comanche peak unit 2, revised relief requests b-7, b-8, b ... · docket no. 50-446; relief requests...

fhTXU

TXU EnergyComanche Peak SteamElectric StationP.O. Box 1002 (EO1)Glen Rose, TX 76043Tel: 254 897 8920Faxc 254 897 [email protected]

C. Lance TerrySenior Vice President &Principal Nuclear Officer

Ref: 10 CFR 50.55(a)(g)

CPSES-200300632Log # TXX-03065File # 10010

April 9, 2003

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionATIN: Document Control DeskWashington, DC 20555

SUBJECT: COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES)DOCKET NO. 50-446; RELIEF REQUESTS B-7 Rev. 1, B-8 Rev. 1,B-9 Rev. 1 and C-6 Rev. 1 TO THE UNIT 2 INSERVICE INSPECTION(1S1) FROM 1986 EDITION OF ASME CODE, SECTION XL, NOADDENDA (INTERVAL START DATE: AUGUST 3,1993, FIRSTINTERVAL)

REFERENCE: TXU Energy Letter logged TXX -02122 dated July 11, 2002 fromC. Lance Terry to the NRC

Dear Sir or Madam:

Based on the telephone conversation with your staff, TXU Generation Company LP(hereafter TXU Energy) is revising its relief requests submitted via the abovereferenced letter.

TXU Energy requests approval of the proposed Relief Request by June 29, 2003. Theapproval date was administratively selected to allow for NRC review but the plantdoes not require this relief to allow continued safe full power operations.

This communication contains no new licensing basis commitments regardingComanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) Unit 2.

A member of the STARS (Strategic Tearning and Resource Sharing) Alliance

Callaway * Comanche Peak * Diablo Canyon * Palo Verde * South Texas Project * Wolf Creek

QTXU

TXX-03065 of 2

If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this matter, pleasefeel free to contact Douglas W. Snow at (254) 897-8448.

Sincerely,

TXU Generation Company LP

By: TXU Generation Management Company LLCIts General Partner

C. L. TerrySenior Vice President and Principal Nuclear Officer

By: 1 Z4grdW. Madden

Nuclear Licensing Manager

OAB/dws

Attachments

c - E. W. Merschoff, Region IVW. D. Johnson, Region TVD. H. Jaffe, NRRResident Inspectors, CPSESTerry Parks, Chief Inspector, TDLRJ.C. Hair ANIL CPSES

Attachment 1 to TXX-03065Page 1 of 11

TXU GENERATION COMPANY LPCOMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 2

FIRST TEN-YEAR INTERVAL ISI RELIEF REQUEST NO. B-7 REV 1

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.55a~g)(5)(lil)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

. tSystemrComionent for Which Relief is Requested:

ASME Class I Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) closure head to flange weld (Weld No.TCX-1-1300-1) and RPV closure head to disc weld (Weld No. TCX-1-1300-2)

H. Code Requirement from Which Relief is Reauested:

Comanche Peak Unit 2 is currently required to perform inservice examinations ofselected welds in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a, and the 1986Edition with no Addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of NuclearPower Plant Components. The Code invokes the examination volume requirements ofFigures IWB-2500-3 and IWB-2500-5.

Weld No. TCX-1-1300-1:

Table IWB-2500-1. Examination Category B-A, Code Item B1.40, Figure 1WB-2500-5. The subject weld is a full penetration weld, and requires 100%volumetric and surface examination of the RPV head to flange welds as definedby Figure IWB-2500-5.


Table 1WB-2500-1. Examination Category B-A, Code Item B1.21, Figure 1WB-2500-3. The subject weld is a full penetration weld, and requires 100%volumetric examination of the accessible portion of all circumferential welds, asdefined by Figure IWB-2500-3.

m. Impracticality of Compliance:

The examination coverage is limited by physical interferences from the reactor headflange, shroud, and lifting lugs (refer to the attached sketches on pages 9, 10 and 11).Therefore, pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(g)(5)(iii) relief is requestedfrom performing 100% volumetric examination requirements, Figures IWB-2500-3 andIWB-2500-5.

Attachment I to TXX-03065Page 2 of 11

ThU GENERATION COMPANY LPCOMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 2


PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.55a~g)(5)(lli)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

(Continued)

IV. Burden Caused by Compliance:

The examination coverage is limited by physical interferences from the reactor headflange, shroud, and lifting lugs as indicated via the attached sketches. These conditionsmake 100% examination impractical for these welds. To gain access for examination, theRPV head would require design modification. Imposition of this requirement would be asignificant burden on TXU Energy.

V. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use:

There are no proposed alternatives. TXU ENERGY has examined a significant portion ofthese welds, obtaining approximately 84% of weld TCX-1-1300-2, and 85% of weldTCX-1-1300-1 of the required volumetric examination coverage. Additionally, 100% ofthe required surface examination of weld TCX-I-1300-1 was performed. There were norecordable indications identified by the volumetric examinations or surface examination.

The subject welds were examined to the maximum extent possible (approximately 84%and 85% of examination completed in all cases) and yielded no indications. Based on thehigh percentage of the examination volume completed, and the lack of any reportableindications, there is a high level of confidence in the continued structural integrity of thewelds. There is no anticipated impact upon the overall plant quality and safety, and thegranting of relief should not jeopardize the health and safety of the public.

The CPSES ISI plan requires 13 of each weld be examined each inspection period. Thelimitations of the first two inspection periods have been previously reviewed andapproved under relief request identified in precedents No. 2 and No. 4.

VL Duration of Proposed Alternative:

This relief is requested for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Unit 2, third periodof the first 10-year interval vessel examination.




PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 5055a(g)(5)(fli)-INSERVICE INSPECTION iMPRACTICALITY-

(Continued)

VIL Precedents:

1) TXU Energy letter logged TXX-98170 dated July 22, 1998, NRC response datedJuly 8,1999, reference TAC NO. MA3632.

2) TXU Energy letter logged TXX-95042 dated March 6, 1995. NRC response datedDecember 28, 1995, reference TAC NO. M93333 and M93334.

3) NRC SER dated November 29, 1994, reference TAC NO. M83125.4) TXU Energy letter logged TXX-01110 dated June 22,2001. NRC response dated

October 11, 2001, reference TAC NO. MB1 190.




PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(lii)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

(Continued)

.C I U I

of f Z

0 0~

IfLc

N . , o .%

Oto %%00 t1

.0S

SW * .:g !

.m liae



FIRST TEN-YEAR INTERVAL ISI RELIEF REQUEST NO. B-7 REV 1 I

PROPOSED ALTERNATAIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

(Continued)

Txurwr

- -

ULMITATO EXAMOATN

COMANCHE PEAM

smTcow lLV.qCWM HAD

Ikewm W. !2IM la W.tiu

- _I

on-. OM0 " =1-3

Pm40CEOu TX4S-210 RLEV. 4

LEM. Ut DATE 44642

.&&a= II CATE 46O"

cow04'4W ig

W-& ToE TOPT OUT Liv

PRO= GP1EMT W WOMAMlN To OESCTO 5 U3f UX TCN AM rm Of PITATON.

15% r wo M46W W - rl dmneaOM gEImd *0 iS atd 6W inSt kWanwt0S4Of.I% St Imit oidd ahjtha1@xwudWlSU9 5 kaa asemdEO..

r m - . .

S - ~ .-- -- i

c/I.%U.S%*i

rLaAi.4.6L.r Sr

$9"`iefs1te

Me.tI SC

see t+fud itd * cC pets

I I( L 4ld 1t-,.1




PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(lil)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

(Continued)

' TXUPLANT

SYS7!cow

I EXJ.AINER

!EXAA1AER

SURFACE FXAMIN

COMANCHE PEAK

Reactor Vessel Cksure Head

H Ackerman.-. f/>h

ATIlnN DATA PACE - - I

UNIT , SWEYCH TCX-I-1100 I

PROCEoUR E X XISI.!0 Rc,.6

LEVEL It OATE - 0h 02

LFra It _ %AE M .06-02

MT

C Kiehi ,-11/01-7- - 5A"A-- *

i -

ICLE'At4ER - YOKE I I.S' I: klavnx'j% -h COL N %

EXAMJMEOLIuM Red Ardw% Ine.Tcci

WSUrACE ThERMOMETER T-u.:


TlU GENERATION COMPANY LPCOMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 2


PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR S0.SSa(g)(5)(1ii)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

(Continued)

PDI Calibration Data SheetPlanUUnl Cornanche Peak 12 Date Sheet 8 tJT-22Company pyePage

- 'f ICornp/Syslern RY Clsr ed,_ __ ____,-___ _ _.4Lt ..... .ProcedurL No T):-Sili2o Cheds Tie___Rev'Chnq No Rev 4 nililCait. 14i8 _Cal Blod No TF X-RV-29 n ial Cab. Dale 4-02Cal Block Temp 7x CmoTeimp 120 nterled~ate NIA - _ _Therrn S/4 Tl.2261 _ nterte NIA -Size NLA Sj-'t ' 87 - al -il - -5Ch astnj vianl Cakb. 1a55400LEach Mai or CRT D~iv. - I 06'11, 56' SeackUa # i. SarhDni 5Cl D oCoupnt Manufactume KBF _ _ ___ Marafa-lir_ . KBAScww A'oa I to WMld X Type ULTRAGELU SerialNo 00957J2 25UHz SemIiNo )0954/225 MHzIt toWW-t? X Batch 01225 Size !.Cu_ Shape ROUNID Size D5 x10 Shape REC

Ex3rna ngle o- Model HP Exan Akyl-e Model GAMMAIledable I Measured Al re 4-Access ndlcabtions_ Exam Wedge Style KgA . _ WedgeS /a NLe N -I SNTERiExamnalon AreaMeV Ys Nc Geom | Sens. Search UnitCab earch Unit Cizie5RC- 10- _2SD T|jX Ni ype IFt) tt4 L~ength, 20' Type Lij I r4 t~engtn 20

Interameriate Connectos rs 0I _nstnument Settings lnstrurnlntSetings

- Ma~elisodel KBANUSN 52R MahelModel I(BAlUiN 52F;emnrks Reasons Orr inccmpilet Scan(sl Seeattacrest Senal No SAP '23f2 Serial No SAP lO02ji3zI Ltlation To Erammatir Sheet Examine from Ctl oftstud Dewy t 813 Range 10 F Det 5438 __HRn~eS64hoe1 tutd ik1inlO tjhl50MU t Cat/Vel-:iiiq3O1s Pulser .SINC,IE MUCINJ 1

,0aPuluer SINJGLEiDanping tW05, Reject7OFF Oapng -- -- Reet orvRep Rate HIGH Freq 2-a eMiz Rep Rate HIGH Feq- 2-Mht| I- *--0e6 06A M3de ii'ULIMVt Filter NIA Mode FuLitt.

__xa_-neisN 133ngm _ Refetercen. Ssiy sens) Refe'ence Seneitivrly fSensAxia! $VA ___Ow N/A. Axial 416dB Circ 416dBS - E Date 4-0602 SHDS*iltev`OT- t125t 4- _ D4SersIt-vir N/AReviewer Dale S uelwrher Evaluabon fiequured? Yes

/7 4ll U1i.P Anti




PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.5a(g)(X(ii)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

(Continued)

PDI Calibration Data SheetPlawVURI Coach Peak 12 Date Sheet 1 UT-22A _ . -

Co-an- Iwl~r d Page 2 f 65ComnplSystern RVCItLI'P ead __

procedure No !TXK-21O ick TnRel/Chr) No te rilCtb 12Cal Block No TBX-RV-29 1i 6 CallbDaTe 4_0 _-02 _ _Cal Blocs Tem ___ _ ___ _____Thern S-N TU-2261 Wierdae NA

Size NIA S~. 8r* a aiEach Ua or CRT Div - 2 39 S Uarc bnit 1 Scarch Uii J2Cal DireDtcn Axul Orc Both X Couplant Manifactre. IIBA hanuiactwe 1A. -

ScanTAea I y Well X Type ULrRAGEL II Senal No.: OO9XBL/2 25 MHz Serial No _ NA11 XoWeIi X elch 01225 Size Sx10_ Shape RECT. Size __NrA Shape N/A

, Exam Angie hirModel GAMMA Exam Angle NA Midel NiARec Measured Angli: 0g Measured Angle WA

Acces Inicatrons Exarn Wedge St4e N5WN-ITEGRAL Wedge Stye _ A____sam1nalon $ealWd. Yes | No Gecm Sens Search UnitCable Search UnicrCK-1-l 12 SiDED X NONE 655 Type P-Q!471 Lengt, 2Qt type MA Length * A _

_-- | _ _ -IlnteirmediateConnrtors- O termedkiatbCorinectorf NIA|__| | Instrument Sets Insruent SettingsL MakelModel KBA JSN 52R Mtake.Model NWA

RernarkfReasyo's fim wirnplate Scian(s) e attached Serial No SAP1C2352 Serial No NiA -LnrIlaticnTo IamnatinsheeI Examined fromrC/t ofrStut Delay 8 e25 _ Range 23 Delay N/, Ranqe NAhole 14 lhru Sud tde 1 tc CIL d stud hole S0 Mul CaotVel. .1320W 3 Pulser SINGLE M II CalfVei NA Pulrse NA

Damping 10Co j Rejed CFF Dampng N/A Reiect N'ARep Rate HIGH F-Fte 2Mte Rop Rate N/A freq NA

-_ __-_--_-- Fiter N/A Mode FUWA/E Fitdter NA Lode IsAExaminers Ja4ewl 11 Date 4-06 0' Refeeence SensiKivitY (Sons) Pefeience Sensilvily (Sens)Axial 47EdB Cucc J76 dBt Axial N/A Circ NfAN Bolln5 sortan1, Level 11 __Date 4d0S-02 SHDSensitivitv NrA DHS-ens-tiiy N/A !

Reviewer Dfa1e. j 0,2 Further Evaluation Requirejv Yes N

11if i . 4 uIeir i i. t ft . v N C i : i i

1Vf -


TIXU GENERATION COMPANY LPCOMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 2


PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.S5a(g0)(fii)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

(Continued)

r. - .. -

; II '

tIv,

I

l I

I *-�i�� I- -- I

--- 4 I -- 1

I Iii

II

I j� iLK4 I

I. -. ,I . .-_ i

I, ,i !

I

Ii

..

i ! !I

!

I I L�A i _ ___

I I

I �I --

-�

I rir-

I , .

I- / ___ I

- I.

- I I . II .10r7;,l I

i l,I I i

i .:I --I . I r




PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(fii)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

(Continued)

!RAa Clos od | -

1. i -

�II�L�.-

- --iv--

1- ii -�

I--,- '/ HAL I>I--

- -

I _

I --

I '

I.- i I

J/��_ I�N_

____ �M�- 9)IJA

Attachment I to TXX-03065Page 11 of 11



PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

(Continued)

'id

t.M-'U LAk'rION SUpOR( hrcu4 )

WELI) - TC - I - 3o- 2

- =xA MIb mto4t w: !Srul AOL-5-

II 'k hr -- A~

I Z614E-., _ _ _ _

I/

II

. I I

I II I

I , I II II %

I %I,

?A4fI.EL SEA-A 87Ses7~

rR^"StL as ca

I aIaol.

TOiML: 8'1 ,

Zoar, 1j

8 %85 %,C9 'to

/0Oc%

es/

SCALEC .:1

4-4-

TF ~ ~'S

-~Lv4 L-




PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.55a(gX5)(fii)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

L System/Component for Which Relief Is Requested:

ASME Class I Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) Lower Vessel Head Circumferential Weld(Weld No. TCX-I-1 100-5).

HI. Code Requirement from Which Relief is Requested:

Comanche Peak Unit 2 is currently required to perform inservice examinations ofselected welds in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a, and the 1986Edition with no Addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of NuclearPower Plant Components.


Table IWB-2500-1. Examination Category B-A, Code Item B1.21, Figure IWB-2500-3. The subject weld is a full penetration weld, and requires 100%volumetric examination of the accessible portion of all circumferential welds, asdefined by Figure IWB-2500-3.

HI. Impracticality of Compliance:

The examination coverage is limited by physical interferences from the reactor vesselbottom mounted instrument tubes (refer to the attached sketches on pages 3 thru 6).Specifically, refer to page 4 of this attachment (lower left hand corner of the sketch),which depicts the periphery penetration. These areas behind the penetrations were notaccessible to the ultrasonic scanning sled. However, cameras on the examination toolswere used to visually access the areas that were not accessible to the ultrasonic transducerscanning sled. Additionally, Page 6 of this attachment depicts best effort examinationcoverage results for each examination angle and scan direction.

Therefore, pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50 .55(gX5)(iii) relief is requestedfrom performing 100% volumetric examination requirements Figures IWB-2500-3.




PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(fil)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

(Continued)


The examination coverage is limited by physical interferences from the reactor bottommounted instrument tubes as indicated via the attached sketches. These conditions make100% examination impractical for these welds. To gain access for examination, the RPVhead would require design modification. Imposition of this requirement would be asignificant burden on TXU Energy.


There are no proposed alternatives. The subject welds were examined to the maximumextent possible (approximately 75%) and yielded no indications. Based on the highpercentage of the examination volume completed, and the lack of any reportableindications, there is a high level of confidence in the continued structural integrity of thewelds. There is no anticipated impact upon the overall plant quality and safety, and thegranting of relief should not jeopardize the health and safety of the public.

VI. Duration of Proposed Alternative:


VII. Precedents:

1. TXU Energy letter logged TXX-99030 dated February 17,1999. NRC response datedSeptember 24, 1999, reference TAC NO. MA4845 and MA6322.



FIRST TEN-YEAR INTERVAL ISI RELIEF REQUEST NO. B-8 REV 1 |

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.55a(gS)(fii)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

Continued

II

I

I

Attachment 2 to IXX-03065Page 4 of 6


FIRST TEN-YEAR INTERVAL ISI RELIEF REQUEST NO. B-8 REV 1 I

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(lii)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

Continued

I

IDEAL SCN INPUTS4 AM" w w GUIMRLCD4 )

PERIPHERY PENETRATIONS,52 THRMIGH 58REr sPEEr 26

3* Dectun Pt UtlOttan Ferp

sf Rg 1VA<1 I M/T VALC

TCX R.V. ISI 2002VesDyne International

BOTTOM HEAD TORUS CIRCEXAMINATION PROGRAM PLAN

IfW10.iL fl'IJ.�i UINLJ(U� U*U1� I�:*��* -- -. -�



EIRST TEN-YEAR INTERVAL ISI RELIEF REQUEST NO. B-8 REV 1

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50S.5a(gXS)(iii)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

(Continued)

I

VCUM t %w am ae n 017 MAV

MM31 1*2 U0.. a sn ___c

din "" *6 m,i on .1 XM2701.4 S1ll 1hw Slu r

ts ii, .2 31 t

rcX R.V. ISI 200ZWesDyne International

BOTTOM HEAD COLLAR/PCNETRATIONS

EXA4MINATION PROGRAM PLAN9 3 M ISH ET 23 OF 231

REF. VESTINGHOUSEDWCNO. 8761D19SHEET 2 Of 9'TCX AS BUILTS'.

PERIPMERAL/OBSTRUCTIVEPCNE IRATIONS DEPICTED




PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR S055a(g)(5)(lil)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY.

(Continued)

uomanchRe PeOK UiRE9N (FGXRPMOVERAGE ESTUATEBREAKDONS

DI ION IAJO AIl

PAPALLEA84FwCAM

camicw_ DJOI

ITEMIAREA tLm Hm h WELD MM TMI-10.

WMNG '

lam 4PL~wl 4 Ib48--

_ _ _ _ _ lvmn u m c MM t MM MD

8.8 73. Y . .0 173 70. 8

_____ 1_ __ 7

Do)Cm~4~~s, I4 it I…s

WL WT wQComb"wwr US%

Attachment 3 to TXX-03065Page l of S



PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IDPRACTICALITY-

L Svstem/Component for Which Relief Is Requested:

ASME Class I Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) Outlet Nozzle to Shell Welds.

RPV Nozzle-to-Vessel Weld (Weld No. TCX-l-l 100A-19)RPV Nozzle-to-Vessel Weld (Weld No. TCX-l-l 100A-22)RPV Nozzle-to-Vessel Weld (Weld No. TCX-1-1100A-23)RPV Nozzle-to-Vessel Weld (Weld No. TCX-l-l 100A-26)

II. Code Reauirement from Which Relief is Requested:

Comanche Peak Unit 2 is currently required to perform inservice examinations ofselected welds in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a, and the 1986Edition with no Addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of NuclearPower Plant Components. The subject welds are described in Table IWB-2500-1,Examination Category B-D, and Full Penetration Welds of Nozzles in Vessels, Code ItemB3.90, Figures IWB-2500-7(b), and requires volumetric examination of these welds.

I.L Impracticality of Compliance:

The examination coverage is limited by area geometries of the reactor vessel outletnozzles. Best effort examination resulted in volumetric coverage of approximately 84.4%due to weld and vessel shell configuration. It is impractical to obtain a volumetriccoverage of 100% required by the Code for each of the subject welds unless the RPV isredesigned to improve access to the welds.

Therefore, pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50 .55(g)(5)(iii) relief is requestedfrom performing 100% volumetric examination requirements Figures IWB-2500-7(b).


The examination coverage is limited by area geometries of the reactor vessel outletnozzles, as indicated via the attached sketch on page 4. The examination tool used for thisvolumetric exam has been used to examine reactor vessels of similar designs at otherplants with similar coverage results. These conditions make 100% examinationimpractical for these welds. To gain access for examination would require designmodification. Imposition of this requirement would be a significant burden on TXUEnergy.


IXU GENERATION COMPANY LPCOMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 2



Continued


The are no proposed alternatives. TXU Energy has examined a significant portion of theweld, obtaining approximately 84.4% of the required volumetric examination coverage(see typical Table on page 5). Essentially 100% of the examination volume for each weldwas examined in the axial scan direction from nozzle inside bore by techniques designedfor the detection and sizing of surface and subsurface flaws oriented in a plane normal tothe vessel inside surface and parallel to the weld. The examination performed in thismanner emphasizes the detection of the types of flaws that can result from weldingprocesses or inservice conditions. There were no recordable indications identified by thevolumetric examination.

Additionally, cameras on the examination tool were used to visually access areas thatwere not accessible to the ultrasonic transducer scanning sled.

The subject welds were examined to the maximum extent possible (approximately 84%and 84.4% of examination completed in all cases) and yielded no indications. Based onthe high percentage of the examination volume completed, and the lack of any reportableindications, there is a high level of confidence in the continued structural integrity of thewelds. There is no anticipated impact upon the overall plant quality and safety, and thegranting of relief should not jeopardize the health and safety of the public.

VI. Duration of Proposed Alternative:


VIL Precedents:

1) TXU Energy letter logged TXX-99030 dated February 17, 1999. NRC response datedSeptember 24, 1999, reference TAC NO. MA4845 and MA6322.




PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(lil)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

(Continued)

gwI I a

&-am"a8am

VECJTIuN REACTO2R VESSEL WFELES




PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.55a(g5)(li)INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

(Continued)

Tangential Scan View lIl

AxIal Scan F Vew m,+




PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 5055a(g)(5)(fli)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

Continued

I

Comancrie PeaK Unit fZ42 ( X)

RPV COVERAGE ESTIMATE BREAKDOWNS

DIRECTION I ORIENTATIONPARALLEL SCANSPERP. SCANS

CcwICWBore AMai

T0A IAREA Outet Nozzle to ShW 22 WELD NO. TCX4-410GA-1_

BEAMANGLES

IEAM 10 L | PL 45SLDual 45* L Sngte 458 $ |arDIRECTION

_______ _______ME A VQMUM VWI VO1*M SW VCL1I VKW VOUMUE

c7w 100 100 6 625SS90

cw 100 100 6 62 55 so

UP ON)

Dow _ _T_

B O R E A X I A L l i ( 1 ) ( ) ( )BOREAXIAL 100 100 100 100

... L 1... -….-....Z.Cb Tan s C r a 8 4.4%

Combined Covcrage a 84.4%AMW SL YS;___



FIRST TEN-YEAR INTERVAL ISI RELIEF REQUEST NO. C-6 REV 1

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITHI 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5Xfii)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

I. System/Component for Which Relief is Requested:

Chemical and Volume Control (CVCS) Pump TCX-CSAPCH-01. ASME Class 2Integrally Welded Pump Attachments.

Weld No. TCX-2-31 10-3WSWeld No. TCX-2-31 10-4WS

1I. Code Requirement from Which Relief Is Requested:

Comanche Peak Unit 2 is currently required to perform inservice examinations ofselected welds in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a, and the 1986Edition with no Addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XL Rules for Inservice Inspection of NuclearPower Plant Components. The subject welds are described in Table IWC-2500-1,Examination Category C-C, Code Item B3.30, Figures IWC-2500-5, and requires surfaceexamination of these welds.

m. Impracticality of Compliance:

The examination coverage is limited due to interference from the housing seal and pumpbase plate, refer to the attached pictures of the welded attachment (typical for all 4attachments). Therefore, the Code required 100% surface examination by liquidpenetrant method could not be achieved. Best effort examination resulted in coverage ofapproximately 77% of the area. As depicted via the pictures, it is impractical to obtaincoverage of 100% required by the Code for each of the subject welds unless the CVCSPump is redesigned or completely removed of the pedestal to improve access to thewelds.

Therefore, pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50 .55(g)(5)(iii) relief is requestedfrom performing 100% volumetric examination requirements of Examination CategoryC-C, Code Item B3.30, Figures IWC-2500-5.




PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(ili)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

ContinuedIV. Burden Caused by Compliance:

The examination coverage is limited by area geometries of the CVCS pump housing sealand pump base plate, as indicated via the attached sketches on pages 4 thru 7. Theseconditions make 100% examination impractical for these welds. To gain access forexamination would require design modification. Imposition of this requirement would bea significant burden on TXU Energy.


There are no proposed alternatives. TXU ENERGY has examined a significant portion ofthese welds, obtaining approximately 77% of the required volumetric examinationcoverage. There were no recordable indications identified by the liquid penetrant surfaceexamination. An attempt to visually inspect the welds was done, however, physicalgeometry of the location would not permit the visual examination of the entire weld area,which was obstructed by the base plate. The best effort visual examination did not revealany matters of concern regarding the structural integrity of the accessible weld.

The subject welds were examined to the maximum extent possible (approximately 77%of the weld) and yielded no indications. A review of the previous inspection results didnot identify any abnormal results for the subject welds. A visual examination of thewelds (using an inspection mirror) did not reveal any reportable indications. A fewutilities were polled to determine if any failures had occurred for the same welds. Nomatters of concern were identified. The stresses on the mounting foot attachments of thepump were reviewed, it was ascertained that the maximum stresses in the components arelower than those allowed and the bearing loads are well within the allowable limits.Therefore, TXU Energy believes the structural integrity and operability of the unit wouldnot be affected by the most severely postulated loading conditions. Based on the highpercentage of the examination volume completed, and the lack of any reportableindications, there is a high level of confidence in the continued structural integrity of thewelds. There is no anticipated impact upon the overall plant quality and safety, hence,granting of relief should not jeopardize the health and safety of the public.

VL Duration of Proposed Alternative:





PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(ili)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

Continued

VII. Precedents:

1) TXU Energy letter logged TXX-93107 dated March 15, 1993. NRC response datedNovember 29, 1994, reference TAC NO. M83125.



FIRST TEN-YEAR INTERVAL ISI RELIEF REQUEST NO. C-6 REV 1 I

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITHl 10 CFR 50.55a(g)()(ii)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

Continued

. - -- _ _ * *- *_ _ _* *-_* -

aofts, - ~l@ FAX S10"1109 MI ES Itu SCII-1 esCT~ UlS I & a <iw(hfoI.Sca aO TU ELECTRIC

. CzPSES UNI IT 2

-P.4. a.S*- WK.: .0,T ' l r ^ -o^@ w.e~

I

I , . ,, , - . . ...


TlU GENERATION COMPANY LPCOMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 2


PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WMI 10 CFR 50.55a(g)5)(fii)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

Continued

I

TG SE KU~1 SEtVI OON uz IrorU UWVACCEMAANDATA _ 2.UL

b>.C am l=T 2 swro. imX4.l to

Evst" C_ Owa MMI ?ID I wOr= TX4STtI6

.W . F_ Yak ,, , _ _

w ~~~~7 IL10"42s5Ul

sc-'W )At Itf3 P S9 l

Pr 6ff

Pklet .1 C _ _ _ AF

MM.V -AANrAFux "Mix SLx.uiOs 'VA4

RJAQ N4A6VAF tl! *?!O2K Ew ttF.

WUPA0*D ThS UfR 1U-2flE? *FAdT"McMOIUWA

comkt I J f I &WAf1

!?z*jaf.t 2Rf Vd e % Ir= 4

-_.________

lc H0j- -.. -

1. - -__ I

_____________________________________________________

. , kw. I_________ 4i.1 _______ I// __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 9I - I a



FIRST TEN-YEAR INTERVAL ISI RELIEF REQUEST NO. C-6 REV I

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(SXWiR)-INSERVICE INSPECTION IMPRACTICALITY-

(Continued)

1VESMH rw V aAR OEM=CE MMSQN9G "C

UwITATIN TO XAummlin

smUY4I M hasuw =4w1. I Sae

Owa LL_ W On" 3-M-2

UcaLA TO 3 WS S o WS

Fvov= sum?~V4?WCa1cu4?O cisas sin. wL Wrx mm rnio Cu uiawir

90..4 t& SUAt.

TyPsci. 3wis flA s

^33 Or ketu Vow.a'v M1 ExKIKtEo 0F 1SVs1fWS

Nol .. I

n





(Continued)

comanche peak unit 2, revised relief requests b-7, b-8, b ... · docket no. 50-446; relief requests...

Documents