ML040800007

Review of Inservice Inspection Reports for Steam Generator Tube Inspections Conducted During the 2002 Refueling Outages

ML040800007
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	05/04/2004
From:	Dan Collins NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1
To:	Richard Anderson Public Service Enterprise Group
Fretz R, NRR/DLPM, 415-1324
References
TAC MB8098, TAC MB8099
Download: ML040800007 (5)

Text

May 4, 2004 Mr. Roy A. Anderson President & Chief Nuclear Officer PSEG Nuclear, LLC - X04 Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038

SUBJECT:

SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, REVIEW OF INSERVICE INSPECTION REPORTS FOR STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED DURING THE 2002 REFUELING OUTAGES (TAC NOS. MB8098 AND MB8099)

Dear Mr. Anderson:

By letter dated February 27, 2003, PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) submitted information associated with the 2002 steam generator (SG) tube inspections performed at Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2. This information was submitted in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) 6.9.1.5.b. Additional information related to the 2002 SG tube inspections was provided during a telephone conference call in April 2002, and in PSEG letters dated May 2, 2002, November 5, 2002, and January 7, 2004.

As discussed in the enclosed evaluation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff concluded that PSEG provided the information required by the Salem TSs and that no additional follow-up is required at this time. This completes the NRC staffs efforts under TAC Nos. MB8098 and MB8099.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (301) 415-1427.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Daniel S. Collins, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: See next page

May 4, 2004 Mr. Roy A. Anderson President & Chief Nuclear Officer PSEG Nuclear, LLC - X04 Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038

SUBJECT:

SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, REVIEW OF INSERVICE INSPECTION REPORTS FOR STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED DURING THE 2002 REFUELING OUTAGES (TAC NO. MB8098 AND MB8099)

Dear Mr. Anderson:

By letter dated February 27, 2003, PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) submitted information associated with the 2002 steam generator (SG) tube inspections performed at Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2. This information was submitted in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) 6.9.1.5.b. Additional information related to the 2002 SG tube inspections was provided during a telephone conference call in April 2002, and in PSEG letters dated May 2, 2002, November 5, 2002, and January 7, 2004.

As discussed in the enclosed evaluation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff concluded that PSEG provided the information required by the Salem TSs and that no additional follow-up is required at this time. This completes the NRC staffs efforts under TAC Nos. MB8098 and MB8099.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (301) 415-1427.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Daniel S. Collins, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC PDI-2 Reading JClifford LLund ACRS CRaynor MMurphy GMeyer, RGN-I OGC RFretz KKarwoski RLorson, RGN-I ADAMS Accession Number: ML040800007

• Input provided. No major changes made.

OFFICE PDI-1/PM PDI-2/LA EMCB/SC* PDI-2/SC NAME DCollins CRaynor LLund JClifford DATE 4/14/04 4/08/04 01/26/04 4/24/04 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 cc:

Mr. A. Christopher Bakken, III Ms. R. A. Kankus Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations Joint Owner Affairs PSEG Nuclear - X15 PECO Energy Company P.O. Box 236 Nuclear Group Headquarters KSA1-E Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA 19348 Mr. Michael H. Brothers Vice President - Site Operations Lower Alloways Creek Township PSEG Nuclear - X15 c/o Mary O. Henderson, Clerk P.O. Box 236 Municipal Building, P.O. Box 157 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. John T. Carlin Dr. Jill Lipoti, Asst. Director Vice President - Nuclear Assessments Radiation Protection Programs PSEG Nuclear - N10 NJ Department of Environmental P.O. Box 236 Protection and Energy Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625-0415 Mr. David F. Garchow Vice President - Eng/Tech Support Brian Beam PSEG Nuclear - N28 Board of Public Utilities P.O. Box 236 2 Gateway Center, Tenth Floor Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Newark, NJ 07102 Mr. Steven Mannon Regional Administrator, Region I Acting Manager - Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PSEG Nuclear - N21 475 Allendale Road P.O. Box 236 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Senior Resident Inspector Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire Salem Nuclear Generating Station PSEG Nuclear - N21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 236 Drawer 0509 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFFS REVIEW OF THE 2002 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSERVICE INSPECTION REPORTS SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 By letter dated February 27, 2003 (ML030630790)1, PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG or the licensee) submitted information associated with the 2002 steam generator (SG) tube inspections performed at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2.

This information was submitted in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) 6.9.1.5.b of Appendix A to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75. Additional information related to the 2002 SG tube inspections was provided during a telephone conference call in April 2002 (ML021540110), and in PSEG letters dated May 2, 2002 (ML021330304),

November 5, 2002 (ML023180283), and January 7, 2004.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff reviews the information provided in the TS annual reports consistent with its regulatory oversight role to confirm that licensees SG tube inspection programs are in accordance with NRC regulations and industry guidelines. In addition, a review of these reports supports NRC staff reviews of other types of licensee submittals, provides background information to facilitate the exchange of information with licensees conducting SG tube inspections, and provides background information for regional inspector use in inspection preparation.

Based on the NRC staffs review of the above mentioned documents, the staff requested additional information in three areas. PSEG responded to the request for additional information (RAI) dated November 12, 2003 (ML033160082), in a letter dated January 7, 2004 (ML040140289).

The scope and results of the licensees inspections are contained in the documents referenced above. Based on a review of these documents, the NRC staff concludes that PSEG provided the information required by its TSs. In addition, the NRC staff did not identify any technical issues that warranted additional follow-up action at this time; however, the staff notes the following observations regarding the licensees inspection and assessments:

1. In response to question 1 of the NRC staffs RAI for Salem, Unit No. 1, PSEG indicated there were inconsistencies in the industry guidelines on the inspection requirements for plugs. Namely, some plugs require visual examination while other plugs require eddy current examination. Although the staff did not identify any specific issues with the licensees 2002 practice of not performing the volumetric examinations of the plugs (given the plugs service life and the enhanced material), the NRC staff notes that 1

Documents with ML numbers can be viewed in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html Enclosure

plugs may degrade with time. As such, eddy current inspections performed on inspectable plugs may give an early indication of a condition adverse to quality which may not be detectable by visual means.

2. In response to question 2 of the NRC staffs RAI for Salem, Unit No. 1, the licensee provided their basis for the use of the differential method for sizing wear indications at anti-vibration bars. PSEGs response compared the root mean square error (RMSE) for the two techniques against the RMSE for a correlation made between the two techniques. The RMSE values were consistent. The purpose of the staffs question was to determine whether the new method was providing accurate measurements of the depth of degradation. From the licensees response, it appears that the new method (i.e., the differential method) may have consistently undercalled the indications depth (as compared to the depth determined from the absolute channel). As a result, this appears to draw into question whether the original or the newer method results in accurate determinations of the depth of the degradation. Since the licensee indicated that the differences in sizes between the two methods were small, the staff did not request the licensee to supplement their response at this time. Presumably, any bias in the size estimates could be accounted for in sizing the degradation and in assessing whether the tube has adequate integrity.

3. In response to question 4 of the staffs RAI for Salem, Unit No. 1, the licensee provided their basis for screening manufacturing anomalies. Their basis primarily relies on the use of a more corrosion resistant material, namely thermally-treated Alloy 600 (a second generation material). In their response, PSEG indicated that no free-span degradation has been identified in any second generation material, the Salem SGs have less service life than others, and that PSEG has found no degradation to date. The staff notes the following which should be considered in future inspections: (1) the SG with the oldest service life does not always experience degradation first (e.g., cracking at the tube supports in the Seabrook thermally-treated Alloy 600 tubes), (2) past inspection results indicating no degradation does not preclude future degradation, (3) the bobbin data from the low frequency absolute channel may be helpful in detecting long free-span indications, and (4) flaws which exceed the plugging limit may have voltages less than the screening criteria previously used to determine when a rotating probe exam should be performed at manufacturing indications. (Refer to NRC Information Notice 2003-05)

4. Salem, Unit No. 2, completed another SG tube inspection during the fall 2003 refueling outage. During the outage, the NRC staff had several conference calls with the licensee to discuss the scope and results of the inspections (a summary of these calls is publicly available in ADAMS un accession number ML040800008). During these calls, the licensee was aware of the NRC staffs RAI. Recognizing that the licensee recently completed another SG tube inspection at Unit No. 2 in 2003, the staff did not identify any issues with the licensees 2002 SG tube inspections requiring follow-up. The NRC staff plans to review the licensees 2003 inspection results when they are submitted to the NRC, in accordance with the requirements of the Salem, Unit No. 2 TSs.