GNRO-2014/00006, Request for Information Regarding Request for Alternative in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i) Use of Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and Internals Project (BWRVIP) Guidelines in Lieu of Specific ASME Code Requirements
| ML14029A592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/2014 |
| From: | Seiter J Entergy Operations |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| GNRO-2014/00006 | |
| Download: ML14029A592 (22) | |
Text
Entergy Operations, Inc.
P. O. Box 756 Port Gibson, MS 39150 Jeffery A. Seiter Acting Manager, Regulatory Assurance Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Tel. (601) 437-2344 GNRO;.2014/00006 January 29,2014 u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001
SUBJECT:
REFERENCES:
Dear Sir or Madam:
Request for Information Regarding Request *for Alternative in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i) Use of Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and Internals Project (BWRVIP) Guidelines in Lieu of Specific ASME Code Requirements (GG-ISI-017), dated June 27, 2013 Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-416 License No. NPF-29 1.
Request for Alternative in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i) Use of Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and Internals Project (BWRVIP) Guidelines in Lieu of Specific ASME Code Requirements (GG-ISI-017), dated June 27, 2013, (Accession No. ML13179A041).
2.
U.S. NRC Electronic Request, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Request for Additional Information Regarding BWRVIP Relief Request, dated December 26,2013, (TAC ME2357).
Entergy Operations, Inc. is providing, in the Attachment, the response to Reference 2, Request for Additional Information. The request for additional information due date was revised per discussion with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Project Manager for Grand Gulf.
This letter contains no new commitments. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Thomas Thornton at 601-437-6176.
Sincerely,
~/$
JAS/slw Attachments: 1 Response to Request for Additional Information 2 Revised Table 1 3 Table 2, ECP measurements for the Mitigation Monitoring Skid 4 Dry Tube Platinum Analysis Report cc: (see next page)
GNRO-2014/00006 Page 2 of 2 cc:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Mr. Mark Dapas Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1600 East Lamar Boulevard Arlington, TX 76011-4511 NRC Senior Resident Inspector Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Port Gibson, MS 39150 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission AnN: Mr. A. Wang, NRR/DORL Mail Stop OWFN/8 G14 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2378 to GNRO-2014/00006 Response to Request for Additional Information to GRNO-2014/00006 Page 1 of 6 The format for the Requests for Additional Information (RAI) responses below is as follows. The RAI is listed in its entirety as received from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with background, issue and request subparts. This is followed by the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) RAI response to the individual question.
RAI-1
Request The NRC staff requests that the licensee identify whether there are any furnace-sensitized stainless steel vessel attachment welds associated with the RVI components in GGNS. It is requested that the licensee provide an explanation regarding the type of inspection program and any additional augmented inspection programs that are implemented for any existing furnace-sensitized stainless steel attachment welds in GGNS.
Response
The information that was requested in RAI-1 could not be obtained and compiled within 30 days of receipt of the RAI. The requested information for RAI-1 will be provided in a separate communication by April 30,2014.
RAI-2
Request Since the following BWRVIP reports are used by the BWR licensees, the staff requests that GGNS should either include or provide an explanation for not including the following BWRVIP reports in Section 5.0 of its submittal dated June 27, 2013.
BWRVIP-138, "BWRVIP Updated Jet Pump Beam Inspection and Flaw Evaluation."
BWRVIP-139, "BWR Vessel Internals Project, Steam Dryer Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines" BWRVIP-183, "BWR Vessel Internals Project, Top Guide Grid Beam Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines"
Response
Subsection Proposed Alternative of Section 5.0 Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use has been revised below:
Entergy requests authorization to utilize the alternative requirements of the BWRVIP Guidelines in lieu of the requirements of ASME Code Section XI Table IWB-2500-1. The proposed alternative is detailed in Table 1 for Examination Category B-N-1 and B-N-2.
Entergy will satisfy the Examination Category B-N-1 and B-N-2 requirements as described Table 1 in accordance with BWRVIP guideline requirements. This request for alternative proposes to utilize the identified BWRVIP guidelines in lieu of the associated Code requirements, including examination method, examination volume, frequency, training, successive and additional examinations, flaw evaluations, and reporting.
The guidelines applicable to the subject Code Components in this proposed alternative are the following. Not all the components addressed by these guidelines are ASME Code Section XI components.
BWRVIP-03, "BWR Vessel and Internals Project, Reactor Pressure Vessel and Internal Examination Guidelines" to GRNO-2014/00006 Page 2 of 6 BWRVIP-18, Revision 1, "BWR Core Spray Internals Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines" BWRVIP-25, "BWR Core Plate Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines" BWRVIP-26-A, "BWR Top Guide Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines" BWRVIP-27-A, "BWR Standby Liquid Control System/Core Plate ~P Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines" BWRVIP-38, "BWR Shroud Support Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines" BWRVIP-41, Revision 3 "BWR Jet Pump Assembly Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines" BWRVIP-42, Revision 1, "Low Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) Coupling Inspection and Flaw Evaluations" BWRVIP-47-A, "BWR Lower Plenum Inspection and Flaw Evaluation" BWRVIP-48-A, "Vessel 10 Attachment Weld Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines" BWRVIP-76, Revision 1, "BWR Core Shroud Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines" BWRVIP-94, Revision 2, "BWRVIP Vessel and Internals Project Program Implementation Guide" BWRVIP-100-A, "Updated Assessment of the Fracture Toughness of Irradiated Stainless Steel for BWR Core Shrouds" BWRVIP-138, Revision 1-A, "BWR Vessel and Internals Project, Updated Jet Pump Beam Inspection and Flaw Evaluation" BWRVIP-139-A, "BWR Vessel and Internals Project, Steam Dryer Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines" BWRVIP-183, "BWR Vessel and Internals Project, Top Guide Grid Beam Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines" Note: If flaw evaluations are required for BWRVIP-76 examinations, the fracture toughness values of BWPVIP-1 OO-A will be utilized.
Table 1 (see Attachment 2) compares current ASME Code Section XI IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-N-1 and B-N-2 requirements with the above current BWRVIP guideline requirements, as applicable, to Entergy's BWR-6 units.
In additi9n, the Entergy reactor vessel internals inspection programs have been developed and implemented to satisfy the requirements of BWRVIP-94, "BWRVIP Vessel and Internals Project Program Implementation Guide." It is recognized that the BWRVIP executive committee periodically revises the BWRVIP guidelines to include enhancements in inspection techniques and flaw evaluation methodologies. BWRVIP-94, Revision 2 states that where guidance in existing BWRVIP documents has been supplemented or revised by subsequent correspondence approved by the BWRVIP Executive Committee, the vessel and internals program shall be modified to reflect the new requirements and implement the guidance within two refueling outages, unless a different schedule is specified by the BWRVIP. However, if new guidance approved by the Executive Committee includes changes to NRC approved BWRVIP guidance that are less conservative than those approved by the NRC, this less Conservative guidance shall be implemented only after NRC approves the changes, which generally means publication of a "-A" document or equivalent. Therefore, where the revised version of a BWRVIP inspection guideline continues to also meet the requirements of the version of the BWRVIP inspection guideline that forms the safety basis for the NRC authorized proposed alternative to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a, it may be implemented. Otherwise, the revised guidelines will only be implemented after NRC approval of the revised BWRVIP guidelines or a plant-specific request for alternative has been approved. Table 1 below only represents the most current comparison.
to GRNO-2014/00006 Page 3 of 6 Any deviations from the referenced BWRVIP Guidelines for the duration of the proposed alternative will be appropriately documented and communicated to the NRC, per the BWRVIP Deviation Disposition Process. Currently, Entergy deviations from the subject guidelines above are summarized in Table 1 below.
Inspection services, by an Authorized Inspection Agency, will also be applied to the proposed alternative actions of this Request for Alternative.
RAI-3
Request The NRC staff requests that the licensee confirm whether NUREG-0619, "BWR Feedwater Nozzle and Control Rod Drive Return Line Nozzle Cracking", will be used for the inspection of feedwater sparger tee welds and feedwater sparger piping brackets.
Response
The Inservice Inspection program does use the requirements of NUREG-0619 for weld inspection. However, these requirements are limited to only the six (6) feedwater nozzle inner radii. The control rod drive line at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station has been cut and capped and as such is not subject to these examinations. The feedwater sparger tee welds and the sparger piping brackets are being examined by utilizing the requirements of BWRVIP-48-A. Examination of these welds using the EVT-1 techniques are scheduled and tracked under the plant ASME Code Section Xllnservice Inspection Program, Category B-N-2 welds.
RAI-4
Request Since Inconel 182 welds are more prone to intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) than the austenitic stainless steel 308/316 welds, the staff requests that the licensee provide information how this aging degradation is effectively monitored in identifying the extent of aging degradation in these welds in a timely manner.
Response
With regard to Examination Category B-N-1, there are no Alloy 182 welds. With regards to Examination Category B-N-2, the following locations have Alloy 182:
1.
Guide Rod Bracket 2.
Steam Dryer Support Bracket 3.
Core Spray Bracket 4.
Feedwater Sparger Bracket 5.
Shroud Support (weld H9) 6.
Shroud Support Legs (weld H12)
The guide rod bracket, steam dryer support bracket, core spray bracket and feedwater bracket inspections are specified in BWRVIP-48-A and the shroud support and shroud support legs inspections are specified in BWRVIP-38. It is noted in BWRVIP-48-A that brackets with Alloy 182 attachment welds would be most susceptible to stress corrosion cracking. No additional augmented inspections are performed on the Alloy 182 welds outside of that defined in BWRVIP-48-A and BWRVIP-38. No cracking has been identified in the Alloy 182 welds at Grand Gulf.
to GRNO-2014/00006 Page 4 of 6
RAI-5
Request The NRC Staff reviewed the previous inspection results for the various RVI components that are addressed in the Attachment 3 of the licensee's June 27, 2013 submittal and determined that additional information is required on the extent of aging degradation in the most susceptible areas of the weld connections in the following RVI components:
a)
Top Guide-Section 8.1 in BWRVIP-183 states that top guide rim areas and the grid beam cells are prone to irradiation assisted stress corrosion cracking (IASCC). If the top guide grid beam cells and rim areas at GGNS are exposed to a fluence value greater than 5x1020 n/cm21 during the third lSI interval, consistent with guidelines addressed in Section 8.1.2 of BWRVIP-183, inspections of the grid beam cells and rim areas containing the welds and heat affected zone should be performed every 6 years. Confirm that such inspections will be performed.
b)
Core Spray and Core Spray Spargers-The licensee reported that during the refueling outages from 2005-2010, all creviced welds and 25%
of the remaining welds were inspected and no indications were found.
With respect to the examinations of these welds, the staff requests that the licensee provide the following information: (1) the number of these welds that have Type 304 stainless steel material, (2) the number of these welds that have Type 304L stainless steel material, and, (3) the approximate area of inspection coverage. The licensee stated that during the 2012 outage an indication was discovered in P8A weld. The staff requests that the licensee provide a brief summary of the supporting analyses showing how this finding was dispositioned in the licensee's Corrective Action Program.
c)
LPCI Coupling-During the refueling outages from 1996-2007, loose part concern at 141 0 azimuth location was identified. The staff requests the licensee to provide a brief summary on: (1) how this issue was resolved, and, (2) future corrective action plans. The staff requests that the licensee provide the following information: (1) the number of the welds that have Type 304 stainless steel material with a creviced weld geometry, (2) the number of the welds that have Type 304L stainless steel material with a creviced weld geometry, (3) the approximate area of inspection coverage and, (4) the number of Inconel182 welds in the inspected population.
d)
Other RVI Components:
Provide information for the number of Inconel 182 welds that have been inspected during past outages in the following RVI components and the approximate area of inspection coverage.
(a) jet pumps; (b) in-core dry tubes; and (c) CRD housings Both in-core dry tubes and CRD housings are addressed in BWRVIP-47-A "BWR Lower Plenum Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines."
e)
Dry Tubes:
During the 2010 outage, the licensee identified indications in four dry tubes (addressed in BWRVIP-47-A). The staff requests that the licensee provide information on the type of material e.g., austenitic stainless steel type 304 or 304L or Inconel 600, that was used in these tubes. Provide a brief summary of the supporting analysis showing how this finding was dispositioned in the licensee's Corrective Action Program.
to GRNO-2014/00006 Page 5 of 6
Response
The following responses have been provided in each section:
a)
Consistent with the requirements of BWRVIP-183 Section 8.1.2, the rim areas containing the weld and heat affected zone (HAZ) from the top surface of the top guide and two cells in the same plane/axis as the weld are inspected. Additionally, regions of the grid beam cells are inspected at the bottom 2 inches (50.8 mm) of the interior side surfaces.
The first inspection was performed in 2012 and will be inspected every six years with the EVT-1 inspection technique.
b)
Grand Gulf does follow BWRVIP-18 for inspection of Core Spray, however; this question is outside of the scope of this Relief Request because the Core Spray piping and sparger welds are not required inspections under ASME Section XI Table IWB-2500-1.
c)
Grand Gulf does follow BWRVIP-42 for inspection of the LPCI Couplings, however; this question is outside of the scope of this Relief Request because the LPCI Couplings are not required inspections under ASME Section XI Table IWB-2500-1.
d)
Grand Gulf does follow BWRVIP-41 for inspection of the Jet Pumps, SIL 409 Revision 3 for inspection of the in-core dry tubes, and BWRVIP-47 for inspections of the CRD housings. However, this question is outside of the scope of this Relief Request because these components are not required inspections under ASME Section XI Table IWB-2500-1.
e)
The evaluation performed by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy concluded that the condition would not affect the ability of control rod insertion, would not cause any damage to the surrounding fuel channels, would not result in loose pieces, and would not affect the ability to insert or remove fuel bundles and nuclear instrumentation. The Justification for Continued Operation explicitly stated that GGNS can be operated for one addition fuel cycle with cracked dry tubes with no adverse impact. All four dry tubes were replaced in RF18 (2012). However, the location of the crack is outside of the scope of this Relief Request because these components are not required inspections under ASME Section XI Table IWB-2500-1.
RAI-6
Request To assess the effectiveness of GGNS's implementation of hydrogen water chemistry (HWC) or HWC in conjunction with noble metal chemical addition (NMCA), the NRC staff requests that the licensee provide the following information:
a)
Measurement of electrochemical potential (ECP) of stainless steel material that represents a typical RVI component. ECP measurement should be made when HWC or HWC and NMCA method is used.
b)
Measurement of the amount of platinum deposit on a stainless coupon if HWC and NMCA method is used.
Response
The following responses have been provided in each section:
a)
Table 2 (see Attachment 3) lists the ECP measurements for the Mitigation Monitoring Skid.
b)
Grand Gulf does not change out coupons for the purpose of obtaining platinum deposit measurement. However, a Dry Tube Platinum Analysis (2013) was performed after the implementation of the Online Noble Chem Injection project (November 2010). The Dry Tube Platinum Analysis Report is provided in Attachment 4.
to GRNO-2014/00006 Page 6 of 6
RAI-7
Request Editorial correction: Please revise the reference from Figure 3-3 to Figures 2-2 to 2-5 in "shroud horizontal welds" item in Table 1, page 7 of the submittal dated June 27, 2013.
Response
Table 1 for Page 7 of the submittal dated June 27, 2013 has been updated to change the reference in "shroud horizontal welds" from Figure 3-3 to Figures 2-2 to 2-5. See updated table 1 page 7 in Attachment 2.
to GNRO-2014/00006 Revised Table 1 to GRNO-2014/00006 Page 1 of 1 Table 1 (continued)
Comparison of ASME Code Section XI Table IWB-2500-1 Examination Category B-N-1 and B-N-2 Reauirement to BWRVIP Guidance Reauirement- (1)
ASME Component ASME ASME ASME Applicable BWRVIP BWRVIP BWRVIP Frequency Table IWB-Exam Exam Frequency BWRVIP Exam Scope Exam 2500-1 Scope Alternative Item No.
Shroud Based on as-found Welded Core BWRVIP-38 Support Weld conditions to a Support Section H81 H9 and EVT-1 or maximum 6 years B13.40 Structure -
3.1.3.2 Leg Welds UT for one side EVT-1, Shroud Figures 3-2 including 10 years for UT Support and 3-5 gussets as where accessible applicable BWRVIP Based on as-found Shroud R1 conditions to a Horizontal Each 10-Section 2.2 Welds H1-H7 EVT-1 or maximum 10 years Accessible as applicable UT for UT when Welds Surfaces VT-3 year Figure 2.2 to inspected from both interval 2.5 sides of the welds BWRVIP Vertical and Maximum 6 years for Shroud Ring-R1 EVT-1 or one-sided EVT1, Vertical Section 2.3 Segment UT 10 years for UT Welds Welds as Figure 3-3 applicable of horizontal welds BWRVIP In accordance with Shroud R1 Tie-Rod VT-3 designer Repairs(4)
Section 3.5 Repair recommendation per BWRVIP-76 R1 Note:
(1) This table provides only an overview of the requirements. For more details, refer to ASME Section XI, Table IWB-250Q-1 and the appropriate BWRVIP Document.
(2) In accordance with Appendix A of BWRVIP-38, a site specific evaluation will determine the minimum required weld length to be examined.
(3) When inspection tooling and methodologies are available, they will be utilized to establish a baseline inspection of these welds.
(4) No repairs have been performed on the shroud.
to GNRO-2014/00006 Table 2, ECP measurements for the Mitigation Monitoring Skid
Sk"d M
Itlgatlon onltorlng I
Sample DateTime ECP 3/25/2013 14:20
-450 3/27/2013 11 :03
-453 3/29/2013 10:35
-450.6 4/1/2013 9:35
-449 4/3/2013 4:24
-449.2 4/8/2013 9:35
-470 4/12/2013 11 :02
-470.4 4/15/2013 10:54
-463.7 4/17/2013 10:20
-458 4/19/2013 11 :24
-465.7 4/22/2013 10:09
-463.8 4/29/2013 9:50
-455.9 5/3/2013 9:55
-457.4 5/6/2013 16:32
-455.5 5/8/2013 11 :00
-453.9 5/13/2013 9:54
-456.2 5/15/2013 8:50
-451 5/17/2013 9: 15
-451 5/22/2013 9:35
-448 5/27/2013 12:50
-447.4 5/29/20136: 17
-448 6/5/2013 10:09
-438.3 6/12/201313:30
-436.6 6/14/20139:58
-437.6 6/17/2013 10:44
-441.3 6/19/2013 10:40
-427.3 6/19/201312:24
-397 6/19/2013 14:21
-373 6/19/201316:37
-465.8 6/28/2013 10:43
-464.4 7/1/2013 10:50
-443 7/5/2013 9:25
-442.2 7/8/2013 10:30
-438.1 7/10/2013 10:34
-433.5 7/12/2013 10:40
-446.6 7/19/201310:15
-461.2 7/22/2013 10:14
-454.2 7/26/2013 14:49
-451.8 7/29/2013 10:23
-449.7 7/30/2013 8:34
-448 8/5/2013 14:09
-461 8/12/2013 15:51
-425 8/13/2013 20:04
-442.6 8/14/2013 1:34
-456 8/14/2013 5:34
-461.6 Sample DateTime ECP M" "
o en la or ;yc e rom Sample DateTime ECP 9/17/2012 9: 19
-268.8 9/19/2012 12:22
-276.4 9/20/2012 10:07
-280.1 9/21/2012 10:53
-277.5 9/23/2012 9:05
-261.9 9/24/2012 6:52
-279.3 9/24/2012 11 :22
-280 9/26/2012 10:45
-280.4 9/27/2012 16:25
-279.9 9/28/2012 9:44
-278.3 9/29/201215:14
-279.5 9/30/2012 15:29
-279.9 10/1/2012 10:30
-280.8 10/2/2012 9:41
-281.2 10/5/2012 10:44
-280.7 10/6/2012 17:45
-282.1 10/7/2012 17:15
-282.6 10/8/201210:12
-295 10/10/20129:20
-290.7 10/12/20129:30
-277.5 10/14/2012 10:25
-301.9 10/15/20129:59
-278.4 10/16/2012 17:20
-276.3 10/17/20129:15
-279.6 10/18/20129:15
-279.3 10/19/2012 10:30
-280 10/22/20120:42
-276.5 10/22/2012 10:00
-275.7 10/23/2012 9:40
-273 10/24/2012 9:35
-274.8 10/25/2012 13:43
-274.6 10/26/2012 10:30
-274.6 10/27/2012 9: 31
-271.4 10/28/2012 11:22
-275.2 10/29/20129:11
-274 10/30/2012 14:55
-274 10/31/2012 12:00
-273.3 11/2/2012 10:50
-270.8 11/3/2012 10:44
-270.4 11/4/20128:20
-272.5 11/5/2012 11:40
-310 11/5/201215:20
-322.9 11/5/2012 19:24
-347.1 11/6/20123:24
-414 11/6/201210:55
-441.8 Sample DateTime ECP to GRNO-2014/00006 Page 1 of 2 Table 2: Electrochemical P t f
I f C
I 19 f Sample DateTime ECP 6/19/201215:42 118 6/19/2012 21 :12 123 6/20/20122:12 128 6/20/20126:57 134 6/20/2012 7: 12
-231 6/20/2012 11 :30
-492 6/22/2012 3:00
-488 6/22/2012 10:29
-492.6 6/22/201222:45
-488.4 6/23/2012 9:44
-491 6/24/2012 3:09
-491 6/24/2012 8:58
-485 6/25/20124: 10
-453.7 6/25/2012 9:40
-447.4 6/26/2012 3:00
-466.8 6/27/2012 1:55
-451.6 6/27/2012 10:49
-442 6/28/2012 3:28
-437.6 6/28/2012 8:55
-434.3 6/29/2012 1:33
-437.1 6/29/2012 14:34
-434.1 6/30/2012 1:53
-433.8 7/1/2012 5:57
-430 7/2/2012 1:02
-426 7/2/2012 10:13
-428.6 7/2/2012 20: 13
-428.9 7/3/2012 3:00
-426.2 7/3/2012 15:20
-449.5 7/4/2012 12:20
-427.2 7/5/2012 13:15
-417.5 7/6/2012 13:55
-416.9 7/7/2012 12:43
-415 7/8/2012 8:24
-416 7/9/2012 9:55
-400.8 7/10/201213:31
-410 7/12/201218:48
-405 7/13/2012 10:31
-407.5 7/14/201211:59
-392.6 7/15/201211:22
-400.6 7/16/20129:15
-398.1 7/17/2012 9:35
-391.5 7/18/201211:18
-392 7/19/20129:23
-385 7/20/20129:48
-384.9 7/21/2012 10:18
-379.1 Sample DateTime ECP to GRNO-2014/00006 Page 2 of 2 7/22/2012 9:43
-377 7/23/2012 10:46
-377 7/25/2012 12:16
-386.2 7/27/2012 14:57
-368 7/28/2012 10:00
-418 7/29/2012 14:45
-409 7/30/2012 10:42
-413 8/1/2012 11:12
-385.2 8/3/2012 9:30
-401.6 8/4/201222:50
-366.7 8/5/201222:35
-364.3 8/6/201211:05
-361.5 8/8/2012 10:16
-352.9 8/10/2012 11 :12
-347.2 8/11/2012 14:57
-339.9 8/13/2012 10:52
-334 8/14/2012 10:23
-330 8/15/2012 10:42
-328 8/16/2012 11 :12
-324.1 8/17/201211:15
-326 8/20/2012 10:10
-323 8/22/2012 9:45
-319.4 8/23/2012 10:40
-321 8/24/20129:51
-312.2 8/25/2012 22:43
-313.9 8/27/20122:30
-313.3 8/27/20129:30
-311.3 8/28/2012 11:11
-296.7 8/29/2012 9:25
-300.1 8/30/2012 16:30
-294.3 8/31/2012 10:57
-292 9/1/201222:15
-295.8 9/3/2012 0:51
-292.8 9/3/2012 9:55
-294.8 9/5/20129:15
-296 9/6/2012 10:35
-290 9/7/2012 9:37
-290.5 9/8/2012 16:23
-283.8 9/9/2012 16:54
-284.6 9/10/20129:22
-284 9/12/2012 10:07
-283.2 9/14/2012 10:25
-282.1 9/15/2012 11 :40
-346.9 9/16/2012 11 :37
-302.4 11/7/2012 3:10
-475.3 11/7/2012 14:40
-484.9 11/8/2012 2:53
-489.4 11/8/2012 11:40
-492 11/9/2012 3:27
-492.7 11/10/2012 3:02
-495.7 11/10/201211:18
-496 11/10/201223:15
-496.3 11/11/2012 11:16
-497 11/11/2012 23:40
-496.6 11/12/201211:25
-497.3 11/12/201223:40
-497.1 11/13/20129:34
-497 11/13/2012 22:26
-497.4 11/14/2012 10:40
-497 11/14/201221:58
-497.1 11/15/2012 11:15
-497.3 11/16/2012 11 :00
-497 11/19/20129:15
-497 11/20/2012 19:03
-494.6 11/21/2012 9: 15
-493.9 11/23/2012 9:40
-499.3 11/26/2012 11:17
-497.5 11/28/2012 9:30
-499 11/30/2012 8:45
-497.6 12/3/2012 2: 18
-496.4 12/5/20122:55
-497.5 12/17/2012 9:45
-479.4 12/21/2012 2:35
-486.1 12/26/2012 10:30
-487.2 12/28/2012 11 :03
-481.9 1/2/2013 10:03
-481.1 1/14/20139:35
-480.5 2/4/2013 15:25
-462 2/8/2013 10:20
-450.2 2/11/2013 10:20
-480 2/13/2013 14:05
-447.7 2/15/2013 12:00
-447.6 2/27/2013 9:35
-451.4 3/6/2013 4:09
-454.2 3/8/2013 10:38
-453.8 3/11/20139:16
-454.5 3/18/2013 9:21
-449 3/19/2013 9:00
-447 3/22/2013 11 :36
-449.7 8/14/2013 9:47
-465.3 8/14/2013 21 :46
-468.1 8/15/20139:34
-479.3 8/15/201321 :52
-478.8 8/16/2013 10:30
-485 8/16/201321 :53
-486.4 8/17/201322:30
-490.1 8/18/2013 9:55
-491.7 8/18/201321:40
-492.2 8/19/201322:15
-493.4 8/20/2013 11 :35
-494.4 8/20/2013 22:09
-494.8 8/22/2013 0:20
-494.6 8/22/2013 22:03
-495.1 8/23/2013 9:33
-495.5 8/23/201314:18
-496 8/24/2013 11 :48
-495.7 8/26/2013 9:48
-496.6 8/28/2013 9:33
-496.4 9/2/2013 9: 10
-494.2 9/4/2013 10:15
-494.7 9/6/2013 11 :32
-494.9 9/9/2013 11 :26
-494.9 9/13/2013 8:50
-495 10/2/2013 11:00
-484.4 10/14/201311:30
-488 10/16/2013 10:23
-487.9 10/21/201311:40
-486 10/25/20139:22
-487.8 10/30/201310:59
-483 11/1/201312:14
-491.6 11/13/20139:53
-480.7 11/22/2013 21 :57
-482 11/25/2013 11 :35
-481.9 11/27/201312:48
-484.7 11/29/20139:36
-481.4 12/412013 10:06
-474.7 12/18/2013 9:30
-482.3 12/20/2013 12:06
-477 12/26/2013 1:38
-482 12/27/2013 9:41
-481.2 12/28/2013 1:49
-481.5 12/30/20139:50
-482.6 1/3/2014 11 :00
-481 1/8/2014 10:50
-481.3 to GNRO-2014/00006 Dry Tube Platinum Analysis Report to GRNO-2014/00006 Page 1 of 7 HI CHili GE H;itochi Nudectr Energy Tom Caine MarMig~ CI~li~1.t)i & Materidb 6i{15 vt:Jk't1l.iMi Rd. Kit\\bQ4
- 4JJttiLCA 945SQ Office: 9'.25,,6&24435 Cei~ 4(Jl}.:U5~99n Ettal:
1h::lIOO!lmtle~I'M::o#t february tar 2013 GEH letter # 0000-0Jl.515-2398 RO Trey Ree\\tes Grand GulfNuclear Stooon eDRf Section 0000-0156-2398 OryTube iPlotinumAn(dys;i~5 Resunts-Second CClmpcign GElH hascompleted Clnalysiis oftne dllYtube andbenchmark tube fihersamples sni:pped from stte.. This letter presents the fol[;owing:
The fitter anot,}lsis process andlstepsaclded to itforthis project ore described.
The bencnmarkand dW robe platinum (pij deposttfun scrape pesuitsobtailnedfrom the filters are tobulated.
The bencnmarkl,¥-et chemlstJ)i and scrape results eire compc;red. yiieiding a col~ecion effidenC'J for the BlNRV\\JP tool at relaiNel)' ~owPt depoGftjon values.
The expected dry tube pt deposition Is colcuilaleo !based 00 the scrape resliltsand tile co~lectjon efficiency.
frIterAnolysis Process
- !Ifterthe first round ;offiiter aru:1lys5 snowed siignrnco:nt variation in restllts~ GEH did a thorough elJa~u<ltionoHhefllterdigestion pmcess. The tHters are dngett1:ed by putijnglliem in Teflon tubes. IM1tl nitric and hydrofluoricacid~thenendosing the tube in Ol vessel which undergoes microwave heating to pfomotefilter digestion jn the hotadd. The Teflon tubes had bee\\fl previous~U$ed fur fuel s{JCl3pe W'OTt{, ond jt was determined that the c1ear1tngprocess. was not complete. which couldintr~uce st\\g;riifrcant variations Oltilielowlev'elsofptbeing evaluated on the dry-tube*iLlt,ers. Anew setofTeflon tubes \\NUS purchased end 0 more oggressivedeanlngooautl0nwas formulated~Thenseven:rlcnecb W'iere performed before digesting <I1lf)l oHhe ilatestfiiters:
2.
$evera~ MilliliporerHteTS-tthe same asused by RSI~ were digestedwithlhis ;iJiddlmicrowOi'lle process -no Plmeasurooin the so!;ution aftervilard.
to GRNO-2014/00006 Page 2 of 2 3.
A Pi recover}' test was run - a known amount ofa ptsltondard 'Nas added to the filterand acid before drgestion. The Ptadded covered 0: rangeequ!ivdent too s,crope depositof 0.01-0.1~glcm? infour differenttests. The recoverypen:entoges were 96%. 99%10 110% and 13-3%.which is quite good for this 'type oHest.
4.
The filter analys~5prccess'HClSo expanded.$0 that:after a fi:lter was digested end analyzed, the Teflon tube would be deemed and the dean~ng!.CJlution 'ih'Ould be analyzed.
~fany Pi were found, that Pi ","ould be added to the filter result.
Benchmark Tube and Dry lube filter pt Results With these preparations comp~ete~the fj~tersfrombenchmark tube B3 '..,,'ere afi'clyzeO. showing reasonably consistent results. 8ased on that, the remaining benchmark tube filters andtheory tube filters were ana~yzed.The sc:mpe results. fn ~gfcm~ for the scrape areas. are presented [n Toible 1.
&lsed on a limitof reEiabte detection of Plat OJ. ppb in the ICPMS.the 100"t'est deposition quootity reported in Tabte 1 [sO.003p:qJc:m~*.....-vithanything ~oweJ reported as <O.003jJglcm? The Pl concentrations in all of the water samples token had <:0.1 ppb Pi.so there was no adjustmentfor water '"contamination"mode to the scrape resu[t5in the tobre. me scrape IDs refer to scrapes: wfith the sto,n;eIS) and scrapes with the brush lSI.
Table 1. Benc:nmarkand Dry Tube Scrape FitterPl Results ScrapeftO 63-15 63-25 63-35 64-15 B4-2B 64-25 B4-35 Ol-lS D1-26 01-25 0<1.-35 02-13 D2-2B 02-33 03-15 D3-2B 03-2S 03-3S 03-4$
03-55 Oistance from Top ofTuDe. em lint NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 126149.5) 116 [4:5.5) 116 [45.:5) 126 {49.5~
116 [45.5) 116145..5) 47118.5) 126 {49.5~
116 [4:5.5~
11614:5.5) 41 f16' 800 Scrape 197 [71.:5)
PI looding, IJglcma 0.015 0.005 0.008 0.047 0.050 0.004 0.023 0.007 0.01.2 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.007
<O.ow
<0.003 0.005
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003 NA
<0.003 to GRNO-2014/00006 Page 3 of 2 February 18. 2\\l13 8~nchmarkTube Evaluation Page 3 Thescroperesultsfor the benc:hmqrk tubes are cOl1$idemb~ll)wer than the Pt deposition r~~!:ts obtained bythe standarclGEH wet chem~try method ofocfd stripPl:rtgthe OXide offof the tubing surfoce. Since the beru;:hmorktub$W'E!r@ returned from GrandGulfwIth the scrape filters.itwos d~ided to obtain additional wet chemistry resultsfrom betJ"veen the scrape locations. The results are sho!.vn [0 figure 1.
Figure 1. VNC WetChemustry 8@nchmorkTubtl Pt.Analysis Results Thewet chemistry rtl$uits show variation which 1s thoughtto be dueto how the I?t so&ut~Dnflo,"wd into the autodovc thot held the benchmarktubes during therrOLNC application. Tr~ benchmark tube scrapesalso sh<w.J v{}rImion, butttlere IS not enough conngurQtion information avoikrble to determine whethertM h[911 scrape results correlate WIth the high wetchemfstry results.ltis clear from the b~nchmark tubi! results.hrl1N!\\WI?f.th<Btotthe.s.e low levers ofPi deposition the BWRVIP tool [covereda faJrly tow Tmctlon ofthetotal. Thnrefore:. a coHeetioneffIduncy for the toolwoscalcu~awd from the benchmark results, 0100the tfliwrse:otit. calto the recovery factor, was opplt@dtothe drytube lfUS4Jtt:$.
Astatfstical om;l~sis ofthew1i!t c:hemistry results V.lOSdone:as partofthe BWRVII? report on this subject The conclusion Vo'OS thattl1ie Pt depositionvalues frorn the top and center of the tubes are eqf;Jtwlent Clndthe1Juluesfrom the bottom of the tubes-ore 0 different, hlgherpopulatlon. Thererore.
the top end mjdd~ Ptdeposiiion results vJere averaged for the ov~ral~'.wi chemistryPt: depoSition value of0.134 ~glcm?, Forthe D17!t1chmark scrape samples, the brush and stone samplefof scrape #2 were,addedtogether as OM resutt. 'l"hfrsixscrape results from tubes 83 and 84 averaged O.026\\llglcml' Pt deposition. Using tlla two awmges. the' BWRVIPtoolcarleetion efficiency wos 1~l6%
andtheinvorsc f9ctor to beopplied t'O the dry~Ltbe $l;rope r~ll~ is $,U, to GRNO-2014/00006 Page 4 of 2 Februar)' lB. 2013 Elqlected Dry Tube pt De:position Page 4 ThecorrectedlJa~Ue5 of Pi deposItion for theIRt1/SRM dry tubesaresnown inTabfe2. For the #2 samples wtlere a brush and $,crape W'ere dane, the mter 'tl'Cl:lues are added to;gether and the toted is muttiplred by the 5.11 factor described above.,As an additionai step in the statistical analysJs done fur the BWRVIP report,ti1e uncertainty in the scrape analyses at the 95% confidence interval. +/-55%.was propagated to the correctedvalues.
Table 2. Corrected Dry Tube Pi: Dep<lsition Based on BWRVIP Tool Collection Effrciency 03-15
<0.003
<0.015 NA 03-28
<0;003
<0.015 NA 03-2S
<0;003 03-3S
<0;003
<0.015 NA 03-45 Bad Sera e NA
!'fA 03-55
<0.003
<0.015 NA Of the four jRM1SRM dry tubes remov,ed from the core, r.vo were somewhatcentraEly located onemo were closerto the peripherj of the core. IRMfsRM tubes D1 and 02 show rnorePt than 103,which may
[nnicate that the'lj *.."ere centrally located tube. The pt yalues are hlgherat the #1 ~>Qcation.-6 reet belowthe top guide, than they are atthe #3 location, -3 feet below theto.p gu1de. This deposition trend is consistentwith the scen'llrlo thatpt1s depleted from the v,\\llter as it f1o'.vs past surfaceswhere pt deposits.. Of course, at theselO'W pt va~ue5the trend couldatso be a coincidence unthevarnation of the results~
Evaluation ofRestdts
~f~he DlNC process is considered a once-through process. meaning thot all the pt t11 the reador water deposrts after one drculating cycle through the reactor and core, then the drl tubes are nearthe end of that circulatlon cycle. Figure 2shO'Ws scnematicalty the "voter flO'W path after the pt chemical is tnjected Int.hereedwater.
to GRNO-2014/00006 Page 5 of 2 PageS figure 2:. SChematic ofPt flow to Dry Tubes During OLNC Appliootton The feedwater flow, which carries the highest concentration of pt, js mixed with carrY\\Jnderflow from the steamsepafatorand dryer. The mixture proceeds from the upper \\res5e,lintothe shnJ'ud annulus.
where about tN()~thirdsofIt is driven into the bottom head through thejet pumps. The other one-third flows through the recirculation ptping and intothe bottom head as drive flow tn thejet pumps. The bottom head water eJllters the fuel bundJesthrough holes in the control red gutdetubesjustootow the core plate. Most ofthe water entering the fuel bundles flows up and between the fuel reds. but about 10% ofitexits ftowho'les and gaps in the bunclre lower tie plates and enters the bypass region between the bund[es.whkh IS where the dry tubes are :located. QuoJitcf'Jvely. the Ptdepu5:ltfon on the dry tubes is expected to be comparable to thmof the top guide end shroud insidesurfuce. and low compared !I:>thatof a~l other reector internal surfaces. which ore "upst.ream" In the flow path.
Howeve~ based on the few corrected results in Table 2. further in-vessel measurements bythe B\\NRVlP are needed, c.nd should be encouraged.
TheGf Globd Research Center ~GRC~ has done e.xtenslve'NcJK on the effectiveness of orne to mttigatestress cOlTosioncracklnglSCC~ Rgure3 snO'#s GRC laoorotory \\tYOrk. wheresta%n!esssteel specfunens\\o\\i'ere prepared with vmytflgamoun5 of OLNe-aepo'Si1ted pt. The ECP of the spec%mens trt hi'g.h temperature wc.ter with excess hydrogen conditions Imolarratio IMRlo! hydrogen to oxygen greater than ~'G. Enthis case 2.5J v,.'Os measured. resulting rn the data points in the figure. The hne shown is a judgmentfit to the data points, rothere IS no e>.tn:rpola'tion to deposition <.0.02 ~gJcm2.
in addition, it shoufd be' noted thet theresutts in the figure for pt<O.04 ~glcm' where the spedmens ore ontypartinlry catalytic ore dependent on the oxygen content ofthe'Nc.ter.
to GRNO-2014/00006 Page 6 of 2 FebruaryHL 2013 Page 6 0.1 OUoile P1 LOl'Jdlng, ~ltia
.:wo r'*m m
,550 l.-.-.~~_"'--_-"-_~~~"~~-'-,
'---_""""'-_~ __..,.;..--'-.o...-l l),lY1 figure 3. GRC Test Results of ECP Response of Stainless Steel '15. OlNCPl Deposition Mitigation of SCC is a continuum asa function of ECP, butthe industry uses -230 mV!SHElas the m{lximum limit for effective mif.fgtJtion.The ECiPls <.,-230 mV(SHE] even at Pi deposition levels in figure :3 as ~O'w05 O.02~.gicml. Slmilarresults hove been seen at tvvo plants that have measured the cota¥>tf1c ECP ofthe MMS ECP manifold by adding 50-100ppb dissolved oxygen 1001to the MMS supply
'NOter to assure a MR of 3-5, At one plant, the MMS coupon deposition was O.OllJglc.m2 and the ECP durtng the orne opplrcation \\05 -300 mvtSHEl. At the other plant. the Mt1S coupon deposition was 0.03 IJglcm1 and the ECPduring the OILNC appl;icatJonw'Os-330 mVISHEt.
Summary The Grand Gulfdry tube Ptdeposition e',fQ~uation is summarized in the folbwing pOfnts:
Due to the MMS bejnginoperab~e. Grand Gutf decided to perform scrape sampl~ng of dry tubes asjn-vesse~ artifacts. an alternmrve ollo'.ved by BW1RVIP gur.Q.o:nce for nohlemetal mitigotion monftorin.g.
The dry tube scrape fHters yiekfed Ptdeposition re'=...ults of <:0.003-0.012 iJglcm2~ rhJfwever.
bem:hmark tube results demonstrated that the fi~ter collection et1iciencj \\'\\0'05 19.6%. The corrected Pt deposition resuttsfortne drytubes were <0.015-Cl.06j1.glcm2:. These resu~ts are consistent with MMS ce,upondeposition results from other OILNC prants.
Giventhe reodor water flow poth from the OlNC iniecac;n pCiintIDthe feedwaterio the dry tubes. it is e:llpected that the top guide and shroud inSIDde surface woufd havecomparab~e deposition ona oJloltnerreactor internat'S and prping would have higher pt deposition thon the dry tube results.
Bosed on the study of ECP end Pt deposition performed by GRC,surfaces.wUh,~.04 Jlglcm~
wouf1i be fully catolytic. with ECPor -480 mV!SH EL ECPcind MMScoupon data from one pf<!int thert measured ECPduring DOaddmon suggest that cnialytic ECP ma}'be <-230mV[SHElfor Pt deposition ~O.Ol ~glcm<l. However; the OKygen concentration rn the w'Oter, in this case 50-100 ppb. affects the ECP resu~t.
The lowPt deposition resutis on the dry tubes make a b~ol'lketjudgment of reactorintema~smiti:gotion difficult. The detected levels are expected to be enough for catolyti'c mitigation" butone dt"j tube had to GRNO-2014/00006 Page 7 of 2 Februa;ry 18, 2013 Page 7 tess than detectabte results for all three scrapes. On the plus side, the 01)' tubes [and :shroud ID and top guide~are at the end ofthe circulatorj flow path relative to the feed~'Qter5po;rger$ where PI and H,l:enier the feoctor; s.o 02 and ECPmay be significantly reduced in the core bypass and outer core bypass regions dueto reactor water contactJng the !o;rgecatalytic surface areeot nousingsand guide tubes below the core plate. In the reklitively!ow flow reglions ~ike the bypass regions, pt deposition is expected tolncrease as operating time and the number of OLNC applications increase.
GEH has recommended to the B"NRVIPL"'atmore in-vessel pt measurements be mode. Entergyshould encourage the BVlRVIP to make such measurements 0 higher priority. Specific to Grand Guff. GEH is developing on.injectorquln designed to reduce the amount of pt that deposits in the feedwater piping near the injection tops, thereby increasing Pt avaitlGble to deposit on reactorintemal surfaces. Grand Gulfhas hod injection top brockag.e issues,,\\o'nich the injector quills are also designed to prevent.
A.ddition of injectorqui[ls during the next refueling outage should be considered, and can be discussed itn the near future when convenient.
Jfyou have any questions, p[ease do nothesitate to contact me.
- Regards, Tom Caine Manager, Chemfstry &. Materials