ML18093A363

Forwards Response to IE Bulletin 87-001 Re Thinning of Pipe Walls in Condensate,Feedwater,Steam & Connected high-energy single-phase & two-phase Carbon Steel Piping Sys,Including All safety-related Piping Sys

ML18093A363
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek, 05000000
Issue date:	09/14/1987
From:	Corbin McNeil Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
IEB-87-001, IEB-87-1, NLR-N87174, NUDOCS 8709220296
Download: ML18093A363 (16)

Text

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Corbin A. McNeill, Jr. Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609 339-4800 Senior Vice President -

Nuclear SEP 1 t 1%7 NLR-N87174 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 AND 50-354 Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) has received the subject NRC Bulletin regarding the thinning of pipe walls in condensate, feedwater, steam and connected high-energy single-phase and two-phase carbon steel piping systems, including all safety-related piping systems. The informatiori requested by this Bulletin as related to the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations is provided in the enclosure to this letter.

Should you have any questions on this transmittal, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

.Enclosure 8709220296 B ~g9cJ,~72 PDR ADOCK 0 PDR

~

/(~,,

/

'\\

Document Control Desk 2 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 USN RC Reg ion I.

Mr. D. M. Scott, Chief Bureau of Nuclear Engineering Department of Environmental Protection 380 Scotch Road Trenton, NJ 08628

ENCLOSURE 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 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 monitorin~ the wall thickness of pipes in condensate, feedwater, steam, and connected high-energy 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 piping for Salem and Hope Creek:

Salem Generating Station Non-nuclear piping ANSI B31.1 1967 Edition

• Nuclear piping ANSI B31.l 1967 Edition {Design)

ANSI B31.7 1968 Editiori (Material)

ANSI B31.7 1969 through 1970 Edition (Construction)

Hope Creek Generating Station Non-nuclear piping ANSI B31.1 1973 through 1974 Addenda Nuclear piping ASME Section III, 1974 through Winter 1974 Addenda (Design and Material)

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 the criteria that you have established for:

a. selecting points at which to make thickness

~ measurements

b. determining how frequently to make thickness measurements

c. selecting the methods used to make thickn~ss measurements

d. making replacement/repair decisions

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 evaluation of single phase 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 Phase Condensate (after second stage of f eedwater 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 engin*ering 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 thickriess and code minimum wall thickness requirements.

3

- Materials of construction compared with operating conditions biased by a wear rate, based. on the dif ferenee 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 replacements.

Accessibility to the area for both inspection teams and op~rating personnel, and location with respect to safety system equipment.

Non-destructiv~*examination methods will be consistent with the degradation to be expected. Presently, straight be*m ultrasonic techniques are planned to be utilized. Automated data collection methods are being addressed. It is not anticipated that radiographic techniques for measuring wall thickness 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 thickness and code minimum wall thickness allowable adjusted for service history and required future service.

- Materials of construction compared with operating conditions.

- Material availability.

- Code requirements and type of defect being addressed.

- Repair economic factors versus replacement economic factors.

For liquid-phase systems, state specifically whether the following !actors have been considered in establishing your criteria for selecting points at which to monitor piping thickness (Item 2a):

a. piping material

b. piping configuration

c. pH of water in the system

d. system temperature

e. fluid bulk velocity *

f. oxygen content in the system

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

Design Conditions Operating Conditions Piping material System fluid pH and type Piping configuration of water treatment Fluid bulk velocity System operating temperature Oxygen content of fluid

4. Chronologically list an4 summarize the results of all inspections that have been performed, which were 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 the 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 piping was examined and how.

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

d. Describe actions already taken or planned for piping that has been found to have a nonconforming wall thickness. If you have performed a failure.

analysis, include 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 1, Bleed Steam Erosion Baseline Survey, November 1982 and April 1986 (Attachment 1)

Salem Unit 2, Bleed Steam Erosion Baseline 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 Erosion Survey, October 1986 (Attachment 4)

I I

I I

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

December 1986 (Attachment 5)

.Salem Unit 1, Feedwater.Inspection (responding to findings in Salem Unit 2), April through June 1987 (Attachment 6)

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

Based on engineering review, the inspection programs for single phase and two phase erosion detail ~pecif ic areas in the subject piping which are most subject to corrision. The inspections listed above were performed solely to indicate wall thicknesses. Straight beam ultrasonic techniques were utilized.

The piping which was inspected is 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 Salem Unit 1 and 2 Steam Generator Feedwater Pump recirculation piping downstream of the control valve and flow restricting orifices during the inspecti~n of f eedwater and condensate systems performed subsequent to the Surry incident. This piping was designed to the feedwater piping specification but is not exposed to feedwater sys*tem pressure if the manual isolation valve~ which is located.

downstream, remains open to the condenser. Following the inspection, Engineering Safety Evaluations (MT-86-204 (Salem Unit 1) and MT-87-005 (Salem Unit 2)) were immediately performed to determine whether continued use of this piping could be permitted. The results of the safety evaluations permitted the use of this piping to the next refueling outage based on the normal operating conditions on. this piping with the manual isolation valve open. Administrative controls have been placed on the manual isolation (BF-31) valves prohibiting closure with the plant in operational or standby mod.es. *

• Erosion of the main f eedwater pump recirculation piping downstream of the control valves 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 (Salem Unit 2). The replace~ent 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 being enhan~ed as a result of industry working group recommendations (NUMA.RC) and PSE&G engineering evaluations.

Future enhancements will be based on technological improvements in. data acquisition and operating experiences.

.i,.~

At:tachmt!llt: No. 1 Salcre Genuratinq ~tation Unit No. l BIPed Stea~ ~rosion Inspection Program Ref: S-C-GlOO-MSf-152 S-C-GlOO-HFD-281, Rev. l S-C'-MPOO-MGS-001 SPS-17 Inspection Location B!-ili- l 3- -, (No. 3 lHeed)

BStl-13-4 (No. 3 Bleed)

Code> Mini mum

.250

~Ja 11 Baseline Data*

.401 to-.409 Review Data**

.395 to . 4 35

.250 .4091 to .418 .415 to

• 4 30 BSll-14-7 (No. 4 Bleed) .188 .453 to .469 .460 to .485 BSH-14-8 (No. 4 Bleed) .188 .415 to. .427 .420 to .440 DSH-14-9. (No. 4 DlePd) .188 .402 to .420 .400 to .445 Bleed St~am t_o MSR's .280 .457 to .468 .445 to .465

• Baseline data tak~n November 24, 1982 (Krautkramer ~ Branson Model CL-204, 1/4" Transducer)

• • Review data takP.n April 25, 1986 (Nortac Not-120, l/4N Ttansducer)

All dimensions in inches.

Attachment No * .;)

Sal~m G~nerating Station Unit No. 2 Bleed St~am Er(lsion Inspect.ion Program Ref: S-C-GlOO-MS~-152 S-C-GlOO-M~D-281, Rev. 2 S-C-MPOO-MGS-0001 SPS-17 Inspect i cm Location 44" * (f'rof~sunder along L Line)*

Code t-li n imum

.375

\*Ja 11 Baseline Data

.950 to 1.80 Review Data (4th refueling) e 44" (Crossunder along G Line)* .375

• l.O to l.80 (4th refueling) 44 II (Crossuncier along M J.ine)* .375 .995 to 1.80 (4th rofueling)

BSH-23-7 (No. 3 Bleed) .250 .400 to .450 (4th refuel in())

BSH-:n-4 (No. 3 Bleed) .250 .390 to .42~ (4th refueling)

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

BSH-24-:-8 (No. 4 Bleed) .188 .410 to .440 (4th refueling)

BSli-24-9 Om. 4 Bleed) .188 .390 to .430 (4th refuel in~1) e

• ~ote visual inspe~tions performed every refueling of cro~sunder~ and turning vanes.

All dimensions in inches.

.Attachment No. ,,3 Salem Generating Station Unit No. l Bleed Stearn ~rosion Occurr~nce nata Ref: SPE-86-0330 DCR-1SM-0118 PSE&G Research Lab. Report Nos. 69520 and 69545 S-C-MPOO-MGS-0001 Section SPS~l7 Piect.> Mark Location No. Code Minimum Wall Wall Thieknes8 lSBS-15-3 (No. 5 Bleed, North) .165 .045 to .300 1SBS-l5-3A (No. 5 Bleed, South) .165 .100 to .400 Meast1resurements taken using Nortec Model Not-120 with a 1/4" inch transducer.

Original matPrial AS'J'"1 Al06 Grade B.

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

All dimensions in* inches.

Attac:hmunt No. li4 Salem Gonf'rating Station Unit No. 2 No. 5 Bleed St~am erosion inspection (at crossunders)

Ref: Deficiency Report No. SMD-M86-0587 OCR 2SM-00142 S-C-MPOO-MGS-0001 SPS-17 Inspcctjon Locatjon Code Minimum ~all Measured Wall 'l'h ickn ::*s 25-P,';25-A .* 165 .178 to .595

.165

• l ~4 to .594 e*

North cros&under (adjacent to spool lA) .375 .992 to 1.066 South crossunder (adjacP.nt to spool 3A) .375 .998 to 1.066 6r.jginal material ASTM-Al06 grade B.

Inspections Mode using Kr.autkr.amer - Branson Model No. DM-2, October 25,* 1986G Piping replaced using AS'l'M-A335 grade P-11 per OCR 2SM-0142, October 1986.

All dimensions in inches.

J\tt:act:111Pnt. No. 5 Sitlnm Generilting Station Unit 2

.*Surry qccurn"nOO review at Salnm, Initial Inspection nata Ref: system Bngineer to Salem ISJ Supervisor memo dated December 115, 1986 PSE&G NDE reports with work order No. 86-12-16-076-6 S-C-~POO-MGS-0001' SPS-16, SPS-17, SPS-19 Inspection Location Code Minimum Wall Wall Thickness 21 SGl-'P suet ion 90 ° el bow (A) .480 .670 to' .900 21 SCt*P suction 90" elbow (B) .480 .640 to .680 22 SGl-'l' suction 90° elbo~.(A) .* 480 .700 to .830 22 SGfP suction 90° elbow (B). .480 .500 to .580 HGV~ common suction T .520 1.060 to 1.260 sci-*p ccrninion suction 90° elbow .520 .750 to .900 Ho~ter drain to sGrP suction T .360 .920 to l.190 24 inch T from 25 heater .480 .985 to 1.160 21,heater drain pump discharge elbow (A) .360 .360 to .440 21 heater drain pump discharge elbow (B)

• 36'0 .380 to

• 430 22 heater drain pump discharge (A) .360 .380 to .460 22 heater drain pump discharge (B) .360 .360 to

• 420 23 hcatnr drain pump discharge elbow (A) .360 .370 to .475 23 heater drain pump discharge elbow (B) .360 .350 to .400 *Nott 23 c0ridP.nsate pump discharge elbow (A) .360 .480 to .540 23 condem;ate pump discharge elbow (B) .360 .520 to .560 24 net. cowmon feed elhow .480 1.760 to 1.860 11 BFJ9 valve discharge spool .720 .720 to 1.360 12 BF19 valve discharge spool .720 .730 to l. 380 13 BF19 valve discharge spool .720 .730 to 1.440 14 BF19 valve discharge spool .720 .700 to l. 340 Note 21 8~32 valve disc~~~ge spool .512/.322 Note 5 .330 to .540 22 BF32 valve disc~argc spool 0512/.322 Note 5 .230 to .550 Note 3 25 B & C heater feed water T 0480 .880 to 1.190 Note 1 Acceptable for use based upon paragraph 102.2.4 of ANSI 831.1, 1967 per original design.

Nnt.e 2 .700 area is isolated spot. General wall thickness is not less than .7~0 inches.

Note 3 .280 defect is isolated spot located by scan. Gen~ral thinning is not less than .345 inchos.

Adniinistrative controls have heen placed on BF-31 valves and replacement iff scheduled for tt1t~

fourth refueling outage.

Note 4 AJ.1 data taken between December 16-18, 1986 using Nortec Not-120 equipment.

Note 5 Design wall thickness violation per SPS-16. Minimum wall required ~ith administrative contrc>I*

on isolation valve is .322.

( Al l d i mens i on s i n i n ch es * )

Attachment No. 6 Salem Generating Station Unlt No. 1 Stearn Generator .Feed Pump Recirculation Piping Downstream of Flow Orifice Location Code Minimum Wall InsEection 1 InsEection 2 InsEection' 2 E'WR-4 Notes 1 and 2 .340 to .575 .330 to

• 57.0 .325 to .585 FWR-12 Notes 1 and 2 .425 to .525* .440 to .520 .425 to .525 9'

12 BF31 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, p1p1ng non-isolatable from main condenser, .247 inches.

3 Original material ASTM Al06 grade B.

Inspection 1: April 22, 1987 Krautkramer - Branson - Model CL 204 w/high temperature probe Inspection 2:* May 21, 1987 Kratitkramer - Branson - Model CL 204 w/high temperature probe Inspection 3: June 22, 1987 Krautkramer - Branson - Model CL 204' w/high temperature probe Piping scheduled for reElacement, 4th refueling outag~, October/Nove~bet 1987.

All dimensions in inches.

At tac hrr.<~ n t No. 7 Hope Creek GeneLrat ing Sta ti.on

• Unit No. ]

f;xt.ract ion Stearn Erosiqn Inspection Program Ref: Letter from Chief Project Engineer - Hope Cret~k to General Manager - Hope ,Creek Operations dated January 16, 1984.

Descri~tion Piece Mark Location Design Wall Thickness Baseline Oat* Rev!ew Data Crossunder 6-2500 .438 .495 to .522 (1st refueling)

CrossundPr 6-2501 .438 .502 to .513 (1st refueling)

No. !iA f'xt. 6-2514 .438 .552 to

• 573 (1st refueling)

No. SA Ext.

No. SA Fxt..

No. 5A Ext.

6-2516 6-2517 6-2518

.438

• 438

.438

.557 to .576 0555 to .572

.592 to .609 (1st refueling)

(1st refuel in'g)

(1st ref.ue l i nq) e*

No. SB t-:x t. 6-2504 .438 .553 to .572 (1st refueling)

No. 5B f:lC t

• 6-2512-A .438 .538 to .557 (lst ref. ue ling )

No. SB t-:xt. 6-2512-8 .438 .595 to .620 * (1st refueling)

No. 58 Ext. 6-2513-A .438 .528 to .542 (1st refueling)

No. SB f:x t. 6-2513-B .438 .541 to .558 (lst refueling)

Crossaround 6-7678 .438 .475 to .498 (1st refueling)

No. 5(' l*:xt. 6-2510 .438 .574 to .587 (1st refuelinq)

No. 5C F:x t. 6-2511 .438 .564 to .587 (1st ref ue ling )

No. 6A t:xt. 6-4701 .438 .576 to .592 (1st refueling)

No. 6A f'x t.

• 6-47.02-A .438 .see to .604 (1st retue ling)

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

No. 6A Ext. 6-4704-A .438 .564 to .602 (lst rE:ft*el ing)

No. 6B f'xt. 6-4692 .438 .575 to .594 (1st refueling)

No. 6B Fxt. 6-4695 .438 .548 to .565 (lst refueling)

No. 68 Ext.

No. fJD Ext.

• No. 6C r:xt.

Ci-4G96 6-4697-A

• 6-4713

.438

.438

.438

.615 to .625

.556 to .574 (1st retue ling)

(1st re f.ueli nc;) e

.564 to .574 (1st refueling)

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

No *. 6C r.xt. 6-4714-B .438 .586 to .608 ( l st refueling)

No. 6(' Ext. *15-4716-A .438 .562 to .574 (1st ref ue.l i n*")

• Baseline data taken DecemLer, 1983 with Krautkramer - Branson Model CL-204 equipment.

All din1nnsi0ns in inches.

At. t-ac hrr.<'! n t No. 7 Hope Creek Genet.*at ing Station Unit No. )

F:xt.ract ion Steam Erosion Inspection Program Ref: Let. ter from Chief Project Engineer - Hope Cret~k to Goner al Manager - Hope Creek Operations dated January 16, 1984.

DescriEtion Piece Mark Location Design Wall Thickness Baseline Dat* Rev!ew Data Crossunder 6-2500 .438 .495 to .522 (1st refueling)

CrossundeJC 6-2501 .438 .502 to .513 (1st refueling)

No. ~A f'xt. 6-251'1 .438 .552 to .573 (1st refueling)

No. 5A Ext. 6-2516 .438 .557 to .'576 (1st refueling)

No. 5A F'x t.. 6-2517

• 438 .555 to .572 (1st refueling) 9' No. 5A Ext. 6-2518 .438 ~592 to .609 ( l st. ref.ue l i nq)

No. 5B f:x t. 6-2504 .438 .553 to .572 (1st refueling)

No. '>B r-:xt. 6-2512-A .438 .538 to .557 ( l st refueling)

No. 5B t-:xt. 6-2512-B .438 .595 to .620 (1st refueling)

No. 5B Ext. 6-2513-A .438 .528 to .542 (lst refueling)

No. 5B f:xt. 6-2513-B .438 .541 to .558 (lst refueling)

Crossarounct 6-7678 .438 .475 to .498 (1st refueling)

No. 5(' t-:xt. 6-2510 .438 .574 to .587 (1st ref ue Li nq)

No. 5C F:x t. 6-2511 .438 .564 to .587 (1st* refueling)

No. 6A t:xt.. 6-4701 .438 .576 to .592 (1st refueling)

No. 6A f'X t

• 6-47.02-A .438 .588 to .604 (1st retueling)

No. 6A f'xt. 6-4702-B .438 .595 to .605 (1st refue L inu)

No. 6A *Fx t.. 6-4704-A .438 .564 to .602 (lst re:ft*eling)

No. 6B f'xt. 6-4692 .438

• 5~15 to .594 (1st re: fueling)

No. 6B n::x t. 6-4695 .438 .548 to .565 (1st refueling)

No. 6B ~:x t.

No. 6B Ext..

No. 6C r:xt.

6-4696 6-4697-A 6-4713

.438

.438

.438

.615 to .625

.556 to .574

.564 to .574 (1st retueling)

(1st refueling)

(1st refueling) e No. 6<.' Fxt. 6-4714-A .438 .564 to

• 579l (1st refueling)

No. 6C rxt. 6-4714-B .438 .586 to .608 (1st refueling)

No. 6C Ext. 6-4716-A .438 .562 to .574 (1st refuel i n'.J)

• Baseline data taken DecemLer, 1983 wi.th Krau~kramer - Branson Model CL-204 equipment.

All din1c~nsi.0ns in inches.