ML18093A439

Forwards Response to NRC Bulletin 87-001 Re Thinning of Pipe Walls,Including Signed Affidavit Not Included in 870914 Submittal

ML18093A439
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek, 05000000
Issue date:	10/09/1987
From:	Corbin McNeil Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
IEB-87-001, IEB-87-1, NLR-N87190, NUDOCS 8710160301
Download: ML18093A439 (16)

Text

Public Ser.vice USN RC-OS Electric and Gas Company l<ml OCT 11 A lfr. I 0 Corbin A. McNeill, Jr. Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O.Box236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609 339-4800 Senior Vice President -

Nuclear October 9, 1987 NLR-N87190 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

RESPONSE TO NRC BULLETIN 87-01 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NOS. 50-272/50-311/50-354 Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) submitted its response to the subject NRC Bulletin regarding the thinning of pipe walls in specified piping systems on September 14, 1987.

However, a signed affidavit was not included with the

• transmittal. To correct this oversight, the response to the bulletin is hereby being resubmitted with a signed affidavit in the attachment to this letter.

Should you have any further questions regardihg this transmittal,_

please do not hesitate to contact us *.

Sincerely, Attachment S7101603 pDR 0C~ ~~&&8~72 AD0 ~ PDR G

Document Control Desk 2 10-9 C Mr. G. w. Rivenbark USNRC Licensing Project Manager - Hope Creek Mr. R. w. Borchardt USNRC Senior Resident Inspector - Hope Creek Mr. D. C. Fischer USNRC Licensing Project Manager - Salem Mr. T. J. Kenny USNRC Senior Resident Inspector - Salem Mr. w. T. Russell, Administrator USNRC Region I Mr. D. M. Scott, Chief Bureau of Nuclear Engineering Department of Environmental Protection 380 Scotch Road Trenton, NJ 08628

Ref: RESPONSE TO NRC GENERIC LETTER 87-01 STATE OF NEW JERSEY )

) SS.

COUNTY OF SALEM )

Corbin A. McNeil!, Jr., being duly sworn according to-law deposes and says:

I am Senior Vice President of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set .forth in ou~ letter dated o~ ~ 19 2'1 I concerning our response to NRC Bulletin 87-01, is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

- Subscribed and Sworn !,~ J.~~f ore me this C/fA-- day Of a~ I 1987 Notary Public of New Jersey _ EILEEN M. OCHS NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY

. .=..*=-:J:.:u::.11V~1u6t..,,.....

My Conuni ss ion expires on ____M_r_Co_m_mta_slaa_;;;;;Explr,;ic 1..,sgu2;.___

ENCLOSURE RESPONSE TO NRC BULLETIN 87-01 SALEM GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION .

DOCKE~ NOS. 50-272, 50-311, 50-354 The responses to each of the questions indicated in NRC Bulletin 87-01, Thinning of Pipe Walls in Nuclear Power Plants with regard to programs for monitoring the wall thickness of pipes in condensate, feedwater, steam, and connected high-e~ergy piping_ systems, including all safety-related and non-safety-related piping systems fabricated of carbon steel are addressed in the following:

1. Identify the codes or standards to which the piping was designed and fabricated.

• The following are the codes used for design, fabrication and installation of the subject pipirtg for Salem and Hope Creek:

Salem Generating Station .,

Non-nuclear piping ANSI B31.1 1967 Edition Nuclear piping ANSI B31.1 1967 Edition (Design)

ANSI B31. 7 1968 Edition {Material)

ANSI B31.7 1969 through 1970 Edition (Construction)

Hope Creek Generating Station Non-fiuclear piping ANSI B31.1 1973 through 1974 Addenda Nuclear piping ASME Section IIl, i97~ through Winter 1974 Addenda (Design and Mat~rial)

ASME Section III, 1977 through Winter 1977 Addenda (Construction) 2 . . Describe the scope and extent of your program for ensuring that pipe wall thicknesses are not reduced below the minimum allowable thickness. Include in the description _th~ criteria that you have ~stabiished for:

a. selecting p6ints at whith to make thickness measurements

b. determining how frequently to make thickness measurements

c. selectin~ the methods used to make .thickness

• measurements .

d. making replacement/repair decisions

e.

2 Although a program was in effect for two phase flow at Salem and Hope Creek, no systematic recurring wall thickness inspections of single phase piping were performed prior to the Surry event. The program scope for ev~luation of single pha*se high energy piping erosion/corrosion and review of the existing two phase erosion program will consist of a systematic review of the following systems as a minimum.

Systems Included in Review Salem Generating Station Single Pha;;e Condensate (after second stage of feedwater heating)

Feedwater Heater Drains Heater Drain Pump Discharge Two Phase Bleed Steam Steam Generator Blowdown MSR Drains Hope Creek Generating Station

• single Phase Condensate Feedwater Heater-Drains High Pressure Core Injection Reactor Isolation Core Injection Two Phase Extraction Steam Main Steam Drains The program is formatted using the recommendations of the NUMARC Technical Subcommittee Working Group on Piping Erosion/Corrosion dated June 2, 1987 and related NRC comments dated June 12, 1987.

Actual inspection point selection will be determined through engineering evaluation and the EPRI generated CHEC computer diagnostic program. Plant piping isometrics, chemistry data, piping design specifications and plant walkdowns will be utilized. The frequency of inspections will be*

determined following review of the program field measurements. Factors which will affect inspection frequency are:

- Comparison of the measured wall thickness to design wall thickness and code minimum wall thickness requirements.

3

- Macerials of conscruccion compared with operating conditions biased by a wear rate, based on the difference between design wall thickness and measured wall thickness over the existing service time._

- Geometry of the system compared with operating conditions.

- Maintenance history and/or*repiac~ments.

- Accessibility to the area for both inspection teams and operating personnel, and location with respect to safety system equipment.

Non-destructive examination methods will be consistent.with the degradation to be expected. Presently, straighc beam ultrasonic techniques ~re planned to be utiliz~d. Automated dat~ collection mechods are being addressed. It is not anticipated that radiographic techniques-for measuring wall chickness will be utilized.

- Repair/replacement decisions will be based on existing non-conformance practices which require an engineering evaluation. Typical items to be addressed for this decision process are:

- Measured wall thickness compared to design wall chickness and code minimum wall thickness allowable adjusted for service history and required future service.

Materials* o*f construction compare-d with operating conditions.

- Material avaiiability.

- Code requirements and type of defect being addressed.

- Repair economic f a~tors versus replacement economic factors.

3. For liquid-phase systems, state specifically whether the following factors have been considered in establishing your criteria for selecting points at w~ich to monitor piping thickness_(Item 2a)~

a. piping material _

b. piping configuration

c. pH of water in the system

d. syscem temperature

e. fluid bulk velocity

f. oxygen content in the system-

4 For single phase systems, the following factors are included in deter~ining inspection point selection and frequency:

Design Condi tion-s Operating Conditions Piping material System fluid pH arid type Piping configuration of water treatment

• Fluid bulk velocity System operating temperature Oxygen content of fluid

4. Chronologically list and summarize the results of all inspections that have been performed, which wer~

specifically conducted for the purpose of identifying pipe wall thinning, whether or not pipe wall thinning was discovered.and any other inspections where pipe wall thinning was discovered even though_ that was not the purpose of ihe inspection. *

a. Briefly describe the inspection program and indicate whether it was specifically intended to measure.wall thickness or whether wall *thickness measurements were an incidental determination.

b. Describe what p~ping was examined and how.

c. Report thickness measurement results and note those that were identified as unacceptable and why.

d. Describe actions already takeh or planned for piping that has been found to have a nonconforming wall thickness. If you have performed a*failure analysis, fnclude the results _of that analysis.

Indicate whether the actions involve repair or replacement, including any change of materials.

Chronologically, the wall thickness inspections that have been performed at Salem and Hope Creek are as follows:

Salem Generating Station Salem Unit l, Bleed Steam Ero.sion Baseline Survey, November 1982 an_d Apr;il 1986 (Attachment 1)

Salem.Unit 2, -Bleed Steam Erosion Baselirie survey, November 1984 (Attachment 2)

Salem Unit 1, No. 5 Bleed Steam Erosion Occurrence Data, September 1986 (Attachment 3)

Salem Unit 2, No. 5 Bleed Steam Ero~ion Survey, October 1986 (Attachment 4)

5 Salem Unit 2, Surry Failure Evaluation (initial),

Dec~mber 1986 (Attachm~nt 5)

Salem Unit l, Feedwater Inspection (responding to findings in Salem Unit 2), April through ~une 1987 (Attachment 6)

Hope Creek Generating Station Extraction Steam Erosion Baseline Survey, March 1984 (Attachment 7)

Based on engineering review, the inspe~tion programs for single pha.se and two phase erosion detail specific areas in the subject piping which are most subj~ct to corrision. The irispections listed above were performed solely to indicate wall thicknesses. Straight beam ultrasonic techniques were utilized.

The pi~ing which *was inspected i~ indicated on the Attachments. The general locations for inspections are marked on inspection sketches which are available for review upon request. A grid network, varying in spacing was utilized. The minimum wall thickness measured, when compared with adjacent measurements, will determine the severity of erosion and acceptability/unacceptability for use.

The wall thickness of the inspected piping is detailed on the Attachments. The only unacceptable determination was

• found on the Sale~ Unit 1 and 2 Ste~m Generat6r ~eedwater.

Pump recirculation piping downstream of the control valve and flow restricting orifices during the inspection of feedwater a"nd condensate systems performed subsequent to the Surry incident. This piping was designed to the feedwater piping specification but is not exposed to feedwater system pressure if the manual isolation valve, which is located downstream, remains open to the condenser. Following the inspection, Engineering Safety Evaiuations (MT~86-204 (Salem Unit ll and MT~87-005 (Salem Unit 2)) were immediately perf or.med to determine whether continued use of this. piping col.ild be permitted. The results of the safety evaluations permitted the -use of this piping to the next refueling outage based -0n the nor~al operating conditions on this piping ~ith the manual isolation valve open. Administrative controls have been pl~ced on the manual isolation (BF-31) valves prohibiting closure with the plant in operational or standby mode*s .

Erosion of the main feedwater pump-recirculation piping downstream -0f the control valve~ and flow orifices is caused

• by flashing of high energy liquid in Al06 grade B piping.

6 The affected piping is scheduled to be replaced during the next scheduled refueling outages commencing in October 1987 (Salem Unit 1) and April 1988 (~alem Unit 2). The replacement material is to be A335 Chromium Molybdenum piping.

5. Describe any plans for either revising the present program or for developing new or additional programs for monitoring pipe wall thickness.

The single phase wall thickness inspection program and existing two phase wall thickness inspection program are bei~g enhanced as.a result of industry working group recommendations (NUMARC) and PSE~G engineering evaluations.

Future enhancements will be* based on technological improv~ments in data acquisition and operating experiences.

Attachmt!rlt No* l Sa.Lew. Gem~ratinq Statjon Unit. No. l Bl0erl Steam ~rosi~n Inspection Prngra~

Ref: s-c-t~J 00-MSI'.-] 52 s-c-c I oo-r-wri-281, Rev. l S-C'-MPOO-MGS-001 SPS-17.

e Inspect inn Location* CodC" Mini mum ~Ja 11 Baseline Data* Heview Data**

BSli- J 3- -, (No. 3 lileed) .259 .401 to .409 .395 to

• 4 3 5 BSll-13-4 (No *. 3 Bleed)

• 25.0 .409 to

• 418

• 4 l 5 . to

• 4 30 BSll-14-7 (No. 4 Bleed) .188 .453 to .469 .460 to* .485 BSli-14-fl (No. 4 Bleed) .188 .415 to .427 .420 to .440 DSH-14-9 (No. 4 DlePd)

• J 88. .402 to .420 .400 to .445 BlPed Steam t.o Mtrn' s .280 .457 to .468 .445 to .465 e

• DasRLin~ data tak~n ~ovembcr 24,. JYB2 (Krautkr.amer - Branson Model CL-204, 1/4" Transducer)

• • Review data tak~n Aprjl 25, 1986 (Nortec Not-120, 1/4" Transducer)

All cJjmensioris in inches.

Attachm~nt No. 2 Sal<"!m CiP.nerating Station. Unit N0. *2*

Bleed St.P.am f-:r(lsion Inspection Pr.ogram Ref: s-r-tlOO-MS~-152 S-C-lilOO-P.ll-'D-281, Rev. 2 s-r-MPOO-MGS-0001 SPS-17 Inspect i 0n Location 44" ( (' ro!.;s u nde t" along L Line)*

44" (Crossunder a.long G Line)*

Code "1 in i mum

.375

.375

\Ja 11 *.Rase 1 i ne Data

.950 to 1.80

.1. 0 to 1.80 Review Data (4th refueling)

(4th refueling) 44 II (Crossunc1er along M Line)* .375 .995 to 1.80 (4th refue 1 i nCJ)

BSH-23-7 (No. 3 BlP.ed) .250 .400 to .450 (4th ref ue 1 i nCJ )

• BSH-::!3-4 (No. 3 Bleed) .250 .390 to .425 (4th refuelin9)

BSH-24-7 (No. 4 Bleed) .188 .390 to .410 (4th refueling)

HSH-24-8 (No. 4 Bleed) .* 188 .410 to .440 (4th refuelinq)

BStt-24-9 (~o ~ 4 Bleed) .188 .390 to .430 (4th refuelin~1) e

• ~ote visual inspections performect every refueling of cro~sunders and turning vanes.

All dirur.nsions in inches.

Attachment No. 3 Salem Generating Station Unit No.

Bleed Steam lrosion Occurrence Oata Ref: SPf.-86-0330 .

Dl'R-lSM-0118 J>SE&G Research Lab. Re.port Nos. 6~520 and 69545 s-c:-MPOO-MGS-0001 Section SPS-17 Piecp Mark Location No. Code Minimum Wall wal I Thicknt>s~;

lSDS-15-3 (No. 5 Bleed, North) .165 .045 to .300 Isns-15-3A (No. 5 Bleed, South) .165 .JOO to .400 Measuresurements taken using Nortec Model Not-120 with a l/4" inch transducer.

Original mat.Prial AST~ Al06 Grade B.

Piping replacP.d with ASTM A335 grade P-11 per DCR lSM-0118, September 1986.

All dimensions in inches.

Att..achment No. 4 Salem GonPr~ting Station Un j t No *. 2 No. 5 Bleed StPam erosion inspection (at crnssunders)

Ref~ Deficiency Report No. SMO-M86-0587' DCl~ 2SM-0014 2 s-r-MPOO-MGS-0001 SPS-17 Inspection Location rode Minimum Wall Measured Wall .Thickn:::;~;

25-P.'Jl.5-A .165

.165

. I 78 to .595

• l Y4 to .594 e

North cross1mder (adjacent to spool lA) .375 .992 to I. 066 South crossunder (adjacent to spool 3A) ~375 .998 to 1.066 6rjainal material ASTM-Al06 grade B.

Inspections Mlide us i nq l<rau tk ramer - Branson Model No. DM-2, October 25, l 986.

Piping replaced using ASTM-A335 grade P-11 per OCR 2SM-0142, October 1986.

All dimensions in inches.

/\tt:ac:l:111Pnt. No. 5 SillPm Geriercitin9 Station Unit 2 Surry occurrPnce review at Sall"?m, Initial *Inspection nata Rf.?f~ Syst.em l:ngineer t.o Salem ISi Supervisor memo dated December 16, 1986 PSE&G NDE reports* with work o~rler No. 86-12-16~076-6 S-C'-ft'IPOO-MGS-0001

• SPS-16, SPS-17, SPS-19 Inspection Location C.odc Minimum Wal 1 Wall 1"hickness 21 *SGl-'P suet. inn 90° elbow (A) .480 .670 to .900 21 SGl-P suction 90" elbow ( B) .480 .640 to .680 22 SGll' suet.ion goa elbow (A) .480 .700 to .830 22 SGFP suction 90° elbow ( B) .480 .500 t.o .580 SGFP co1nmon suc-.t ion T .520 1.060 t.o )

• 260 SGt-"I' con;n1on suction 90° elbow .520

• 750 to .900 Ueiltt-~r d rit in to *SGfo'P suction T .360 .920 to l . ) 90 24 inch T from 25 .heater .480 .985 to 1.160 21 heitter drain pump discharge elbow (A) .360 .360 to .440 21 heater drain pump discharge el how ( B) *. 360 .380 to .430 22 heate*r drain pump discharge (A) .360 .380 to .460 22 heat.er drain pump discharge ( B) .360 .360 to

• 4 20 23 Ilea tt~r drain pump discharge elbow (") .360 .370 to .475

23. heater drain pump discharge elbow (B) .360 .350 to .400 Nott: I 23 CCH*dPrisa te pump discharge Pll>ow (A) .360 .480 to .540 23 coridenRa h? fJUmp diBcharge elbow ( B) .360 .520 to .560 24 net. corr*mon feed Pl how .480 1.760 t.o 1.860 11 Bf-'] 9 valve discharge spool .720 .720 to 1.360 12 BF19 valve discharge spool .720 .730 to 1.380 13 BF19 valve discharge spool*

14 BF19 valve discharge spool 21 BF32 va Lv<<~ disctiargf! spool

.720

.720

.512/.322 Note 5

.730

.700

.330 to to t.o 1.440

l. 340

.540 Note e 22 Bt-,32 valve di sct*argc spool .512/.322 Note 5 ."280 to .550 Note J 25 u & c hea tcr feed water 1' .480 .880 to l.190 Note l Acceptable for use based upon paragraph 102.2.4 of ANSI 831.1, 1967 per original design.

Note 2 ~700 area is isolated spot. General wall thickness is not less than .740 inches.

Note 3 .280 defect is isolated spot located hy scan. General thinni~g is not less than .345 inchc!S.

Adniinistrative controls have been *placed on BF:-:31 valves and replacement is scheduled for tta~

fourth refu~ling outage.

Not.fl' 4 Al I data taken bet.ween December 16-18, 1986 using Nortec Not-120 equipment.

Note 5 Design wall.thickness violation per SPS-16. Minimum wall. required with administrative control*

6n isolation valve is .322.

( A l l d i me n s i on s i ri i n c he s * )

Attach~ent No. 6 Salem Generating Station Unit No. 1 Steam Generator Feed Pump Recirculation Piping Downstream of Flow Orifice Location Code Minimum Wall Inspection 1 Inspection 2 Inspection 2 FWR-4 Notes 1 and 2 .340 to .575 .330 to .570 .325 to .585 FWR-12 Notes 1 and 2 .425 to .525 .440 to .520 .425 to .525 e 12 BF'3l Elbow Notes 1 and 2 .235 to .450 .235 to .470 .235 to .460 12 NE Bend Note 2 N/A .280 to .480 .280 to .480 Notes:

1 Minimum wall thickness, piping isolatable from main condenser, .393 inches.

2 Minimum wall thickness, pipjng non~isolatable from main con<lenser, .247 inches.

3 Original* material ASTM Al06 grade B.

In~pection 1: April 22, 1987 Krautkramer - Branson - Model CL 204 w/high temperature probe Inspection 2: May 21, 1987 Krautkrame~ - Branson - Model CL.204 w/high temperature probe Inspection 3: June 22, 1987 Krautkramer - Branson - Model CL 204 w/high temperature probe Piping scheo11led for replacement, 4th refuelin_g_outage, October/November 1987.

All rlimen~ions in inches.

.At.tachmrnt No. 7

• Hope Creek Generating Station Un it No. J

~~traction Steam Erosihn Inspection Program Ref: l~tter from Chief Project Engine~r*- Hope Creek to GcnP.ral Manager - Hope Creek Operations dated January 16, 1984.

Description Pie~e Mark Location Design Wall Thickness Baseline Dat* Review Data Crossund<->r* 6-2500

• 438 .495 to

• 522 (1st r~fuel1ng)

Crossund<'r 6-2501 .438 .502 to .513 (1st refueling)

No. ~)A f'x t. 6-2514 .438 .552 to .573 (lst refueling)

No. 5A F:x t.

• 6-2516 .438 .557 to .576 (1st refueling)

No. 5A 1-'x t. 6-2517 .438 .555 to .572 (lst refuelin~)

No. 5P. Ext. 6-2518 .438 .592 to .609 (1st refuelinq)

No~ 5R ~:xt. 6-2504 .438 .553 to .572 ( Is t ref ue ling)

No. '>B Ext. 6-2512-A .438 .538 to .557 ( ls t r-e f ue 1 i ng)

No. 5R ~:x t *. 6-.2512-B . 438 .595 to .620 (1st refueling)

No. sn Ext. 6-2513-A .438 .528 to .542 (lst retueling)

No. 5B f:x t... 6-2513-B .4 38 .541 to .558 (lst refueling)

Cros:;;arounct 6-7678

• 4 38 .475 to .498 (1st refueling)

No. 5c 1*:x t. 6-2510 .438 .574 to .51B7 (1st refuel.in<])

No. 5(' F:x t. 6-2511 .438 ..564 to

• 51B7 ( Is t ref ue l i ng )

No. 6A l'xt.. 6-4701

• 4 38 .576 to .592 (lst refuelirig)

No. 6A f"xt_* 6-4702-A .438 .588 to .604 ( 1st re t ue l i ng )

No. 6A f:x t. 6-4702-B .438 .595 to .605 (1st refuel in~J)

No. 6A F*x t. 6-4704-A .438 .564 to .602 (lst r£:ft*elinq)

No. 6B F'xt. 6-4692 .438 .575 to .594 (lst r£:fueling)

No *. 6B Lx t. 6-4695 .438 .54.8 to .565 (1st refueling)

No. 6B Ext. Ci-4696 .438

• 615 to

• 6 25 (lst retueling)

No * (, 13 Ex t

• 6-4697-A .438 .556 to .574 (1st refueling)

No. 6C r:x t

• 6-4713

• 4 38 .564 to .574 (1st refuel i nq)

No. 6c' t::x t. 6-4714-A .438 .564 to .579 (1st refueling)

No. 6C rx t. 6-4714-B

• 438 .586 to ~608 (1st refueling)

No. 6C' Ext. 6-4716-A .438 .562 to .574 (1st refu1!lin;_,)

• Basfd i ne data taken DecemLer, 1983 w i. th Kra*u tk ramer - Branson Model CL-204 equipment.

All di1111**nsi0ns in inches.