ML20045B534

Forwards Request for Relief from ASME Code Section XI Requirements to Make Interim Repairs to Leak in Svc Water Sys Piping Line 3SWP-150-104-3 as Alternative to IWA-7000 Replacement,Per GL 90-05

ML20045B534
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	06/11/1993
From:	Opeka J, Romberg W NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
B14506, GL-90-05, GL-90-5, NUDOCS 9306180047
Download: ML20045B534 (17)

Text

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. _ ..

1 .

• SIORTHEAST UTILITIES o ner.i Omc.. . seioen sir i. serun, conn.ciicui l =Ne dard $r c ."' P.O. BOX 270 k k J [,7[,"7,*((. ,,,

,,, .= ew .c., w H ARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 (203) 665-5000 June 11, 1993 Docket No. 50-423 B14506 Re: ASME Section XI GL 90-05 10CFR50.55a(g)(6)(1)

U.S. liaclear Regulatory Connissior. ,

Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Relief Recuest From ASME Code Section XI Reouirements The purpose of this letter is to request, in accordance with NRC Generic letter (GL) 90-05, relief from ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI requirements pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(g)(6)(1). Attachment 1 provides a description of actions taken by the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) to make interim repairs to a leak in the service water system piping line 3SWP-150-104-3 as an alternative to an IWA-7000 replacement.

Consistent with the provisions of the GL, NNECO is submitting this relief request for a temporary noncode repair. Code repair of the degraded piping is planned for the next refueling outage expected to begin in July 1993. The l Resident Inspector at Millstone Unit No. 3 has been informed of this repair l and, as has been our practice, we will keep the Resident Inspector fully informed of all future repairs.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY FOR: J. F. Opeka Executive Vice President BY:

W. D. Romberg p Vice President cc: T. T. Martin, Region I Administrai.or V. L. Rooney, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 P. D. Swetland, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos.1, 2, and 3 9306280047 930633 g3 k/ f' PDR 'ADDCK 05000423 f*# glL I P ppg

1 Docket No. 50-423  ;

~

B14506 e

Attachment 1 Millstone Unit No. 3 Relief Request From ASME Code Section XI Requirements ,

i Jime 1993

NORTHEAST UTILITIES  ;

TRACKING FORM FOR RELIEF REQUEST FROM ASME SECTION XI REQUIREMENTS ,

MUST BE COMPLETED AND FILED WITH NRC WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS UNIT: MILLSTONE UNIT 3 NCR# 393-052 DATE: 05/14/93 TIME: 1440  ;

1.0 ORIGINATOR  ;

Processing Time; should not exceed 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

1.1 COMPLETE SECTION 1 OF ENCLOSED FORM l Complete 1.2 NOTIFY RESIDENT NRC INSPECTOR Person Contacted: Doua Demosev Date: 5/14/93 1.3 FORWARD THIS FORM. NCR AND NDE MEASUREMENTS TO NUSCO ,

SUPERVISOR, STRESS ANALYSIS ENGINEERING SECTION Originator: Gary Swider Date: 5/14/93 2.0 STRESS ANALYSIS SECTION Date Received: 5/14/93 Processing Time: 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> from flaw detection for preliminary operability assessment.

25 calendar days from flaw detection for final operability assessment. ,

2.1 PRELIMINARY FLAW EVALUATION  :

Evaluation Completed By: Rav DeConto / T. J. Mawson Date: 5/17/93 Notify Plant Person Contacted : Gary Swider Date: 5/17/93 l

doc: TF1 Page 1 of 2 6/8/93 l

NORTHEAST UTILITIES TRACKING FORM FOR RELIEF REQUEST FROM ASME SECTION XI REQUIREMENTS 2.2 END OF CYCLE FLAW EVALUATION Evaluation Completed By: Ray DeConto Date: 6/08/93 2.3 REVIEW RESULTS OF AUGMENTED INSPECTION Completed By: Rav DeConto Date: 6/08/93 If additional inspections are required, notify plant. i No additional inspections are required.  ;

2.4 FORWARD COMPLETED FORM TO NUCLEAR LICENSING l Supervisor, Stress Analysis Section:

/2 C ekh L TJ tA Date : 6/09/93 T. J. Mawson L R. E. DeLM) [

3.0 NUCLEAR LICENSING Processing Time: should not exceed 30 calendar days from flaw detection.

3.1 REllEF REQUEST SUBMITTED ,

By: P.G. Patton Date: 6/11/93  !

Docket No. 50-423 t

doc: TF1 Pege 2 of 2 6/8/93 j i

c c_ ..-

NORTHEAST UTILITIES FORM FOR RELIEF REQUEST FROM ASME SECTION XI REQUIREMENTS ..,

q UNIT: Millstone Unit 3 NCR # 393-052' DATE: 5/14/93 .l TIME: 1440  ;

1.0 ORIGINATOR 1

1.1 DESCRIPTION

OF FLAW j 1

Leak in 3SWP-150-104-3 local to FW-34. t Piping / Component Drawing No.: CP-319738 Pl&D No.: EM-133B 1.2 IMPRACTICALITY OF PROPOSED TEMPORARY REPAIR f Repair cannot be completed in 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> LCO. 1 j

1.3 DESCRIPTION

OF PROPOSED TEMPORARY REPAIR  !

'i installation of soft rubber patch. >

1.4 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: System Interaction Evaluation 1 Flooding: Pinhole leak at this time. Floor drains are adequate for drainage.  !

Jet Spray: Leak spays will not affect any safety-related power supplies.

l 1

Loss of Flow: Temporary patch will prevent loss of flow. j i

Other Interactions: None }

Failure Consequences? Cannot be isolated.

Impact to Safe Shutdown Capability? Total failure would result in loss of  ;

one train thigh head safety injection (SlH), residual heat removal (RHS), '

recirculation spray system (RSS), redundant train would supply safe ,

shutdown capability]. l 1.5 ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION l l

Root Cause

Description:

Classic wall loss of solid 90/10 cu-ni due to'  ;

turbulent flow downstream'of elbow causing locally high flow velocities.

Other Systems Affected: None l doc: TF1 Page 1 of 4 6/8/93

NORTHEAST UTILITIES FORM FOR RELIEF REQUEST FROM ASME SECTION XI REQUIREMENTS 1.6 AUGMENTED INSPECTION (must be completed within 15 days of flaw ,

detection)

Assessment of overall degradation t.f the affected system; Leak is typical of erosion / corrosion in SWP r% r ouse leaks do not result from large areas of damage but from vu %atizer vall loss. An incpection  :

program has been initiated for

• Tiall bec piping.

Additional examinations requir. 3 (bnw d on root cause) - specify nurr.br of inspection locations - also specdy frequency of inspections: [ ten mc st accessible locations for high energy piping and five for moderate energv piping systems] ,

Five additional locations were chosen, as listed below: ,

a) FW-2 "A" Train Return d) FW-3 "B" Train Return '

b) FW-23 "A" Train Return e) FW-9 "B" Train Return c) FW-1 "B" Train Return Description of areas selected for augmented inspection: Small bore piping of similar configuration.

2.0 STRESS ANALYSIS UNIT 2.1 DESIGN DETAILS System: Service Water "A" Train Return from CCE heat exchanger Component: Pipe (CP-319378 near FW-34)

Piping Size & Schedule: 1.5"/ 0.150" Nominal Wall Thickness: 0.150" Safety Code Class: Class 3 Material: SB 466 No. 706 Design Pressure: 100 psig Design / Operating Temperature: 95 /33- 79 Code Minimum Wall Thickness: 0.011" I

doc: Tr1 Page 2 of 4 6/8/93

NORTHEAST UTILITIES FORM FOR RELIEF REQUEST FROM ASME SECTION XI REQUIREMENTS 2.2 FLAW CHARACTERIZATION Flaw Description / Size: (i.e., flaw size, adjacent wall thickness, single / multiple flaw, total area examined, etc.) The flaw is highly localized. The through wall portion of the flaw is 1/16" in diameter and the adjacent wall / nominal wall is 0.150". . ,

Flaw Location: The flaw is located downstream of FW-34. -

Method of Examination: UT Flaw Type: Pinhole due to erosion / corrosion  ;

Referenced trT Measu omen Report: Attacned to NCR 393-052 j 2.3 PRELIMINARY FLAW M,h.,-)ATION

SUMMARY

Preliminary Operability msessment Details: .

t Method Used: Draft Code Case N513 (dated 8/13/92)

Limiting Flaw Size: Total flaw 1.9". Through wall portion of flaw 0.95"/ '

Minimum wall thickness outside of ths flaw must be at least 0.060 inches. '

Period of Time to Reach i.imiting Flaw; Size: Expected to be greater than 2.5 years.

Evaluation

Reference:

Memo MCE-SA-93-198 2.4 END OF CYCLE FLAW EVALUATION

SUMMARY

Final Operability assessment Details: ,

Method Used: Draft Code Case N513 (dated 8/13/92)

Estimated Erosion Rate: 0.019 in / yr Projected Flaw Size: Total projected flaw size is 0.50 in, total projected through wall portion is 0.313".

Period of Time to Permanent Repair / Replacement: Permanent repair for this flaw is scheduled for the next refueling outage (scheduled to begin on 7i31/93) i doc: TF1 Page 3 of 4 6/8/93 .

I l I

, . ~

NORTHEAST UTILITIES FORM FOR RELIEF REQUEST FROM ASME SECTION XI REQUIREMENTS' 2.4 PHEllMINARY FLAW EVALUATION

SUMMARY

(cont'd)

Provide a Discussion of Evaluation of Design Loading Conditions: j n

Loading conditions evaluated include: pressure, deadicad, thermal and seismic. All Code stress equations were considered and were determined ~ >

4 to be acceptable. i l

Evaluation

Reference:

Memo MCE-SA-93-198 (attached) ..

-i Diset:ssion of Augmented Inspection Results: j

. I Five additionalinspections of susceptible components were performed. [

These five inspections resulted in the generadan of two additional NCRs  !

due to wall thinning. The wall thinning described in these NCRs (NCR 393-065 and 066) was determined to be acceptable in Memo MCE-SA-93-197.

l 2.5 FLAW MONITORING .i t

Walkdown Frequency: (for leak monitoring) [

At least once per shift.

Frequency of Follow-up NDE: (for erosion rate assessment)

At least once every three months. l 2.6 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (scope, limitations, and specific  !

considerations) ,

1 None 2.7 EXCEPTIONS TO GL 90-05 / DRAFT ASME CODE CASE  ;

i i

The evaluations were performed in accordance with GL 90-05 and the l Draft Code Case N513 (dated 8/13/92) .

'i

2.8 REFERENCES

/ INPUTS NCRs 393-052,065 and 066 j Memo MP3-E-93-392  ;

Memo MCE-SA-93-197 and 198 l l

L cc: Originator, Supervisor, Stress Analysis Engineering Section, Department f j Director, Nuclear Records  ;

j ooc: TF1 Pege 4 of 4 6/8/93 I i<

I PART 1 Line 3SWP-150-104-3 (FW34)

Objective: The objective of this evaluation is to qualify a pin hole leak in service water line 3SWP-150-104-3 as described in NCR 393-052 for structural integrity. This evaluation qualifies the piping through the end of the next scheduled refueling outage, j i

Parameters The following parameters willDesign be aop[ lied in this evaluation (Reference 1l Pipe Size Outside Wall thick Pressure Temp - Allowable Nominal Dia. (in) Schedule (in)__ (psi) (F) Material _ Sh (psi)_

1.5 1.900j nonstd ~I _

0.150 100 95 SB466 706l 8701 1.0 SCOPE This evaluation is applicable to: l a) Class 3 Section lll Subsection ND piping i b) Operating conditions <200F, < 275 psig c) Pipe, tube, fittings and flanges - NO WELDING d) Structural integrity only. This does not demonstrate system operability.

e) t-adj is used throughout this calculation. t-adj is always the predicted t-adj.

3.0 FLAW EVALUATION This evaluation is applicable to non-planar (through wall holes) and is performed in accordance with Generic Letter 90-05 and DRAFT Code Case N513 (8/13/92) (Reference 3).  ;

3.1 tmin and t-adj Determination ,

a) Determine tm per construction code (Reference 2). i tm = P

• Do / (2 * (SE + Py) + A P= presssure, psig Do= outside diameter, in S= stress allowable, psi E= joint efficiency = 1.00 y= a coefficient = 0.4 A= additional thickness (corrosion allowance, threading, etc...)

= 0 fer copper nickle pipe

-~

' Instrument (Pef. 6) Remaining' tmeas + Calibrate Yers of' Wear Life Outside im minimum Tolerance Serv:ce Rate Required tadj (1)

Dia. (in)q (inl (in) _ (in) (yrs; (in/yr) (yrs) (in) t 1.900L_ 0.0109 i 0.111 0.002 7.87 0.01911 0.403 0.1003 ,

Note 1) The t-adj value is the predicted remaining wall at the end of the next scheduled refueling outage (07/31/93 to 10/09/93) ..

Note 2) This portion of the service water system has been operational since July 1985.

Note 3) The measured data is per Reference 5.  ;

Note 4) UT date.was not provided within .25" of the hole. This was due to the spray of the pin hole leak. Data was obtained at 90 degree intervals around the pipe. The reac'ings provided represent the minimum wall thickness outside of the .25" radius identified above (Reference 6). These minimum readings are the minimum reading for each  !

grid area.

o

~

3.2 Branch reinforcement Evaluation Method (Reference 2) .

a) tadj must be greater than 2*tm Pipe Size

- Nominal - tadj 2*tm 1.5 0.1003 0.0217 acceptable b) The postulated circular diameter, d, shall not exceed the pipe nominal '

outside diameter.

1 Predicted d Maximum Total Flaw Predicted flaw is set Pipe Size Outside_ - Allow Flaw. Circ Length equal to 2 times the Nominal Dia. (in) Lengthfin) (in) transducer plus 0.1".

1.5 1.900 1.900 l 0.50 OK The following branch connection reinforcement calculation is performed in accordance with ND 3643.3 (Reference 2).

Required reinforcement area = 1.07* tmh *di A1 = area provided by excess wall in the pipe = d2*(Th - tmh)

The mill tolerance on Th is ignored since UT is available. '

Note: d2 has been set equal to the maximum allowable hole size.

Required Excess Pipe Size - tmh di d2 Reinforce Pipe Area Nominal (in) (in) (in) tadj Area, in ^ 2 A1, in ^ 2 1.5 0.0109 1.90 1.90 0.1003- 0.022 0.170 OK c) Determination of unreinforced branch connection stresses per ND 3650 SIF Per . tnom - tadj _

Pipe Size _ t-adj . Figure SLP SLP Nominal tadj Rmadj h SIF. - NC3672.9 (psi) - (psi)

[ 1.5 0.100 0.90 0.1111 3.885 2.1 317 473 tno m t-adj Section Section Pipe Size Modulus - Modulus -

Nominal tadj Rmadj_Jn ^ 3)_ (in ^ 3) 1.51 0.100 0.90 0.335 0.243

1 The following table presents both the tnom & 2-adj corrected Code stress equations:

tnom t-adj Allowable t-adj '

Point Stress Stress Stress Factor Equation Number - (psi) - (psi) (psi) of Safety  !

8 i Sustained 168 507 960 8700 9.07 OK

~9 Norm /Up Occasional 168 1612 3782 10440 2.76 OK 10 Thermal ,

168 2265 5786 13050 2.26 OK 11 Sus + Th 108 2773 6745 21750 3.22 OK 9 Faulted

< Occasional! 168 1936 4610 20880 4.53 OK ,

d) An additional limitation is placed on the through wall portion of the maximum hole size. The through wall portion of the crack may not  ;

exceed d/2 or 5 inches.

tm 0.011 in Additional Predicted Wall Thinning 0.008 in ,

Minimum Wall Required To Prevent ,

LExpansion of the Through Wall Flad 0.019 in Measured Thorugh Wall Portion of Flaw! 1/16 in Maximum Allowed Through Wall Portion of Flaw (lesser of d/2 or 5 inches) 0.950 in Pre.dicted Thorugh Wall Portion of Flaw (1)t 0.313 in OK

References:

Note: 1) This value includes a .25 inch tolerance.

1) Stress Calculation 12179-NP(B)-969-XD, Revision 2

2) ASME Section 1111971 Edition through the 1973 Summer Addenda +

3) ASME Draft Code Case N513 (8/13/92) and GL 90-05

4) NCR 393-052 .

5) Attached UT data

6) Memo MP3-E-93-392 G. Swider, to: R. DeConto, dated June 8,1993 Computer Storage: c:\123r3\90-05.bem\n393052.wk3 i

PART 2 Line 3SWP-150-104 (FW34)

Objective: The objective of this evaluation is to determine the minimum wall which will still meet i all Code equations. This is an iterative process where the final tadj selected results  ;

in just meeting the limiting Code equation. An estimate of remaining life is also determined here. l Parameters:The following parameters will be applied in this evaluation (Reference 1):

j Design Pipe Size Outside Wall thick Pressure Temp Allowable Nominal Dia. Jin) Schedule (inl (psi) (F) . Material Sh (psi) i 1.5 l 1.900 nonstd 0.150- 100 95 SB466 706 8700 1.0 SCOPE This evaluation is applicable to:

a) Class 3 Section lil Subsection ND piping b) Operating conditions <200F, < 275 psig c) Pipe, tube, fittings and flanges - NO WELDING ,

d) Structural integrity only. This does not demonstrate system operability.

e) t-adj is used throughout this calculation. t-adj is always the predicted t-adj.

3.0 FLAW EVALUATION This evaluation is applicable to non-planar (through wall holes) and is performed in accordance with Generic Letter 90-05 and DRAFT Code Case N513 (8/13/92) (Reference 3).

3.1 tmin and t-adj Determination a) Determine im per construction code (Reference 2).

tm = P

• Do / (2 * (SE + Py) + A P= presssure, psig Do= outside diameter, in S= stress allowable, psi E= joint efficiency = 1.00 l y= a coefficient = 0.4 A= additional thickness (corrosion allowance, threading, etc...)

= 0 for copper nickle pipe

~

r Instrument Femaining' tmeas + Calibrate Years of Wear Life Outside tm minimum Tolerance Service Rate Required tadj (1)

Dia.jin) Jin) , (in) (in) .(ynQ (in/yr) (yrs) (in) 1.900 l 0.0109i 0.110 0.002j 7.87 0.0191 0.403 0.0520 instrument + Calibration Tolerance (in) 0.002 t Estimated minimum wall required (in) 0.054_

___ USE: 0.060 l Remaining Life (yrs)J 2.52

= _USEj 2.50 Note 1) The t-adj value is selected.

Note 2) This portion of the service water system has been operational since July 1985.

Note 3) The measured data is per Reference 5.

1

3.2 Branch reinforce.nent Evaluation Method (Reference 2) a) .tadj must be greater than 2*tm Pipe Size Nominal tadj - 2*tm 1.5 0.0520 0.0217 acceptable b) The postulated circular diameter, d, shall not exceed the pipe nominal outside diameter.

Predicted d- Maximum - Total Flaw Pipe Size Outside Allow Flawj Circ Length Nominal Dia.. (in) Length (in): (in) 1.5 1.900 1.900 j 0.50 OK The following branch connection reinforcement calculation is performed in accordance with ND 3643.3 { Reference 2).

Required reinforcement area = 1.07* tmh *d1 A1 = area provided by excess wall in the pipe = d2*(Th - tmh)

The mill tolerance on Th is ignored since UT is available.

Note: d2 has been set equal to the maximum allowable hole size.

Required . Excess Pipe Size tmh di ' d2 . .

Reinforce ; Pipe Area tadj Area, in ^ 2 A1, in ^ 2 -

~

Nominal (in) ~ (in) - (in) --

1.5 0.0109] 1.90 1.90 0.0520 0.022 0.078 OK c) Determination of unreinforced branch connection stresses per ND 3650 SIF Per inom- tadj L Pipe Size _

t-adj ~ Figure. 'SLP SLP. l Nominal tadj Rmadj h SIF NC3672.9 (psi) '(psi) - ,

1.5 [ 0.052 0.92 0.056 6.129 2.1 - 317 913 tno m - - t-adj Section Section Pipe Size Modulus Modulus:

Nominal - tadj - Rmadi - (in ^ 3) (in ^ 3) -

1.5 0.052 0.92 0.335 0.136

1 1

The following table presents both the tnom & t-adj corrected Code stress equations:

tno m _ t-adj - Allowable t-adj

' Point Stress Stress Stress Factor Equation Number (psi) (psi) (psi) of Safety ' '

8 Sustained 168 507 2283 8700 3.81 OK >

9 Nor/Up  :

Occasional 168 1612 10234 10440 1.02 OK ,

10 Thermal 168 2265 16298 13050 0.80 NO GOOD 11 Sus + Th 168 2773 18581 21750 1.17 OK 9 Faulted Occasional l! 168 i

1936 12566 20880 1.66 OK Failure of Eq 10 is acceptable if Eq 11 is met d) An additional limitation is placed on the through wall portion of the maximum hole size. The through wall portion of the crack may not exceed d/2 or 5 inches.

tm j 0.011 in Additional Predicted Wall Thinning j 0.048 in .

Minimum Wall Required To Prevent ,

Expansion of the Through Wall Flad 0.059 in l

Measured Thorugh Wall Portion of Flaw 1/16 in

_. Maximum Allowed Through Wall Portion of Flaw (lesser of d/2 or 5 inches) 0.950 in Predicted Thorugh Wall Portion of Flaw (1) 0.313 in  ; OK i i

Note: 1) This value includes a .25 inch tolerance.

References:

1) Stress Calculation 12179-NP(F)-969-XD, Revision 2

2) ASME Section til 1971 Edition through the 1973 Summer Addenda

3) ASME Draft Code Case N513 (8/13/92) and GL 90-05

4) NCR 393-052

5) Attached UT data Computer Storage: c:\123r3\90-05.bem\393052e.wk3 Prepared By: 6f, C., bed Reviewed By: r C dcd#e 6 cf w 5

~

}; .'

. EROSION / CORROSION ULTRASONIC CALIBRATION DATA SHEET i

(2) Plant M//sf on g '(3) Unit 3 (5) Component Designation Shl- 3 A ft).] g (4) System StfVlrf k/nf# (B) Iso. No.la.179-(f'-319738 (331)Line No.3-5dP-/50 !dlf-3[A')

(337) Diameter / '/A (338)Crid Size i" ( 3 3 9 )T,,,, .lf 0 (340)T, , ./3/ ,

(341) Component Description 14faiON' PlD E **(63)Temo. N/A v '

(344) Surface UApaNEd Instrument: ,

(16)Model No. A6 DI P/ds (17)S/N 9/03 t/A09 (124)Freq. BB i i

Transducer:

(132) Mfg. AANA (133)S/N 69/11/ (131) Size i clO (134)Freq. /0 M//2 .

Cal. Block:

(332)S/N (333) Type CA/7 (335) (336) (136) t Block Thickness Instrutnent Reading Calibration Checks

> <10 1 090f030 .2/9 APnl,03/ Initial Ca1. 1900

/ / Intermediate / y

// [ /t/ [ Intermediate /// )

[jf [A Intermediate [A

[ [ Intermediate [  ;

,119ln9DfoX , ll9 i O20l,03/ Final Ca1. .

. y930 i (342) Instrument Tolerance 2 0enA/

i (345) Calibration Tolerance O. s oO/ 'l (343)Crid Verified as correct /8(M i (49) Examiner:

(Print) f 0 ntl Art lpf (Sign) $bl 17/ ,$R w Leve1XL Date f,l14.,/93 l (50)Reviewe.. 7 (Print) 'd M/ft /blII (Sign)]o'7Mu. eve 1 T Date k'/b' I uN

• (Refer to Appendix B of NU NDE Procedure Manual to fill in each block) .

• • For extreme temperatures only.

FICURE 4 -

-l

_ Rev: 7 ts:o:xx.c), Procedure NU-UT-30 -Page: 12 of 12

' ~

TICURE 3 COM?ONENT 1D SH I- 3L hi-311 EXA'11NER Mirlak AIT})h/ DATE 5/1Lll93 PLANT / UNIT M,'//3 fo/) E ~21 SYSTEM $W GP,ID SIZE / '# COLUMN - CIRCUMFERENTIAL LOCATION ABC n l l l f> g .lui  ; . tic J4c,x l l l

,143 11 1 .1:1 .!vc g .

3 .149 ,1@ . its JTo y .lEc ,lM 1% .14_7

- ,147 nik9. ,Isl . >1 I Il '

1 I IIi  ;

I l 1 IIII RO'.7 - AXIAL I I Il 1I LOCATION l l l l l l

~

li I IIII Lsa.L on PIPE is

>A III I I III

& Colonin.

Arca. Could Ho f D e I I ll I l Ma.tfed due to lll Il IlI CXC r.S:lve DUChat3e l l l l l 1 liI I l- 1II II IIII IIllII IIIIIII II II II I IIIll I I I I IIIII ,

I II I II i  ;

I I I i

SKETCH OF COMPONENT SHO',lINC CEID LOCATIONS FOR THE EXTENT OF THE REDUCED THICKNESS ARD.S

~'

Rev: 7 ,

Pro:edure NU-UT-30 i

ts:u m c), Fage: 11 of 12

... o NORTHEAST UTHJTIES E

Wf STther W%E3*uSETY5 htctet Caestubs g

- i . .u -

WF'HIM1 UTtu?O 5Esregt tressev MFtHEAS1 huCLi AR th{RG* CutlMPsv June 8,1993 MP3-E-93-392 To: Ray DeConto MCE/SA - Berlin From: ar3 der .

Engineering - Millstone Unit 3  :

Subject:

UT Data for NCR 393-052 and In senice Date of Senice Water System While performing UT in the area of the leak downstream of FW-34 on line No. 3-SWP-150-104-3, ,

I the technician was unable to perform a scan of the area immediately adjacent to the hole due to the excessive discharge through the pinhole. A 0.20" transducer was used to take the UT data. The transducer has a 3/4 inch housing which precluded the measurement of pipe thickness closer than 1/4" to the hole due to spray. The technician found the minimum reading outside of the 1/4" radius .,

from the pinhole to be 0.110" Pursuant to our conversation of yesterday, the Senice Water system began testing in 1984 and the

- majority of testing was not completed until July / August of 1985. The system was not aligned to all piping on a consistent basis until this time; therefore, the in senice date can be assumed to be Juiy r 15, 1985. The components identified in NCRs 393-052, 393-065, and 393-066 have been determined to be original plant piping installed prior to July 15,1985.

Please feel free to call me at X5381 if any other information is required.

cc: W. Rich 0S70 FiEV 6-90 BP91 -