Similar Documents at Salem |
---|
Category:- No Document Type Applies
MONTHYEARML22207A0312022-07-22022 July 2022 NRC-2022-000092 - Resp 1 - Final, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed LR-N22-0016, Radiological Survey of Site Property to Be Used for Offshore Wind Port Facility2022-02-24024 February 2022 Radiological Survey of Site Property to Be Used for Offshore Wind Port Facility RS-20-140, Proposed Changes to Decommissioning Trust Agreements2020-10-30030 October 2020 Proposed Changes to Decommissioning Trust Agreements ML19101A4052019-04-10010 April 2019 Annual Assessment Meeting Attendee List ML18156A0142018-05-30030 May 2018 30-2018 Annual Assessment Meeting Attendee List ML17097A2102017-04-0707 April 2017 List of Attendees for Annual Assessment Meeting for Salem, Hope Creek ML16096A0412016-03-30030 March 2016 Attendance List for Salem_Hope Creek Aam March 30, 2016 ML16049A4582016-02-18018 February 2016 FOIA/PA-2016-0261 - Resp 1 - Final, Salem 2011 Annual Environmental Operating Report ML13364A2832013-12-30030 December 2013 Announcement of 2014 Generic Fundamentals Examination Administration Dates-Letter Dated Dec 30, 2013 ML13059A2972013-02-26026 February 2013 SL-011725, Rev. 0, Salem, Mitigation Strategies for Beyond Design Basis External Events, EA-12-049 Overall Integrated Plan Response. ML13052A7942013-02-21021 February 2013 Complete Set of NRC Questions_2-21-13 ML12334A4512012-11-21021 November 2012 SL-2012-10795, Rev. 0, Sgs Flood Walkdown Report, 10 CFR 50.54(f) Section 2.3 (Flood) Response. ML12366A2972012-11-0808 November 2012 Bypass Testing Information ML12290A1442012-10-0404 October 2012 EN-AA-602-0006, Revision 0, Cultural and Historic Resources ML12138A0062012-05-15015 May 2012 Aam Attendance Sheet, May 15, 2012 ML12129A3892012-04-27027 April 2012 Attachment 1 to LR-N12-0124, Generic Letter 2004-02, Updated Supplemental Response for Salem Regarding Generic Letter 2004-02 LR-N12-0124, Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 - Attachment 1 to LR-N12-0124, Generic Letter 2004-02, Updated Supplemental Response for Salem Regarding Generic Letter 2004-022012-04-27027 April 2012 Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 - Attachment 1 to LR-N12-0124, Generic Letter 2004-02, Updated Supplemental Response for Salem Regarding Generic Letter 2004-02 ML12129A3902012-04-27027 April 2012 Attachments 1 Through Attachment 8, Response to Generic Letter 2004-02 ML12056A0522012-03-12012 March 2012 Enclosure 6 - List of Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status ML1113601032011-05-10010 May 2011 2011 Salem/Hope Creek Annual Assessment Meeting Attendance List ML1030003382010-10-22022 October 2010 Document: Salem NRC Punchlist ML1030003372010-10-22022 October 2010 Document: Configuration Change #80101381 Rev 1 ML1030003392010-10-22022 October 2010 Document: Operability Evaluation, Opeval, Rev 0 Salem Unit 2 ML1030003402010-10-22022 October 2010 Document: Operability Evaluation, Opeval, Rev 0, Salem Unit 2, Draft ML1030003412010-10-22022 October 2010 Document: Operability Evaluation, Opeval, Rev 0, Salem Unit 2, with Handwritten Notes ML1030003422010-10-22022 October 2010 Document: Operability Evaluation, Opeval, Rev 0, Salem Unit 2 with Handwritten Notes ML1030004062010-10-22022 October 2010 Document: SAP685996 ML1030004072010-10-22022 October 2010 Large Bore Pipe Detail Index List Psbp No. 132419, Aux Feedwater ML1030004092010-10-22022 October 2010 Document: Label Request Form, Label 12AF155 S1 Aix ML1030004052010-10-22022 October 2010 Document: Operability Evaluation, Opeval, Rev 0, Salem Unit 2 with Handwritten Notes ML1030004022010-09-21021 September 2010 Document PSEG Notification 20462034 Basis AFW Discharge Line Design Pressure ML1030104962010-08-18018 August 2010 Document: 1R20 AF Buried Pipe Insp Results, Notification #20457262, Salem 1- Auxiliary Feedwater ML1030104972010-08-18018 August 2010 Document: Operation Key Info, Buried Pipe Program Inspection Reports for 12 and 14 Aux Feedwater Lines ML1016002752010-06-17017 June 2010 List of Attendees for NRC Public Management No. Nm 10-019; Salem Nuclear Generating Station Discussion of Independent Spent Fuel Storage on 05/27/10 ML1030002042010-05-24024 May 2010 Document: Design Analysis Minor Revision, Subject: Qualification of Safety-Related Buried Commodities for Tornado Missile and Seismic Evaluation ML1030004032010-05-0505 May 2010 Document: PSEG Notification 2041785 ML1029502392010-04-29029 April 2010 Branch 3 Daily Status ML1034404482010-04-24024 April 2010 Document: Salem Unit 1 12/14 AF Piping Reroute, #80101382 Rev 2 ML1029804652010-04-23023 April 2010 RM Documentation No. SA-SURV-2010-001, Rev. 1, Risk Assessment of Missed Surveillance - Auxiliary Feedwater Discharge Line Underground Piping Pressure Testing. ML1034404512010-04-23023 April 2010 Document: Ansys Input Files and Calculation Package Drafts ML1030002032010-04-22022 April 2010 Document: Stress and Support Summary ML1029804892010-04-22022 April 2010 Operability Evaluation with Tracked Changes ML1029802612010-04-21021 April 2010 Notification 000020459689, Submitted by Edley Giles ML1030002012010-04-20020 April 2010 Document: Ultrasonic Thickness Examination Record, Order #60084266, Procedure #OU-AA-335-004 ML1029505412010-04-12012 April 2010 Branch 3 Daily Status ML1029503942010-04-0707 April 2010 Branch 3 Daily Status ML1019304602010-03-25025 March 2010 List of Historical Leaks and Spills at Us Commercial Nuclear Power Plants ML0913201102009-05-0505 May 2009 Aam Sign-in Sheets, 05/05/2009 ML0812207452008-05-0101 May 2008 Sign-In Sheet, April 30, 2008 ML0806704192008-03-0707 March 2008 CDBI Findings 2022-07-22
[Table view] |
Text
SALEM BYPASS TESTING INFORMATION At Salem bypass tests were done at CCI facility in 2006 and 2008.
The 2006 tests were performed in the Multi Functional Test Loop (MFTL). This test loop had 40 pocket 1
-sided strainer module s installed at one end of the flume. The top 20 pockets were blocked off in order to more closely simulate the height of the installed strainers at Salem. The tests were run primarily with NUKON only (1 test included Kaowool).
The fiber was not baked in these tests.
The 2008 test s were also performed in the MFTL. The test loop had a 42 pocket strainer test module (2 sides which are each 3 pockets wide by 7 pockets tall) which was placed near the middle of the flume. The strainer module was prototypical (i.e. based on the installed strainer design) and was manufactured specifically for the Salem testing.
The tests included three fiber types in the fiber debris mixture (NUKON, Kaowool, and Fiberglas). The NUKON and Kaowool fiber was baked in these tests to simulate exposure to hot surfaces
. The Fiberglas fiber was not baked because it is not installed on hot piping in the plant.
The NRC Staff witnessed Salem strainer head loss tests performed in the MFTL with the 2
-sided test module on April 20
-25, 2008. The NRC observations from these tests are documented in a trip report dated July 16, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML081640193). In this report, the NRC concluded that the test methods, including fiber debris preparation methodology, employed by CCI were generally prototypical or conservative. The fiber debris bypass tests conducted in 2008 utilized the same fiber preparation methodology as was witnessed during the strainer head loss tests. In addition, in the fall of 2007, debris samples similar to the debris used in MFTL testing prepared by CCI were provided to the NRC staff for review. The preparation of the fibrous debris used in the bypass tests as described in Section 3f.4.1.5.7.1 o f the final supplemental response submitted in April 2012 (PSEG letter LR
-N12-0124) is also consistent with the fibrous debris preparation guidelines issued by NEI in January 2012. A detailed discussion of the 2006 and 2008 Salem fiber bypass tests has been provided to the NRC in Section 3f.4.1.3 and 3f.4.1.6 of the Salem final supplemental response.
The methodology to determine the amount of bypass through the strainer modules was same in both 2006 and 2008 tests and is summarized below.
A 0.31 mm stainless steel mesh was placed in the test loop to collect the bypassed fiber.
Samples were taken periodically from the test loop to determine the bypassed fiber size distribution
. The dry weight of the collection screen was recorded prior to and after each test. The difference in the two weights is the mass of material which bypassed the strainer
- s. The fiber concentration in each grab sample was determined by passing the sampled water through two consecutive paper filters with a screen size of 8 microns and 0.45 microns, respectively.
The mass of material on the collection screen was combined with the mass of material from the grab samples to determine the total mass of fiber bypass.