlicableCodeEditionsTheInservice Inspection ProgramPlanshallbebasedontheCodeeditionsdefinedin10CFR50.55a(g)(4) and10CFR50.55a(b).

BasedonthestartingdateofJuly1,1986,theCodeapplicable tothesecondintervalISIprogramisthe1980EditionwithAddendathroughMinter1981.AsstatedinSection1ofthisreport,theLicenseehaswrittentheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Unit2,Second10-YearIntervalISIProgramPlan,throughChange1,tomeettherequirements ofthe1983Edition,Summer1983AddendaoftheCodeexceptthattheextentofexamination forCodeClass1andCodeClass2pipingweldshasbeendetermined bythe1974EditionthrouohSummer1975Addendaaspermitted andrequiredby10CFR50.55a(b).

Theuseof8~S83wasapprovedbytheNRCinaletterdatedJanuary15,1986(Reference 8).3 I'Ci'hA 2.2.2AccetabilitoftheExamination SamleInservice volumetric, surface,andvisualexaminations shallbeperformed onASMECodeClass1,2,and3components andtheirsupportsusingsamplingschedules described.,in SectionXIoftheASMECodeand10CFR50.55a(b).

Samplesizeandweldselection havebeenimplemented inaccordance withtheCodeandappeartobecorrect.2.2.3Exclusion CriteriaThecriteriausedtoexcludecomponents fromexamination-shall beconsistent withParagraphs IWB-1220, IWC-1220, IWC-1230, IWD-1220, and10CFR50.55a(b).

Theexclusion criteriahavebeenappliedbytheLicenseeinaccordance withtheCodeasdiscussed intheISIProgramPlanandappeartobecorrect.2.2.4AumentedExamination Commitments Thefollowing augmented examinations will.beimplemented duringthesecond..10-yearinspection interval:

(a)TheLicenseehascommitted tovolumetrically examinea7.5%sampleofweldsintheContainment SpraySystem.(b)Examinations fortheReactorPressureVesselare,incompliance withRegulatory Guide1.150,"Ultrasonic TestingofReactorVesselWeldsDuringPreservice ardInservice Examination" (Reference 9).(c)Augmented examinations perRegulatory Guide1.14,"ReactorCoolantPumpFlywheelIntegrity" (Reference 10)..2.3Conclusions Basedonthe'review ofthedocuments listedabove,itisconcluded thattheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Unit2,Second10-YearIntervalISIProgramPlan,throughChange1,datedDecember1985,isacceptable andincompliance with10CFR50.55a(g)(4).

3.EVALUATION OFRELIEFREQUESTSTherequestsforrelieffromtheASHECoderequirements whichtheLicenseehasdetermined tobeimpractical forthesecond10-yearinspection intervalareevaluated inthefollowing sections.

3.1ClassComonents3.1.1ReactorPressureVessel3.1.1.1ReuestforReliefxamination ateor-AItemPressureRetaininCircumferential HeadWeldsintheReactorPressureVesselCodeReuirement:

SectionXI,TableIWB-2500-1, Examination Category.'B-A, Ii'emB1.21requiresa100/volumetric examination ofthelengthofonecircumferential headweldintheReactorPressureVessel(RPV)asdefinedbyFigureIWB-2500-3.

Licensee's CodeReliefReuest:Reliefisrequested fromperforming theCode-required volumetric examination ofclosureheaddollarplateweld2-CHC-02andlowerheaddollarplateweld2-LHC-01oftheRPV.icensee's ProosedAlternative Examination:

TheLicenseestatesthat,in'lieuofthevolumetric examination requirements ofSectionXI,thereactorvesselclosureandlowerheadswillreceiveareactorcoolantsystemleakagetestandVT-2visualexamination each10-yearinterval.

Theseexaminations areconducted pertherequirements ofASHESectionXI,CategoryB-P.Additionally',

theaccessible lengthofoneclosureheadmeridional.

weld(whichintersects theclosureheaddollarplateweld)isvolumetrically examinedpertherequirements ofASHESectionXI,CategoryB-A.Basedontheaboveandtheavailability oftheReactorCoolantSystemLeakageDetection System,theLicenseestatesthattheoveralllevelofplant Esafetywillnotbereducedbytheproposedreliefrequest.icensee's BasisforReuestinRelief:TheLicenseestatesthataccesslimitati'ons prevent,volumetric examination ofeitherof.thesubjectwelds.Theclosureheaddollarplateweldhaslimitedaccessibility forultrasonic examination duetoitslocationamongthereactorvesselcontrolroddrive(CRD)housings.

UnliketheUnitIclosurehead(whichwasfabricated byadifferent manufacturer),

theaccessible portionsoftheUnit2closureheaddollarplateweldarefurtherobstructed byinterference withtheCRDshroud.Therefore, noareasofthisweldareaccessible forvolumetric examination byultrasonics, andtheCRDpenetrations andshroudprecludefilmplacement forradiographic volumetric examination.

Interference withtheinstrumentation tubesmakesthelowerheaddollarplateweldtotallyinaccessible forexamination withthe'remoteinspection device.~valuation:

TheLicensee's submittal hasbeenreviewed, including thedrawingswhichshowtheexamination limitations andobstructions.

DuetotheCRDshroudandtheclusterofCRDpenetrations intheclosurehead,accesstotheclosureheadcircumferential weldisnotpossible.

Thevolumetric examination ofthebottomheadcircumferential weldisprecluded bytheadjacentinstrumentation tubes.Therefore, theCode-required volumetric examination oftheseweldsisimpractical toperform.Thevisualexamination forevidenceofleakageperformed duringsystemhydrostatic testswillprovidereasonable assurance ofthecontinued inservice structural integrity oftheRPVcircumferential headwelds.Conclusions:

Basedontheaboveevaluation, itisconcluded thattheCode-required volumetric examination ofthesubjectdollarplateweldsisimpractical.

Compliance withthe specificrequirements ofSectionXIwouldresultinhardshiporunusualdifficulties withoutacompensating increaseinthelevelofqualityandsafety.Therefore, itisrecommended thatreliefbegrantedasrequested.

3.1.1.2ReuestforReliefxamination CateorB-AternB1.40resureRetaininHead-to-Flan eWeldintheReactorPressureVesselgdi:iNI,Th1I.5>>-,E*CategoryB-A,ItemBl.40requiresa100%volumetric andsurfaceexamination ofthehead-to-flange weldsoftheRPVasdefinedbyFigureIWB-2500-5.

Licensee's CodeReliefRevest:Reliefisrequested fromexamining 100%oftheCode-required volumeofclosurehead-to-flange weld2-CHC-01intheRPV.Licensee's ProosedAlternative Examination:

None.TheLicenseestatesthatthesubjectweldwillreceivea96%volumetric examination andthefull.Code-required surfaceexamination.

Licensee's BasisforReuestinaRelief:TheLicenseestatesthatapproximately 4%oftheweldcannotbeexaminedultrasonically duetophysicalinterference withthethreeclosureheadliftin9lugs.Evaluation:

TheLicensee's submittal hasbeenreviewed, including thedrawingwhichshowstheexamination limitations.

Thevolumetric examination ofthesubjectweld,totheextentrequiredbytheCode,isimpractical becauseofthelocationoftheclosureheadliftinglugswithrespecttotheweld.Asignificant percentage (96%)oftheinservice volumetric examination, asrequiredbytheCode,willbeperformed.

Failuretoperforma100%inservice examination ofthisweld7

~Q/7Ip1Al4 lI'willnotsignificantly affectassurance ofstructural integrity.

==

Conclusions:==

Basedontheaboveevaluation, itisconcluded thatthefullSectionXIsurfaceexamination andthelimitedSectionXIvolumetric examination ofthesubjectweldensuresanacceptable l'evelofinservice structural integrity andthatcompliance withthespecificrequirements ofSectionXIwouldresultinhardshiporunusualdifficulties withoutacompensating increase'inthelevelofqualityandsafety.Therefore, itisrecommended thatreliefbegrantedas-requested.

3.1.2.1ReuestforRelief3Examination CateorB-DItem83.110PressureRetaininNozzle-to-Vessel WeldsinthePressurizer 0CodeReuirement:

SectionXI,TableIWB-2500-1, Examination CategoryB-O,ItemB3.110requiresa100%volumetric examination ofallnozzle-to-vessel weldsinthepressurizer asdefinedbyFigureIWB-2500-7.

icensee's CodeReliefRevest:Reliefisrequested fromperforming theCode-required volumetric examination fromonthe'weldsurfaceandfromthenozzlesideoftheweld(14"surgenozzle-to-lower headweld2-RC-21).

icensee's ProosedAlternative Examination:

TheLicensee, statesthat,inlieuoftherequirements ofSectionXI,theCode-required full-veeultrasonic examination willbeperformed fromthevesselsideonly,andasupplemental surfaceexamination willbeperformed.

Thispropo'sed alternative examination wasusedinthefirst10-yearinterval.

Ouringthesecond10-yearinterval, thepressurizer will PrpCI' receiveareactorcoolantsystemleakagetestandVT-2visualexamination eachrefueling outage,andareactorcoolantsystemhydrostatic testand'T-2visualexamination onceduringtheinterval.

Theseexaminations willbeconducted pertherequirements ofASHESectionXI,Examination CategoryB-P.icensee's BasisforRuestinRelief:TheLicenseestatesthatinterference withthenozzlebl.endradiuspreventscontactoftheultrasonic searchunit.Basedontheaboveandtheavailability oftheReactorCoolantSystemLeakageDetection System,theLicenseestatesthattheoveralllevelofplantsafetywillnotbereducedbyperforming theproposedalternative examination.

5~~Evaluation:

TheLicensee's submittal hasbeenreviewed, including thesketchofthepressurizer surgenozzle.Becausethenozzleblendradiuspreventspropercontactofthetransducer onthenozzlesideoftheweldandontheweldcrown,thevolumetric examination ofthesubjectweld,totheextentrequiredbytheCode,isimpractical.

Atleast505oftheCode-required volumeofthesubjectweldwillbeexamined.

==

Conclusions:==

Basedontheaboveevaluation, itisconcluded thatthepartialSectionXIvolumetric examination andthesupplemental surfaceexamination, alongwiththevisualexaminations, ensureanacceptable levelofinservice structural integrity andthatcompliance withthespecificrequirements ofSectionXIwouldresultinhardship'r unusualdifficulties withoutacompensating increaseinthelevelofqualityandsafety.Therefore, itisrecommended thatreliefbegrantedasrequested.

3.1.3HeatExchanoers andSteamGenerators (Noreliefrequests) 3.1.4PiincPressureBoundar(Noreliefrequests) 0I!"f 3.1.5PumPressureBoundar3.1.5.1ReuestforRelief4Examination CateorisB--1B--2and-G-ReactorCoolantPumCasinWeldPumCasinnternalSurfaceandPumFlaneSurfaceCodeReuirement:

SectionXI,TableIWB-2500-1, Examination CategoryB-L-l,ItemB12.10requiresa100%volumetric examination ofthepressureretaining pumpcasingweldsasdefinedbyFigureIWB-2500-16.

SectionXI,TableIWB-2500-1, Examination CategoryB-L-2,ItemB12.20requiresa100%visual(VT-3)examination oftheinternalsurfacesofClass1pumpcasings.SectionXI,TableIWB-2500-1, Examination CategoryB-G-1,ItemB6.190requiresa100%visual(VT-1)examination oftheflangesurfacesofClass1pumpswhenconnection isdisassembled.

Examination includes1inchannularsurfaceofflangesurrounding eachstud.Licensee's CodeReliefReuest:Reliefisrequested fromperforming theCode-required volumetric examination ofpumpcasingweld1-RCPandfromperforming theCode-required visualexaminations oftheinternalsurfacesofthepu..pcasingsandthesurfacesofthepumpflanges.icensee's Proo'dAlternative xamination:

TheLicenseestatesthat,inlieuoftherequirements ofSectionXIforcategories B-L-1andB-L-2,avisualexamination (VT-2)willbeperformed ontheexternalsurfacesofonepumpduringthehydrostatic pressuretests.Inaddition, asurfaceexamination willbeperformed onthispumpontheaccessible externalsurfaceoftheweld.Ifapumphastobedisassembled formairtenance, visualexaminations willbemadeoftheinternal10 14surfaces(VT-3)andtheflangesurface(VT-1)tosatisfythe8-L-2andB-G-1Coderequirements.

TheLicenseestatesthattheneedforthevolumetric examination according totheB-L-1requirement willbereevaluated atthattime.icensee's BasisforReuestinRelief:TheLicenseestatesthatthesubstantial radiation exposurethatinspection personnel willincurandthesubstantial costsinvolveddonotjustifythepossibleinformation thatmightbe,gainedabouttheweldandadjacentbasemetal.ThepumpcasingismadefromASHESA-351,GradeCF-SN,acastaustenitic stainless steelthathasalonghistoryofsatisfactory serviceinhandlingfluids.Thecasingwasmadeintwosectionstofacilitate thecastingprocess,andthetwoJsections.

arewe.'tdedtogetherwithamatchingfillermaterial.

Thematerialhasgoodfracturetoughness, andunlikeferriticsteels,isnotsubjecttofractureprevention criteria.

Volumetric andinternalcasingvisualexamination willrequirecompletedisassembly ofthepump.Disassembly ofthepump,storageoftheinternals, andplacement offilmforthemanyradiographic exposures thatwillberequired, willexposepersonnel tosubstantial radiation.

Fromexperience atothernuclearplantsexamining reactorcoolantpumps,personnel exposurecouldbeintherangebetween35to100man-rem.Flushingorshielding wouldnotbeexpectedtosignificantly reduceradiation levels.Basedoncostsincurredbyothernuclearplants,thispumpexamination isestimated tocostabout5500,000, whichdoesnotincludecostsassociated withunitunavailability shouldthisexamination requireextending anoutage.TheCode-".equiredexamination willrequiredisassembly o,apumpunderadverseconditions wherethereisapossibility ofcausingdamagetothepumpinternals.

Thereisnootlerreasontodisassemble anyofthesepumpsotherthantoperformthese11 pIIJ examinations.

Thisexamination willalsorequirehandlingthereactorvesselupperinternalassemblyanadditional time,astheupperinternals willhavetobeputbackintothereactorvesseltominimizeairborneradiation duringthepumpexamination.

Basedontheforegoing, andthefactthatCodereliefwasgrantedfortheD.C.Cookreactorcoolantpumpsforthefirstinterval; aswassimilarly grantedforreactor.'oolant pumpsinothernuclearplants,theLicenseebelievesthattheradiation exposureandcostsforthisexamination donotjustifyperforming thevolumetric andvisualexaminations tomeettherequirements ofCategories B-L-I,B-L-2,and.B-G-I.Evaluation:

Thevisualexamination istodetermine whetherunanticipated severedegradation ofthecasingisoccurring duetophenomena suchaserosion,corrosion, orcracking.

However,previousexperience duringexamination ofpumpsatotherplantshasnotshownanysignificant degradation ofpumpcasings.Theconceptofvisualexamination ifthepumpisdisassembled formaintenance isacceptable.

Ifthepumpisdisassembled formaintenance, theCode-required volumetric examination ofthepumpcasingweldshouldalsobeperformed.

Thedisassembly ofthepumpssolelyforthepurposeofinspection isamajoreffortand,inadditiontothepossibility ofadditional wearordamagetotheinternalsurfacesofthepumps,couldresultinlargeamountsofradiation exposuretopersonnel.

However,ifoneof,thepumpsisdisassembled formaintenance, thecasingweld,internalsurfaces, andflangesurfacewouldbeexamined, inwhichcasereliefwouldnotberequiredforthatparticular pump.~Conclusions:

Basedon,theaboveevaluation, itisconcluded thatcompliance withthespecificrequirements ofSectionXIwouldresultinhardshiporunusualdifficulties withoutacompensating increaseinthelevelofqualityandsafety.Therefore, itisrecommended that:(a)TheLicensee's proposal12 IC'Eg toperformthevisualexamination oftheinternalsurfaces(VT-3)andtheflangesurface(VT-1)ofthepumps,whenevertheyaremadeaccessible duetodisassembly formaintenance, shouldbeaccepted, providedthattheCode-required volumetric examination ofthepumpcasingweldisalsoperformed; and(b)Reliefshouldbegrantedattheendoftheintervalifoneofthesubjectpumps,forwhichthevisualandvolumetric examinations arerequired, hasnotbeendisassembled formaintenance.

'.1.6ValvePressureBoundar(Noreliefrequests) 3.1.7General(Noreliefrequests)

,3.2Class2Comonents3.2.1PressureVessels(Noreliefrequests) 3.2.2~Piin3.2.2.1ReuestforRelief5Examination CateaorC-FItemC5.21Class2Pie-to-Flued HeadMeldsCodeReuirement:

SectionXI,TableIWC-2500-1, Examination CategoryC-F,ItemC5.21requiresa100%surfaceandvolumetric examination ofthepressureretaining circumferential weldsinClass2piping,greaterthanI/2inchnominalwallthickness, asdefinedbyFigureIMC-2500-7.

icensee's CodeReliefReues:Reliefisrequested fromperforming theCode-required surfaceandvolumetric examination ofpipe-to-flued headweld16SintheFeedwater Systemandfluedhead-to-pipe weld13FintheHainSteamSystem.Licensee's ProposedAlternative Examination:

TheLicensee,.

statesthat,inlieuoftherequirements ofSectionXI,the,13 firstaccessible weldoutsideeachpenetration willbeexaminedwiththeCode-required surfaceandvolumetric examinations.

Thisproposedalternative examination wasusedinthefirst10-yearinterval.

icensee's BasisforRevestiRelief:TheLicenseestatesthatthesubjectweldsaretotallyenclosedwithinapenetration sleeve,andareinaccessible forexamination.

Sincetheinaccessible pipe-to-flued headweldthickness issubstantially heavierthantheproposedalternative weldtobeexaminedandtheyareexposedtothesameenvironment, theoveralllevelofplantsafetywillnotbereducedbyperforming thealternative examination.

Evaluation:

TheLicensee's submittal hasbeenreviewed, including thedrawingwhichshowstheexamination obstructions.

TheCode-required surfaceandvolumetric examinations ofthesubjectweldsareimpractical becausetheseweldsarelocatedin'sidecontainment penetrations andarecompletely inaccessible.

Becausethefirstaccessible weldoutsideeachpenetration willreceivetheCode-required surfaceandvolumetric examinations, samplesizeismaintained.

Thesubjectweldscanonlybeexaminedbyinspecting forevidenceofleakageduringsystemhydrostatic tests.Althoughthesecontainment penetration weldscannotbevieweddirectly, theLicenseeshouldconductvisualexaminations forevidenceofleakageinthevicinityoftheseweldswhenthehydrostatic pressuretestsareperformed.

==

Conclusions:==

Basedontheaboveevaluation, itisconcluded thattheCode-required surfaceandvolumetric examinations ofthesubjectweldsareimpractical andthatthe.proposedalternative examination ensuresanacceptable levelofinservice structural integrity.

Compliance withthespecificrequirements ofSectionXIwouldresultinhardshiporunusualdifficulties withoutacompensating increaseinthelevelof14

'l~lflo qualityandsafety.Therefore, itisrecommended thatreliefbegrantedasrequested providedthatvisualexaminations areperformed onthetwocontainment penetration assemblies whenleakageandhydrostatic testsareconducted inaccordance withIWA-5000.

3.2.2.2RevestforRelief6xamination CateorC-F.ItemC5.Class2Pie-to-Flued HeadWeldsCodeReuirement:

SectionXI,TableIWC-2500-1, Examination CategoryC-F,ItemC5.21requiresa100%surfaceandvolumetric examination ofthepressureretaining circumferential weldsinClass2piping,greaterthanI/2inchnominalwallthickness, asdefinedbyFigureIWC-2500-7.

icensee's CodeReliefReuest:Reliefisrequested fromperforming theCode-required surfaceandvolumetric examinations ofpipe-to-flued headweld11FintheHainSteamSystem.icensee's ProosedAlternative Examination:

TheLicenseestatesthat,inlieuoftherequirements ofSectionXI,oneadjacentweldinonemainsteamlinewillbeexaminedwiththeCode-required surfaceandvolumetric examinations.

Thisproposedalternative examination wasusedinthefirst10-yearinterval.

icensee's BasisforReuestinRelief:TheLicenseestatesthatthesubjectweldisinaccessible duetothelargepipewhiprestraint whichsurrounds theweldandadjacentarea.Volumetric examination byultrasonics isimpractical becausetheweldcannotbereachedforpositioning andhandlingthetransducer, andradiography isimpractical becausetheexposurewouldhavetobemadethroughtherestraint.

Surfaceexamination isimpractical becausetheweldisnotreadilyaccessible forapplication andremovalofpenetrant or manipulation ofmagneticparticleequipment.

Removalofthepipewhiprestraints wouldrequiretorchcutting2400and2700-lbsectionsthataresupported fromabove.Theservicecondi.tions towhichanadjacentweldisexposedshouldbenearlyidentical tothatoftheinaccessible weld,andthustheoveralllevelofplantsafetywillnotbereducedbyperforming theproposedalternative examination.

evaluation:

TheLicensee's submittal hasbeenreviewed, including thedrawingwhichshowstheexamination obstructions.

TheCode-required surfaceandvolumetric examinations ofthesubjectweldareimpractical becausethisweld(andadjacentarea)issurrounded byalargewhiprestraint andiscompletely inaccessible.

BecauseanadjacentweldwillreceivetheCode-required surfaceandvolumetric examinations, samplesizeismaintained.

Thesubjectweldcanbeexaminedonlybyinspecting forevidenceofleakageduringsystemhydrostatic tests.Althoughthiscontainment penetration weldcannotbevieweddirectly, theLicenseecouldconductvisualexaminations forevidenceofleakageinthevicinityofthisweldwhenthehydrostatic pressuretestsareperformed.

Conclusions; Basedontheaboveevaluation, itisconcluded thattheCode-required surfaceandvolumetric examinations ofthesubjectweldareimpractical andthattheproposedalternative examination ensuresanacceptable levelofinservice structural integrity.

Compliance withthespecificrequirements of'Section XIwouldresultinhardshiporunusual,difficulties withoutacompensating increaseinthelevelofqualityandsafety.Therefore, itisrecommended thatreliefbegrantedasrequested providedthatvisualexaminations forevidenceofleakageareperformed inthevicinityofthecoveredweldwhentheCode-required leakageandhydrostatic testsareconducted.

]6 3.2.3~Pums(Noreliefrequests) 3.2'Valves(Noreliefrequests) 3.2.5General(Noreliefrequests) 3.3Class3Comonents(Noreliefrequests) 3.4PressureTests3.4.1ClassSstemPressureTests3.4.1.1ReuestforReliefP2Part1of2SstemHdrostatic TestofClass1PiinintheChemicalandVolumeControlSstemNOTE:Seetheevaluation ofthisrequestforreliefinSection3.4.4.1.3.4.1.2ReuestforReliefP4SstemHdrostatic TestofClass1PiinintheEmerencCoreCoolinSstemCodeReuirement:

SectionXI,ArticleIWB-5000requiresthat,foranoperating pressureof2235psig,theClass1pipingbetestedatapressureof2458psig.icensee's CodeReliefRevest:Reliefisrequested fromperforming theCode-required hydrostatic testofthefollowing Class1pipingsectionsintheEmergency CoreCoolingSystemattherequiredtestpressureof2458psig:ValvesIH0-51,ValvesIH0-52,ValvesIH0-53,ValvesIH0-54,SI-142L1-BoronInjection SI-142L2-BoronInjection SI-142L3-BoronInjection SI-142L4-BoronInjection LoopNo.1LoopNo.2LoopNo.3LoopNo.417 4glII.

icensee's ProosedAlternative Examination:

TheLicenseestatesthatthesubjectsectionsofpipingwillbetestedatapressureof2280psig.Thetestwillbeperformed duringNode3withtheRCSpressureat2280psigandtemperature greaterthanorequalto500'F.TheRCSpressurewillbeusedtoblockcheckvalvesSI-142LIthroughL4closed;therefore, maximumpressurewillbe2280psig.icensee's asisforReuetinR1f:TheLicenseestatesthatthesectionsofthepipingsystemupstreamofcheckvalvesSI-142LIthroughL4cannotbetestedatapressureof2458psigwithoutmakingtemporary modifications (blocking thevalvedisc)tokeepthecheckvalvesclosed.Sincethepipingsectionsarepartoftheprimarysystem,plantpersonnel willbesubjected tosubstantial radiation exposureandc'ontamination inordertocarryoutsuchmodifications forthetest.Theproposedtestpressureishigherthanthe2235psignominaloperating pressureinthesubjectsectionsofpiping,eachapproximately 44to55feetlong.Evaluation:

Becausethesystem'sdesigndoesnotpermitpressurizing thesectionsofpipingtotheCode-required pressurewithoutextensive temporary valvemodifications, theCodetestpressurerequirement isimpractical.

Thevisualinspection ofthepiping-duringthepressuretestaswellasthevolumetric examination requirements forselectedweldsinthesystemwillprovideadequateassurance ofthecontinued structural integrity ofthepiping.Thedifference intherequiredtestpressureandthatproposedbytheLicenseedoesnotwarrantimposition oftheCoderequirement.

==

Conclusions:==

Basedontheaboveevaluation, itisconcluded thattheCoderequirements areimpractical andthatthealternative testproposedbytheLicensee, inconjunction withtheotherNOErequirements, willensureanacceptable levelofinservice structural integrity.

Compliance withthespecific18

'lIr requirements ofSectionXIwouldresultinhardshiporunusualdifficulties withoutacompensating increaseinthelevelofqualityandsafety.Therefore, itisrecommended thatreliefbegrantedasrequested.

3;4.2ClassSstemPressureTests3.4.2.1ReuestforReliefPlSstemHdrostatic TetofClass2PiinintheEmerencCoreColinSternCodeReuirement:

SectionXI,ArticleIWC-5000requiresthat,forasystemdesignpressureof2485psig,theClass2pipingbetestedatapressureof2733psig.Licensee's CodeReliefReuest:Reliefisrequested fromperforming theCode-required hydrostatic testofthefollowing Class2pipingsectionsintheEmergency CoreCoolingSystemattherequiredtestpressureof2733psig:(a)Accumulator No.1Discharge Piping-ValvesIM0-110,SI-166-1, IRV-155,andSI-168-1;(b)Accumulator No.2Discharge Piping-ValvesIM0-120,SI-166-2, IRV-165,andSI-168-2; (c)Accumulator No.3Discharge Piping-ValvesIM0-130,SI-166-3, IRV-175,andSI-168-3; and(d)Accumulator No.4Discharge Piping-ValvesIH0-140,SI-166-4, IRV-185,andSI-168-4.

icensee's ProosedAlternative Examination:

TheLicenseestatesthatthesubjectsectionsofpipingwillbetestedatapressureof2280psig.Thetestwillbeperformed duringMode3withtheRCSpressureat2280psigandtemperature greater'han orequalto500'F.TheRCSpressurewillbeusedtoblockthecheckvalves(SI-166-1,

-2,-3,and-4)closed,therefore, limitingmaximumpressureto2280psig.19 FFFFFC~D icensee's BasisforReuestinRelief:TheLicenseestatesthatthesectionofpipingupstreamofcheckvalvesSI-166-1through4cannotbetestedatapressureof2733psigwithoutmakingextensive temporary modifications tokeepthevalves.closed.Themodifications wouldrequire:(a)disassembly ofthevalves,(b)weldingoftemporary blocks(onthedownstream side)insidethevalvebodiestoholda"jackscrew"typearrangement tokeepthevalveclosed,(c)removalofthetemporary blockingdevicesfromthevalvesaftertesting,and(d)performing necessary nondestructive testingtoensuretheintegrity ofthevalvebodiesbeforereturning themteservice.Thepipingdownstream ofth'esevalvesispart'ofth'RHRSystemandcarriesradioactive fluidduringnormaloperation.

Therefore, plantpersonnel willbesubjected tosubstantial radiation exposureandradioactive contamination inordertocarryoutanymodifications forthetest.Evaluation:

Thesystem'sdesigndoesnotpermitpressurizing thesectionsofpipingtotheCode-required pressurewithouteitherextensive temporary valvemodifications oroverpressurizing theClassIsectionsofconnected piping.Becauseofthis,thetestpressurerequirement isimpractical toattain.Thesectionsofpipingwillbesubjected toapressureslightlyhigherthannormaloperating pressureandatatemperature higherthanthatrequiredbytheCode.Thevisualinspection ofthepipingduringthepressuretestaswellasthevolumetric examination requirements forselectedweldsinthesystemwillprovideadequateassurance of-thecontinued structural integrity ofthepiping.Conclusions:

Basedontheaboveevaluation, itisconcluded thattheCoderequirements areimpractical and'thatthealternative testproposedbytheLicensee, inconjunction withtheotherNDErequirements, willensureanacceptable levelofinservice structural integrity.

Compliance withthespecific20 CI'pt4i requirements ofSectionXIwouldresultinhardshiporunusualdifficulties withoutacompensating increaseinthelevelofqualityandsafety.Therefore, itisrecommended thatreliefbegrantedasrequested.

3.4.2.2RevestforReliefP2Par2fSstemHdrostatic TestofClassPiinintheChemicalandVolumeControlSstemNOTE:Seetheevaluation ofthisrequestforreliefin'ection3.4.4.1.3.4.2.3ReuestforReliefP3SstemHdrostatic TestofClass2PiinintheChemicalandVolumeControlSstemCodeReuirement:

SectionXI,ArticleIWC-5000requiresthat,foradesignpressureof2485psig,theClass2pipingbehydrostatically pressuretestedatapressureof3106psig.Licensee's CodeReliefRevest:Reliefisrequested fromperforming theCode-required hydrostatic pressuretestoftheLetdownLines(ValvesQRV-112,QRV-160,QRV-161,andQRV-162)intheChemicalandVolumeControlSystem(ReactorLetdownandCharging) attherequiredtestpressureof3106psig.icensee's ProosedAlternative Examination:

TheLicenseestatesthatthesubjectsectionofpipingwillbetestedatapressureof2280psigduringHode3usingRCSpressure.

Valve'sQRV-111andQRV-112willbeopenedwithQRV-160,QRV-161,andQRV-162closed.Licensee's BasisforReouestina Relief:TheLicenseestatesthatthesubjectsectionofpipingcannotbetestedatapressureof,3106psigwithout(a)usingaspareone-inchpluggedconnection inUnit1pipinglocateddownstream ofinstrument QTA-160intheregenerative heatexchanger room,21 whichisconsidered ahighradiation area,and(b)modification, sincenotestconnection existsinUnit2piping.Thispipingcarriesradioactive fluidduringnormaloperation; therefore, plantpersonnel willbesubjecttosubstantial radiation exposureandcontamination inordertomodify/add atestconnection.

Asanalternative, extending thetestboundarytogCR-301wasconsidered.

ThiswouldinvolveusinggPX-301locatedonthedownstream pipingoutsidetheregenerative heatexchanger roomasatestconnection.

Thisalternative wasalsorejectedbecausevalvegCR-301andtheflangeboltedtotheinletflangeofsafetyvalveSV-051areinthe600-lbclasswhichcannotwithstand theabovetestpressure.

evaluation:

Thesystem'sdesigndidnotincludeatestconnection toallowpressurizing totheCodetestpressureorpipingandvalvesratedappropriately toaccommodate therequiredpressureatotherisolation pointsinthesystem.InordertocomplywiththeCoderequirement, theLicenseewouldhavetoinstallatestconnection oroverpressurize lowerratedpipingandcomponents.

Therefore, theCoderequirement isimpractical.

TheLicensee's proposedalternative testwillsubjectthepipingtoapressureslightlyhigherthannormaloperating pressure.

Therequiredvisualinspection ofthepipingatthetestpressureandotherrequiredNDEoftheweldsinthesystemwillprovideadequateassurance ofthecontinued

'structural integrity ofthepiping.Conclusions:

Basedontheaboveevaluation, itisconcluded thattheCoderequirements areimpractical andthatthealternative testproposedbytheLicensee, inconjunction withtheotherNOErequirements, willensureanacceptable levelofinservice structural integrity.

Compliance withthespecificrequirements ofSectionXIwouldresultinhardshiporunusualdifficulties withoutacompensating increaseinthelevelofqualityandsafety.Therefore, itisrecommended thatreliefbegrantedasrequested.

22 Ot1"I'yfRe 3.4.2..4RevestforReliefP5SstemHdrostatic TestofClass2iininthAuxiliarratatorCoolantSsemandressurizer andChe'mical andVolumeControlSstem~di":ItlIl,ttl1III.A>>foradesignpressureof2735psig,theClass2pipingbetestedatapressureof3419psig.icensee's CodeRelief'ue:Reliefisrequested fromperforming theCode-required hydrostatic pressuretestoftheClass2pipingsectionsdescribed bythefollowing pipingboundaries attherequiredtestpressureof3419psig:ValvesQRV-51CS-326ValvesQRV-61CS-322ValvesQRV-62icensee's ProosedAlternative xamination:

TheLicenseestatesthatthesubjectsectionsofpipingwillbetestedatapressureof2800psigusinga"stemblock"tokeepvalveQRV-51closed.icensee's BasisforReuestinRelief:TheLicenseestatesthat,inordertoperformthepressuretestofthesesectionsofpiping,valveQRV-51hastobeusedasanisolation valve.Thisl500-lbclass,air-operated controlvalveisdesignedtowithstand testpressureof3419psigintheopenposition.

However,itcannotbeusedasanisolation valvebecauseitwasdesignedforadifferential pressureofl200psig.Thevalvecannotbekeptclosedduringpressuretestingat3419psigwithoutextensive, temporary rigging.Themodification wouldrequire:(a)removaloftheairoperatorandinstallation ofa"strongback"tokeepthevalveclosedduringtesting,(b)removalofthe"strongback"afterthetesting,and(c)reinstallation oftheairoperatoronthevalveandrestoring thevalvetooperablecondition beforereturning toservice.Thevalveislocatedinsidethe23 l'r't regenerative heatexchanger room,whichisaveryhighradiation areaandplantpersonnel wouldbesubjected toradiation exposureoffivetosevenman-rems.

Asanalternative, thepossibility ofusingafreezesealplugdownstream ofHARV-51wasconsidered.

Thiswouldinvolveextensive workingtimeclosetothepressurizer sprayvalves,whichareinahighradiation area.Thisalternative wasrejected.

becauseplantpersonnel wouldbesubjecttoanevenhigherradiation exposureofBa5man-remsduringformation, monitoring, andremovalofthefreezesealplug.~va1oation:

TheabovepipingsystemcannotbetestedtoASHECoderequirements withoutmodifying thesystemand/orexposingpersonnel tolargeamountsofradiation.

Theproposedtestpressureishigherthanthenormaloperating pressureof2235psigintheapproximately 30-foot-long sectionofpipingforwhichCodereliefisrequested.

Theproposedtestpressureis25%abovethenormaloperating pressure.

Thus,thetestprovidesreasonable assurance oftheintegrity ofthepiping.Conclusions:

Basedontheaboveevaluation, itisconcluded thattheCoderequirements areimpractical andthatthealternative testproposedbytheLicensee, inconjunction withtheotherNDErequirements, willensureanacceptable levelofinservice structural integrity.

Compliance withthespecificrequirements ofSectionXIwouldresultinhardshiporunusualdifficulties withoutacompensating increaseinthelevelofqualityandsafety.Therefore, itisrecommended thatreliefbegrantedasrequested.

3.4.3Class3SstemPressureTests(Noreliefrequests) 24 p'

3.4.4General3.4.4.1RevestforReliefP2SstemHdrostatic TestofClass1and2PiininthehemicalandVolumontr1SstemCodeReuirement:

SectionXI,ArticleIWB-5000requiresthat,foranoperating pressureof2235psig,theClassIpipingbetestedatapressureof2458psig.SectionXI,ArticleIWC-5000requiresthat,foradesignpressureof2735psig,theClass2pipingbetestedatapressureof3419psig.Licensee's CodeReliefReues:Reliefisrequested fromperforming theCode-required hydrostatic testofthefollowing ClassIand2pipingsectionsintheChemicalandVolumeControlSystem(ReactorLetdownandCharging) attheCode-required testpressures of2458and3419psig:'a)ClassIpiping:Two-inchAuxiliary SprayPiping-ValvesHARV-5landCS-325;(b)Class2piping:NormalChargingLoop4ColdLeg-ValvesgRV-62,CS-328L4, CS-326,andCS-327;(c)Class2piping:Alternate ChargingLinetoLoopIColdLeg-ValvesHARV-61andCS-328Ll.

Licensee's ProosedAlternative Examination:

TheLicenseestatesthatthesubjectsectionsofpipingwillbetestedatapressureof2280psigatatemperature above100'F.Thetestwillbeperformed duringMode3withtheReactorCoolantSystem(RCS)pressure.

at2280psigandtemperature greaterthanorequalto500'F.TheRCSpressurewillbeusedtoblockthecheckvalvesCS-329Ll, CS-329L4, andCS-325closed;therefore, maximumpressurewillbe2280psig.25 M.y icensee's BasisforReuestinRelief:TheLicenseestatesthatcheckvalvesCS-328L1, CS-328L4, andCS-325arelocatedonthecharginglinestotheRCSSystem.Thesevalvesmustbedisassembled andtemporarily modifiedtoblockthemclosedinordertoperformtherequiredhydrostatic tests,andplantpersonnel willbeexposedtohighradiation andradioactive contamination duringthemodification.

Theproposedtestpressureishigherthan2235psignominaloperating pressureinthesectionofpipingbetween23and115feetlongforwhichreliefisrequested.

/valuation:

Thesystem'sdesigndoesnotpermitpressurizing thesectionsofpipingtotheCode-required pressurewithouteitherextensive temporary valvemodifications oroverpressurizing theClass1sectionsofconnected piping.Becauseofthis,theCode-required testpressureisimpractical toattain.Thesectionsofpipingwillbesubjected toapressureslightlyhigherthannormaloperating pressureandatatemperature higherthanthatrequiredbytheCode.Thevisualinspection ofthepipingduringthepressuretest,aswellasthevolumetric examination requirements forselectedweldsinthesystems,willprovideadequateassurance ofthecontinued structural integrity ofthepiping.Conclusions:

Basedontheaboveevaluation, itisconcluded thattheCoderequirements areimpractical andthatthealternative testproposedbytheLicensee, inconjunction withtheotherNDErequirements, willensureanacceptable levelofinservice structural integrity.

Compliance withthespecificrequirements ofSectionXIwouldresultinhardshiporunusualdifficulties withoutacompensating increaseinthelevelofqualityandsafety.Therefore, itisrecommended thatreliefbegrantedasrequested.

3.5Genera1(Noreliefrequests) 26 C'p) 4.CONCLUSION Pursuantto10CFR50.55a(g)(6),

ithasbeendetermined thatcertainSectionXIrequiredinservice examinations areimpractical toperform.Inthesecases,theLicenseehasdemonstrated thateitherthe'proposed alternatives wouldprovideanacceptable levelofqualityandsafetyorthatcompliance withtherequirements wouldresultinhardships orunusualdifficulties withoutacompensating increaseinthelevelofqualityandsafety.Thistechnical evaluation reporthasnotidentified anypractical methodbywhichtheexistingDonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Unit2,canmeetallthe.specific inservice inspection requirements ofSectionXIoftheASIDECode.Requiring compliance withalltheexactSectionXIrequiredinspections wouldrequireredesignofasignificant numberofpl.antsystems,sufficient replacement components tobeobtained, installation ofthenewcomponents, andabaselineexamination oftheseromponents.

Evenaftertheredesignefforts,completecompliance withtheSectionXIexamination requirements probablycouldnotbeachieved.

Therefore, itisconcluded thatthepublicinterestisnotservedbyimposingcertainprovisions ofSectionXIoftheASIDECodethathavebeendetermined tobeimpractical.

Pursuantto10CFR50.55a(g)(6),

reliefisallowedfromtheserequirements whichareimpractical toimplement.

Thedevelopment ofneworimprovedexamination techniques willcontinuetobemonitored.

Asimprovements intheseareasareachieved, theNRCmayrequirethatthesetechniques beincorporated inthenextinspection intervalISIprogramplanexamination requirements.

BasedonthereviewoftheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Unit2,Second10-YearIntervalInservice Inspection ProgramPlan,Change1,datedDecember1985,theLicensee's responses totheNRC'sRequestforAdditional Information, andtherecommendations forgrantingrelieffromtheISIexamination requirements thathavebeendetermined tobeimpractical, ithasbeenconcluded thattheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Unit2,Second10-YearIntervalInservice Inspection ProgramPlan,Change1,datedDecember1985,isacceptable andincompliance with10CFR50.55a(o)(4).

27

'40 5.REFERENCES 1.CodeofFederalRegulations, Volume10,Part50.2.AmericanSocietyofMechanical Engineers BoilerandPressureVesselCode,SectionXI,Division1:1983EditionthroughSummer1983Addenda1974EditionthroughSummer1975Addenda3.DonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Unit2,Second10-YearIntervalInservice Inspection ProgramPlan,Change1,datedDecember1985.4.NUREG-0800, StandardReviewPlans,Section5.2.4,"ReactorCoolantBoundaryInservice Inspection andTesting,"

andSection6.6,"Inservice Inspection ofClass2and3Components,"

July1981.5.Letter,February2,1987,B.J.Youngblood (NRC)toJ.E.Dolan[IndianaandMichiganElectricCompany(IMEC)],"RequestforAdditional Information forReviewoftheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Units1and2,Second10-YearIntervalInservice Inspection ProgramPlans,Change1,datedDecember1985."6.Letter,April10,1987,M.P.Alexich(IHEC)toH.R.Denton(NRC),"Response toRequestforAdditional Information ontheISISecond10-YearIntervalWeldProgramfortheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Units1and2."7.Letter,June1,1987,H.P.Alexich'(IHEC)toT.E.Murley(NRC),"Response toRequestforAdditional Information ontheISISecord10-YearIntervalWeldProgramfortheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Units1and2."8..Letter,January15,1986,B;J.Youngblood (NRC)toJ.E.Dolan(IMEC),"NRCApprovalforIndianaandMichiganElectricCompanytoUseASHECodeSectionXI,1983EditionwithSummer1983AddendafortheISI/ISTProgramfortheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Units1and2."28

'a~

9.Regulatory Guide1.150,"Ultrasonic TestingofReactorVesselWeldsDuringPreservice andInservice Examinations,"

Revision1,datedFebruary1983.10.Regulatory Guide1.14,"ReactorCoolantPumpFlywheelIntegrity,"

Revision1,datedAugust1975.29 gt RRCfQRM~IK54IRRCMIIQT,STOI.544$uxRUCLuaRKOULATQRV CQMMISSIOII BIBUOGRAPHIC DATASHEETIRKAORTVUMKKRIAf>>RMAAfTIDC.AAAVAIIVA.HAATIEGG-SD-7798 5!tIVSTRUCTIOVS QVT>>tRKVKR5tT.TITLK*VDSslKTITLK Technical Evaluation ReportontheSecond10-YearIntervalInservice Inspection ProgramPlan:IndianaandMichiganElectricCo.,DonaldC.CookNuclearPlant,Unit2,DocketNumber50-316AUT>>OR1$1$.LtAVKKLAIIIITEARMORI>>1988July~QATKRKAORTISSUKD~OATSRKTQATCOMALKTKO B.W.Brown,J.D.MudlinT4KR1ORMIVOOROAVIZATIOV IIAMKAVOMAILIIIOAODR$55IIAf~CQCAfflEGEGIdaho,Inc.P.0.Box1625IdahoFalls,ID83415-2209 MOIIT>>July4MOIKCT/TASICVTORA UIIITIIUMKKR~fIIIQROIIAM'IRUMKKRVKAR1988IO5fOhSORIVO ORCAVIS*TIOVIMAM5AIIOMAILINGAQDR$55Il>>IMAfLeCAAIIMaterials Engineering BranchOfficeofNuclearReactorRegulation U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555IT5UffLKMKVTARV VOTKSFIN-D6022 (Project5)11~,TrftOfRKPORTTechnical 4,RKRIODCOVKRKDII>>f>>>>>>fffai1$AKSTRACTQ&>>>>W>>f>>f Thisreportpresentstheresultsoftheevaluation oftheDonaldC.CookNuclearPl'ant,Unit2,Second10-YearIntervalInservice Inspection (ISI)ProgramPlan,Change1,datedDecember1985,including therequestsforrelieffromtheAmericanSocietyofMechanical Engineers (ASME)BoilerandPressureVesselCodeSectionXIrequirements whichtheLicenseehasdetermined tobeimpractical.

InSection2ofthisreport,theISIProgramPlanisevaluated for(a)compliance withtheappropriate edition/addenda.

ofSectionXI,.(b)acceptability oftheexamination sample,(c)exclusion

criteria, and(d)compliance withISI-related commitments identified duringtheNuclearRegulatory Commission's (NRC)previouspreservice inspection (PSI)andISIreviews.TherequestsforrelieffromtheASMECoderequirements whichtheLicenseehasdetermined tobeimpractical forthefirst10-yearinspection intervalareevaluated inSection3ofthisreport.I~QCI'MtvrA>>AL>515~AKTIIOROSIDKSCR fTOA54IQKVTifltASiCAKV.KVQKC TKRM51$AVAILA~<L,T>STATKMKIIT Unlimited

'14SKC"Al~vCLA5$lfICATIQIIUncfassified Iffv>>AA>>iUnclassified 11>>UMKKAC>>AOKS1~~RICK PIJ~ti>4