ML20086P034
| ML20086P034 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Nine Mile Point |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1982 |
| From: | Gray E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083L677 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-14 NUDOCS 8402240239 | |
| Download: ML20086P034 (2) | |
Text
_ ~.
r O"
O
^
.s.
0819N!
MEMORAN00M FOR:
FILE THRU:
J. P. Durr, Chief, Materials & Procasses Section, DETP F
'FROM:
E. H. Gray, Reactor Inspector, MPS, DETP
'SUBJECTi MEETING ON AUGUST 13, 1982 AT NINE M'ILE POINT #1 SITE 1:
ON REACTOR RECIRCULATION PIPING REPLACEMENT
-.The region based Elding materials specialist attended the meeting at the Nine Mile Point site on the cracking and plans for replacement of approximately 300 feet of 28" diameter recirculation loop piping. A description of the piping
- welds ultrasonic. test (UT) results and replacement program are presented in the attached reference #1. Also attached is the meeting attendance list.
During the meeting, the following subjects were discussed:
r
- 1.
Reference #1.
2.
Defect Size - actual typical size is not known.
- 3. Defect Severity - sufficient to expect relatively rapid growth under plant operating conditions.
4.Defe:t type - intergranular stress corrosion cracking of 304/316 stainless steel weld heat affected zone of pipe cir-
. cumferential weld joints.
5.
Metallurgical results of small boat sample.
6.
Full thickness sample'sent to Battelle for testing during week of 8/8/82.
7.
Site management requested NRC approval to initiate recirculation pipe removal on 8/16/82. NRC approval was denied by the NRC Project Manager (Phil Polk) because the site has not provided the NRC with details of the pipe replacement program such as ALARA, schedule, NUREG 0313 response,
-weld procedures, and disposition-of removed pipe sections.
ACdte AMf E. H. Gray, Reactor Inspector l
' Attachments i
a) Reference #1 - T.E. Lempges to D. Eisenhut - August 6, 1982.
p b.
Meeting of 8/13/82 - Attendance List.
bU,D as, seamos
" 74 PDR O
v4.
+v-,
..., +
.,_.-...p
,,,m,.-r-,
,,m.-~~.
.r,,,---.
,,mem...-a,-<r..-m.,-
4,,,--,y-,v.-. -,,,--, - ~.,,, -.-.,,,
m o-f SEP 081982 MEMORANDUM FOR:
FILE THRU:
J. P. Durr, Chief, Materials & Processes Section, DETP FROM:
E. H. Gray, Reactor Inspector, MPS, DETP
SUBJECT:
MEETING ON AUGUST 13, 1982 AT NINE MILE POINT #1 SITE ON REACTOR RECIRCULATION PIPING REPLACEMENT Th] region based welding materials specialist attended the meeting at the Nine Mile Point site on the cracking and plans for replacement of approximately 300 fat of 28" diameter recirculation loop piping. A description of the piping welds ultrasonic test (UT) results and replacement program are presented in th; attached reference #1. Also attached is the meeting attendance list.
During the meeting, the following subjects were discussed:
1.
Reference #1.
2.
Defect Size - actual typical size is not known.
3.
Defect Severity - sufficient to expect relatively rapid growth under plant operating conditions.
4.
Defect type - intergranular stress corrosion cracking of 304/316 stainless steel weld heat affected zone of pipe cir-cumferential weld joints.
5.
Metallurgical results of small boat sample.
6.
Full thickness sample sent to Battelle for testing during week of 8/8/82.
7.
Site management requested NRC approval to initiate recirculation pipe removal on 8/16/82. NRC approval was denied by the NRC Project Manager (Phil Polk) because the site has not provided the NRC with details of the pipe replacement program such as ALARA, schedule, NUREG 0313 response, weld procedures, and disposition of removed pipe sections.
E. H. Gray, Reactor Inspector Attachments a) Reference #1 - T.E. Lempges to D. Eisenhut - August 6,1982.
b.
Meeting of 8/13/82 - Attendance List.
f 7
/
DETP DETP DETP omco
,, D, t t,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Ebne,,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,,,
...,@.,f........, ;
su--ol....Grayd.,
u
.flWEk...
......Q.1k.
.....M..........
e=n AC FORM 31S (10 80) NRCM 024a OFFIClAL RECORD COPY usam mi-m.m
~
- - e M Y NIAGAD A R U MOHA', X
'i g gg/fp_
4 <3 a
NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CoRPORAftON/300 ERIE BoutEVAAD WEST SYRACUSE. N Y
/
August 6, 1982 l'
5:
~
.(. g a/
Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director O h,k'Nhh Division of Licensing 7
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I \\ a L F j f ~t- )
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 AUG 1019F*>
Re: Nine Mile Point Unit 1
- US[ifw Docket No. 50-220 tes no._
OPR-63
~
Dear Mr. Eisenhut:
On May 11, 1982, Niagara Mohawk provided -information on the replacement of the recirculation safe ends at Nine Mile Point Unit 1.
That letter was in resconse to your letter of April 21, 1982. The purpose of this letter is to confirm previous verbal communications with members of your staff that we olan
~
to reolace all the 28-inch recirculation system pioing.
Mohawk's decision to reolace the recirculation oiping is provided herein.The basis for N Chronology and Conclusions On March 23, 1982, recirculation safe ends.through wall cracks were detecteo in two of the ten On March 26, 1982, oerformed on these two safe ends and one other. ultrasonic examinations were The results of tnose examinations confirmed crack indications.
Niagara Mohawk decided to reolace all ten safe ends. Based uoon that information, In mid-Aoril, 1982, two. boat samoles were obtaineo from one of the safe ends in the vicinity of the through wall cracks.
One each of these samoles was sent to General Electric and Battelle Laboratories for evaluation.
The results of those evaluations in mid-May confirmeo the cresence of intergranular stress corrosion cracking.
Prior to receiving the results of the evaluations from Battelle ano General Electric, other phenomena were evaluated by Niagara Mohawk as potential mechanisms for crack initiation.
These evaluations were used on a qualitative basis to determine high stress areas of the recirculation oicing system under various ooerating scenarios (i.e. lockeo oumo snubbers, etc.).
Based on these evaluations, it was cecided to examine by ultrasonic methods the oumo discharge casting to riser elbow weld. Using normal ultrasonic methods, it was aetermined that two of the five welds had coce recortable indications.
When increased ultrasonic transducer gain was used, the remaining three welds exhibited indications.
n l')
August 6, 1982 Page 2 I
The two pumo cischarge casting to riser elbow welos with normal ultrasonic indications were later examined by dye cenetrant methods on the inside diameter.
The results of those examinations indicatea the presence of cracks.
In early May,' 1982, a replication process (i.e., obtaining a negative of i
the crack with a slece of #11340 celluose acetate taoe) was implemented.
The results of General Electric and Niagara Mohawk's review indicated the presence of intergranular stress corrosion cracking.
A boat sample of that same region
_(taken on June 13, 1982) was evaluated by Sylvester Associates and confirmed the presence of intergranular stress corrosion cracking.
Based upon the confirmation of cracking at the safe ends and the oumo discharge casting to riser elbow welds,' it was decided to ultrasonically inspect.all of the remaining welds, where the radiation fields permitted.
The results of those examinations indicated cracking in a large number of welds.
In most case, these indications could only be obtained when using the increased gain ultrasonic technique procedure.
Attached Figures 1 through 5 outline the location 'of all welds in the recirculation loons.
Tab % 1 summarizes the examinations and results of the examinations.
L Based on the results of our; examinations and investigations, it was decidea to reolace the 28-inch recirculation piping.
Preliminarily, it i
aooears that it will be advantageous to replace branch oiping also. However, all of.the technical issues have not yet been resolved.
Therefore, no final oecision has been ::ade to replace this branch piping.
Replacement Progras 7
L All reolacement material will be 316 NG or equiva t, with a carbon content of less than 0.02 percent.
This material is of the grade which does-not require augmented in service inspection per NUREG 0313, Revision 1.
The replacement safe ends were manufactured in 1979 to the 1977 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III (adoenda through summer 1977).
The remainder of the pioing was ordered and.is being manufactured to the 1980 code through
. winter 1980 Adcenda.
I e6 The actual reolacement will be accomolished in accordance with IWA4000 an IWB4000 of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI,.1977 addition (addenda through su.mer 1978). All weloing will be in accordance with Section IX,_1978). The fit us requirements will be in accordance with ANSI B31.1-1977 (with adder!da through winter 79) code for pressure pioing.
Since the configuration of the system will be the same as the original design, Niagara Mohawk does not intend to reco the existing stress analysis.
The seismic design criteria are as specified in Section III of the Final Safety Analysis Recert.
9 4
.,n.,---,
,.n,
,-.--,,_,..w,-...,.,w,,,,-,,,-m.,
.,.,,,,n.----_-m-n-----,-
_3.. _
=.
rs August 6, 1982
)
6#
Pagn 3' I
applicable to this replacement are as follows: Nondestructive examl 1
4
_Radiograohic and Dye Penetrant Section III of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel 1977 Summer 1978 addenda
_ Ultrasonic Section XI 1977 Summer 1978 adaenda r
s The replacement methodology is in the prot.ess of being develooed.
Preliminarly, the method of replacement is to dismantle all of the ofoing in all five loops.
The loop furthest from the equioment hatch would be rebuilt, from the pumo up.
The uopermost elbows would be used for the final closure and fit uo, on both inlet and outlet sides'of the loop.
loons would continue until the final loop (closest to.the equipment hatch)
Rebuilding of the completed.
be. included with the next quarterly repair program st paragraphs 2.0.(6) c ano d of our operating license.
Very truly yours, NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION 4
'jf T. E. Lemoges Vice President Nuclear Generation 1
GJG/kab t
I l
l i
- - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~
~~
p
TABLE 1 C])
Ultrasonic Dye Penetrant
.(
Examination Examination Weld No.
(UT)
(PT)
Results(l)
No.11 Rectrc. Loop P32-FW-1-W Not Inspected P32-SW-1-W Not Inspected P32-SW-2-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-FW-2-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-FW-3-W X
UT Indications (IncreasedGain)
P32-SW-3-W X
UT Indications
-(Increased Gain)
P32-FW-4-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-FW-26-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-SW-17-W Not Inspected P32-FW-25-W Not Inspected P32-SW-16-W Not Inspected P32-SW-IS-W Not Inspected P32-FW-23-W Not Inspected P32-FW-22-W Not Inspected No. 12 Recire. Looo P32-FW-5-W Not Inspected P32-SW-4-W Not In spected.
P32-FW-6-W-X UT Indications (IncreasedGain)
P32-FW-7-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-SW-5-W X
l UT Indications (Increased Gain) l P32-FW-8-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-FW-31-W X
UT Indications P32-SW-20-W Not Inspected P32-FW-30-W Not Inspected P32-FW-29-W Not Inspected P32-SW-19-W Not Inspected j
P32-SW-18-W Not Inspected P 32-FW-2 8-W Not Inspected P32-FW-27-W X
Code UT Indications Plus Leaks 4
(1) Where increased gain is indicated, the normal code ultrasonic examination showed at least one recordtdie defect indication.
However, using an increased gain, intermittent indications were observed along the
~
circumference of the inside diameter.
A
=
O' D
1aste i (Continued)
(
Ultrasonic Dye Penetrant Ex am'ination Examination Weld No.
(UT)
(PT)
Results(l)
No.13 Recire. Loop P32-FW-9-W Not Inspected
-P32-SW-6-W Not Inspected P32-SW-7-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-FW-10-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-FW-11-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-SW-8-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-FW-12-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-FW-36-W X
X UT Indications (Increased Gain)
PT Indications P32-FW-35-W Not Inspected P32-FW-34-W Not Inspected
~
P32-SW-22-W Not Inspected P32-SW-21-W Not Inspected P32-FW-33-W Not Inspected P 32-FW-32-W X
Code UT Indications No. 14 Recire. Loop P32-FW-13-W Not Inspected P32-SW-9-W Not Inspected P32-SW-10-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-FW-14-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-FW-15-W.
X UT Indications (Increased Gain)
(
P32-FW-ll-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain) l P32-FW-16-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-FW-41-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-SW-26-W Not Inspected i
P32-FW 40-W Not Inspected P32-FW-39-W Not Inspected P 32-SW-2 5-W Not Inspected P32-SW-24-W Not Inspected P32-FW-38-W Not Inspected 332-FW-37-W No; inspected i
- 2 fl TABLE 1 (Continued)
(
Ultra sonic Oye Penetrant Examination Examination Weld No.
(UT)
(PT)
Re sults(I) fN7W gf No.15 Recirc. Looo f.
P32-FW-Not Inspected 32-SW-X X
UT Indications
/
(Increased Gain) - /0 g f PT Verification - 2 //4 *s;;,g After Removal P32-SW-13-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-FW-18-W X
t UT Indications j
(Increased Gain)
P32-FW-19-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-FW-20-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
I P32-SW-14-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-FW-21-W X
UT Indications (Increased Gain)
P32-FW-46-W X
X Code UT Indications PT Indications
(
P32-SW-30-W Not Inspected P32-FW-45-W Not Inspected P32-FW-44-W Not Inspected f
P 32-SW-29-W
.Not Inspected P32-SW-28-W Not Inspected P32-F'!-4 3-W Not Inspected P32-SW-27-W Not Inspected P32-~FW-4 2-W hot Inspected Through Wall Crack (Leakage)
W Wdb9 QMs0 kpgg 9 4 Sb JArn Giv9 f
/)m x %pc = 8 % ~Ammcf-
~
bN CH fd C b Y'$ss/ ~~~~
/ Aft,
/4,picfSW
-rsna m - spc.
d ea a m-m j&
LGese,* ch X /0 sv
~
w-
ribuMt i
nECIRCULATION LOOP NO.]
f s.,
/
MATCH LINES C
h P32-FW-I -W f
P32 - SW - I -W 4-- -.
1
- ' g,. g.,w f;,,, w T
)
m
[l
/
,y SAFE END
/
W.f 1
PS2-SW-2 -W)
(lW / plg$
4 6
,[
P32-FW-22-W 4
P32-FW W fv'9
,/
}r P32-SW-15-W l
REACTOR. RECIRC SAFE EMD P32-FW-2 -W PUMP NO. I'l C
P32 - SW W
\\
P32-FW-3 -W
~
?
l
~
g l
1 P32 - FW W I
I k
P31 - FW -2 5 -W l
[i P32 - S W W I5
/
l.
j
{ REACTOR VESSEL y
i i
P32-SW-3-W
{
F W--
- I
\\ P32-FW-26 -W i
(
4 P32 - FW W F
--r
F I G U R E 2.
~ ' - - -
R()lRCULATION LOOP NO.12]
\\
MATCH LINES j
t P32-FW-5 -W I
l r
/
~
~
P32-SW-4 -W x (r I
l SAFE END I
P3 2.- FW W I
P32-FW W r
P32.-SW W
}
I I
/
REACTOR. RECIRC 5%FE.EN D
. PUMP NO.12 c
P 32-FW W
..e32-sw _19 -W f
C
/
Jk p
l Y
h P32 - F W W I
l I
i.
P32.-SW W f
/
,l T j
g asAcToR YESSEL y
i Ps2-sw - s-w l
C -f-3
\\
\\ P32 - FW-31 -W i
(
P32 - FW-8 -W F
r RECIRCULATION LOOP NO,13 -
U
,)
MATCH ' LINES
'l
(
' P32-FW-9 -W l\\
I f
e s
l P32-SW-6 -W l
SAFE END P32-FW W l P32-SW-7-W l
I h
P32-FW -3 3 -W
,/
y P32-SW W i
N 5AEE END i
p REACTOR. REclRC P 32-FW-10 -W
. PUMP HO.13 c
P32-S W W c
/
i g
q;
!P32-FW-il -W
~
l P32-FW-3 4-W l
k P32-FW-3 5-W
/
.k
!P32-SW-2 3-W g
/
j
[ REACTOR VESSEL y
i 5
i P32-SW-8 -W l
3
\\
\\ P32-FW-36 -W I
P32 - FW W f
1-1 6 U M E 4 RE{}RCULATION LOOP NO.14 })
MATCH LINES
/
\\
/
P32 -FW-13 -W
's
'3 2-SW W
(
i
[l SAFE END I
'32 -SW-10 -W/
PS2 - FW W I
P31-FW -3 8 -W
'Y l
}r P32-SW - 2 4 -W
~
i I
I REACTOR. RECIRC SAFE END l 32-FW W
~
~
~
I
\\
82-FW-15 -W l
P 32'- FW W i
/
C P32-FW-40-W P32-SV!- 2 6-W i
i f
/
j g REACTOR VESSEL T.
y i
i i
$2-SW-il-W l
I
\\
l
\\ P32-FW W
(
I P3 2 - FW W
~
l
=
s
FIGURE 5 RE. RCULATION LOOP NO. ISO w
MATCH LINES 7
P 32i-FW-17-W l
I 2
~
P32 -SW W v 8 XI*
,D
? c.e.
\\
W j},1,1'"
Fr l P32-SW-13-W I
SAFE END h
P32-FW-42-W
(
i l P32-FW-18-W/
P32-SW-27 -W
- -]
V P32 - FW-43 -w l
' SAFE END REACTOR RECIRC P32 -SW - 2 8 -W
'FUMP NO.15
/
P 32-FW-19 -w
\\
q P32-SW w c.
l P32-FW-20-W C
l
/
g A
4 P32 -FW-4 4 -w
/
l P32-FW-4 5 -w l
P32 -SW-30 -w j
/
l j
[ REACTOR VESSEL i P 32 -SW W I
I k
i
\\ P32-FW - 4 6 -W P 32 - FW W
a i
r')
e}
W "I' 0 l#f-
%s f
A EC/A E i"/P G A df s'??7G u,fA/MC &)
t
- rre"m e / n' A
-~
f C&9N/1/97.cn/
j H&ff M ' ~ "
l i
4
.c M Waczan Jx.
g o f & g t;c w d.c
.9,ee. - rs
/
- ~ " ~" #0
\\
f.d.J. do ms<
C I "C O
- n *-
R u n-+ Gdfr972-5)'88/s999-ARGoNUC MAT'L u18
(
1 us. g.
UMc - eA g, y, p jg suc wa r MMfu
&}
y g,W Gee Cvego c k.
f
, l%RklIJo W M ' 9 % ch I l
J. h is<.
1J2c 'Tes* W W p sa a w se w i.osasrm n.
%M hmnw "Y5
'S'-
t J. a. f prea:
TownC,7@eh Gu + ib %
NM/C -4s Aeo7~
[4mery gp u, $ g 9V7k + l l
.__-=- _
g.-
a
,.---_._,._.__,,.--.v...
,.._--,_.._....-__,..r-
C -.?
UNITED STATES
-8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
{
I wasumorow. o. c.nosas
- S Docket No. 50-220 DEC 2 71982 Mr. G. K. Rhode Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Eric Boulevard West Syracuse, New York 13202
Dear Mr. Rhode:
RE: NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 1, NUMER 15 N0ZRE SAFE END REPAIR On June 21, 1982 Niagara Mohawk notified the NRC staff that a miscut had occurred in the removal.of recirculation safe end 15. The miscut had resulted in the removal of a portion of the Inconel buttering from the nozzle, requiring a repair prior to reinstallation of the new safe
- and by the methods approved previously by NRC. Your letter of November 18, 1982 and the supplementary information provided by a telecon on December 20,
_1982, described your intended repair procedure for the number 15 recircula __.
tion nozzle. The repair procedure, in essence, is as follows:
(1) Blend the miscut in the Inconel buttering.
(2) Preheat the nozzle in accordance with your approved welding procedure and subsequently repair the weld in accordance with your procedure (ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Div.1, Article NB-2549, 1980 ed. thru Winter 1980 Addenda).
(3) Maintain preheat and subsequently stress relieve in accordance with your procedure (ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Div.1 Article NS-4640,1980 ed. thru Winter 1980 Addenda).
(4) Machine the buttering following the heat treatment.
We understand that the buttering will receive a surface examination and
. subsequently be radiographed prior to reinsta11ation of the new safe end. Further, we understand that the thermally induced stresses measured
,in the mock up test will be compared to those calculated by analysis to ensure they are wtthin the envelope developed by your stress analysis.
From our review of the.information described above, we find the repair' procedure acceptable. Following the completion of the repair, please provide the appropriate documentation of'the repair activity including a description and sketch of the repair, measured preheat and stress relief t
g i wn, p
7 e-c.
y%
a Mr. G. K. Rhode 2-temperatures, a comparison of the stress results from the mock up, with
.those limits established.by your stress analysis and a summary of diametral changes that occurred in the nozzle.
Sincerely.
Domenic Vassallo, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Licensing
=. ---
n w
r
--w--y
--v--
-.rm-e
+-----
- ~
.J Mr. G. K. Rh' ode Niagara MBhawk Power Corporation John W. Keib. Esquire Niagara Mohhwk Power Corporation cc:
300 Erie Boulevard West T'oi"B fohn'r,Jr..'Esq.
Syracuse, New York 13202
~
r e
Conner & Wetterhahn Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C.
20006
- Director, Ronald C. Haynes
- Technological Development Programs Regional Administrator, Region I State of New York U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Energy Office 631 Park Avenue Swan Street Building King of Prussia, PA 19406 CORE 1 - Second Floor Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Robert P. Jones, Supervisor Town of Scriba R. D. #4 Oswego, New York 13126 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ATTN: Mr. Thomas Perkins Plant Superintendent Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station P.O. Box 32 Lycoming, New York 13093 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office Regional Radiation Representative 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Resident Inspector c/o U.S. NRC P. O. Box 126 Lycoming, New York 13093 a
4 r. -.-.
e.w-
-v
-