ML18101A769
| ML18101A769 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 06/07/1995 |
| From: | Hagan J Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18101A770 | List: |
| References | |
| LR-N95082, NUDOCS 9506160182 | |
| Download: ML18101A769 (16) | |
Text
Public Service Electric and Gas
_ Company Joseph J. Hagan Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-1200 Vice President - Nuclear Operations JUN 071995 LR-N95082 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM REVISION SECOND TEN-YEAR INTERVAL SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-311 By later dated May 4, 1992 (ref: NLR-N92045), Public Service Electric & Gas Co. {PSE&G) submitted its proposed Inservice Inspection {!SI) Program for Salem Unit No. 2 Second Ten-Year Interval in accordance with 10CFR50.55(a) tg) (4) (ii).
This submittal was supplemented by letter dated December 28,1994, (ref: NLR-N94226) in response to a request for additional information from the NRC dated June 17, 1994.
During a telephone conversation with the NRC on March 10, 1995, PSE&G agreed to provide additional information and to revise its submittal to address the NRC's concerns identified on. to this letter restates the NRC's concerns and provides PSE&G's response to each of the identified concerns. contains the revised pages for the !SI submittal, including the instructions necessary to incorporate the new pages.
Should there be any questions with regard to this submittal, please do not hesitate to contact us.
9506160182 950607 PDR ADDCK 05000311 Q
PDR Sincerely,
DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK LR-N95082 2
C Mr. T. T. Martin, Administrator - Region I U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. L. N. Olshan, Licensing Project Manager -
Salem U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Mail Stop 14E21 Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. c. Marschall -
Salem (S09)
USNRC Senior Resident Inspector Mr. K. Tosch, Manager, IV NJ Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625 Assistant Director New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry PO Box 1503, Labor and Industry Building Trenton, NJ 08625 Mr. Boyd Brown National Energy Laboratories PO Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415-2209 95-4933
LR-N95082 ATTACHMENT 1 SALEM UNIT 2, SECOND 10-YEAR RELIEF REQUEST SUBMITTALS In a request for additional information to the licensee, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, the licensee was requested generically to address their relief request submittal provided in a Table format.
This table did not in itself provide the information needed for review to determine that a Code requirement was impractical or that the licensee performed the examination to the extent practical.
RR-Bl (Part 3)
For the reactor pressure vessel flange to shell weld, the licensee obtained 60% coverage.
This seems low.
They stated that the flange taper was the limiting factor.
What technique is being implemented for the exam?
Examination from the flange seal surface or vessel inside surface?
(Part 4)
For the RPV nozzle to shell weld, the licensee obtained 36%.
They stated that the integral extension is the limiting factor.
What technique is being used for this exam?
Nozzle bore exam?
(Part 7)
For the coolant loop nozzle to elbow welds, the licensee obtained 50% coverage.
What technique was used?
Were the exams one sided?
Material type?
(Part 8)
Class I pipe welds, 4 welds received 0% coverage.
(Part 9)
Information is needed to support the evaluation.
Cite acoustic properties, configurations, and techniques being used.
Branch connections - obtained need verify limiting factor, plots to verify limitation.
used.
52-55% coverage.
could use coverage Describe technique (Part 10) Integral attachments - obtained 0% coverage.
Descriptions of limitations is needed for the evaluation.
(Part 11) Coolant pump bolting - several bolts on 3 pumps not examined, restriction not identified.
We
LR-N95082 2
RR-Cl (Part 1)
Class 2 shell welds, obtained 20-79% coverage -
coverage plots are needed for the evaluation.
(Part 2)
Nozzle to shell weld - obtained 45% coverage, restriction not discussed (Part 3)
Integral attachments, 22 with 0% coverage.
Lice:r:isee stated "inaccessible" for 6, with no further explanation, restrictions are not fully explained in some cases.
(Part 4)
Piping welds, good coverage; coverage plots are needed to verify limitation.
ATTACHMENT #2 Response to the Request for Additional Information Per Telcon on 3/10/95 The NRC Staff has requested additional information to assist them in determining that a Code requirement is impractical and that PSE&G performed the examination to the extent practical.
The questions posed by the NRC Staff (Attachment #1) are with the accompanying Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) responses as presented below:
RAI Item (RR-Bl, Part 3)
NRC Question/Statement:
For the Reactor Pressure Vessel Flange to Shell Weld, the Licensee obtained 60% coverage.
This seems low.
They stated that the flange taper was the limiting factor. What technique is being implemented for the exam?
Examination from the flange seal surface or vessel inside surface?
PSE&G Response:
The outlet nozzle-to-vessel welds were examined from the bore, utilizing 10-degree refracted longitudinal and 45-degree shear search units. In addition, 45-degree and 60-degree shear-wave examinations were performed from the vessel shell inside surface for detection of reflectors orientated transverse to the weld and base material.
The 50/70-degree tandem search units were utilized from the bore and shell inside surfaces for detection of reflectors located in the clad-to-base metal interface region for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of Section XI.
The 50/70-degree tandem search units were also used to detect flaws in the cladding-to-base metal interface region for the nozzle inside radius sections.
See attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix C, Tab 1, Summary No.
002700), to provide the exam technique and coverage plot.
RAI Item (RR-Bl, Part 4)
NRC Question/Statement:
For the RPV Nozzle to Shell Weld, the Licensee obtained 36%.
They stated that the integral extension is the limiting factor.
What technique is being used for this exam?
Nozzle bore exam?
PSE&G Response:
The examination of the RPV nozzle to shell weld is performed from the RPV inside surface. Examinations from the shell side consists of a 50/70 degree scan to cover the first 25% of the weld (near surface) and 45/60 degree scans to cover the remaining 75% of the weld. In addition 10/45 degree scans are performed from the nozzle bore.
See attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix C, Tab 1, Summary Nos. 002900, 003200, 003300 &
003600), to provide additional information and coverage plots.
PAGE 1 OF 4
A~TACHMENT #2 Response to the Request for Additional Information Per Telcon on 3/10/95 RAI Item (RR-Bl, Part 7)
NRC Question/Statement:
For the Coolant Loop Nozzle to Elbow Welds, the obtained 50% coverage.
What technique was used?
exams one sided? Material type?
PSE&G Response:
Licensee Were the The examinations are performed on the nozzle to elbow welds by scanning on the weld with a 45-degree angle beam in both the clockwise and counter clockwise direction.
No examination is performed from the nozzle side, due to the configuration of the nozzle.
There was no exam performed from the elbow side, due to acoustic properties of the Cast Stainless Steel (CSS).
PSE&G has concluded that using, present State-of-the-Art ultrasonic examination techniques of welds in css components is unreliable.
This conclusion is also supported by EPRI Letter
- Report, dated 12/1/94 "Ultrasonic Examination Capabilities for Welds in Cast Stainless Steel Components".
See attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix c, Tab 1, Summary Nos.
070000, 072300, 074600. & 076800), for the nozzle configuration and the material type.
RAI Item (RR-Bl, Part 8)
NRC Question/Statement:
Class l pipe welds, 4 welds received 0% coverage. Information is needed to support the evaluation.
Cite acoustic properties, configurations, and techniques being used.
PSE&G Response:
PSE&G has concluded that ultrasonic examination of welds in css components is unreliable, using present State-of-the-Art Techniques.
This conclusion is also supported by EPRI Letter Report, dated 12/1/94 "Ultrasonic Examination Capabilities for Welds in Cast Stainless Steel Components".
See attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix c, Tab 1, Summary Nos. 073500, 073600, 075800 & 075900), to provide additional information.
PAGE 2 OF 4
\\'
ATTACHMENT #2 Response to the Request for Additional Information Per Telcon on 3/10/95 RAI Item CRR-Bl. Part 9)
NRC Question/Statement:
Branch connections - obtained 52% -
55% coverage.
We need to verify limiting factor, could use coverage plots to verify limitation.
Describe technique used.
PSE&G Response:
Examinations were performed from the branch connection side of the weld with a 45-degree angle beam perpendicular and tangent to the weld.
On 4 inch branch connections, a 32-degree angle beam tangent and transverse to the weld was used.
The 10 inch branch connection used a 3 a-degree angle beam tangent and transverse to the weld.
Scanning was performed in both the clockwise and counter clockwise direction.
See attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix c, Tab 1, Summary Nos. 085000, 086800 &
086900), for additional information and coverage plots.
RAI Item (RR-Bl. Part 10)
NRC Question/Statement:
Integral attachments - obtained 0% coverage.
Descriptions of limitations is needed for the evaluation.
PSE&G Response:
Additional limitation descriptions have been included in attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix c, Tab 1, summary Nos. 177200, 179750, 181800, 251200 & 251300).
RAI Item (RR-Bl, Part 11)
NRC Question/Statement:
Coolant pump bolting - several bolts on 3 pumps not examined, restriction not identified.
PSE&G Response:
Additional limitation descriptions have been included in attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix c, Tab 1, Summary Nos. 250200, 250300 & 250400).
PAGE 3 OF 4
ATTACHMENT #2 Response to the Request for Additional Information Per Telcon on 3/10/95 RA! Item (RR-Cl, Part 1)
NRC Question/Statement:
Class 2 Shell Welds, obtained 20% -
79% coverage -
coverage plots are needed for the evaluation.
PSE&G Response:
Additional limitation descriptions have been included in attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix c, Tab 2, Summary Nos. 275030, 275230, 275365 & 275370).
RA! Item (RR-Cl, Part 2)
NRC Question/statement:
Nozzle to Shell Weld - obtained 45% coverage, restriction not discussed.
PSE&G Response:
Examinations were performed from the shell side, using a 45 degree and 60 degree angle beam.
Scanning was performed both clockwise and counter clockwise directions for directions perpendicular to the weld and scanned from the shell side for indications parallel to the weld.
See attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix c, Tab 2, Summary No. 275400), to provide additional information and coverage plots.
RAI Item (RR-Cl, Part 3)
NRC Question/Statement:
Integral attachments, 22 with 0% coverage.
Licensee stated "inaccessible" for 6,
with no further explanation, restrictions are not fully explained in some cases.
PSE&G Response:
Additional limitation descriptions have been attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix c, Tab 2, Summary 275359, 275360, 381020, 381530 & 382120).
RAI Item (RR-Cl, Part 4)
NRC Question/Statement:
included in Nos. 275358, Piping welds, good coverage, coverage plots are needed to verify limitation.
PSE&G Response:
Additional limitation descriptions and coverage plots have been included attachment #3 (S2
- LTP, Appendix c, Tab 2, Summary Nos. 330930, 380140, 500010, 501800, 570010, 573380, 707130, 707730).
PAGE 4 OF 4
OPS~G Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038-0236 Nuclear Business Unit TO:
F. Thomson, Jr.
Manager - Licensing & Regulations FROM:
J. Nichols
- ~ /t/~///Y' Manager - Reliability Services
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO THE NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORM-ATION, PER TELECON HELD ON MARCH 10, 1995 (REV. 1, SALEM GENERATING STATION, UNIT *2, SECOI\\1D 10-YEAR INTERVAL INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM PLAN)
DATE:
May 10, 1995 NRS-95-036 On March 10, 1995 at 10:30am a telephone conversation was held between PSE&G and the NRC.
In this conversation the NRC requested additional information concerning, Relief Request RR-Bl and RR-Cl, of the Salem Generating Station, Unit 2, Second 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan (Rev. 1). Generically the NRC asked PSE&G to provide additional information, to determine whether the Code requirement was impractical or that PSE&G performed the examination to the extent practical (see attachment #1, for NRC fax to PSE&G).
The response to each item as identified in Attachment #1, are presented in Attachment #2 to this letter.
In Attachment #3, Appendix C, Tab 1 (Class 1 Examination Limitations Greater than 10%) and Tab 2 (Class 2 Examination Limitations Greater than 10%) of the Salem Generating Station, Unit 2, Second 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan (S2 LTP), Rev. lA reflects this ad di ti on al information~
SWS:dlb Attachments C
L. Lake H. Onorato ISI-S-95-023 The power is in your hands.
95-2168 REV. 5194
LR-N95082 ATTACHMENT 1 SALEM UNIT 2, SECOND 10-YEAR RELIEF REQUEST SUBMITTALS In a request for additional information to the licensee, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, the licensee was requested generically to address their relief request submittal provided in a Table format.
This table did not in itself provide the information needed for review to determine that a Code requirement was impractical or that the licensee performed the examination to the extent practical.
RR-Bl
{Part 3}
For the reactor pressure vessel flange to shell weld, the licensee obtained 60% coverage.
This seems low.
They stated that the flange taper was the limiting factor.
What technique is being implemented for the exam?
Examination from the flange seal surface or vessel inside surface?
{Part 4)
For the RPV nozzle to shell weld, the licensee obtained 36%.
They stated that the integral extension is the limiting factor.
What technique is being used for this exam?
Nozzle bore exam?
(Part 7)
For the coolant loop nozzle to elbow welds, the licensee obtained 50% coverage.
What technique was used?
Were the exams one sided?
Material type?
{Part 8)
Class I pipe welds, 4 welds received 0% coverage.
Information is needed to support the evaluation.
Cite acoustic properties, configurations, and techniques being used.
(Part 9)
Branch connections - obtained 52-55% coverage.
We need verify limiting factor, could use coverage plots to verify limitation.
Describe technique used.
(Part 10) Integral attachments - obtained 0% coverage.
Descriptions of limitations is needed for the evaluation.
(Part 11) Coolant pump bolting - several bolts on 3 pumps not examined, restriction not identified.
LR-N95082 2
RR-Cl (Part 1)
Class 2 shell welds, obtained 20-79% coverage -
coverage plots are needed for the evaluation.
(Part 2)
Nozzle to shell weld - obtained 45% coverage, restriction not discussed (Part 3)
Integral attachments, 22 with 0% coverage.
Licensee stated "inaccessible" for 6, with no further explanation, restrictions are not fully explained in some cases.
(Part 4)
Piping welds, good coverage, coverage plots are needed to verify limitation.
ATTACHMENT #2 Response to the Request for Additional Information Per Telcon on 3/10/95 The NRC Staff has requested additional information to assist them in determining that a Code requirement is impractical and that PSE&G performed the examination to the extent practical.
The questions posed by the NRC staff (Attachment #1) are with the accompanying Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) responses as presented below:
RAI Item (RR-Bl, Part 3)
NRC Question/Statement:
For the Reactor Pressure Vessel Flange to Shell Weld, the Licensee obtained 60% coverage. This seems low.
They stated that the flange taper was the limiting factor. What technique is being implemented for the exam?
Examination from the flange seal surface or vessel inside surface?
PSE&G Response:
The outlet nozzle-to-vessel welds were examined from the bore, utilizing 10-degree refracted longitudinal and 45-degree shear search units. In addition, 45-degree and 60-degree shear-wave examinat.ions were performed from the vessel shell inside surface for detection of reflectors orientated transverse to the weld and base material.
The 50/70-degree tandem search units were utilized from the bore and shell inside surfaces for detection of reflectors located in the clad-to-base metal interface region for the purposes of satisfying.the requirements of Section XI.
The 50/70-degree tandem search units were also used to detect flaws in the cladding-to-base metal interface region for the nozzle inside radius sections.
See attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix c, Tab 1, Summary No.
002700), to provide the exam technique and coverage plot.
RAI Item CRR-Bl, Part 4)
NRC Question/Statement:
For the RPV Nozzle to Shell Weld, the Licensee obtained 36%.
They stated that the integral extension is the limiting factor.
What technique is being used for this exam?
Nozzle bore exam?
PSE&G Response:
The examination of the RPV nozzle to shell weld is performed from the RPV inside surface. Examinations from the shell side consists of a 50/70 degree scan to cover the first 25% of the weld (near surface) and 45/60 degree scans to cover the remaining 75% of the weld. In addition 10/45 degree scans are performed from the nozzle bore.
See attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix c, Tab 1, Summary Nos. 002900, 003200, 003300 &
003600), to provide additional information and coverage plots.
PAGE 1 OF 4
ATTACHMENT #2 Response to the Request for Additional Information Per Telcon on 3/10/95 RAI Item CRR-Bl, Part 7)
NRC Question/Statement:
For the Coolant Loop Nozzle to Elbow Welds, the obtained 50% coverage.
What technique was used?
exams one sided? Material type?
PSE&G Response:
Licensee Were the The examinations are performed on the nozzle to elbow welds by scanning on the weld with a 45-degree angle beam in both the clockwise and counter clockwise direction.
No examination is performed from the nozzle side, due to the configuration of the nozzle the material type.
There was no exam performed from the elbow side, due to acoustic properties of the Cast stainless Steel (CSS).
PSE&G has concluded that using, present State-of-the~Art ultrasonic examination techniques of welds in css components is unreliable.
This conclusion is also supported by EPRI Letter
- Report, dated 12/1/94 "Ultrasonic Examination Capabilities for Welds in Cast Stainless Steel Components".
See attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix c, Tab 1, Summary Nos. 070000, 072300, 074600 076800), for the nozzle configuration and the mat~rial type.
RAI Item (RR-Bl, Part 8)
NRC Question/Statement:
Class 1 pipe welds, 4 welds received 0% coverage. Information is needed to support the evaluation.
Cite acoustic properties, configurations, and techniques being used.
PSE&G Response:
PSE&G has concluded that ultrasonic examination of welds in CSS components is unreliable, using present State-of-the-Art Techniques.
This conclusion is also supported by EPRI Letter Report, dated 12/1/94 "Ultrasonic Examination Capabilities for Welds in Cast Stainless Steel Components".
See attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix c, Tab 1, Summary Nos. 073500, 073600, 075800 & 075900), to provide additional information.
PAGE 2 OF 4
ATTACHMENT #2 Response to the Request for Additional Information Per Telcon on 3/10/95 RAI Item (RR-Bl, Part 9)
NRC Question/Statement:
Branch connections - obtained 52% -
55% coverage.
We need to verify limiting factor, could use coverage plots to verify limitation.
Describe technique used.
PSE&G Response:
Examinations were performed from the branch connection side of the weld with a 45-degree angle beam perpendicular and tangent to the weld.
On 4 inch branch connections, a 32-degree angle beam tangent and transverse to the weld was used.
The 10 inch branch connection used a 30-degree angle beam tangent and transverse to the weld.
Scanning was performed in both the clockwise and counter clockwise direction.
See attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix C, Tab 1, Summary Nos. 085000, 086800 &
086900), for additional information and coverage plots.
RAI Item (RR-Bl, Part 10)
NRC Question/Statement:
Integral attachments - obtained 0% coverage.
Descriptions of limitations is needed for the evaluation.
PSE&G Response:
Additional limitation descriptions have been included in attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix c, Tab 1, Summary Nos. 177200, 179750, 181800, 251200 & 251300).
RAI Item CRR-Bl, Part 11)
NRC Question/Statement:
Coolant pump bolting - several bolts on 3 pumps not examined, restriction not identified.
PSE&G Response:
Additional limitation descriptions have been included in attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix c, Tab 1, summary Nos. 250200, 250300 & 250400).
PAGE 3 OF 4
ATTACHMENT #2 Response to the Request for Additional Information Per Telcon on 3/10/95 RAI Item (RR-Cl, Part 1)
NRC Question/Statement:
Class 2 Shell Welds, obtained 20% -
79% coverage -
coverage plots are needed for the evaluation.
PSE&G Response:
Additional limitation descriptions have been included in attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix c, Tab 2, Summary Nos. 275030, 275230, 275365 & 275370).
RAI Item (RR-Cl, Part 2)
NRC Question/Statement:
Nozzle to Shell Weld - obtained 45% coverage, restriction not discussed.
PSE&G Response:
Examinations were performed from the shell side, using a 45 degree and 60 degree angle beam.
Scanning was performed both clockwise and counter clockwise directions for directions perpendicular to the weld and scanned from the shell side for indications parallel to the weld.
See attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix c, Tab 2, Summary No. 275400), to provide additional information and coverage plots.
RAI Item (RR-Cl, Part 3)
NRC Question/Statement:
Integral attachments, 22 with 0% coverage.
Licensee stated "inaccessible" for 6,
with no further explanation, restrictions are not fully explained in some cases.
PSE&G Response:
Additional limitation descriptions have been included in attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix c, Tab 2, Summary Nos. 275358, 275359, 275360, 381020, 381530 & 382120).
RAI Item (RR-Cl, Part 4)
NRC Question/Statement:
Piping welds, good coverage, coverage plots are needed to verify limitation.
PSE&G Response:
Additional limitation descriptions and coverage plots have been included attachment #3 (S2 LTP, Appendix c, Tab 2, Summary Nos. 330930, 380140, 500010, 501800, 570010, 573380, 707130, 707730).
PAGE 4 OF 4
NOTE:
ATTACHMENT #3, NRS-95-036 Attachment #3, has been organized to revise the Salem Generating Station, Unit 2, Second 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan as Rev.
lA.
The following document, shall be incorporated into the Salem Generating Station, Unit 2, Second 10-Year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan Volume A as follows:
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
5
- Remove cover sheet Revision 1 and insert cover sheet Revision lA.
Remove the Table of Contents (TOC) Page ii, Rev. 1 and insert TOC Page ii, Rev. lA.
Insert the Revision History Comments, Page vi, Rev. lA as a brand new Page.
Remove Appendix "C" TOC Page 1, Rev. 1 and insert Appendix "C" TOC Page 1, Rev. lA.
Remove Appendix "C" Tab 1 (Page 1 thru 17) and Tab 2 (1 thru 12) and insert the new Tab 1 and 2 with the associated Attachment #1, in its entirety *